I admire those who have the patience to read critical theory and grapple with opaque statements like, 'American teachers and students, McLaren argued, must “[break] the imaginary power of commodified identities within capitalism” and “construct sites—provisional sites—in which new structured mobilities and tendential lines of forces can …
I admire those who have the patience to read critical theory and grapple with opaque statements like, 'American teachers and students, McLaren argued, must “[break] the imaginary power of commodified identities within capitalism” and “construct sites—provisional sites—in which new structured mobilities and tendential lines of forces can be made to suture identity to the larger problematic of social justice.”'
OK . . . do these theoretical essays or anti-Capitalist broadsides come with glossaries? How is one expected to understand the meaning of terms like "structured mobilities and tendential lines of forces"? If I was inclined to make a real effort to glean meaning from this, I don't even know how to paraphrase it. Off the top of my head, a "commodified identity" refers to some generalized type of person used as an image to sell products or services, you know, advertising. The horror! You're so precious and unique that the sort of person you imagine yourself to be is above being captured to sell condoms? What's the gripe? "Hey, I made up this persona and if you want to use it to sell stuff, I want my cut"? These commies of consciousness appear to believe in a contradiction-- that the ego is at once fluid (see transgenderism) and immutable or sacred in some sense. It also gives advertising far too much credit for the influence it has on people. Only the most childish "identify" with commercial images or--god forbid--model their lives after them. I like The Three Stooges as an example of this--how soon does a kid learn that if you drag a saw over your buddy's head you can seriously injure him? More seriously, the neo-Marxists appear to want to take control of how we idealize others, who we admire and trust; they want to control who and what we value as Good and True.
I do not for one millisecond trust neo-Marxists with control of my archetypes and social relations. They want to burn down Western culture with nothing to put in its place but vague theoretical vaporings, if that. What will be the new idealized Socialist image of Man? I think we can all guess. Disney's working hard to figure it out, but so far their revisions aren't going over so well.
I have a problem with this sentence of Rufo's: 'The theoreticians divide the world into identity hierarchies; the teachers engage in the work of decolonization; the students become entries in sprawling databases; the bureaucracies process human data into social change.'
Is this bit about "databases" a metaphor? if it is, I don't get it. What sort of databases? For what purpose?
Marx's concept of the "commodification of labor" had something to do with counting the work of individual humans in terms of the "man hours" required to do a job. Marx regarded this capitalist tendency as dehumanizing.
The irony, of course, is that the woke movement is completely a creature of social media, where the commodification of humans has reached a level that Marx could not have comprehended. The so-called revolutionaries have realized what might have been his worst nightmare, if he had been able to anticipate such a bizarre outcome. The problem has become not that people are used to advertise products, but that they have turned themselves into products that they sell online. Many people, especially but not exclusively the young, equate themselves to the number of "likes" they get on social media each day.
Thank you for elaborating on this set of concepts, Tommaso! Your first sentence is very helpful.
Would you please help me understand "reification" in this context? I understand that Marx meant it as "make it into a thing." Is "objectification" a synonym for "reification"? Is it valid to say there are the following steps?:
1. the live person is projected as "enhanced images"
2. the images are treated as objects, with valuation assigned in terms of the number of likes and subscribers they attract
3. "the full reification of the person"---Does this refer to the images or the original living person? I ask this because the images of Dylan Mulvaney, for example, are what his followers seem to equate to the existent "thing." His actual self is never revealed, even in his live appearances, and his followers appear to not know this or care. The concept "Dylan Mulvaney" is a performed character and most definitely a "brand," which he was happy to extend with the Bud Light self-image.
As I look over what we have said, I realize that it is worse than I understood. By making our lives/ourselves into "Projects," we are turning ourselves both into "products" or "market products," but even "Processes" rather than "things" - which we are. Perhaps this is the fuller meaning of neoliberalism.
By "reification" I meant what you already understand - though the "process" aspect would seem to make it worse than Marx's definition.
I like what you say about Mulvaney. Is he just an "actor" with a private life, or has he turned his life into "Dylan Mulvaney?" Which is, as you say, a brand.
The securitization of attention seems to be an internet phenomenon - and something that has "quickened" existing tendencies.
