Hi Gregg, Wow, the article on Trump's hate is chilling-- and the white guilt book review is pretty challenging too... To your first point below that "we need considerations of the principles and goals of what we are trying to move toward", this is specific to JMU/ not all universities, but we do have a strategic plan with a supposedly-shared "vision" to be "engaged with ideas and the world". https://www.jmu.edu/jmuplans/engagement.shtml Interestingly, engagement gets defined in three points-- and the second one directly overlooks the downside of slave-owning, Constitution "Father" James Madison: Civic Engagement/ Advancing the legacy of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, by preparing individuals to be active and responsible participants in a representative democracy dedicated to the common good. It's interesting and hope-inspiring to consider that we are indeed making great cultural shifts and that we need to consider what was normal in past time periods as we look back on them with our hopefully more enlightened views. But in this transition it does feel like we are all on edge for anything we say or do-- like CNN's Joy Behar recently had to answer for anti-gay blog posts she made back when it was OK to have that opinion AND she had to apologize for saying that "talking to Jesus is a sign of mental illness"... (https://nypost.com/2018/04/24/msnbc-stars-lame-excuse-after-homophobic-remarks-surface/ https://www.thewrap.com/joy-behar-belatedly-apologizes-for-comparing-mike-pences-christian-faith-to-mental-illness/) I know this is possibly getting too specific about a certain situation-- and I certainly am not the one to facilitate it within my department or wider university-- but I do wonder if there is a way to address these issues with the faculty at JMU who are feeling the need to display Hate/Anger/Pride in response to the current university climate. It's easy for me to say they shouldn't counter former or present injustice and hate with a hateful response... What do you think could be done that brings some recognition of their pain and evoke accountability-- and healing? (Or maybe I am still showing White guilt by wanting to intervene?) Thank you again for sharing this topic! Corinne ________________________________________ From: tree of knowledge system discussion [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 11:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: feedback on chapter Thanks to everyone for their helpful feedback on the chapter. Corinne, I think this is the one of the central issue's the academy is facing--thanks so much for continuing the dialogue. Although the issues are complicated, I think what needs to happen is a combination of the following to have a productive frame for the advancing the ball on these issues. For me, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSITY SETTING, which is, of course, very different than other contexts, the points I tend to focus on are: 1. First, we need considerations of the principles and goals of what we are trying to move toward. This is how I heard the point that John Torday raised. What, at the level of society and the individual are we trying to achieve? I, for one, do not think our primary goal should be retribution and guilt for past sins. Rather, I advocate for framing the issues in terms of a vision for the kind of society we would like to live in and ways to move toward that society, and what we can each do to contribute to that. I make the point that the CI program I work in feels like a good example of a microcosm of society that has done a nice job creating what feels like a just community on the issues of social identity categories. If we share a vision and values, then we can work toward moving toward that. I hope for a society that maximizes the dignity and well-being of all individuals from the rainbow of human diversity, and does so with fairness and integrity (of course there is debate about the details, but that is the vision). 2. The second point I keep in mind is the point that Jordan Peterson makes in the Munk Debates<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H_AJ2tfLgk>, which can be framed in the form of a question: Where are the limits of the left/identity politics argument? Within the academy, I believe there is too much virtue signaling and too much anxiety that critical analyses of progressive claims stems from racist or sexist motives. For example, consider that, in the Munk debates, the African American Preacher Dyson makes the comment that he, by virtue of his skin color, is not welcome at Starbucks. That to me is a deeply problematic claim. He takes one incident and generalizes to an aggregate company or group with no data (I am not aware of any analyses that suggests that Starbucks has any anti-Black tendencies relative to the country—indeed, I would posit as a company/patrons/employees it leans or maybe even is highly progressive). Immediately, in my saying this, there are lots of anxieties that are raised. Can I, as a white man, possibly empathize with the Black experience? How dare I question that? And that response is the foundational issue that we need to dialogue about head on. If one cannot critically examine claims and limits, and arguments are essentially given a free pass on the basis of the messenger's skin color, we are in deep trouble. Of course, now that we live in Trump's America, everything is super complicated. Take, for example, this wonderful article on Trump by Charles Blow<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/opinion/trump-central-park-five.