Very interesting and nice note Greg.
Here are my 2 questions to entire TOK community. Excuse me for my
naivete or a rude shock, in case it so seems to you, as I am not a
psychologist.
*Q1 In a battle of intellectuals and not-so-intellectuals, latter always
win handsomely. Why?*
The racists, non-racists, secularists intellectuals, TOKists are all
vying for influence. May be I surprise you, each group believes (no one
'knows') that his path leads to an orderly society. Like you all believe
that their thinking is the right approach, the other camps too believe
in their right to influence history. Since I have been on the other side
of the table, let me assure you that your assumption that 'capitalists'
and 'datalists' are blood suckers, who want to enslave the world might
be true in part good; but a sensible majority of this community believes
that what they do is actually truly good for progress of society (they
do put bread on table of people they employ) while . I do not want to
get into their arguments to avoid scope creep.
Secondly, the intellectual camp generally, composed of specialists,
looks at only one zone of effects of multi-faceted aspects of
implementing or influencing, while forgetting the compensating
negative/positive effects it will have on other aspects of social life.
As an example Socialism or even Communism actually isn't a bad idea, but
the impact it has on resource consumption is disastrous in theory but it
turned out excellent in practice. Competition was it's achilles heel,
which pushed the entire theory down the drain. I see call outs for
"collaboration, not competition". Well this is what communism failed on!
And I see this because I lived studied in Soviet Union (since I was 17,
as I did university there) and then lived in chaotic Russia, before
moving to Europe and then back to India. In view of the aforementioned,
is my second question below:
*Q2 What is the scale of measurement of goodness of one camp vs other.
Why should a specific camp be considered better than other. Since, it is
ultimately a matter of providing access to one's mind (influence), why
should a commoner not join the camp which feeds him in return for access
to his mind (which is now materialized as data), delivers him certainty,
even if discriminated. Rather than one, which propagates uncertanty and
is most likely bound to fail in practice, because its foundational
premise that all people are like me (intelligent, deep thinking, worried
about the world) is erroneous ab-initio.
*
Fact is because of "birds of same feathers flock together", an interest
group is self-defeating in nature to make gravitational & disruptive
changes happen, which requires winning influence (access to others'
mind) at whatsoever cost it comes.
TY
DL (Deepak Loomba)
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 13:23 Greg Thomas, <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
*CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Gregg for sharing the link to my letter exchange with
Vince Horn, and for placing the actual discourse within the frame of
TOK.
Thanks to you also, Bradley, for your comments. It is to you that I
address my response:
I'm not sure in your framing whether you are specifically referring
to my perspective as represented in the letter exchange or to the
anti-racism ideologues I critique. If by "efforts to equate
"whiteness" (an immutable characteristic of individuals) to "racist"
(a mutable characteristic) are intended to shame individuals who
disagree with a particular social agenda of the groups and
individuals making the equation" you mean "anti-racist"
activists/ideologues, then yes I agree . . . mostly.
Mostly, because whether or not one views "whiteness" as an immutable
characteristic of individuals depends on the definition of
whiteness. If you mean the common racial characterization of
phenotype and skin color, yes, that is immutable for individuals.
Yet, as I say in the letter exchange, "whiteness" has also served as
a meme and ideology. In that sense, whiteness is mutable.
Certainly anti-racist ideologues desire to shame individuals who
disagree with their stance(s). I'd add blame and guilt too. They
indeed desire to influence and "dominate the 12th floor social
organizational schema."
And this stance does serve the interests of certain "blue church"
media elites of what you call the Legacy Modern Authoritarian system
in your "Current Social Systems Reorganization" post. Among liberal,
progressive media, "anti-racist" ideology serves their interests in
social conflict to sell papers, magazines, and generate clicks and
virality . . . and the "anti-anti-racist" ideologies of conservative
media serves the same ends on their side of the political spectrum.
This is not theory or conspiracy to me; I know some of those editors
and they know of me and my work, but as my perspective serves
neither side of the political industrial complex, the two-party
duopoly, they, for the most part, have not allowed my byline to
appear in their publications to counter faulty positions that I saw
were rising dangerously in the public discourse. Now that discourse
has become a tidal wave.
But in the Digital Distributed system you relay and relate, Bradley,
there is more room for exercising cultural agency, being a content
entrepreneur, building alliances and one's own following, etc. Thank
goodness for that, because I've long since stopped trying to get my
byline into the media of the Blue Church, as they die an
increasingly rapid death. The social discord that they are not only
covering but /enabling/ is evidence of the death rattle of a dying
system. I have no doubt that the folks here and in similar private
groups in favor of the developmental advance of consciousness,
culture, and society are seeding the needed new and shaping its
vision and horizons of aspiration.
Now back to the discussion of race and related issues. I'd
appreciate you being clearer about a few items. Who specifically do
you see enacting the guile to present "racist" and "racism" as
having two different meanings for the purpose of social domination?
I tend toward autonomy in the Influence Matrix also, but am not
clear who you mean as enacting the guile and who the dupes (the
targeted populations) are.
