I am in the process of forming my Doctoral committee.

Original I was going to study inner-city economic development. I rejected that idea and instead am hoping to study more foundational issues to social organization and power.

What I have decided to study is how groups, specifically blacks, can achieve a legitimate voice in public space and therefore achieve power in a postmodern environment.

Postmodernism in general holds to the position that individuals are decentralized, there is no overarching morality and belief system that stands as a general truth for society, and that there we are now in a highly plural and highly diverse society (this I argue is do to the internet and technology) where every niche group can be self-legitimated and have space. Many postmodern theorist have argued that corporatism is now the only dominant narrative left and that this is being exported through globalism. I have argued that white supremacy still stands over corporatism as the dominant narrative.

What I am going to research is how minority groups, specifically black folks form identities in a postmodern world when by the very nature postmodernism destroys narratives that we hold to be true and common amongst us.

Once I better understand the minority in the face of postmodernism, I want to move to developing an understanding of how to use the distinct characteristics of postmodernism and define strategies for crafting group harmony (if possible) and getting a legitimate voice in public space that moves public policy and politics to empower us.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:
I am in the process of forming my Doctoral committee.

Congratulations!

quote:

What I have decided to study is how groups, specifically blacks, can achieve a legitimate voice in public space and therefore achieve power in a postmodern environment.

My $.02 - we march forth by implicitly understanding the rules of the game and by learning to play the game to our advantage - beating 'the man' at his own game.

quote:

Many postmodern theorist have argued that corporatism is now the only dominant narrative left and that this is being exported through globalism.

Not sure of the particular nuance of the argument here, but I believe globalism is but a tool of corporatism. It is a means to arbitrage labor and other costs to maximize profit.

quote:

I have argued that white supremacy still stands over corporatism as the dominant narrative.

Not sure about this - I am coming to the view that even white supremacy serves corporatism. Think about it - rich white folks exploit anyone and anything in their quest for profit: even other white folks. Since the majority of folks out there are not white - white supremacy becomes a central strategy both to execute over-riding profit driven objectives but also to maintain the status quo throughout the white community. White supremacy is a tonic to keep poor white folks "in place" (i.e. medicated) as well.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MBM,

Not sure of the particular nuance of the argument here, but I believe globalism is but a tool of corporatism. It is a means to arbitrage labor and other costs to maximize profit.---MBM

I believe 'white' privilege', 'white' supremacy, is implicit to corporatism.

Oh, CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Identity, and its related issues, always gets my attention

What I have decided to study is how groups, specifically blacks, can achieve a legitimate voice in public space and therefore achieve power in a postmodern environment.---urbansun

What I am going to research is how minority groups, specifically black folks form identities in a postmodern world when by the very nature postmodernism destroys narratives that we hold to be true and common amongst us.---urbansun

I would submit that 'black folks' have not formed an identity in today's world...,postmodern or otherwise.

I see this as being a 'nut' in your thesis that will become key to the dissertation, and should be approached thoroughly, or not at all.

Admittedly, I have zero experience with the doctoral process.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Just some quick observations, in no particular order:
What is your working definition of power; i.e. what for you is the nature of power, and how does it work?

Also, in your analysis of issues of identity, are you going to deal with postmodern notions of the self, the subject, and agency.

I would think that both of these issues would be essential to any 'strategies' you might posit. That is why I mentioned Foucault in an earlier post to you. He and social theorists such as Bourdieu or Certeau seriously challenge the viability various forms of social transformation.

MBM - OC McSwite argues that cultural hegemony is the only 'grand narrative' (that is po mo language) left. In my counter argument, I argue that all policy is created to serve individuals it does not arise in an of itself and it is not real other than the humanity that creates its realness (believing it is real external to humans is a term called reification). Therefore if this reality is constructed by humans, it has to benefit humans, therefore you have to trace back to whom the globalistic hegemonious policy is benefitting the most. Whites.

Even historically, white supremacy wasn't beneficial to all whites, look at Jerry Springer, Appalachian valley, etc. and all white supremacy wasn't bad for all blacks. In post modern language, white supremacy was simply the grand narrative that implicit or explicitly was an acceptable end (in ends versus means perspectives). So I am working off the idea that corporatism and globalism, works to perpetuate white supremacy, which has as its end the reinforcing of a broad value born out and reinforcing white power.

So essentially, my approach is how do we in spite of of post modernisms debilitating effects, create an identity sufficient for coping with and / or overcoming white power as a grand narrative.

This not be explicit in my dissertation but it will be the ultimate result, because you all that know me know I don't study for study sake, I study to actually use it on the street.

