Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

I find that second sentence confusing. Could you provide some examples to work with? What "trends" do you mean?

The ratio of HTP to LTP behavior and the behaviors that demonstrate those preferences.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, so are you saying that after the abolition of slavery there is an absence of certain types of behavior despite the lingering presence of racism? Thus, slavery was the more immediate cause of some of these behaviors, not racism. Is this accurate?

 

[Dak]

Um, yes to the second part, no to the first. The nature of slavery in the US destroyed connections with families, culture, etc., making LTP behavior extremely difficult and/or pointless. This perspective of LTP behavior as difficult, or more importantly, pointless, is difficult to recover from anyway. Even moreso when LTP behavior is identified as something important that differentiates one from the oppressor. In the presence of only racism, rather than slavery, other support and culture remain intact, if not strengthened. So that racism might be supporting the continuance of HTP behavior, this is accidental rather than causal. It merely strengthens or supports whatever the existing behavior is, and in this case, it is HTP behavior. To contrast: Jews have been virulently despised often throughout history, but without the destruction of the internal social support and culture, their LTP behavior persists and is even strengthened.

 

[Einherjar86]

Um, yes to the second part, no to the first. The nature of slavery in the US destroyed connections with families, culture, etc., making LTP behavior extremely difficult and/or pointless. This perspective of LTP behavior as difficult, or more importantly, pointless, is difficult to recover from anyway. Even moreso when LTP behavior is identified as something important that differentiates one from the oppressor. In the presence of only racism, rather than slavery, other support and culture remain intact, if not strengthened. So that racism might be supporting the continuance of HTP behavior, this is accidental rather than causal. It merely strengthens or supports whatever the existing behavior is, and in this case, it is HTP behavior. To contrast: Jews have been virulently despised often throughout history, but without the destruction of the internal social support and culture, their LTP behavior persists and is even strengthened.

I understand the contradistinction to anti-Semitism, and I agree that the behaviors we're discussing are contingent upon historical factors but not causally connected.

However, regardless of the alternative effects that racism-without-slavery can have, I'm simply still not convinced that the effects of slavery can be separated from racial factors given that the origin of these current conditions is a historically racist institution. If we're saying that a large percentage of blacks are poor and exhibit HTP tendencies, and that these conditions are a result of slavery, then we're saying that the problem is a racial one. If racism has no causal connection to specific behavioral traits, then it makes no sense to assume that racism-without-slavery will always have beneficial effects (as (oxy)moronic as that is), as you suggest with Judaism. Just to be clear, I don't think you're saying that; but even if anti-Semitism has had different effects for Jewish people, it doesn't mean that the structural effects of slavery can't still be racist.

 

[Dak]

I understand the contradistinction to anti-Semitism, and I agree that the behaviors we're discussing are contingent upon historical factors but not causally connected.

However, regardless of the alternative effects that racism-without-slavery can have, I'm simply still not convinced that the effects of slavery can be separated from racial factors given that the origin of these current conditions is a historically racist institution. If we're saying that a large percentage of blacks are poor and exhibit HTP tendencies, and that these conditions are a result of slavery, then we're saying that the problem is a racial one. If racism has no causal connection to specific behavioral traits, then it makes no sense to assume that racism-without-slavery will always have beneficial effects (as (oxy)moronic as that is), as you suggest with Judaism. Just to be clear, I don't think you're saying that; but even if anti-Semitism has had different effects for Jewish people, it doesn't mean that the structural effects of slavery can't still be racist.

I'm saying racism has pretty much the same effect regardless, as does the type of slavery practiced in colonial America. However, only one of those things specifically has a causal effect in adjusting ratios of LTP/HTP - and specifically in adjusting it only towards HTP. Racism alone merely cements existing behaviors - preventing adjustments.

That any form of slavery can be "justified" by racism has nothing to do with how it effects LTP/HTP behavior.

