Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)

Bob Casanova (
Wed, 11 Jan 1995 19:23:48 GMT

In article <> (Todd Michel McComb) writes:
>From: (Todd Michel McComb)
>Subject: Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)
>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 19:08:29 GMT


>I will attempt to rephrase.

>Incarceration is determined by the standards of the dominant culture.

This seems obvious. Who else would do so?

>Whether or not (all of) the behavior in question would be tolerated by
>"any rational society" and whether or not incarceration rates are
>affected by one's position with regard to the dominant culture (both
>debatable), the incarceration itself contributes to feelings of
>powerlessness and actually interacts in a complex way with the dynamics
>of that sub-culture.

Assuming "not" to both the preconditions, what difference does it make if
admittedly asocial individuals are disempowered? Since they have rejected the
mores of the culture, they have no valid claim to special treatment.

>As such, using these rates as an "objective" standard is, in fact, not
>objective at all -- except in the sense that those in jail would
>presumably prefer not to be there (but prefer against *what*?).
>Pretending/believing in this objectivity adds to the resentment already

If the rules of the culture are enforced nonselectively, the varying rates
_are_ objective evidence (of something). Merely claiming that the fact that
the rates vary among different groups is evidence of selective enforcement
doesn't make it so.

>I butted in only to speak about objectivity. I cannot say anything
>about racism, and I'll go on to say that in this day and age, I don't
>even know what "racism" is any more.

I think the definition varies with the agenda...

>Your statements about finding causes rather than blame sound
>reasonable, though this often leads merely to attempts to make members
>of a sub-culture more like those of the dominant culture -- the
>intentions of the original proponents aside. That's simple

But isn't the rationale of the US as a "melting pot" that everyone will adjust
to the "dominant culture" (i.e., religious and secular freedom, equality of
opportunity, self-reliance, etc. as ideals)? Cultural balkanization in the
name of some nebulous "diversity" would seem to have no advantage for anyone.

>I hope this is more clear; my little boy interrupted me about a
>hundred times while I was trying to write it.

Yes, and thanks.

>T. M. McComb WWW

Bob C.
<<< Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) >>>
What the net needs is a good bus arbiter