Kresge, my only hesitation with using Foucault and the others are that they are still coming from the eurocentric position. This does not mean that they don't have some key ideas that I will explore, and I recognize that even the describers who label this as post modern are eurocentric in their thoughts, my aim is to really explore it from the minority perspective.

In regard to power, I will probably have to turn to another Frenchy, Lyotard, and focus on language and language games, and having a legitimate public voice as a basis for power. Probably some Richard Rorty as well.

However I plan to include many concepts derived from pan-africanist and diverse scholars that fall outside of the mainstream as well and in the process hope to develop unique working concepts of my own that stand apart from them all.

My target I think is going to be gangs, and since it is going to be qualitative as opposed to quantitative I think I will be spending alot of time with gang members.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

So I am working off the idea that corporatism and globalism, works to perpetuate white supremacy, which has as its end the reinforcing of a broad value born out and reinforcing white power.

My only point is that the ultimate governing principle is not white supremacy, it is greed and corporatism. Again, think about it, white supremacy supports all white folks - to varying degrees across all aspects of the social strata. Corporatism, on the other hand, really only feeds those few rich/elite white folks who hold the real power. In other words, corporatism screws a whole lot of white folks just like black and brown and yellow etc. Corporatism, frankly, is an equal opportunity exploiter. It don't care who you are - it rolls over and through you to get what it wants.

See what I'm saying?

P.S. Man's greed is a much stronger motivator than the desire to perpetuate their race. It is the overwhelming quest for profit - and the damage that that has created around the world - that has defined humanity for thousands of years.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

My target I think is going to be gangs, and since it is going to be qualitative as opposed to quantitative I think I will be spending alot of time with gang members.

Why target gangs?

That is also McSwites argument, and that is why he argues that corporatism actually wants diversity because it creates more markets to sell too. So I understand your argument and McSwites, but I don't think it is consistent with whites and white supremacy.

We talk about racism becoming more insidious, why is that? Why do you think it has become more insidious while at the same time corporatism, and consumption / production based identities has increased?

White Supremacy was present and dominant in traditionalism which preceded modernism, it was present and dominant in modernism which preceded traditionalism, and I would argue that it is present and dominant in post modernism as I have seen no evidence that it has has relinquished that hold.

It was dominant in traditionalism in that the clergy men supported the use of religion, the dominant narrative of the day, to define whites as superior. It was used in modernism through science to justify white conceptions of superior through industrialism and technological growth and therefore their position of global dominance, and in my opinion it is dominant in corporatism by defining consumers with the most as the best, which is whites, and therefore reinforcing whites from a different aspect. Religious, science, consumption / production, all utilized to reinforce white supremacy from a different angle.

When you say it 'rolls' over, you are guilty of reifying it as if it exist as something in and of itself and not human created and maintain. Again, if it is human created and maintained, then it serves the purpose of some humans, whom would they be? Whites.

Corporatism is reflected in the shareholder value based system where shareholders value is increased through performance. Corporate shareholder increases through the continued increase in profits. The majority of shareholders in America are white, therefore corporatism benefits whites to a much greater extent than anyother group. Also this would indicated that the increased globalization of the world also benefits whites to a much greater degree. Since the heads of most corporations are white, those who retain stock are overwhelmingly white, and those who can consume at a much greater rate are white, then what we are seeing is a new corporatist imperialism run by whites. It is at conflict however with China and others who are using the chinks in the armor to gain global traction.

So the question would have to be when did white supremacy cease to be dominant in light of its dominance against other epochs over the last 500 years, and who and what forced it to give up its seemingly intractable dominance?

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

My target I think is going to be gangs, and since it is going to be qualitative as opposed to quantitative I think I will be spending alot of time with gang members.

Why target gangs?

Because if you eliminate the negative consequences of their behavior they have actually moreso than any institution managed to create an acceptable 'narrative' that binds them together and guides uniform behavior moreso than any other black institution, the church included.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:
Kresge, my only hesitation with using Foucault and the others are that they are still coming from the eurocentric position. This does not mean that they don't have some key ideas that I will explore, and I recognize that even the describers who label this as post modern are eurocentric in their thoughts, my aim is to really explore it from the minority perspective.

In regard to power, I will probably have to turn to another Frenchy, Lyotard, and focus on language and language games, and having a legitimate public voice as a basis for power. Probably some Richard Rorty as well.

However I plan to include many concepts derived from pan-africanist and diverse scholars that fall outside of the mainstream as well and in the process hope to develop unique working concepts of my own that stand apart from them all.