Which leads me to your penultimate para:
The entirety of the discussion about these terms is intended to
influence the social structures, indeed, that is what words
themselves are for. It is the redefinition of those words to adjust
the targeting of the instruments of social oppression that can be
the only intention for uttering them. This is how "social
transformation" (is intended to take) place by these individuals
(who utter such phrases). This can only be an intentional act.
While I agree with the use of Gramsci's hegemony in relation to the
anti-racist ideology, I also--in my individual autonomy--resist an
overly 3rd-person, structural analysis. I think an Integral approach
to relating reality incorporates 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person in the
framing, as much as possible and appropriate.
So in case you are specifically alluding to /me and my words /as
presented in the letters as having the intent of "adjust[ing] the
targeting of the instruments of social oppression" for the sake of
"social transformation" I would say this:
I am not so arrogant and presumptive to think that my stance of a
"non-racial" identity will bring social transformation. I present it
to clarify my own stance and to give another frame for others to
consider, others who have the critical intelligence to make up their
own minds. In the course I'm teaching on Cultural Intelligence, I
make it clear that I'm not after indoctrination. (That's one reason
I resist anti-racist ideology.) I am after people becoming more
aware of the very process of racialization, which is how race became
a category that's now socially embedded as part of what John
Vervaeke calls the "cultural cognitive grammar."
Once people see and understand that process, they can decide for
themselves whether they want to continue buying into the popular
conception of race, which I argue has done far, far more harm than
good, and is an idea we can better do without in what some might
call an Integral or Metamodern stage of development.
I'm presenting ideas in a marketplace of ideas in which my position
is in a clear minority--no pun intended. While I'd hope my position
would achieve a critical mass/tipping point, I certainly am not
belaboring under any illusion of this happening anytime soon.
But I for damn sure can exercise my agency as a multi-generation
Black American citizen to strive for it--as an ancestral imperative.
Best,
Greg Thomas
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:01 AM Bradley H. Werrell, D.O.
<[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
*CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly appreciated that treatment of the topic, which
inspired me to a certain extent.
It appears that efforts to equate "whiteness" (an immutable
characteristic of individuals) to "racist" (a mutable
characteristic) are intended to shame individuals who disagree
with a particular social agenda of the groups and individuals
making the equation.
In terms of TOK, specifically the Influence Matrix, people
generating this narrative are seeking submission of those (dare
I say) "whites" who dare disagree with the social designs by
using this narrative to generate shame (on the 11th floor) and
submission (on the 11th floor and on the 12th floor) to dominate
the 12th floor social organizational schema.
There is a suggestion in the writing to which I am responsive
that this is somehow "incidental" or "accidental" that the words
"racist" and "racism" should be "coincidentally" having two
different meanings. I would argue that this is a product of
guile, and intentional action to achieve social domination, and
subjugation of a targeted population. This would be a
confession of my personal bias, of course, which trends strongly
towards "autonomy" in the Influence Matrix.
I will justify my interpretation a bit, for the benefit of those
who are utterly appalled by my position on this:
The entirety of the discussion about these terms is intended to
influence the social structures, indeed, that is what words
themselves are for. It is the redefinition of those words to
adjust the targeting of the instruments of social oppression
that can be the only intention for uttering them. This is how
"social transformation" (is intended to take) place by these
individuals (who utter such phrases). This can only be an
intentional act.
I thank you for the generosity of spirit for having read that.
Bradley
Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. - This email is private and copyrighted
by the author.
On Friday, October 23, 2020, 05:43:57 AM MST, Brad Kershner
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
*CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Gregg and Greg! I am steeped in racism/anti-racism
discourse in K-12 education, and I will be on the Growing Down
Podcast soon to discuss postmodern and post-postmodern/integral
anti-racism, and this is exactly the kind of analysis that needs
to be shared more widely! Super clear and helpful - thank you!
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 8:24 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi TOK List,
I wanted to share this excellent correspondence between
Greg Thomas and Vince Fakhoury Horn on the question of
whether all white people are racist?:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__letter.wiki_conversation_964&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cDA8zp_kVv7aOvIf8qFzkt_GQNKMYMISHqRUZLyQcjk&s=SxjIbJlNOEWkZwRImXp1c-Vd4nbq_9hWFyXqL0c2V_Q&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__letter.wiki_conversation_964&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=kM5S4vZaepMSCJHArltJ24ctXQuk6gkDWGNzFkkceN8&s=umkE4qarm4HZoHCYbKbiQyNofT0hELd4Wyh9fc70PKs&e=>.
My view on this topic is strongly aligned with Greg’s. I
will offer a few thoughts and encourage folks to check it
out. First, to build off the exchange that Joe started
yesterday, I think it is essential to differentiate analyses
that take place at the social aggregate level (12^th floor)
from the individual human person level (11^th floor). This
is particularly the case with the concept of racism, because
it has (at least!) two fundamentally different meanings
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201809_racism-2Dtwo-2Dvery-2Ddifferent-2Dmeanings-2Dthe-2Dword&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_4q906EnaSUXtTocrNvObhnJOyp_TXPcVNo5NT59O_8&s=hlwlHOd6HDzT3PUnWlpD0xtrAkrmjMHNx1P1qRXD4G8&e=>.
One meaning is at the 11^th floor level. That is, when
someone either explicitly endorses the belief that race is
real and that some races are inherently better than others.
There are also implicit biases and prejudices whereby a
person operates to favor one race over another, even as he
may proclaim that he is not racist. These are individual or
small group level analyses. Then there is the social
aggregate level, which is the structure of society and
social forces. We can clearly see that the US was founded as
a racist society in that slavery was initially built into
the fabric of the social arrangement. It is also the case
that the founding fathers were brilliant, flawed men who
were dependent on racism/and/ by and large they recognized
it--at least in its brutal form--to be inherently unjust.
Greg brilliantly speaks to these issues when he asks us to
reflect on which side of the founding of our country do we
choose to align.
With this frame, we can now come back to the fact that the
dynamics of racism are very different at the 11^th floor of
human person individual versus 12^th floor of social
structure. Think of it this way. The US was founded largely
by Christians. Indeed, the founding documents highlight the
Creator and to this day we have the attorney general stating
that our rights (and thus American identity) derive from God
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.realclearpolitics.com_2020_10_19_our-5Frights-5Famp-5Ffreedoms-5Fderived-5Ffrom-5Fgod-5Fnot-5Ffrom-5Fgovt-5F526770.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_4q906EnaSUXtTocrNvObhnJOyp_TXPcVNo5NT59O_8&s=DeWKkbBcVpPU_TqPHjij0uZppqA5Th4PA2b1eNHX5NE&e=>.
Now consider the fact that my family lineage can trace its
presence in the United States back to the Revolutionary War
(my Dad, a professional historian, did a family history).
Given these social aggregate facts, now consider the claim:
/I am Christian/. Now there are some ways in which it this
has echoes of the truth. It is not accidental that I soaked
my theory in images of the Tree of Knowledge and Garden and
talk about redemption in the 21^st Century. This frames my
intuitive sense making far more than the plethora of Hindu
gods. This is because some of the deep grammar of my sense
making has been shaped by the Judeo-Christian culture that I
grew up in. But does that mean that I AM a Christian in
meaningful sense of the word? Of course not! I have never
believed in a Christian God or that Christ is my savior who
died for our sins and was then resurrected. I have never
entered a church as a believer and I have never enacted any
of the practices and rituals that would identify me as such.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a serious
Christian who would think of me as such.
Let’s apply this frame to race. I was taught very early by
my socially liberal, educated parents that racism was evil.
I then learned in undergraduate back in the late 1980s how
to unpack my invisible knapsack
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.racialequitytools.org_resourcefiles_mcintosh.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_4q906EnaSUXtTocrNvObhnJOyp_TXPcVNo5NT59O_8&s=7YZhgYAj5fcNQD79EDkB1SW45p1klh4fy9G6VBP6rwY&e=>
(I think I read it the year it came out or the following
year). It was by getting exposure to those ideas that I
could see, indeed, that the structure of racism was part of
my background. The echoes were clearly there and to become
aware of them was powerful and enlightening (as well as
guilt inducing). I had a similar set of insights pertaining
to feminism. Such are the awakenings that happen when one
has, as I did, an excellent mentor in social forces (Joe M
was my favorite professor in undergrad)! Notice here that I
grew and changed. This is, of course, something that 12^th
floor analyses, with their macro/aggregate view, generally
fail to see. The aggregate concept “white people” fails to
see both individual differences (I am quite different than
the white neighbor down the street who sometimes puts out
his confederate flag and plasters Trump signs on everything
he owns) and differences in individuals across time (I had
more implicit biases and prejudices in high school than I do
now). These are analysis for the 11^th floor (i.e., human
psychology; many define personality as the science of
individual differences).
Let me conclude this by saying my heart has long sided with
the better angels of the Founding Fathers. As a citizen of
the US, I am tainted by racism and it lurks in the shadows
of implicit frames that, even to this day, I might be blind
to. But to say I am racist is, IMO, misguided at many
levels. Most obviously, it confuses the two primary meanings
of the word and appropriate application. That is, it twists
the meaning at the 12^th floor level and then applies it to
me (11^th floor). The flaw can be seen in the claim I am
Christian, which I think everyone would agree is largely
nonsense. The bottom line is that we should not confuse the
12^th floor context of our socialization with the 11^th
floor analysis of our individual souls.
Thank you, Greg, for your deep, rich, and nuanced views of
this crucial issue.
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
/Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity./
Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cDA8zp_kVv7aOvIf8qFzkt_GQNKMYMISHqRUZLyQcjk&s=USOcWbMiRh2dikJ1h5SC1bWEWuWspsJu6qa5YrR28Ck&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_4q906EnaSUXtTocrNvObhnJOyp_TXPcVNo5NT59O_8&s=wiYqdJIQxtXu-8K27PK7Vi4WlIsS1MYza0hMz5Mlnw4&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto: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]
<mailto: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]
<mailto: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]
<mailto: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
|