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region>. The desire to push back against what Trump represents is so obviously justified by many traditionally underprivilege groups that my attending to progressive excesses can seem deeply problematic and insensitive in the current context. My reply to this concern is that it is, in no small part because we in the academy have not demonstrated that we know how to adaptively limit the progressive/identity politic excesses that Trump was elected. It is crucial to keep in mind that the social-justification system changes moving in a progressive direction have been some of the most remarkable transitions of socio-cultural value change (without war) in documented history (see Shelby Steele’s analyses on this issue, especially White Guilt<https://www.law.uc.edu/sites/default/files/fcj1.1.steele%20reviewed%20by%20ryan.pdf>). Consider, for example, that when Obama is elected in 2008, he did not believe in gay marriage. Today, only 10 years later, not believing in gay marriage is seen as really unusual and highly socially conservative, especially in the academy. The point is that the progressive mindset actually has been enormously powerful and successful. So it has had huge impacts and strong momentum. It is thus VERY reasonable and appropriate for people to start asking, “Ok, where does this end? Do we actually remove James Madison’s legacy because he was a slaveholder? If that is where we go, then was/is good about our society?” As the “groupthink” episode demonstrated, we, the academy, have NOT figured out where the limits of this movement takes us. Indeed, there is a virtuous/righteous anti-racist/anti-sexist signaling that often prevents very much needed critical analyses of progressive/identity political claims. That is why I write a lot about this issue. Now, I have had a number of my CI doc students say, “Gregg, you always seems to be taking the critical stance against social justice movements. Don’t you support social justice?” My answer is, “Of course, I support social justice. Look at my life. Look at who I have devoted my services to. I have never taken a dime for my therapy because I support the underprivileged. It is because I value social justice that I am passionate about arguing that the movement cannot allow itself to go off the rails into groupthink/righteous excesses. If it does this, the backlash will be significant. Indeed, to me, Trump is our President in no small part because the progressive momentum was both very powerful and there were not clear limits or guiding principles, or shared end goal in sight. Rather a very clear pattern was simply an acceleration of anti-White Male Heteronormative Patriarchy sentiment. But that is not a shared, value-based vision. And, for low class heterosexual White males, it is a particular affront and fosters resentment and resistance, with good justification. Bottom line, Corinne, is that moral issues like race and gender justice equity are very emotional and very powerful. It is BECAUSE that is the case that we need some controlled, rational, critical thinking about these issues, especially in settings like the university. Adaptive, critical analyses are the ANTI-THESIS of being racist or sexist, IMO. Best, Gregg -----Original Message----- From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Diop, Corinne Joan Martin - diopcj Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2018 9:14 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: feedback on chapter Hi Gregg, This was really fascinating and helpful to read, especially because, wow, I am fairly sure at least two of the people you are mentioning are in my department! I have been confused about some of the dynamics going on... I was not at the Flashpoint event you describe in the article, but I attended an Art History Forum of student presenters and a key note speaker that went totally awry in a similar manner. The speaker was talking about an exhibition of Native American art she curated for an art museum that was meant to highlight indigenous people from that region-- and then she realized one of the tribes had moved to Delaware so she had to backtrack and redo a major part of the exhibition to include the group she had missed. The audience slightly laughed. An African America professor blasted the audience for laughing at genocide-- the people were forced to move off of their land and we sit here laughing about it. It was in a loud and confrontational tone and if she was trying to shake everyone up, it worked. The parents and students who were there for the event were really startled, as were the rest of us. The conversation in the audience shifted to question if museums should even "own" or display work by Native Americans and the end of the talk was rough for the speaker. The reception meant to celebrate the students and their research that followed soon after that was really awkward... There are other examples like this, in graduate critiques, faculty meetings, etc., where things feel like they are getting out of hand and I haven't been able to know how to frame it! When I look at the diagram these outbursts (I know there is a negative connotation to saying that, but that is what they feel like) seem centered on Hate/Anger/Pride... I can understand the anger to a point since my husband is Black/ Muslim/ has an accent and my kid is mixed, so I am well aware there is a dual-system going on so that even as a female, I often feel safer and more privileged than they are because of my Whiteness/ no accent... The questions I have are related to the one below about redirecting groupthink more positively: Is there something others can do to support the Black Activist or other groupthink stances that do have merit, while redirecting the individuals/group from attack mode? What do you think the Flashpoint group would think if they read your article? Could there be a Flashpoint about Flashpoints? Thank you for sharing this-- lots to think about! Corinne _____________________________________ From: tree of knowledge system discussion [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Lonny Meinecke [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 8:35 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: feedback on chapter Hi Gregg and all, Thank you for sharing this chapter draft with us. It is nice to see the JH applied to a real world problem like this. I like your writing style and content for this so far. May I ask, are you thinking of including a sentence or two on how the JH can be applied in the implications paragraph, to redirect groupthink more positively? It looked like you may have been heading that way, based on this chapter and its focus. Thanks! --Lonny ############################ 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]<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