My target I think is going to be gangs, and since it is going to be qualitative as opposed to quantitative I think I will be spending alot of time with gang members.

There is the nigh perennial question with respect to sources of information and the extent to which it is significant. It is for this reason that I am methodologically a functionalist and deconstructionist. In this instance, I would characterize Foucault, Bourdieu, Certeau, Baudrillard, Derrida, etc. as European thinkers, but not necessarily Eurocentric. To the extent that one engages "theory", the charge might be leveled that one is eurocentric as well. What I look for is a level of self-reflexivity/self-critique within a particular perspective, but ultimately, it will come down to how compelling an line of argumentation is and its explanatory 'force.'

I also like Foucault and Certeau in particular, because their focus is on minority discourses and how they relate to the dominant systems of power/knowledge.

This is not to say that their thought should not be refined. Edward Said has definitely expanded some of the insights of Foucault. Some one like Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has had an extensive running dialog with the work of Derrida. This is true of most of the post-colonial thinkers that I know.

I also mentioned Paul Gilroy [Afro-British] and his seminal text The Black Atlantic where he takes Jurgen Habermas for his characterization of modernity, and yet he effectively uses ideas and concepts from Foucault and Deleuze. There are also a number of very interesting Afro-Caribbean scholars such as Paget Henry and Lewis Gordon.

If you are doing Rorty, there are also a lot of Black neo-pragmatists, not just Cornel West, but Eddie Glaude who MBM had on his show earlier this year, and Victor Anderson.

Definitely keep us abreast of how your project is going. I would also be interested in the names of other theorist that you might be pulling from.

Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

My target I think is going to be gangs, and since it is going to be qualitative as opposed to quantitative I think I will be spending alot of time with gang members.

Why target gangs?

Because if you eliminate the negative consequences of their behavior they have actually moreso than any institution managed to create an acceptable 'narrative' that binds them together and guides uniform behavior moreso than any other black institution, the church included.

This is good stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

We talk about racism becoming more insidious, why is that? Why do you think it has become more insidious while at the same time corporatism, and consumption / production based identities has increased?

I believe corporatism and racism are inversely proportional and here's why.

quote:

White Supremacy was present and dominant in traditionalism which preceded modernism, it was present and dominant in modernism which preceded traditionalism, and I would argue that it is present and dominant in post modernism as I have seen no evidence that it has has relinquished that hold.

Nowhere have I suggested that white supremacy is in any way waning. See above . . .

quote:

Religious, science, consumption / production, all utilized to reinforce white supremacy from a different angle.

All of those things have been used as tools to support economic interests.

quote:

So the question would have to be when did white supremacy cease to be dominant in light of its dominance against other epochs over the last 500 years, and who and what forced it to give up its seemingly intractable dominance?

US - the really rich and powerful don't have to worry about white supremacy. They have economic security so they could give a hoot about niggers or anyone else. TO them - it's all about the Benjamins - screw anyone else who might suffer as a result.

Read the link above for perspective.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MBM,

interesting discussion ...

Maybe MBM...

But economic interest can often be juxtaposed with power interest. Second tier is the reinforcement of identity that is necessary to retain a hegemony to retain power. This identity has and still is white superiority in all things 'relevant'. This identity trickles down from the rich to the poor and is in many respectives unrelated to economic power, but the perception of power reinforces it. None of these are as clear as we tend to make them, they are all flexible and shifting but retaining a general sense of identity.

I argue the exact opposite of what you are to some degree. To me economics is a tool to acquire and retain power and not the opposite. The final denominator in corporatism is not increased economic gain, that is just a tool to acquire power. Which is why I revert to my previous argument that in every epoch the grand dominant narratives of those systems were used to retain power by whites religion, science, now corporatism. This system is no different.

We can look at opinion polls in reflection on issues between blacks and whites and see still a tremendous gap, which I would argue is a further reflection of racism. Because of corporatism and its desire for diversity to support the market it has become less overt but still in existence. It is still in existence because of the tension filled partnership necessary in corporatism where white supremacy retains the dominant narrative, but diversity supports the system.

Power precedes economics. White power precedes corporatism. Economics doesn't exist to serve itself, it exist to serve someone. That someone is whites. Hence white power as the hegemonic policy of corporatism.

of course we may always disagree.