On a different note:

http://www.topmastersineducation.com/homeschooled/

Cool infographic. I didn't bother to chase down the sources, and given that some are from the HSLDA I'm sure someone will protest the veracity - but I doubt that the presented stats are very far from the truth. The two findings I think are most significant are that regardless of the mix of higher education in the parents (or complete absence thereof), or the amount of money spent on the education, the gains/losses in percentile performance is negligible.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have nothing against homeschooling, so I don't have any argument here. I personally feel that public schooling is a more necessary institution for parents that can't afford to stay home and teach their children; unfortunately, neither homeschooling nor public school really do a bang-up job at preparing their students for Ivy League education, if that's the goal/dream. Usually people who end up getting into those schools have parents who went, or they went to private/prep school. It's perfectly reasonable that the relative educational level is the same between homeschooling and public schooling.

I went to one of best high schools in my state (it's nationally ranked even), and I don't think a single person in my graduating class went to an Ivy League school. A lot of people ended up staying in my hometown and taking over family businesses or starting their own, which really demonstrates how strong the traditional liberalist mentality is even in regions with purportedly strong public school districts (in truth, public schooling does nothing to combat the vague ideology of individualism, despite runaway stories about how math problems are teaching collectivism and that sort of hogwash). If anything, public schooling simply teaches students how to conform easily to working citizenship, and I doubt if homeschooling is much different. After all, school is one of Althusser's ISAs (ideological state apparatuses).

 

[Dak]

I have nothing against homeschooling, so I don't have any argument here. I personally feel that public schooling is a more necessary institution for parents that can't afford to stay home and teach their children; unfortunately, neither homeschooling nor public school really do a bang-up job at preparing their students for Ivy League education, if that's the goal/dream. Usually people who end up getting into those schools have parents who went, or they went to private/prep school. It's perfectly reasonable that the relative educational level is the same between homeschooling and public schooling.

If going to Ivy League schools was the dream, I think a family that shot for that would have a better chance via HS rather than PS, but I don't know that many HS' have that as a goal.

However, the problem for both HS and PS, actual quality of education aside, is that one is not in the "right circles".

I went to one of best high schools in my state (it's nationally ranked even), and I don't think a single person in my graduating class went to an Ivy League school. A lot of people ended up staying in my hometown and taking over family businesses or starting their own, which really demonstrates how strong the traditional liberalist mentality is even in regions with purportedly strong public school districts (in truth, public schooling does nothing to combat the vague ideology of individualism, despite runaway stories about how math problems are teaching collectivism and that sort of hogwash).

It doesn't combat vague individualism. Tomorrow's worker drones must also be consumer drones which must constantly confirm their individuality through new possessions. It most certainly combats strong individualism.

If anything, public schooling simply teaches students how to conform easily to working citizenship, and I doubt if homeschooling is much different. After all, school is one of Althusser's ISAs (ideological state apparatuses).

Although I think any education essentially tries to prepare one for "working citizenship", what that - working citizenship - looks like is probably quite different depending on who you ask.

I went to look up Althusser, and scanning through a read found his definition of the State or RSA, in his words "in the Marxist tradition", to be pretty much in agreement with a Rothbardian view - if we but remove talk of bourgeoisie and proles.

 

[Einherjar86]

If going to Ivy League schools was the dream, I think a family that shot for that would have a better chance via HS rather than PS, but I don't know that many HS' have that as a goal.

However, the problem for both HS and PS, actual quality of education aside, is that one is not in the "right circles".

I agree with your second claim. As far as better chances go, at the most basic level it's impossible to say.

It doesn't combat vague individualism. Tomorrow's worker drones must also be consumer drones which must constantly confirm their individuality through new possessions. It most certainly combats strong individualism.

We should be careful, since we're introducing vague terms. I assume that by "strong" you mean the kind of individualism as argued for by philosophers you typically cite (I think I have a sufficiently accurate idea here).

Any ideal socialization process is going to combat strong individualism, and should; a privileged/biased reinforcement of strong individualism is not an educational imperative. Bear in mind, I'm targeting individualism here as a theoretical field, not as a method of practice. Education should provide space for individual growth and exploration, but it should not emphasize a myopic view of values that reinforce themselves. It should present conflicting perspectives.

Although I think any education essentially tries to prepare one for "working citizenship", what that - working citizenship - looks like is probably quite different depending on who you ask.

From the perspective of strong individualism, working citizen is likely a contradiction in terms, since free people ideally do what they choose to with their labor, while "citizen" implies that a person is a part of something larger toward which it bears a social responsibility.

 

[Dak]

We should be careful, since we're introducing vague terms. I assume that by "strong" you mean the kind of individualism as argued for by philosophers you typically cite (I think I have a sufficiently accurate idea here).

An easy generalization would be the "ideal enlightened subject". This does not preclude socialization at all, but it does change the perspective on the interaction. One comes together with others rather than being together with others.

From the perspective of strong individualism, working citizen is likely a contradiction in terms, since free people ideally do what they choose to with their labor, while "citizen" implies that a person is a part of something larger toward which it bears a social responsibility.

I see your point, but I'm not so sure these two cannot go together. By not engaging in anti-social behavior, regardless of the nature of my labor otherwise, I can be described as meeting my social responsibility.

 

[Einherjar86]

That all makes sense. "Enlightenment subject" gets into tricky areas though, since it can be (and has been in the past) very exclusionary.

 

[Dak]

That all makes sense. "Enlightenment subject" gets into tricky areas though, since it can be (and has been in the past) very exclusionary.

Yeah, I wouldn't press it into specifics. But the rational, independent, "selbstandig" individual.

 

[Dak]

Excuse me?

Someone doesn't do enough reading or thinking about the ramifications of destroying non-consumption based, historically and biologically rooted traditions.

Everything being open game to everyone creates a perfect scenario for Corporate Control, in both the "private" and "public" arena. The authors of works like this begin to understand the problem:

http://csrn.camden.rutgers.edu/newsletters/11-1/cole_crossley.htm

What we find troubling about this trend is that when discourses of consumption and women’s independence intersect, they do so in a manner that equates independent womanhood with consumption. The conflation of women’s independence and consumerism raises important questions about the shifting nature of feminism and feminist identities. The implications for this changing terrain of feminism are exhibited in many third wave feminists’ embrace of consumerism as both a choice and a source of women’s empowerment. This is a fundamental problem for feminism, since consumerism, as the cultural logic of capitalism, is the ideological and practical means to reproducing hegemonic domination of the exploitative and oppressive system global capitalism. Although feminist identities are multi-dimensional, nuanced, and often times individualist, consumption in a capitalist context is a fundamentally un-feminist thing. Because we are in a time period during which the relevance of U.S. feminism is continually contested and undermined, we feel such discourses and representations are significant, and warrant critical sociological attention.

Yet they mistakenly believe that this trend is somehow avoidable with more dialogue, when it is in fact a function of sociobiology, as it were. Humans have an intense desire to belong, and when we erase all sociotraditional means of belonging, something must take their place. Enter: Stuff. Or Populist Politics - which is always built on Stuff. Furthermore, as even genders are erased, there are finally zero limits to what one can consume - opening "infinite markets" for any product.

 

[Einherjar86]

But similar to what was said earlier, I'm not saying the hypothetical reactions I proposed above warrants censorship. All we can do is talk about it.

I agree with this, and I'll say more below.

I would totally upvote the shit out of this post.

Of course you would.

You do realize that this is nonsense, right? Overturning the patriarchy is one thing and something that I support, but this is a battle in the clouds.

I'm not sure I see why challenging gender expectations is so unrealistic.

Continue to support consumerist corporatism with your ideals.

What is the point of this accusation? Is your point that raising issues of feminism, as Addo suggests we should continue to do, merely perpetuates corporatist hegemony? Or are you saying that critical intellectual thought has been appropriated by, and assimilated into, corporatist culture?

What is the way out here?

 

[Dak]

What is the point of this accusation? Is your point that raising issues of feminism, as Addo suggests we should continue to do, merely perpetuates corporatist hegemony? Or are you saying that critical intellectual thought has been appropriated by, and assimilated into, corporatist culture?

What is the way out here?

See my prior post.

 

[Einherjar86]

I read it actually. I don't see how your "functions of sociobiology" support your argument. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that no matter what we do to rid ourselves of consumerist trends, new ones will simply appear. Even if all ideals are bound to be subsumed under a consumerist hegemonic system, why must we abandon them?

 

[Dak]

I read it actually. I don't see how your "functions of sociobiology" support your argument. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that no matter what we do to rid ourselves of consumerist trends, new ones will simply appear. Even if all ideals are bound to be subsumed under a consumerist hegemonic system, why must we abandon them?

Well one can just embrace, but that seems to be contradictory to the typical feminist position - in theory if not in practice.

I'm not opposed to consumption in itself, or equality in itself, and so on. It is rather the means and ends of these things where problems emerge. To quote Bastiat on these misunderstandings about distinctions betweens means/ends and the thing itself:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

 

[Einherjar86]

I would criticize your over-zealousness to say that the project of feminism is so easily subsumed by consumer interests. There is certainly a popular vein of feminist ideology, as someone mentioned above; but the problem with most mainstream versions of these theories/methodologies is that they adopt the conclusion of the arguments and then supplement their own awful, watered-down explanations for arriving at those conclusions.

We can maintain a feminist project beyond the confines of consumerism; it is being done, in fact. The trick lies in participating in the discourse (as Addo suggests) rather than simply pursuing the conclusion as though it's a utopian vision set in stone, and already given. People should read Judith Butler or Toril Moi, not the author of Lean In. But people don't read those theorists, because they're not amenable to consumer interests. There's a whole field of feminism left practically untouched by consumerism because it presents a serious challenge to power politics.

 

[Dak]

I would criticize your over-zealousness to say that the project of feminism is so easily subsumed by consumer interests. There is certainly a popular vein of feminist ideology, as someone mentioned above; but the problem with most mainstream versions of these theories/methodologies is that they adopt the conclusion of the arguments and then supplement their own awful, watered-down explanations for arriving at those conclusions.

We can maintain a feminist project beyond the confines of consumerism; it is being done, in fact. The trick lies in participating in the discourse (as Addo suggests) rather than simply pursuing the conclusion as though it's a utopian vision set in stone, and already given. People should read Judith Butler or Toril Moi, not the author of Lean In. But people don't read those theorists, because they're not amenable to consumer interests. There's a whole field of feminism left practically untouched by consumerism because it presents a serious challenge to power politics.

"Participating in the discourse" is precisely the sort of meaninglesss corporate jingoism that always-already undermines whatever professed aims are covered in said discourse.

I'm trying to make a metapoint about the necessary implications of feminism as a whole, and referencing non-extreme-fringe(or, the fringe which is not the radfem extreme, and fringe by definition as unpopular in the literal sense of mass-acceptance/awareness) writers who are essentially making rather trivial points (if they are, I don't profess to be familiar with the works of Butler) about wouldn't it be nice if we could all just stop repressing each other, does not counter this.

As soon as one claims that genders as concepts themselves are repressive, one has experienced the collapsing of ideology into itself. Maybe the ultimate dialectical result of gender equality is no gender, but this change now makes feminism the enemy of the feminine (and obviously without saying, the masculine as well). If someone wants to take that position, fine. But don't call it feminism and don't get mad when people begin to reject feminism because of the contradictions.

My metapoint is that this current popular form of feminism, which is not by any means in itself "radfem", serves only elite interests in every sense of the statement.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Participating in the discourse" is precisely the sort of meaninglesss corporate jingoism that always-already undermines whatever professed aims are covered in said discourse.

This is confusing, and somewhat unqualified...? Also, you use "always-already" far too often and not always correctly.