There are two books by Byung-Chul Han which I read a few years ago which have helped me think about this: Pscychopolitics (my favorite) and The Disappearance of Rituals. I don't think that they are complete, but he is an acute observer of the present. If understanding means understanding origins and conclusions, he is good with conclusions.
Another perspective on the same subject comes from the psychoanalysis of people who have narcissistic personality disorder. These individuals lack a sense of self. In moments of candor and insight they say that they do not have a self, or at most, that their self is an unformed and worthless life form. Narcissists create "false selves" that they perform in social settings and in front of their own mirrors and cameras. These performances are usually tailored to create positive or negative feelings in other people, so are examples of conscious playacting. However, the narcissists do not have the inner self that an "actor" can revert to when the performance is over. They say that they need their audiences to believe that the false self is the narcissist's true self, in order to believe it themselves. If the chosen audience sees through the persona, the narcissists experience this as an annihilation of the only "self" they have, and they typically project onto the audience an intention to destroy the narcissist. Narcissists react to this situation by aggressively attacking and devaluing the audience members who failed/refused to "validate" the false self as a real entity.
The parallels with the statements by trans activists that "gender critical" people are committing genocide are unmistakable. So many of the trans activists are obviously narcissistic, like Mulvaney, it is possible that the trans genocide narrative is a case of typical narcissistic projection following onlookers' rejections of cross-sexed performances as revelations of real selves.
Wow. I have read only personality typology derived from Jung, and have found it very valuable - very. It corresponds to reality, and there is both empirical and brain-scan evidence of its reality. It seems related to CBT, which seems intuitively credible to me, and which I found helpful at one time.
What you say of narcissism is astonishing. Do you have a favorite or suggested reading? I am guessing that this explanation is the result of repeated clinical observations based upon interviews and conduct.
I recently have been studying pathological narcissism both clinically and through reading. I have read a lot of both the popular self-help literature and the professional literature on the subject. I often can't recall where all the ideas originally were published that I have incorporated into my work. I am going to make an effort to find the sources of the description I previously posted about narcissistic identity problems. I find myself thinking more about this dynamic recently, perhaps in reaction to the pressure from the environment to affirm that the emperor is wearing a handsome set of clothes, when he actually isn't.
"The neo-Marxists want to take control of how we idealize others, who we admire and trust; they want to control who and what we value as Good and True."
This is kind of the alpha and omega here, more or less some combo of Nietzsche's slave morality and re-evaluation of all values.
Social Justice has always been at heart a morality project, it initially piggybacked on the Civil Rights movement, and gradually (much like a parasite feeding on a host) replaced the MLK open-society liberal morality with the more hard-edged CRT Manichaean morality.
But I don't think they "want to take control", I think for every educated urbanite under 30 (esp in culture), plus every college-town NPR/PBS/NYT type, they are already controlled by SJ morality and are full-fledged True Believers.
The Culture War is fought on such rich symbolic turf (race, sex, history etc), because it is at root a reflection of a deep moral and epistemic schism.
"The Culture War is fought on such rich symbolic turf (race, sex, history etc), because it is at root a reflection of a deep moral and epistemic schism."
I agree, and wonder why some still dismiss the culture war as trivial or "a distraction from more important issues." Critical Social Justice provides nothing to replace actual (blind) justice, religion or spiritual enlightenment, beauty, and truth except some vague pride in being placed at the top of the pyramid of persecution or being an amateur Torquemada enforcing their Maoist auto de fe.
The critical theory people have nothing to offer except criticism of other peoples' creative work. Their values are mostly narcissistic, and their true goal (as opposed to what they say) is to be viewed as "the top of the pyramid" (whether or not they are).
I dealt with similar questions by looking up the terms used which in this case did help. But, in writing, I try to write so as to communicate to the majority, rather than the very erudite, myself.
As well, this being only an excerpt, I'm hoping to find in the book complete examples of what is being avered or asserted, so that I am able to look at the examples from different angles or viewpoints, because in communication, interpretation is everything! People of the left ideology are apt to only see good in "anti-racism" (i.e. 'What's not to like?') not what is wrong with how it is taught (i.e. 'Whites are born oppressors.') Playing a kind of "Devil's Advocate" in this way I'm more able to avoid confirmation bias and see the real scope of a problem.
