Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:41 am 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Jun 26, 2012
Posts: 3025
Location: The Second Æther! Hull Breach Imminent, Eschaton Immanent...
Mod Note:
Had to clean up this topic substantially.
Let's give it one more try for some proper debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:53 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: On the Road
Quote:
The reasons are not difficult to explain. The hyper-globalisation era has been systematically stacked in favour of capital against labour: international trading agreements, drawn up in great secrecy, with business on the inside and the unions and citizens excluded, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being but the latest examples; the politico-legal attack on the unions; the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the US and Europe that helped to undermine the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers in any meaningful way.

As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.

Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent essay in Foreign Affairs: “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both.


Quote:
The wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US. This is particularly remarkable in the US. For many decades, the idea of the “working class” was marginal to American political discourse. Most Americans described themselves as middle class, a reflection of the aspirational pulse at the heart of American society. According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.

Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt. Hitherto, on both sides of the Atlantic, the agency of class has been in retreat in the face of the emergence of a new range of identities and issues from gender and race to sexual orientation and the environment. The return of class, because of its sheer reach, has the potential, like no other issue, to redefine the political landscape.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-politics

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:57 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: On the Road
Quote:
This is why the unexpected emergence of Trump and Sanders may signal a big opportunity. For all his faults, Trump has broken with the Republican orthodoxy that has prevailed since Ronald Reagan, a low-tax, small-safety-net orthodoxy that benefits corporations much more than their workers. Sanders similarly has mobilized the backlash from the left that has been so conspicuously missing since 2008.

“Populism” is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don’t like. There is of course no reason why democratic voters should always choose wisely, particularly in an age when globalization makes policy choices so complex. But elites don’t always choose correctly either, and their dismissal of the popular choice often masks the nakedness of their own positions. Popular mobilizations are neither inherently bad nor inherently good; they can do great things, as during the Progressive era and the New Deal, but also terrible ones, as in Europe during the 1930s. The American political system has in fact suffered from substantial decay, and it will not be fixed unless popular anger is linked to wise leadership and good policies. It is still not too late for this to emerge.


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... or-renewal

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:07 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Dec 16, 2007
Posts: 1410
Well total insanity can only last so long. Competing uncordinated power systems vying for control are dismantling and destroying each other. Very similar to death in an organic organism, maybe cancer in that rapidly expanding power systems without central direction are spreading in directionless areas eventually overwhelming the central organising authority leading to chaos/death. RF blog is the best explainion I have seen, although it is really just a restatement of Plato's republic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:01 am 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Sep 15, 2015
Posts: 1471
Re the fall of Rome bit, may I present you with... THE LIST. Basically, anytime anyone finds anything they don't like, that's what destroyed the Roman Empire.

Personally, I blame golf.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:44 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 10809
Black Lives Matter protestors chained themselves to a tripod on a runway in London City Airport this morning, shutting the place down. A protestor explained on the BBC just now that climate change is a racist issue, because black people are more likely to live near airports. The people using London City Airport were engaging in "frivolous travel" and were earning loads more than those living in the vicinity.

XX

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:16 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Jul 31, 2011
Posts: 1425
Location: 0-71
BLM are racist and terrorist organisation which should be de-legalised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAu44wVgb58

_________________
Why it was so windy there?... I am out.

For future reference, a 'soft landing' theorem:
06/2007: Central Bank predicts soft landing for housing
http://www.independent.ie/business/iris ... 96858.html
It's all grand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:48 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: On the Road
Excellent article about the loss/abandonment of the European/British working class by the new left with particular reference to the trend highlighted by the Brexit vote.....

Quote:
The left naturally embraced the mantra of the Occupy movement – the glaring division between the super rich and the rest of us embodied by the slogan “We are the 99%”. Objectively, the idea of a division between a tiny, light-footed international elite and everybody else holds true. But in everyday life, this division finds little expression.

Instead, the rising inequality fostered by globalisation and free-market economics manifests itself in a cultural gap that is tearing the left’s traditional constituency in two. Once, social democracy – or, if you prefer, democratic socialism – was built on the support of both the progressive middle class and the parts of the working class who were represented by the unions. Now, a comfortable, culturally confident constituency seems to stare in bafflement at an increasingly resentful part of the traditionally Labour-supporting working class.

The first group has an internationalised culture, a belief in what the modern vernacular calls diversity, and the confidence that comes with education and relative affluence. It can apparently cope with its version of job insecurity (think the freelance software developer, rather than the warehouse worker on a zero-hours contract). But on the other side are people who have a much more negative view of globalisation and modernity – and in particular, the large-scale movement of people. In the UK, they tend to live in the places that have largely voted Labour but supported leaving the EU, and whose loudest response to globalisation is to re-embrace precisely the “custom and practice”, as Blair put it, that modern economies tend to squash: to emphasise place and belonging, and assert an essentially defensive national identity.

Does anyone on the left want to write off the working-class voters who chose Brexit as a mass of bigots and racists?

From a sympathetic perspective, to put out a flag can be a gesture way beyond mere jingoism. It often stands as an assertion of esteem – and collective esteem, at that – in an insecure, unstable world that frequently seems to deny people any at all. Those who were once coalminers or steelworkers may now be temporarily-employed “operatives” waiting for word of that week’s working hours. In a cultural sense, by contrast, national identity offers people at least some prospect of regaining a sense of who they are, and why that represents something important. Even when it comes to resentments around immigration, a nuanced, empathetic understanding should not be beyond anyone’s grasp: people can be disorientated by rapid population change and anxious to assert a sense of place without such feelings turning hateful.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:41 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: On the Road
Is fiction writing to be the next victim of the politics of identity?

Quote:
I am hopeful that the concept of “cultural appropriation” is a passing fad: people with different backgrounds rubbing up against each other and exchanging ideas and practices is self-evidently one of the most productive, fascinating aspects of modern urban life.

But this latest and little absurd no-no is part of a larger climate of super-sensitivity, giving rise to proliferating prohibitions supposedly in the interest of social justice that constrain fiction writers and prospectively makes our work impossible.

Seriously, we have people questioning whether it’s appropriate for white people to eat pad Thai.
So far, the majority of these farcical cases of “appropriation” have concentrated on fashion, dance, and music: At the American Music Awards 2013, Katy Perry got it in the neck for dressing like a geisha. According to the Arab-American writer Randa Jarrar, for someone like me to practice belly dancing is “white appropriation of Eastern dance,” while according to the Daily Beast Iggy Azalea committed “cultural crimes” by imitating African rap and speaking in a “blaccent.”

The felony of cultural sticky fingers even extends to exercise: at the University of Ottawa in Canada, a yoga teacher was shamed into suspending her class, “because yoga originally comes from India.” She offered to re-title the course, “Mindful Stretching.” And get this: the purism has also reached the world of food. Supported by no less than Lena Dunham, students at Oberlin College in Ohio have protested “culturally appropriated food” like sushi in their dining hall (lucky cusses— in my day, we never had sushi in our dining hall), whose inauthenticity is “insensitive” to the Japanese.


Quote:
What stories are “implicitly ours to tell,” and what boundaries around our own lives are we mandated to remain within? I would argue that any story you can make yours is yours to tell, and trying to push the boundaries of the author’s personal experience is part of a fiction writer’s job.

I’m hoping that crime writers, for example, don’t all have personal experience of committing murder. Me, I’ve depicted a high school killing spree, and I hate to break it to you: I’ve never shot fatal arrows through seven kids, a teacher, and a cafeteria worker, either. We make things up, we chance our arms, sometimes we do a little research, but in the end it’s still about what we can get away with – what we can put over on our readers.

Because the ultimate endpoint of keeping our mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction. Someone like me only permits herself to write from the perspective of a straight white female born in North Carolina, closing on sixty, able-bodied but with bad knees, skint for years but finally able to buy the odd new shirt. All that’s left is memoir.

And here’s the bugbear, here’s where we really can’t win. At the same time that we’re to write about only the few toys that landed in our playpen, we’re also upbraided for failing to portray in our fiction a population that is sufficiently various.

I’m hoping that crime writers, for example, don’t all have personal experience of committing murder.
My most recent novel The Mandibles was taken to task by one reviewer for addressing an America that is “straight and white”. It happens that this is a multigenerational family saga – about a white family. I wasn’t instinctively inclined to insert a transvestite or bisexual, with issues that might distract from my central subject matter of apocalyptic economics. Yet the implication of this criticism is that we novelists need to plug in representatives of a variety of groups in our cast of characters, as if filling out the entering class of freshmen at a university with strict diversity requirements


Quote:
Thus in the world of identity politics, fiction writers better be careful. If we do choose to import representatives of protected groups, special rules apply. If a character happens to be black, they have to be treated with kid gloves, and never be placed in scenes that, taken out of context, might seem disrespectful. But that’s no way to write. The burden is too great, the self-examination paralysing. The natural result of that kind of criticism in the Post is that next time I don’t use any black characters, lest they do or say anything that is short of perfectly admirable and lovely.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... assing-fad

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:06 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: On the Road
Quote:
Last week, the US academic Mark Lilla joined the why-Trump? circuit with an analysis of identity liberalism as “a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity”. It granted selective rights and privileges, but never duties. “Expressive, not persuasive … it distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force.”

Lilla is scathing of the “whitelash” excuse, which licenses liberals to abuse those voting for Trump and Brexit as racists, and political correctness as yet another rightwing conspiracy. To him, these voters are poor people who fear for the integrity of their communities and see globalism as a mis-selling scam. They may be wrong, but they’re not evil.


Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy
Read more
Across the Atlantic, this onset of electoral realpolitik has created a discourse. Trump may indeed be a nightmare, but what shall we do about it? In Britain, liberalism shows no such intellectual robustness, rather a denial clothed in hysteria. The attempt by the remain tribe to undo June’s Brexit vote is ludicrous, a sign not of bad losers but of stupid ones. They should fight for soft-Brexit, not no-Brexit.

For myself, I cheer as people protest that it no longer “means” anything to be left or right, liberal or conservative. If the left is so lacking in confidence it needs to launder itself as “progressive”, that is fine by me. But I just want to kick over the tables, rip up the rule books, get on with the debate. I want to re-enact the glorious revolution of 1832.

Advertisement

As for the future, commentators such as Haidt and Lilla seek a “post-identity” liberalism, built round a restoration of the nation state as repository of agreed values. This may mean accepting such majority concerns as the pace of immigration. It is one thing to ask a small community to take in two Syrian families, but impose 200 and liberalism will have an eternally uphill struggle.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... liberalism

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:18 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 6259
Location: On the Road
East V West

Collectivism V Individualism

...and by extension the question of Human Rights V Collective Rights as the base premise for societal governance.....

Quote:
As Horace Capron first travelled through Hokkaido in 1871, he searched for a sign of human life among the vast prairies, wooded glades and threatening black mountains. “The stillness of death reigned over this magnificent scene,” he later wrote. “Not a leaf was stirred, not the chirping of a bird or a living thing.” It was, he thought, a timeless place, straight out of pre-history.
“How amazing it is that this rich and beautiful country, the property of one of the oldest and most densely populated nations of the world… should have remained so long unoccupied and almost as unknown as the African deserts,” he added.
This was Japan’s frontier – its own version of the American ‘Wild West’. The northernmost of Japan’s islands, Hokkaido was remote, with a stormy sea separating it from Honshu. Travellers daring to make the crossing would have then had to endure the notoriously brutal winters, rugged volcanic landscape and savage wildlife. And so the Japanese government had largely left it to the indigenous Ainu people, who survived through hunting and fishing.

All that would change in the mid-19th Century. Fearing Russian invasion, the Japanese government decided to reclaim the country’s northland, recruiting former Samurai to settle Hokkaido. Soon others followed suit, with farms, ports, roads, and railways sprouting up across the island. American agriculturists like Capron had been roped in to advise the new settlers on the best ways to farm the land, and within 70 years the population blossomed from a few thousand to more than two million. By the new millennium, it numbered nearly six million.


Quote:
Until recently, scientists had largely ignored the global diversity of thinking. In 2010, an influential article in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences reported that the vast majority of psychological subjects had been “western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic”, or ‘Weird’ for short. Nearly 70% were American, and most were undergraduate students hoping to gain pocket money or course credits by giving up their time to take part in these experiments.

The tacit assumption had been that this select group of people could represent universal truths about human nature – that all people are basically the same. If that were true, the Western bias would have been unimportant. Yet the small number of available studies which had examined people from other cultures would suggest that this is far from the case. “Westerners – and specifically Americans – were coming out at the far end of the distributions,” says Joseph Henrich at the University of British Columbia, who was one of the study’s authors.

Some of the most notable differences revolved around the concepts of “individualism” and “collectivism”; whether you consider yourself to be independent and self-contained, or entwined and interconnected with the other people around you, valuing the group over the individual. Generally speaking - there are many exceptions - people in the West tend to be more individualist, and people from Asian countries like India, Japan or China tend to be more collectivist.
When asked about their competence, 94% of American professors claimed they were ‘better than average’ – a sign of self-inflation
In many cases, the consequences are broadly as you would expect. When questioned about their attitudes and behaviours, people in more individualistic, Western societies tend to value personal success over group achievement, which in turn is also associated with the need for greater self-esteem and the pursuit of personal happiness. But this thirst for self-validation also manifests in overconfidence, with many experiments showing that Weird participants are likely to overestimate their abilities. When asked about their competence, for instance, 94% of American professors claimed they were “better than average”.

This tendency for self-inflation appears to be almost completely absent in a range of studies across East Asia; in fact, in some cases the participants were more likely to underestimate their abilities than to inflate their sense of self-worth. People living in individualistic societies may also put more emphasis on personal choice and freedom.

Crucially, our “social orientation” appears to spill over into more fundamental aspects of reasoning. People in more collectivist societies tend to be more ‘holistic’ in the way they think about problems, focusing more on the relationships and the context of the situation at hand, while people in individualistic societies tend to focus on separate elements, and to consider situations as fixed and unchanging.



http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017011 ... erent-ways

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Identity
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Dec 16, 2007
Posts: 1410
Quote:
East V West

Collectivism V Individualism


A result of the governance systems that have evolved in the West:


Quote:
A republican structure is one in which governance is subject to various checks and balances as a means to ensure that the behaviour of governance is responsible and limited. However the result of republican governance is the exact opposite of these aims because of this structure.

Another factor inherent in republican structures is the passive, or rather, reflexive nature of the governmental structure, which ultimately requires matters become legal matters to achieve final incorporation into the “rule of law.”

Given this analysis, we would likely see that governing elites wishing to act in a proactive manner in a republican democratic structure which formally precludes this form of behaviour will engage in the following behaviour as outlined by Jouvenel’s theory:

  • Promotion of equality and cultural trends at the expense of intermediary power centers to circumvent hurdles to action.
  • Utilisation of putative “non-governmental” resources to achieve goals, and undermine intermediary centers of power.
  • Attempt to raise the actions aimed at, and contained in, point (1) and (2) to legal issues to incorporate them into “rule of law” through legal action, making the actions legitimate within the framework of republican governance.
  • Promotion of any cultural trends and ideas which promote republican governance overall.

The question then becomes – what does this have to do with political science? The answer unsurprisingly is that the specific ideas of empirical and positivist understanding of governance contained in political science promoted by foundations accord with liberal theories of governance, in which society can be run through formula or through mechanisms such as “rule of law.” This understanding of society is also one premised on society being an agglomeration of individual desires and wants to which the liberal state acts as a protective umpire. This is fundamentally liberalism at root. These theories also promote a scientism which has been a hallmark of liberal politics used as a weapon against recalcitrant sections of society. The spread of positivistic social science and liberal democracy, as well as republicanism, move hand in hand at all times.


https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordp ... /05/02/94/

and the incentives of those in power:

Quote:
The implication for human nature is that the liberal mockery of a traditionless and timeless human dummy that forms the core of the liberal order is a source of falsity and distortion. The dummy itself says more of those that advanced the concept than it does to any serious consideration of humanity as such. The state of nature individual is in reality a stand in for a specific group of people within a specific political arrangement at a specific time in history, the individual in question being a property owning man from North West Europe in the Jansenist and Protestant tradition. Just as in the area of ethics as claimed by MacIntyre, this project of asserting the basics of this individual is an attempt to advance the values, beliefs and interests of this specific sub set of society as being constituent of humans per se, taken up by power for its claims to equality for all, and with the belief that doing so renders a public good. Any claim to the opposite from the supporters of these very same thinkers must wrestle with the incoherence of the central claim to self-interest that underlines their own position. If man is a self-interested and anti-social entity then those advancing the claim of man being self-interested and anti-social are not exempt from this. By liberalism’s own logic, these thinkers advocated these positions out of simple self-interest and were not uncovering some enlightened position.


https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordp ... -ontology/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dolanbaker and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS   

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster

  

Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!