Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)
Todd Michel McComb (mccombtm@netcom.com)
Tue, 10 Jan 1995 06:33:43 GMT
In article <3esq0iINN80v@hpsdlmf7.sdd.hp.com> Gerold Firl writes:
>I'm puzzled as to how this implication was transmitted. I was noting that
>afro-american culture has been comparitively unsuccessful at socialising
>its members in such a way as to avoid incarceration. Most people agree that
>the slammer is no fun; I don't think I'm being particularly ethnocentric by
>using criminality as a measure of social disfunction. Do you disagree?
Ok, this is a good example. You are acting as though "the slammer" is
an objective position, as though it were not socially constructed in
the first place. This is exactly the sort of thing which *adds* to
resentment of a dominant culture (the fact that it can enforce itself)
when one is resentful of it in the first place. It only adds to the
feeling of oppression. By using "socialising" in this way, you are
implying that the dominant culture is *right* and that others should
toe the line -- or a position equivalent to this, however you choose to
frame it.
Of course, this is the practical point of view.
>Again, I find that a curious perspective, since I am quite dissatisfied
>with many aspects of my own culture. I don't even think my own culture
>should be like mine; why would I say that someones elses should?
I do not doubt your good intentions. I, however, doubt that the way
you frame these issues will have the intended effect.
I might add that I think you will learn something if you ask yourself
what beliefs you have that you are unwilling to doubt. It is
impossible not to have core beliefs, but analysis of this type benefits
tremendously if these beliefs are more thoroughly examined as to their
natures.
I hope this helps clarify; enough pseudo-psychoanalysis.
T. M. McComb WWW ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mc/mccombtm/home.html
|