Institutional racism and ideology

Daniel Gustav Anderson: Moscow, Idaho For The Turnstiles

Saturday, December 09, 2006: I've had some really strong feedback on my earlier posts on race vis-a-vis Integral theory. Please understand, kind readers: I'm proposing this as a topic worthy of careful consideration and study, not at all saying anything whatsoever a demographic reality (much less a prescription). If there are any ethnographers in the room, this is a topic for you.I'm encouraged by the response I've had from people of color on this topic. And for the good people of Detroit: I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with the post (now deleted) where I suggested that your city should be fair game for those of us who don't really fit in in Suburbistan...

Edward Berge said... Hi Daniel. I just became aware of you in the current Integral Review. I too am trying to figure out how to incorporate pomo insights into integral theory and have written extensively on it at Open Integral (www.openintegral.net). Here are a couple of links recenly provided at OI by some thoughtful Aurobindian rebutting your IR article referencing Aurobindo. If you have time I'd love to here your responses. Thanks. www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2006/12/10/2564144.html

www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2006/12/11/2564494.html 9:29 AM

Monday, December 11, 2006: First thing: My position vis a vis institutional racism and ideology is pretty clear in my published writings. The most relevent to the task at hand here is obviously this one, which is predicated on the assumption that racism is bad and is institutional rather than constitutive of particular "bad people", and that the ideological assemblages of late capitalism aren't to be cooperated with. So, the first part of the question is accurate. I am one of "those" cultural critics.

Second: Integral can do something that I think is really important, and is worth all the critical attention it can get for this reason. It's a way at the problem of subjectivity that accounts for biological, social, cultural, psychological, and transformative models. It's a way of understanding how subjects are made or are made to perform in particular ways, and a way of understanding how subjectivity can be transformed, as well as how social regimes that manufacture subjects can also be transformed. That's what integral theory can do, and why I think it's important. posted by DGA at 11:55 AM 1 comments

ebuddha said... A couple of responses from Aurobindo people. here ; And here. 5:00 PM

Edward Berge said...Yes, these links were also posted at Open Integral. This will be an interesting dialog, like the one I've been having with Aurobindian Alan Kazlev at OI. 7:54 AM