"Always-already" constitutes a paradox of action and meaning; saying that "participating in the discourse" is an example of corporate jingoism simultaneously means that the discursive tradition must precede the creation of corporate jingoism. If corporate jingoism undermines the effectiveness of discursive criticism, it also simultaneously allows that discourse to take place effectively.

"Always-already" (or always already, no hyphen) is a deconstructionist term, although it has a history prior to this. It deals with the paradoxical deadlock from the question: do bodies give rise to language, or does language produce bodies? This is a major question in critical theory, and one that is at issue here.

I'm trying to make a metapoint about the necessary implications of feminism as a whole, and referencing non-extreme-fringe(or, the fringe which is not the radfem extreme, and fringe by definition as unpopular in the literal sense of mass-acceptance/awareness) writers who are essentially making rather trivial points (if they are, I don't profess to be familiar with the works of Butler) about wouldn't it be nice if we could all just stop repressing each other, does not counter this.

As soon as one claims that genders as concepts themselves are repressive, one has experienced the collapsing of ideology into itself. Maybe the ultimate dialectical result of gender equality is no gender, but this change now makes feminism the enemy of the feminine (and obviously without saying, the masculine as well). If someone wants to take that position, fine. But don't call it feminism and don't get mad when people begin to reject feminism because of the contradictions.

Gender as concepts can be repressive; but they are also expressive, liberatory, and meaningful. My point about critical feminism (that makes far from trivial points, thank you for your skepticism though) is that it acknowledges the biological body while simultaneously acknowledging that any and all signifiers we deploy to present the body - words, but also gestures, behaviors, attitudes, etc. - actively perform a certain gender, and this cannot be dissociated from the body. The point of "always-already" is that an endless discursive tradition is at play that oscillates between myopia and mixture.

Simply put: yes, critical discourses handicap themselves, but they remain aware of this fact. The entire effort is a process, not a product. This is where popular feminism falls victim to the utopian vision.

My metapoint is that this current popular form of feminism, which is not by any means in itself "radfem", serves only elite interests in every sense of the statement.

It may partially serve elite interests, but certainly not only elite interests.

 

[Dak]

This is confusing, and somewhat unqualified...? Also, you use "always-already" far too often and not always correctly.

"Always-already" constitutes a paradox of action and meaning; saying that "participating in the discourse" is an example of corporate jingoism simultaneously means that the discursive tradition must precede the creation of corporate jingoism. If corporate jingoism undermines the effectiveness of discursive criticism, it also simultaneously allows that discourse to take place effectively.

"Always-already" (or always already, no hyphen) is a deconstructionist term, although it has a history prior to this. It deals with the paradoxical deadlock from the question: do bodies give rise to language, or does language produce bodies? This is a major question in critical theory, and one that is at issue here.

I think it works quite well here. I won't define or explain jingoism as I'm sure you know what it is, and "Participate in the discourse" or "contribute to the dialogue" etc have all been rendered jingoistic and function specifically to prevent dialogue or discourse except about "dialoguing" and "discoursing". If this isn't recursive I don't know what is.

Edit: If always already refers to discursion rather than recursion then I have been using it incorrectly.....but always already seems much more applicable to recursion.

Gender as concepts can be repressive; but they are also expressive, liberatory, and meaningful. My point about critical feminism (that makes far from trivial points, thank you for your skepticism though) is that it acknowledges the biological body while simultaneously acknowledging that any and all signifiers we deploy to present the body - words, but also gestures, behaviors, attitudes, etc. - actively perform a certain gender, and this cannot be dissociated from the body. The point of "always-already" is that an endless discursive tradition is at play that oscillates between myopia and mixture.

Simply put: yes, critical discourses handicap themselves, but they remain aware of this fact. The entire effort is a process, not a product. This is where popular feminism falls victim to the utopian vision.

I think we might be saying the same thing here. But I don't see how this isn't ultimately trivial - unless the fact that it must be stated constantly as a fringe element makes it non-trivial. It appears trivial to me.

It may partially serve elite interests, but certainly not only elite interests.

I'm interested in what non-elite interests are being served.