I admire those who have the patience to read critical theory and grapple with opaque statements like, 'American teachers and students, McLaren argued, must “[break] the imaginary power of commodified identities within capitalism” and “construct sites—provisional sites—in which new structured mobilities and tendential lines of forces can be made to suture identity to the larger problematic of social justice.”'
OK . . . do these theoretical essays or anti-Capitalist broadsides come with glossaries? How is one expected to understand the meaning of terms like "structured mobilities and tendential lines of forces"? If I was inclined to make a real effort to glean meaning from this, I don't even know how to paraphrase it. Off the top of my head, a "commodified identity" refers to some generalized type of person used as an image to sell products or services, you know, advertising. The horror! You're so precious and unique that the sort of person you imagine yourself to be is above being captured to sell condoms? What's the gripe? "Hey, I made up this persona and if you want to use it to sell stuff, I want my cut"? These commies of consciousness appear to believe in a contradiction-- that the ego is at once fluid (see transgenderism) and immutable or sacred in some sense. It also gives advertising far too much credit for the influence it has on people. Only the most childish "identify" with commercial images or--god forbid--model their lives after them. I like The Three Stooges as an example of this--how soon does a kid learn that if you drag a saw over your buddy's head you can seriously injure him? More seriously, the neo-Marxists appear to want to take control of how we idealize others, who we admire and trust; they want to control who and what we value as Good and True.
I do not for one millisecond trust neo-Marxists with control of my archetypes and social relations. They want to burn down Western culture with nothing to put in its place but vague theoretical vaporings, if that. What will be the new idealized Socialist image of Man? I think we can all guess. Disney's working hard to figure it out, but so far their revisions aren't going over so well.
I have a problem with this sentence of Rufo's: 'The theoreticians divide the world into identity hierarchies; the teachers engage in the work of decolonization; the students become entries in sprawling databases; the bureaucracies process human data into social change.'
Is this bit about "databases" a metaphor? if it is, I don't get it. What sort of databases? For what purpose?
Edited for usage
Marx's concept of the "commodification of labor" had something to do with counting the work of individual humans in terms of the "man hours" required to do a job. Marx regarded this capitalist tendency as dehumanizing.
The irony, of course, is that the woke movement is completely a creature of social media, where the commodification of humans has reached a level that Marx could not have comprehended. The so-called revolutionaries have realized what might have been his worst nightmare, if he had been able to anticipate such a bizarre outcome. The problem has become not that people are used to advertise products, but that they have turned themselves into products that they sell online. Many people, especially but not exclusively the young, equate themselves to the number of "likes" they get on social media each day.
Securitization of attention as market and projectification/self-projectification of the person as "goods."
The full reification of the person. Neoliberalism. Now, narcissistic displays of debility as product. "Identity" nearly "brand."
Thank you for elaborating on this set of concepts, Tommaso! Your first sentence is very helpful.
Would you please help me understand "reification" in this context? I understand that Marx meant it as "make it into a thing." Is "objectification" a synonym for "reification"? Is it valid to say there are the following steps?:
1. the live person is projected as "enhanced images"
2. the images are treated as objects, with valuation assigned in terms of the number of likes and subscribers they attract
3. "the full reification of the person"---Does this refer to the images or the original living person? I ask this because the images of Dylan Mulvaney, for example, are what his followers seem to equate to the existent "thing." His actual self is never revealed, even in his live appearances, and his followers appear to not know this or care. The concept "Dylan Mulvaney" is a performed character and most definitely a "brand," which he was happy to extend with the Bud Light self-image.
Sandra,
As I look over what we have said, I realize that it is worse than I understood. By making our lives/ourselves into "Projects," we are turning ourselves both into "products" or "market products," but even "Processes" rather than "things" - which we are. Perhaps this is the fuller meaning of neoliberalism.
By "reification" I meant what you already understand - though the "process" aspect would seem to make it worse than Marx's definition.
I like what you say about Mulvaney. Is he just an "actor" with a private life, or has he turned his life into "Dylan Mulvaney?" Which is, as you say, a brand.
The securitization of attention seems to be an internet phenomenon - and something that has "quickened" existing tendencies.