Two point of contention I have with your other post. The first is that American poverty is contextual. The poor in America still have much more than the poor in other countries. Corporatism ultimately to continue to exist in America will ultimately have to have a base line of poverty that it can't tolerate folks to go past. Poor people can't spend money.

quote:

Corporatism is reflected in the shareholder value based system where shareholders value is increased through performance. Corporate shareholder increases through the continued increase in profits. The majority of shareholders in America are white, therefore corporatism benefits whites to a much greater extent than anyother group. Also this would indicated that the increased globalization of the world also benefits whites to a much greater degree. Since the heads of most corporations are white, those who retain stock are overwhelmingly white, and those who can consume at a much greater rate are white, then what we are seeing is a new corporatist imperialism run by whites. It is at conflict however with China and others who are using the chinks in the armor to gain global traction.

When I read this again I was like, DAMN, I sound like Oshun!

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

But economic interest can often be juxtaposed with power interest.

Absolutely - the two are intertwined - sometimes, like in this country now, almost seamlessly. But - at the end of the day - Bush, for example, is a political leader but is operating out of economic imperative. It's money that is driving his political agenda.

quote:

Second tier is the reinforcement of identity that is necessary to retain a hegemony to retain power. This identity has and still is white superiority in all things 'relevant'. This identity trickles down from the rich to the poor and is in many respectives unrelated to economic power, but the perception of power reinforces it. None of these are as clear as we tend to make them, they are all flexible and shifting but retaining a general sense of identity.

In their quest for profit, the ruling white elite will do just about anything. Money trumps ideology every day of the week. This says it all.

quote:

To me economics is a tool to acquire and retain power and not the opposite. The final denominator in corporatism is not increased economic gain, that is just a tool to acquire power.

But what do you think power is? At the end of the day, the person with the deepest pockets can buy his way into or out of anything. America's "power" is completely a function of its economic standing.

From a historical perspective, it is greed and the quest to dominate new markets that drove exploration and colonialism etc. It wasn't about converting people to Christianity or whatever - that was the marketing spin. It was all about conquering new markets to satisfy personal and national avarice.

quote:

We can look at opinion polls in reflection on issues between blacks and whites and see still a tremendous gap, which I would argue is a further reflection of racism. Because of corporatism and its desire for diversity to support the market it has become less overt but still in existence. It is still in existence because of the tension filled partnership necessary in corporatism where white supremacy retains the dominant narrative, but diversity supports the system.

I would suggest that racism still exists because there is an economic reason for it to exist. As I wrote in the commentary, racism is a palliative to fundamental class conflict in this country. It serves the elite's economic interests for the masses of white folks and black folks to be in conflict with each other so as to not focus collectively on the true source of their angst.

quote:

Power precedes economics. White power precedes corporatism.

Think about what you are saying. How could white supremacy overcome the real power that comes with economic dominance? Do you think white power can stop China from becoming a global behemoth - from knocking the US off its pedestal? Ain't going to happen.

quote:

Economics doesn't exist to serve itself, it exist to serve someone. That someone is whites. Hence white power as the hegemonic policy of corporatism.

No - color or ethnicity isn't what's driving that equation - class is. The ruling elites who have the money, also have the power. That's not an accident.

Again, they could care less about the poor and working class of their own race. It's money that drives them.

quote:

The first is that American poverty is contextual. The poor in America still have much more than the poor in other countries. Corporatism ultimately to continue to exist in America will ultimately have to have a base line of poverty that it can't tolerate folks to go past. Poor people can't spend money.

That American poverty is contextual has no bearing on this argument. If what you suggest is true, then outsourcing wouldn't occur because companies would want to employ people here so as to support/stimulate domestic consumption. Ain't happening. Companies have outsourced millions of jobs to maximize profit. Screw the American worker.

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

quote:

Corporatism is reflected in the shareholder value based system where shareholders value is increased through performance. Corporate shareholder increases through the continued increase in profits. The majority of shareholders in America are white, therefore corporatism benefits whites to a much greater extent than anyother group. Also this would indicated that the increased globalization of the world also benefits whites to a much greater degree. Since the heads of most corporations are white, those who retain stock are overwhelmingly white, and those who can consume at a much greater rate are white, then what we are seeing is a new corporatist imperialism run by whites. It is at conflict however with China and others who are using the chinks in the armor to gain global traction.

When I read this again I was like, DAMN, I sound like Oshun!

I'll take that as a compliment...

This was an interesting read...

I particularly like this...

quote:

Why target gangs?

-------------------------------------------

Because if you eliminate the negative consequences of their behavior they have actually moreso than any institution managed to create an acceptable 'narrative' that binds them together and guides uniform behavior moreso than any other black institution, the church included.

They definitely are the most organized... but with the wrong ideology.

BTW, this makes you sound like Kwame Ture(Stokely Carmichael)