Thank you for sharing this level of detail, Gregg. It reminds me again of
the rich depth and relatively transparent process the program at JMU
provides...something that is becoming quite rare!

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 11:25 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> FYI, I did put this up as a blog, here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201801_seeking-2Djustice-2Dor-2Denhancing-2Dvictimized-2Didentity&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7SFM8lSseZ4A997Uxy3V5VoTyGsfVI8CpFKxjKNjh3Q&s=eQ9ladgnh67lHjciyxn3UD2PIKspgbo9lNkGNfOi0BU&e= 
>
>
>
> And, interestingly, the primary editor of Psychology Today, Hara M.
> contacted me and we are slotted to discuss it next week. She expressed
> interest in doing an article on it in the PT magazine, as she views it as
> one of the biggest issues our country faces.
>
>
>
> I agree with Kristin in thinking Ken’s point was important and although I
> did not address it directly, I did use it to contextualize the way I framed
> the discussion. That is, I placed my emphasis on a relatively specific
> socio-historical political context; namely the US in the here and now and
> upcoming elections. I also was considering Darcia’s and Jason B’s points. I
> think they are very much worthy of consideration; but I wanted to place the
> issues in a more specific context of debate and action.
>
>
>
> A real life story might help explain this issue and why I think it is
> important and why I framed it the way I did.
>
>
>
> As Ken and others familiar with the JMU program on this list are well
> aware, the JMU program experienced a rather tense flare up on the heels of
> talking about sexual aggression in the fall semester. Although there were
> multiple streams that influenced the flare up, one stream involved a bit of
> a rupture that I had with a few students, one of whom is active in queer
> theory and Black lives matter and other social justice initiatives. She
> sent out an article by a woman of color that began with the claim that
> sexual aggression was known to be really just about power and not about
> sex. I reacted by criticizing that claim (done, IMO, with appropriate tact
> and sensitivity). I had seen it made many times before and find it to be
> quite misguided (it ultimately spurred me to justify why as follows:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201711_why-2Dsexual-2Daggression-2Dis-2Dabout-2Dboth-2Dsex-2Dand-2Dpower&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7SFM8lSseZ4A997Uxy3V5VoTyGsfVI8CpFKxjKNjh3Q&s=Iwo1UzeA8TcytehoPbmGJSm9LuZTdbajv8TOKtW_Dv4&e= 
> ).
>
>
>
> More important than the claim was the process that followed. In the larger
> group discussion format, the student wanted to emphasize and talk about the
> fact that I, as a white male, was criticizing what she experienced to be a
> beautiful piece by a woman of color that articulated a message of male
> nurturance.
>
>
>
> I found myself reacting against that framing. Meaning that I wanted to
> issues first and foremost to be on the intellectual content and legitimacy
> of the claims. To immediately bring into the forefront the race and gender
> contextual dynamics was problematic from my vantage point. From her vantage
> point, virtually everything is embodied by how society constructs race and
> gender dynamics, and definitely so in the case of discussing what are
> legitimate claims about the nature of sexual aggression. For her my white
> mate straightness was central and needed to be labeled. For me, the fact
> that that had to be labeled first and foremost, rather than the context of
> my being an expert in psychology, gender, feminism and the like was an
> example of how these frames get exaggerated play in some contexts. Indeed,
> my history of education on this issue and with feminism and
> diversity/postmodern perspectives, had been one in which I used to move
> into discussions like that, but now I find myself resistant to doing so for
> a host of reasons.
>
>
>
> I am very happy to say that, after a bit of a bumpy ride, the student and
> I were able to process and see one another, such that now we are on very
> comfortable terms and share with each other articles from different
> viewpoints on these issues. I see us as representing a fairly large segment
> of the continuum, which ranges from those who emphasize social justice
> issues, activism, diversity, and the social construction of reality (where
> she resides) and where I reside (and, frankly, would include folks further
> to the right as well), which orients more toward a classic liberal position
> and resonates some at least with Mark Lilla’s recent critiques of excessive
> examples identity politics on the left.
>
>
>
> I considered the event to be a microcosm of the larger issues. And, it was
> noted about how we resolved it And I believed the “we” (e.g., the student
> and myself) could form a coalition that was, for example, defined against
> Trump’s coalition on such issues. And that would be a “we” that would have
> significant political clout, at least in theory.
>
>
> Best,
> G
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.microsoft.com_fwlink_-3FLinkId-3D550986&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=7SFM8lSseZ4A997Uxy3V5VoTyGsfVI8CpFKxjKNjh3Q&s=HENQ6Abw2Xs0kCoKimkl5xiMHZKsfi4kyUmkcg0lSQ0&e= > for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Kristin Osborn <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent: *Friday, January 12, 2018 10:55 AM
> *To: *[log in to unmask]
> *Subject: *Re: A draft of a blog on the discrimination/identity politics
> discussion
>
>
> I think that is a really interesting perspective, Ken. Who does get to
> decide?
>
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 11:10 AM, Critchfield, Ken - critchkl <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Gregg - this looks reasonable to me.
>
> I think another dynamic to invoke might be this idea of the grand "we"
> discourse - the seeking of a language for a coalition - versus the "little
> M.E."s we encounter when talking with individuals. Who gets to decide
> whether I am being reasonable or overshooting when it comes to what I've
> viewed in my own life? Is that externally imposed? subjective, amenable to
> rational analysis? clinical conversations can take surprising turns of
> their own at the individual level.
>
> K
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 7, 2018 6:57 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* A draft of a blog on the discrimination/identity politics
> discussion
>
> Hi List,
>
>
> Given some of our discussions on discrimination and identity politics, I
> have drafted a blog on these dynamics. I am not quite I am happy with it,
> so I share a draft here, if anyone wants to take a look. I will probably
> post later this week. My goal (my investment, to reference my prior email)
> is to function as a consultant that is looking for a way for the issue of
> identity politics to be framed so that it (a) appropriately acknowledges
> and contextualizes our unequal past and the structures that pervade from
> it; and (b) have a language and a system for curtailing the tipping of that
> emphasis into an unhealthy victimized mindset, righteous groupthink, and
> virtue signaling (what I characterized as “overshoot”).
>
>
> The focus here is on the short term goal of creating a more unified
> center-left coalition that can harmonize some on the issue and speak with a
> clear voice about it in a way that is well-positioned to “pop” the momentum
> that Trump’s anti-pc identity gathered. That is, the goal is to create a
> clear message for reasonable people of goodwill that isolates the real
> racists and others who blindly support our “very stable genius” President.
>
>
> Note, I share this here with some hesitation, in that I am NOT inclined
> for this list to have a strong political message or to be mired in the
> tangled, polarized world of politics. It is just unhealthy and I want a
> space for constructive, intellectual sharing of ideas, which is what the
> list has been so far, at least as far as I am concerned. At the same time,
> this list is, inevitably if indirectly, politically positioned. It is
> devoted to intellectual integrity, which, IMO, is about as far from Trump’s
> value system as any other entity. Thus, if what we are doing here will
> ultimately have an impact, it must come with a change in general values.
> That is, we need to be cultivating a value to foster wisdom. Sadly, in this
> climate, the drive to cultivate wisdom is politicized, as clearly there are
> so many people who no longer value this ultimate good.
>
>
> Best,
> G
>
>
>
> ############################
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1