There are two books by Byung-Chul Han which I read a few years ago which have helped me think about this: Pscychopolitics (my favorite) and The Disappearance of Rituals. I don't think that they are complete, but he is an acute observer of the present. If understanding means understanding origins and conclusions, he is good with conclusions.
Another perspective on the same subject comes from the psychoanalysis of people who have narcissistic personality disorder. These individuals lack a sense of self. In moments of candor and insight they say that they do not have a self, or at most, that their self is an unformed and worthless life form. Narcissists create "false selves" that they perform in social settings and in front of their own mirrors and cameras. These performances are usually tailored to create positive or negative feelings in other people, so are examples of conscious playacting. However, the narcissists do not have the inner self that an "actor" can revert to when the performance is over. They say that they need their audiences to believe that the false self is the narcissist's true self, in order to believe it themselves. If the chosen audience sees through the persona, the narcissists experience this as an annihilation of the only "self" they have, and they typically project onto the audience an intention to destroy the narcissist. Narcissists react to this situation by aggressively attacking and devaluing the audience members who failed/refused to "validate" the false self as a real entity.
The parallels with the statements by trans activists that "gender critical" people are committing genocide are unmistakable. So many of the trans activists are obviously narcissistic, like Mulvaney, it is possible that the trans genocide narrative is a case of typical narcissistic projection following onlookers' rejections of cross-sexed performances as revelations of real selves.
Wow. I have read only personality typology derived from Jung, and have found it very valuable - very. It corresponds to reality, and there is both empirical and brain-scan evidence of its reality. It seems related to CBT, which seems intuitively credible to me, and which I found helpful at one time.
What you say of narcissism is astonishing. Do you have a favorite or suggested reading? I am guessing that this explanation is the result of repeated clinical observations based upon interviews and conduct.
I recently have been studying pathological narcissism both clinically and through reading. I have read a lot of both the popular self-help literature and the professional literature on the subject. I often can't recall where all the ideas originally were published that I have incorporated into my work. I am going to make an effort to find the sources of the description I previously posted about narcissistic identity problems. I find myself thinking more about this dynamic recently, perhaps in reaction to the pressure from the environment to affirm that the emperor is wearing a handsome set of clothes, when he actually isn't.
A begrimed and befouled cod-bag adorns the emperor's wrinkled old garment.
Great comment!
"The neo-Marxists want to take control of how we idealize others, who we admire and trust; they want to control who and what we value as Good and True."
This is kind of the alpha and omega here, more or less some combo of Nietzsche's slave morality and re-evaluation of all values.
Social Justice has always been at heart a morality project, it initially piggybacked on the Civil Rights movement, and gradually (much like a parasite feeding on a host) replaced the MLK open-society liberal morality with the more hard-edged CRT Manichaean morality.
But I don't think they "want to take control", I think for every educated urbanite under 30 (esp in culture), plus every college-town NPR/PBS/NYT type, they are already controlled by SJ morality and are full-fledged True Believers.
The Culture War is fought on such rich symbolic turf (race, sex, history etc), because it is at root a reflection of a deep moral and epistemic schism.
"The Culture War is fought on such rich symbolic turf (race, sex, history etc), because it is at root a reflection of a deep moral and epistemic schism."
I agree, and wonder why some still dismiss the culture war as trivial or "a distraction from more important issues." Critical Social Justice provides nothing to replace actual (blind) justice, religion or spiritual enlightenment, beauty, and truth except some vague pride in being placed at the top of the pyramid of persecution or being an amateur Torquemada enforcing their Maoist auto de fe.
The critical theory people have nothing to offer except criticism of other peoples' creative work. Their values are mostly narcissistic, and their true goal (as opposed to what they say) is to be viewed as "the top of the pyramid" (whether or not they are).
I dealt with similar questions by looking up the terms used which in this case did help. But, in writing, I try to write so as to communicate to the majority, rather than the very erudite, myself.
As well, this being only an excerpt, I'm hoping to find in the book complete examples of what is being avered or asserted, so that I am able to look at the examples from different angles or viewpoints, because in communication, interpretation is everything! People of the left ideology are apt to only see good in "anti-racism" (i.e. 'What's not to like?') not what is wrong with how it is taught (i.e. 'Whites are born oppressors.') Playing a kind of "Devil's Advocate" in this way I'm more able to avoid confirmation bias and see the real scope of a problem.