Hi Joe,

Thank-you for your response.

Yes, I agree with your distinction between absolute and relative poverty. I would add that there lies a significant contradiction in the capitalist system that Marx identified (as I understand it). As those at the top hoard more and more money for themselves, (which is, in part, the means by which people purchase goods & services), those at the bottom have less money to purchase the goods & services that capitalists produce. But (by definition) one person's spending is another person's income. So if those at the bottom spend less, then capitalists get less income, and profits go down, which defeats the point of the capitalist system. 

Hence the need for government intervention into the economy. The question is, does it intervene on behalf of those those at the top or those at the bottom. Currently, it is the former, (the "script" of neoliberalism), which is ultimately unsustainable. It must become towards those at the bottom, (i.e., we need to move towards a new "script" of social democracy). We need to transform from "trickle-down" to "bubble-up".

Though I agree that capitalism is, in many ways, successful, (certainly "relative" to previous systems like feudalism), I think that "we" are no more complicit than serfs were under feudalism or slaves were under slavery. We are complicit, though, if a "way out" is presented, and "we" don't take it.

As the "alt-right" and "alt-left" play their games of identity politics, it is up towards those in the center --- the grown-ups --- to be the militant moderates who educate themselves and pragmatically rewrite the neoliberal script to a social democracy script, (which, actually, wouldn't be that difficult. It's just a matter of will). Perhaps then, tensions can be reduced enough so that people can more civilly discuss legitimate matters of identity (which do need to be dealt with) under less exacerbating circumstances. 

Just my two cents. 

Have a good one,
Jason    On Tuesday, May 29, 2018, 8:50:28 AM EDT, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
 
 #yiv6288637742 #yiv6288637742 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv6288637742 
Thanks Jason. Extremely helpful analysis. I think you've identified some of the core components linking the broader socioeconomic trends with the cultural narratives and practices of the elites on both sides. I would merely add one additional observation regarding the stress, tension, anxiety, anger, etc. The key sociological dynamic involved is the relative deprivation, or the widening gap. Yes, there's absolute poverty in the U.S. and Canada, but by no means anything comparable to some other parts of the world. But it's the growing depth of the disparity that rankles so many and so deeply. And that process has, as many predicted, only accelerated over the last several decades. Even as the overall pie continues to grow, the relative size of the slices for millions just keeps shrinking.




Furthermore, we're all complicit in some senses; capitalism writ large has been just too frickin' successful! There's a reason that China and India continue to move full speed ahead in transforming their economies and the lives of roughly 1/3 of the planet's populations (despite the dire environmental concerns, etc.). Combine that with huge, mobile populations, the lack of real "connectedness", and the "othering" processes that allow us to separate our "tribes" from one another - and the attendant cultural justifications - and I fully agree that there's no end in sight to the struggle. As currently framed. I fully agree that it's the script in place (along with key hard-wired structural arrangements) that must be changed. Hence I'm a ToKer ("I'm a joker, I'm a smoker..."). I think we have something to offer if we can create and share a rather different script. I think it's at least worth trying to change the script. Best regards, -Joe




Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean

King’s University College at Western University


266 Epworth Avenue

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439

Fax: (519) 433-0353

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________



eiπ + 1 = 0




From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of nysa71 <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: JP again 
Hello ToKers,

A sort-of "rough picture" of how I see this polarization:

There's a left vs. right polarization along the lines of identity politics (the non-material, a sort of "idealist" spectrum.

However, I see this as more of symptom than a cause. A means to an end of a more fundamental polarization between top vs. bottom (the haves vs. have-nots) along the lines of class, (the material, a sort of "materialist" spectrum).

Those at "the top" --- both the "top-left" (e.g., the Democratic Establishment) and the "top-right" (e.g., the Republican Establishment) --- share class dominance in common. And preserving (and even increasing) that dominance is priority #1. Any other interests must serve that end.

And increase, it has. The wealth gap between the top and bottom has grown at an alarming rate since the 70s. General prices have gone up, while wages have remained stagnant.

That makes it increasingly difficult to fulfill those basic needs at the bottom Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So much stress, tension, anxiety, frustration, & anger!

What to do with those increasing negative emotions writ large? They have to be dealt with. If not, they'll be directed towards those at the top. They must channeled in some way, without actually being resolved.

And that's where identity politics come in --- to ultimately serve the interests of those at the top.

How? The same way it's always been since the dawn of civilization:

Divide and Conquer!

Identity politics keeps the bottom divided and fighting among each other (keeping the bottom weak)  while simultaneously seeking support from those at the top, (making the top even stronger).

The resolution to polarization due to Identity Politics is the paradoxical realization thatthat polarization is not meant to be resolved. It is meant to be "The Struggle" that never ends.

This is what makes both JP and the left-wing postmodern university intellectuals that he condemns the flip-side of the same despicable coin. They are co-constructors of the same meta-narrative that functions as a perpetual soap-opera. The only main contention is over who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist. But that squabble is ultimately irrelevant because it's the script itself which is garbage.

I say, "A pox on all their houses!"

In the meantime, those at the top sit back, and enjoy the show.

~ Jason Bessey


On Monday, May 28, 2018, 10:03:50 AM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Chance and Joe,

 

  Thanks to your both for your wonderfully deep and rich articulations of the JP phenomenon and related dynamics. It makes me wonder if we might be able to develop a set of shared principles for approaching this complex issue. 

 

Here are some emerging themes that I see:

 

There is a very important distinction between the individual and the aggregate.

 

A similar and related or parallel distinction exists between the level of human psychology and social structures. Considerations of both individual/self and societal levels of analysis must be included in any grand narrative. 

 

A shared narrative is built on dialogue, discourse, and dialectical processes.

 

There is an unhealthy degree of political polarization that results in a “team mentality,” whereby the goal is more about demonstrating the fallacies/weaknesses/absurdities of the other team than attempting to find the best solution.

 

There clearly have been massively problematic social structures that have channeled power toward the social identity categories of Whiteness, Maleness, Heteronormativity, and Christianity. There has been a general normative understanding of reasonable people of goodwill (RPofGW) growing since the 1960s that this is unjust and should be undone.

 

Currently, differential outcomes in power, prestige, and status associated with these identity categories are complicated and multifactorial. And solutions about what to do about these differential outcomes are undoubtedly complicated.

 

The JP phenomena can be understood as a arising from political polarization, coupled with the strong, left leaning tilt in universities, which is where the energy for it was initially drawn. In essence, JP drove his Jungian-Christian-male sword into the stone, said “enough” and made dramatic claims about the totalitarian underbelly of the hyper-progressive left’s identity politics.

 

This has created a massive tension across justification, investment, and influence lines.

 

What it reveals, from my vantage point is the vacuum of a clear, center-left navigating narrative.

 

I believe that the wake of the JP phenomena creates a potential “draft” that can result in the emergence of a healthier, coherent narrative.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Joseph Michalski
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 8:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: JP again

 

Thanks Chance. Another brilliant analysis of the JP phenomenon. Once again, I'm not competent to speak to the clinical or Jungian aspects of his work, like many on the current list (I'm still trying to memorize "the big five" due to my woefully inadequate psychology training!). What I'll add to Chance's excellent commentary is once again a bit more sociocultural context.

 

JP has the blind spots to which Chance refers, in part because of the insensitivities of having grown up as a working-class white male Canadian from the midwest, In addition, he also long ago rejected the social sciences for a variety of reasons. I taught at the University of Toronto, JP's academic home, in the 1990s and know the culture there quite well. I also personally know the Provost and have some insight into how the university has dealt with JP and the free-speech issue. It's a fascinating story in terms of insider baseball. But here's the point I wanted to share, that most on the list probably wouldn't know outside of UofT's bubble.

 

Since JP's at the UofT, he's quite familiar with  a radical leftist school that's actually part of UofT:  OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education). It houses an eclectic group of radical feminists, Marxists, post-modernists, SJWs, and various other "types" - all of whom teach in graduate programs relating to teaching and education. While OISE's overall "mission" is laudable, if you actually read the words, in practice the folks actually teaching there are, as a whole, such extreme ideologues as to be absurd. Of course, they have some great folks and a few brilliant writers (e.g., radical feminist Margrit Eichler, who's now Emerita), but in the main their research is of the lowest quality possible. At times, laughably bad. I should know too, having interviewed people from there and read a number of c.v.'s from potential applicants over the years. Most people at UofT are embarrassed to have OISE affiliated with their fine institution.

 

In short, when you hear Peterson ranting about the pseudo-science or lack of intellectual integrity in terms of grad studies in education and sociology, it's at least in part a direct reflection of that link. From his perspective, disciplines such as sociology do not deserve to be listed in the pantheon of "real sciences." He deals with student reactions, protests, and even some degree of administrative pressure in carrying out his work every day. He has become an increasingly hardened veteran waging his battle as part of the broader "culture wars" we are witnessing. Universities in Canada, for instance, have had to continue another round of debates about "free speech" on campus and whether JP should be invited. My university (I'm part of the University of Western Ontario) chose wisely and we have had JP and a number of other speakers from across the ideological spectrum speak here in recent years.

 

Finally, it seems to me that part of the difficulty in assessing JP is the fact that there are multiple JPs one could critique. There's the scientific JP, who's actually quite well-established in his research area, has published profusely, and, in one area I know about (authoritarianism), has done some quite credible work. Then there's the JP who's a dynamic speaker and who has developed a cult following in terms of his 12 Rules for Life. Even his critics acknowledge that, while sometimes banal, he nevertheless offers many reasonably helpful, practical suggestions regarding getting control of one's life (I have a brother who just 'discovered' JP and excitedly has been sending me texts and links to several of these talks. My brother wants to know if the guy's as brilliant as he seems to be, or perhaps a "false prophet". The problem is that my brother's a multi-millionaire, real estate mogul & Trump supporter - and sees the world purely in terms of individual control, personal responsibility, and naked transactionalism. Yikes!). And, of course, there's the naive (IMO) political Peterson, who has some legitimate critiques of the left, but also proves himself woefully ignorant of virtually everything sociological, structural, and meta-cultural about his own narrow worldview. It's fascinating to hear him talk about gender dynamics, for example, because he has a filter that allows him to recast extant research in such a way as to support his 1950s idealism about how there could be healthier gender relations. He'll speak about "agreeableness" and the importance of challenging power structures in one breath, but then in the next stress the incompatibility of men & women working together for a variety of psych reasons - and ends up asserting his binary tropes to make sense out of a far more nuanced & complex reality.

 

In closing, I have to say that to me the most important issue is the one Chance raised in terms of his link to the article on Christopher Wylie previously and the informational cyber-warfare that has been waged. Related to that,Chance's final few paragraphs are worth re-reading and bearing in mind as we continue to direct our own research and peddle our own intellectual wares. That's why, IMO, a diverse group such as ours and those attending the ToK conference need to be as sensitive to the information dynamics as possible and strategic in our communication. We have an enormous cultural challenge ahead, for a variety of reasons that transcend our own disciplines and social positions. For example, I was called out last year when I made a joke in a public gathering of students about the tensions between my Muslim wife and my own Catholic background. Yet this wasafter I set the record straight about the creative ways we can develop our minds at the university, embrace diversity, and learn multiple "languages" (which I talked about in the broadest sense of different forms of communication and cultural connections) to understand people better from all over the world and be more enlightened citizens. The whole point of my little talk was to challenge the students to get out of their own bubbles & meet and hang out with folks different than themselves - and how I personally had benefited and grown so much over the years by being married to my Muslim wife from Iran! (Side note: I have to say I'm not a huge fan of fasting during Ramadan - but that's my own, if you understand Islam, personal "jihad"; the Catholic "Lent" thing is way easier by comparison!). It's a challenge trying to deal with these complex issues sensitively while at the same time not taking oneself too seriously. 

 

Yours kindly, -Joe

 

 

Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439

Fax: (519) 433-0353

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________

eiπ + 1 = 0

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 7:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: JP again 

 

Psychologically, the phenomenon is "data" rich and opens up so many dynamics to be observed and studied.  One reason it is a unique situation is that JP is a Jungian enamored clinician who is also a devoted trait researcher.  Already that combination sets him apart in the psychological community (Inmy experience, most psychologists do not sort into competence in both analytic thinking and traditional research methodology).  

 

But of course I like that because I am an analytic thinker who was also drawn to the 5 factor model.  The NEO-PI seems to be a gold-standard of psychological trait research.  The issues arise when we start calling the 5 factor model a personality inventory rather than a trait inventory.  Gregg articulates this in terms of the very real issue of confusing aggregate level analysis with individual analysis. 

 

So Peterson "gets it" in that he uses the analytic perspective for the tools needed to delve into the individual self, and the five-factor model for analysis of the aggregate trait level that the 5 traits reveal (OCEAN).  

 

So what remains are Peterson's own blindspots and less developed areas of self.  You can take a rough cut at it by observing that Peterson developed as a working-class white Canadian.  He thus appears to have insensitivities (relative to the humanities, not the lay population) to colonial dynamics along those lines, and those insensitivities draw to him a shadow audience of individuals that are conservative, ignorant, or regressive about race dynamics.  I think that the damage he will create, for whatever proportion of good, will revolve around his emboldening of race dismissal amongst groups and people who urgently should be receive education on the topic.  

 

I do not perceive Peterson as problematic in regards to gender.  Most of what Jordan Peterson says about gender dynamics is a toned down version of what I learned in undergraduate from women psychology professors.  

 

I do understand the Peterson hate, though, as I had similar initial reactions to him.  When his first video blipped onto my radar, I thought  "A white conservative just got flushed out like quarry to be taken down."  And the same primate part of me that anticipates a punch-drunk and wobbly fighter's knock-out in a boxing match was the same part of me that watched for Peterson to be torn apart by rationaland irrational mobs of social justice warriors that smelled blood in the water and easy prey.  But it never happened.  He defeated every wave that came his way, and he's been doing itevery day for over a year.

 

Also, to dismiss Peterson outright is to deny some of thevery most powerful tools that emerged out of the field of psychology.  If the "left" rejects the baby with the Peterson bath-water, the right will continue to weaponize psychological insights and use them to manipulate a confused, agitated, and increasingly fragile populace.  There will be an increasing inability for individuals to determine what is bread and circus versus a substantive area to direct healing intellect and effort. 

 

Finally, I am privately aware of when the left uses psychological tools as manipulations.  My friends in politics call it "fighting dirty."  The ends, they believe, will justify the means.  I'm not so sure, especially when the left increasingly suggests a world where we are encountered only through our thin-sliced demographics.  The point, in theory, was that we would reclaim our histories in order that we could eventually transcend them.  If we get stuck in the trenches of the identities carved out by marketing teams, we will have at least shifted culture wars to a digital realm, 

 

but of course the fear is that we are on borrowed time to resolve the "brown-eye/blue-eye," "they/them" conundrum, because the ability to manifest global weaponry is exponential.  

 

So, in summary, the left will have to destroy itself in order to wage war on Peterson, and Peterson is entirely willing to sacrifice his life for his principles.  So better, I think, to cordon off the weak areas of his perspective and appreciate the benefits of what he is offering rather than alienate his faction as we plunge deeper into the battle for social memory (i.e., the culture wars). 

 

-Chance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Hi List,

  Sorry to be filling up your in boxes on this holiday weekend. Just hit delete as necessary.

 

But here is a piece on Jordan Peterson that I very much resonated with. Similar to the theme of my final blog (am still working on that 5 part series)

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__quillette.com_2018_05_22_jordan-2Dpeterson-2Dfailure-2Dleft_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=KOS6s3e-GlbxLfQHJPXPLJwc70f7ayJGb-TU-XXaS3o&s=5XOMTpDHd6wxIGTw78n6Ys8t4ULAYWbq8x4LUwNAb7s&e=

 

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
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] 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