Gregg,

Perhaps it's not a unifying grand narrative that is needed so much as a "grand dialectic" is. That is, where various opposing tendencies --- and how they relate to each other --- are made explicit. Perhaps, put the focus on the process towards which opposing tendencies can potentially be resolved. That process itself could be an ongoing narrative.

~ Jason Bessey 

On Thursday, May 24, 2018, 2:29:26 PM EDT, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Chance,

 

  Thanks for this. I had similar reactions. I found myself very much “in the middle” of this debate and although I was interested in it, I was not super drawn to the arguments of either side. I largely concur with your assessments below.

 

  We absolutely need to be aware of the profound influence of the historical context of race (ala Dyson) and sex/gender, and the tribalism associated with the digital age (Goldberg).

 

  I was also a bit turned off by Peterson’s gruff, angry demeanor, and his seeming lack of empathy for what his whiteness can mean. And I was turned off by how Dyson characterized him as “an angry white man”. I will also say that as an atheist married to a Jew, I found myself aware of that voice/perspective (i.e., religious minority not really being represented in these kinds of discussions).

 

  I found Peterson quite compelling when he was exploring the limits of the left; that is, when has the left has gone too far in playing the political correctness/identity politic card? To me, this is one of the most central points I have been concerned with, and I was not impressed with Goldberg’s answer (which is when violence and censorship occur).  I think Peterson exaggerates the threat of the neo-Marxist Postmodern left (we are not on the verge of a totalitarian state), but he is absolutely correct in identifying that we need a way to reasonably critique it without immediately being charged with racism or sexism. This was one of the reasons I became obsessed with the Google Memo when it was the hot topic. It demonstrated that we did not have a way to talk reasonably about such issues.

 

  Dyson gave a few rhetorical examples that I thought were exemplars of precisely the kind of thing that should be “allowed” to be critiqued from within the left. For example, he essentially made a comment that Star Bucks was racist and not safe for people like him (i.e., men of color), presumably a claim founded on the recent arrests in Philly. I find claims like that to be deeply problematic for many obvious reasons, with the most obvious being that he generalized a single anecdotal incident (one employee made a phone call and then was let go) to an entire group (the institution of Star Buck). I would like to think that stereotyping based on single incidents would be something he would be something he would be more sensitive to avoid. However, I feel self-conscious for saying that as a white man, because of the ease of the rhetoric “How could I understand?” But actually, as a clinical psychologist deeply trained on a wide variety of related issues, I think I can understand quite well. And I understand that he is engaged in gross overgeneralization based on an anecdote for rhetorical purposes, and I think we should strive toward higher standards of critical thinking.

 

  I also appreciated Peterson’s point about the need for a unifying grand narrative, but I did not agree that our narrative had to be either individualistic or communal. As human psychology is different from sociology, the individual level of analysis is a radically different level of analysis from the aggregate social level of analysis. There is nothing inherently contradictory between emphasizing both the realities of institutional racism AND the profound responsibility that each individual has for living their lives and treating others as individuals. I think we can work toward institutional changes without having to internalize identity/tribal politics at the level of individuals. For example, to my way of thinking, white privilege is an aggregate concept, but not really an individual one (this somewhat related to the point Peterson was driving at when he was trying to get Dyson to quantify the degree of white privilege he has benefitted from by listing off percentage points).  (For a blog on aggregate versus individual level thinking, see here).  

 

  For me, the take home points are that we need a grand narrative of what a fair and just nation looks like. We need to recognize the tremendous impact regarding the history of inequality. And at the same time, recognize that the causes of differential rates of outcome are now very complicated and can be caused by many different factors, and are not necessarily indicative of oppression. (This was a point I tried to make on a blog I did on the very few numbers of NFL black kickers). We need folks to understand, at the social institutional level, structural inequalities. And at the individual level, embrace a mantra of individual responsibility to moving toward the valued states of being, and having a SHARED sense of what those are to the best of our ability (this is when I look to the rhetoric of MLK or Obama).

 

Finally, I think the failure of the center of the political correctness debate to hold (i.e., the fracturing of the Left to Center on this issue) is in part responsible for the election of Trump, which is surely given rise to many problematic voices and features of our society (i.e., the real alt right group), as this article from today highlights.

 

Best,
Gregg

 

 

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Chance McDermott
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 5:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: interesting debates on pc

 

Hi Gregg, thank you for posting the link.

 

I thought Dyson made good points about historical context being important in understanding bias in value structures.

 

I liked Goldberg's take on the nuances of the digital tribalism.  Essentially, we will face intense anonymous criticism no matter what we do.

 

I thought Peterson came across as the most clear, informed, and persuasive of the group.

 

Stephen Fry brought in a refreshing, if pollyannish, comedian/entertainer's perspective.  

 

The clash between the two sides of the debate disappointed me, and also seem to reflect the tension points I experience out and about.  For example, I think Dyson's point was lost when he pejoratively labeled Peterson by his demographics, and I believe that Peterson would be less divisive if he could demonstrate awareness of how whiteness is experienced by people of color.  

 

-Chance

 

 

 

 

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi List,

  Just in case folks are interested, here is an two hour “munk” debate on the concept of political correctness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT_FnwVFuYw

 

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 my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge

 

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

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