[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Black Underachievement, etc.

None of these changes are either lytical or critical, Paul, (or rather they are both), since these concepts simply mark alternating phases in a developmental process.
Unfortunately, while my interests are mostly in the domain of social-theoretical fundamentals, your article was undoubtedly voted for discussion on xmca because people wanted to learn what you say about Black underachievement. So let me make a seguey by pointing out that your Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/mocombeian says that "The Mocombeian Foundation is a Literacy Foundation founded by Dr. Paul C. Mocombe that offers Mocombe's Reading Room Curriculum to help inner-city youth close the achievement gap." But surely this runs somewhat counter to the gist of the views you have expressed in this exchange. You clearly do think that Black underachievement can be overcome evidently without a global catastrophe and have launched a project to that end.
Could you elaborate on this? I.e., first of all, on how to tackle the problems highlighted in your paper whilst avoiding the traps you see in the kind of approaches most valued by xmca members? 

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
The problem with that assessment andy is that it makes the assumption that amidst lytical changes, which I am assuming come from praxis, the ideological structure remains oblivious to the processes taking place...it does not. It incorporates, refutes, etc. I think polanyi's double movement is appropriate here. The ideological superstructure frames lytical changes within the dialectical contradictions of its discourse rendering them innocuous. ..would you say homosexuality, pan-africanism, transgenderism, are lytical changes? If they are, what would you say about gay marriage, or the death of pan-africanism amongst black americanism? 


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
President
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
www.mocombeian.com www.readingroomcurriculum.com 


-------- Original message --------
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Date: 11/04/2013 7:25 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>,Cecile.Wright@nottingham.ac.uk,carol Tomlin <info@caroltomlin.com> 
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Black Underachievement, etc.


I think the fundamental flaw of this approach, Paul, is that it takes as
its fundamental units, entities which are unchanging. Yes, an ideology
is by definition, self-sustaining and self-justifying. But, while it is
true that history is littered with disasters, and the critical periods
of social change are indeed marked by catastrophe, these crtitical
phases are prepared and constituted by phases of lytical change and are
inseparable from them. This general character of development teaches us
that it is a mistake to separate lytical and critical phases of
development. I think that in order to grasp social life as essential
lysubject to change, development and transformation, one must take as a
fundamental unit of analysis something which is inherently a process of
development. I use "project", others simply call it "an activity".

Andy
http://www.academia.edu/2365533/Collaborative_Project_as_a_Concept_for_Interdisciplinary_Human_Science_Research
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.mira.net/~andy/


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Unfortunately, I am in agreement with althusser.  I cannot think of
> one historical case to prove the contrary.  It is necessary for one
> historical frame to replace another via catastrophe and revolution.
>  Can we truly say that the middle class represents an alternative to
> the dominant ideology of the upper-class of owners and high-level
> executives?  I do not think say.  Just the same, the argument you
> raise is tantamount to the hybridity discourse of homi bhabha...and I
> am in agreement with spivak, hybridity is not an alternative to the
> discourse of the colonizer...it is using the discourse of the
> colonizer to convict them of not identifying with their logic, which
> the colonized accepts and reproduces.  This is not liberating, nor
> does it offer an alternative to the discourse of the colonizer.
>
>
> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe