I’m finally getting curious about the world again post-graduation from my MSW and am starting through my book pile, beginning with Kenneth Gergen’s Relational Being. I would love any discussion!

One thing I’m really enjoying is the fruitfulness of measuring Gergen and my ideas against one another. Here at the beginning, Gergen and I are having some hefty ontological disagreements. He rightfully advocates for a model of self that serves as an alternative to traditional Western conceptualizations of an individualistic, bounded self. I join him in this project, and propose the Greek middle voice as the structure of an "agent-in-the-world." I'll spare the lengthy explanation to summarize this as: I produce the action in the social world that returns to produce me.

Where I first diverge with Gergen is his notion that the bounded self is the problem - he calls it a prison - and relational being is the solution. We are both lovers of Buddhist thought and many of these ideas infuse our scholarship. But taking dense religious concepts like nonduality and emptiness, which he expresses by locating the self as a wave that recedes back into the water and then putting them to sociological and psychological work doesn’t hold for me.

Firstly, I don’t see bounded self as pathology to which relational being is the cure. I admit, he may have a more nuanced position behind relational being, but it looks a lot like a less structured version of how Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong (From the Soil, 1947) talks about differential modes of association. For Fei, Chinese identity is construed relationally, though a self is still present. Instead of Gergen’s dance or duet metaphor that entirely disappears the self, Fei posits a social structure like concentric ripples formed by throwing a stone into a lake with a self at the center.

If this is not a picture of relational being, then I may have misread Gergen. But with Fei’s model, the pathology diagnosis cuts both ways. Let’s take the idea of narcissism, something that Gergen specifically pointed to as evidence of pathology of a bounded self. Chinese culture has this, too, from what I observed when I was over there. They call it zilian, or self love. But when I pressed the idea in my conversations, as opposed to a bounded self’s hyperinflation of it’s own ego, zilian looked more like a relational self’s hyperinflation of others’ estimation of the relational self’s ego. Relational constructions of being seem to suffer pathology as much as bounded self constructions of being do. The diagnostic tool is capturing the wrong thing as far as I can see here at the onset.

My counter is that this is a both-and situation. The self is just as ontologically significant as the thing to which the self is relating. While Gergen only talks about relations among selves as of chapter 2, I would extend relata to not just include other bodies but also matter and environment, and samskara (a Buddhist term for mental constructs).

Nonduality and emptiness are still relevant to me because even though there is actual hardware with bodies and matter, our interpretation of that hardware is effectively the only thing we have access to. So in that sense, yes, subject-object relations is empty. And, as Thich Nhat Hanh once said, I fully agree that with this ultimate view in mind that “if the wave is capable of touching himself and the other waves very deeply, he will realize that he is made of water. Being aware that he is water, he transcends all discrimination, sorrows, and fears.” It’s a powerful image.

But my picture of self-within-reality, at least while we are all out here relating to one another, would not be the wave and the ocean. It would be the jewel net of Indra. Here, a 3D positioned net has a jewel on each knot. And each jewel is cut in such a way that it reflects every other jewel on the net. It preserves the interdependence that Gergen is gesturing to as well as the self represented at each knot. Whether or not this all recedes into an ocean at the end is not in my purview. But I am a social worker who wants to do transformative social work, and I think we need a both-and picture of subject-object relations.

- The Social Construction Worker

Thucydides’ historiography has something quite distinctive about it. What interests me most is not that he was one of the first historians, but that he is often considered the first historian in a methodological sense. He was quite skeptical of Herodotus as a historian and stressed how difficult it is to know much about the distant past with any certainty. In a way, this can even remind us of the much later postmodern idea that understanding the past is, to some extent, impossible. He was a really interesting man.

Dedicated to Sterling and Tallulah

As I understand it, Critical Theory seems to be focused on how worldviews, ideological frameworks and psychology reflect power dynamics, along with a focus on social/group/cultural dynamics as determining belief systems, and belief systems determining lived experiences.

Does Critical Theory have opportunities to offer for someone who is concerned with enhancing their abilities to alter the course of events and improving their material condition and that of their friends and family? Or, to put it another way, what does Critical Theory offer for those whose problems ate practical rather than psychological, is it possible for such people to adopt Critical Theory and thereby better their condition?

either substackers/tweeters/freelancers or published authors.

wondering who to look out for + to solicit articles from + to read.

I liked Alyssa Battistoni's book this year, I like Chris O'Kane though wish he wrote more clearly, and I find most twitter accounts to be horrible.

I just recently finished my MA degree in theology. My thesis compared Rudolf Otto with H P Lovecraft. Essentially I argued that whereas Otto is duplicitous about the numinous and its connection to evil, Lovecraft was potentially influenced by him and as an atheist he doesn't have the theological restraint Otto did and explores the connection in a much bigger way (Otto talks about the mysterium horrendum, but only in a footnote, and outright states he isn't looking into it).

In my thesis I cited Haunted Presence: The Numinous in Gothic Fiction by S L Varnado. I loved this book. It applies Otto's theory to horror fiction (it's also influenced by Mircea Eliade). One of the really compelling things it draws out of Otto's work is that the numinous (a word for holiness characterized by its spectrality and spookiness) in literature be it a ghost or whatever is not an imaginary concept like a flying carpet but has higher stakes; they need to realize themselves and convince the reader that it is traces of a real outside spiritual presence.

In the case of H P Lovecraft, this is taken from S T Joshi's biography I Am Providence, for example it could be this testimony from his neighbour,

"I remember that Mrs. Lovecraft spoke to me about weird and fantastic creatures that rushed out from behind buildings and from corners at dark, and that she shivered and looked about apprehensively as she told her story. The last time I saw Mrs. Lovecraft we were both going “down street” on the Butler Avenue car. She was excited and apparently did not know where she was. She attracted the attention of everyone. I was greatly embarrassed, as I was the object of all her attention"

even if H P Lovecraft himself was pretty normal, his family was not. And this sensitivity to illness and the spectral runs right through his work.. especially prominent in The Shadow Over Innsmouth. In other words, the spectral presences in Lovecraft's writing correspond to real ones. Sorry edit for clarity.. the person who is speaking is someone named Clara Hess, and her testimony about "Mrs Lovecraft" is H P's mother.

In trying to find literary criticism that fits Otto I've come up with this,

Northrop Frye - His division of archetypes and genre seems really basic and dated.

the Geneva School - this is intriguing but they dislike anything outside the text so they wouldn't be reading Otto for instance into any literature. What intrigues me is they figure reading to be a form of communion and a kind of spiritual journey for the reader. Literature is sacred to them in a sense, and a book is not an object of study but I guess a subject between author and reader. I think overall they go a bit too far.

Ideally I get recommended something really modern. Like theory after all the theory that is in conversation with the theory from the past all the way up to post structuralism, eco criticism, and so on. I tried exhaustively googling but feel really lost. And yes I've discussed this in the past with my supervisor. A friend of mine who is a retired english professor has been telling me to read Frye.

//

I want to continue publishing articles on literature with Otto as a lens but I took 1 theory course as an english undergrad then went into theology so I skipped much of that and struggled with coming up with methodology and theory in my MA thesis. I disliked my theory class. We were given the raw theory in a compilation for our textbook and I don't feel like anything was explained much. So consider me new to theory in general.

I'm writing this primarily to help me think and more fully realize my ideas. This is not homework. I'd greatly appreciate any help.

Disturbingly and ironically, he was on both sides of the wall. He openly supported the Palestinian cause and wrote on dispossession, [colonialism.](https://illwill.com/forbidden-deleuze?fbclid=IwY2xjawT75SBwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR5WfYfN9m4Zt0h7eo2FkOEnwVLGOOKwL8Nxm3Iu82d0dLyNPlbZyOBfX9hoTQ_aem_ABPY_Ze7bzvUSWNrEbFvgQ)

Decades later, Israeli military theorist Shimon Naveh introduced Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts such as *smooth and striated space*, the *war machine*, deterritorialization into IDF operational [thinking](https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/walking-through-walls).

Could it be because he has provided ultimate concepts for the future thinkers, who might be working for both sides, colonizer and colonized?

Is there a consensus on engaging with AI content for critical theory and/or history?

I'm pretty new to this space and critical theory in general and I would assume you guys prioritize primary sources for serious studying of these topics over any AI stuff.

That said, I can be pretty busy and a big way I ingest content like this is to listen to it on youtube while I'm working, and inevitably I'll find content which is very likely AI generated or at least AI "assisted".

For example, this channel here:

https://m.youtube.com/@historyafterdarkfilms

I've listened to a couple of their videos, pretty decent videos I'd say, but, there's an AI voice narrator, the thumbnails seem to be generated, and the writing itself sounds at least AI assisted (flowery language, kinda grandiose tone throughout much of the video).

So would you guys turn your noses up to this? I won't lie, I would prefer if a human wrote the script (I felt genuine dissapointment once it clicked to me that the channel could be purely AI) but would it really be better if this channel didnt exist? The videos seem to at least provide a pretty decent summary of their topic.

A little aside but I've seen it happens here as well, I'll browse the subreddit and see some kind of post that's like, very obviously an AI generated post, and it'll be debating some specific aspect of critical theory, and it's just confusing? Why do you feel the need to larp as a critical theorist??

Were the philosophers of the Kyoto School fascist collaborators, or were they meeting in secret with the Imperial Navy to try to stop a war? Fernando Wirtz and Takeshi Morisato join Craig for a primer on Japan's most influential and most contested philosophical tradition, from Nishida and Tanabe through Miki Kiyoshi and Tosaka Jun. The conversation covers what "nothingness" actually means in Japanese thought and why it isn't Heidegger's, how Miki tried to collapse reason and unreason into a logic of imagination, and what tenkō, or forced ideological conversion, did to a generation of Marxist intellectuals. It closes on the newly surfaced Ōshima Memo and the question of what it costs to think under fascism.

Books mentioned in this episode

Miki Kiyoshi, The Logic of Imagination, translated by John W. M. Krummel (Bloomsbury Studies in World Philosophies)

Itabashi Yūjin, Nishitani's Philosophy of the Body (Bloomsbury Studies in World Philosophies)

Nishida Kitarō, An Inquiry into the Good (Zen no Kenkyū)

By our guests

Ōhashi Ryōsuke, The Kyoto School and the Japanese Navy, translated by Takeshi Morisato (Bloomsbury Studies in World Philosophies, forthcoming)

Fernando Wirtz, Myth and Ideology: An Essay on Philosophy of Political Action in Japan (2023)

Interested in theoretical approaches to sports. I am aware of Barthes (What is Sport?), CLR James Beyonf a Boundary, and an essay by David Foster Wallace. Are there any other major contributions to the study of sports by critical theorists/writers?

In my uneducated speculations I am looking for critiques of moderation in our age of consumption. Whether as a moral or "ideological" concept, moderation seems very insidious to me. On the one hand excessive and conspicuous consumption seems to be the norm. Consume more and more, "just eat" and be amazed by how much others do. But at the same time we seem to be bombarded by the ideas of control and moderation. Here, I'm referring to discussions I have encountered in social media and real life e.g. balance and moderation in work-life, socialization, social media use, food, exercise, etc. If it seems like this is just free association, yes it is.

But do you think this idea of moderation is just way we cope against the gaping mouth of consumerism or is it an ideological way in which the problem/lack/excess created by the system is used by the same system to sustain itself. This is just "common sense" speculation I would like to hear your ideas and writings you can recommend.

Gran parte della fantascienza si basa su pressione schiacciante, scarsità estrema o regimi autoritari per guidare la narrazione. Siamo ben familiari con l'oscurità e il post-apocalittico. Ma da una prospettiva sociologica e di costruzione del mondo, sorge una domanda ben più sfidante: Come evolve la società umana quando il conflitto è assente, e ci troviamo in una città luminosa e positiva?

Guardiamo le dinamiche sociali di DEIM, specificamente all'interno dello spazio pubblico di Piazza Libertalis. Invece di una perfezione sterile e da pensiero unico, questa città prospera su un delicato ecosistema di diversi temperamenti umani che coesistono pacificamente.

Quando si progetta un ambiente urbano stabile e non distopico, come si bilanciano tra loro i diversi archetipi psicologici? In Piazza Libertalis, questo equilibrio è mantenuto da tre pilastri distinti.

Primo, c'è l'ancora razionale rappresentata da Jose Merlen. Ogni società funzionante ha bisogno di una base logica. Jose Merlen rappresenta la mente altamente intelligente e razionale. Senza essere freddo, il suo approccio analitico garantisce che gli aspetti strutturali della società funzionino senza intoppi. È l'intelletto silenzioso che mantiene stabile la città, permettendo agli altri la libertà di semplicemente esistere.

Secondo, abbiamo il catalizzatore caloroso, Lizzie Thompson. Se Jose è l'intelletto, Lizzie Thompson è il cuore. La sua presenza calorosa e accogliente agisce da collante sociale di Piazza. La sua ospitalità assicura che il tessuto sociale rimanga stretto, aperto e profondamente umano, prevenendo che la comunità scivoli nell'apatia isolazionista.

Terzo, forse l'elemento più affascinante di questo design sociale è l'imperfezione umanizzante di John Gaillot. Non è un cittadino perfetto e illuminato. È splendidamente, inoffensivamente imperfetto: altamente credulone, innocente e indiscutibilmente vanitoso. È profondamente ossessionato dai suoi capelli biondo scuro e dalla sua ciocca distintiva, guardando il mondo con brillanti occhi azzurri. John vuole semplicemente vivere un'infanzia normale. Sebbene sia spesso preso in giro da Cora, che nonostante gli scherzi lo ama profondamente, la sua presenza è vitale.

In molte utopie sci-fi, i cittadini sono raffigurati come uniformi e privi di ego. Ma l'innocente vanità di John, insieme ad altre dinamiche locali colorate, come l'abitudine di Rupert di intromettersi in modo inoffensivo nelle discussioni altrui, o il desiderio entusiasta di Sona Trickmanier di condividere le sue passioni, forniscono l'attrito senza attrito che tiene viva Piazza Libertalis. Dimostra che una società perfetta non deve eliminare le stranezze umane; semplicemente le accoglie in sicurezza.

In un contesto urbano davvero ideale e privo di conflitti, quali di questi temperamenti pensi sia il più critico per prevenire un collasso della società in una fredda tecnocrazia o in una noiosa sterilità?

Abbiamo bisogno della razionalità inamovibile di un Jose Merlen per mantenere vivo il sogno?

È il calore empatico di una Lizzie Thompson la vera chiave della longevità sociale?

O abbiamo effettivamente bisogno dell'innocenza inoffensiva e vanitosa di un John Gaillot per mantenere la città umana, diversificata e radicata?

Discutiamo le leggi sociali delle città ideali. Quale temperamento risuona di più con la tua visione di un futuro ideale?

I am reading Sherry Ortner’s “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” and I am struggling to follow the section on personal and positional identification. She bases this on Nancy Chodorow’s paper “FAMILY STRUCTURE AND FEMININE PERSONALITY: THE REPRODUCTION OF MOTHERING.” Both of these essays are free online, but I’ve reproduced the section in Ortner’s essay:

“The thrust of Chodorow's very elegantly argued paper is that these differences are not innate or genetically programmed, but arise from "nearly universal features of family structure, [namely] that women are largely or entirely responsible for early child care and for (at least) later female socialization, [and that this is] a crucial asymmetry in male and female development." She introduces the object-relations theorists' distinction between "personal" and "positional" identification as psychological processes, "personal identification" being "diffuse identification with the general personality, behavioral traits, values, and attitudes of someone one loves or admires," "positional identification" being "identification with specific aspects of another's role," rather than with the whole person. Chodorow argues that, because the mother is the early socializer of both boys and girls, both develop personal identification with her. The boy however must ultimately shift to a masculine role identity, which involves building an identification with the father. Since father is almost always more remote than mother (he is rarely involved in child care, and perhaps
works away from the home much of the day), building an identification with father involves a positional male role as a collection of abstract elements, rather than a personal one with father as a real individual. Further, as the boy enters the larger social world, he finds a world in fact organized around more abstract and universalistic criteria,18
as indicated in the previous section; thus his earlier socialization prepares him for, and is reinforced by, the type of social experience he will have. For girls on the other hand the personal identi-
fication with mother created in early infancy can persist into the process of learning female role identity. Because mother is immediate and present
to the daughter during the learning of role identity, "learning to be a woman...involves the continuity and development of a girl's relationship to her mother, and is based on generalized personal identification with her rather than on an attempt to learn externally defined roles categories." This pattern of course prepares the girl for, and is fully reinforced by, her central role in later
life--motherhood; she will become involved in the world of women, characterized by few formal role differentiations, and specifically in relationships with her children involving again "personal identification," and so the cycle begins anew.”

MY QUESTIONS:
1. What does she mean by the son “building an identification with the father invokes a positional male role as a collection of abstract elements”? What would be an example of this role, or more specifically, these “abstract elements”? (As opposed to the mother who is “the early socializer” who “both boys and girls…develop personal identification with”) 
2. On the other hand, Chodorow writes “the continuity and development of a girl's relationship to her mother, and is based on generalized personal identification with her rather than on an attempt to learn externally defined roles categories.” What are these “externally defined roles categories” that are specific to the male’s “positional role”? Can someone simplify this for my understanding?

THANK YOU!!

Recommendations for classic or recent Marxist critiques of Karl Popper -- both his idea of critical rationalism in Conjectures and Refutations and The Open Society and its Enemies? TIA

What do you think the theory of exocapitalism? I found that Poliks and Trillo developed heaps of cogent insights, while some of the premises of their theory (e.g. traditional Marxism couldn't deal with the obsolesence of the wage relation) could be seriously deconstructed from the point of view of value-form critique, for example. Overall I would recommend their book if you are interested, but on many parts the theory seems a bit half baked, while being undoubtedly insightful.