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]
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