#critical constructivist

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: James Lindsay

Published: May 14, 2024

There's a right name for the "Woke" ideology, and it's critical constructivism. Critical constructivist ideology is what you "wake up" to when you go Woke. Reading this book, which originally codified it in 2005, is like reading a confession of Woke ideology. Let's talk about it.

The guy whose name is on the cover of that book is credited with codifying critical constructivism, or as it would be better to call it, critical constructivist ideology (or ideologies). His name is Joe Kincheloe, he was at Magill University, and he was a critical pedagogue. 

Just to remind you, critical pedagogy is a form of brainwashing posing as education that is the application of critical theory to educational theory and praxis as well as teaching and practice of critical theories in schools. It comes from Paulo Freire.

It's not the right thread to outline Paulo Freire or critical pedagogy, but the short summary is that critical pedagogy was developed from Freire's method of "education," which is to use educational materials as a "mediator to political knowledge," i.e., excuse to brainwash. 

The point of critical pedagogy is to use education as a means not to educated but to raise a critical consciousness in students instead. That is, its purpose is to make them "Woke." What does that entail, though? It means becoming a critical constructivist, as Kincheloe details. 

Note what we've already said, though. Yes, Marcuse. Yes, intersectionality. Yes, CRT and Queer Theory et cetera. Yes, yes, yes. That's Woke, BUT Woke was born and bred in education schools. I first recognized this right after we published Cynical Theories in 2020. 

Critical pedagogy, following people like Henry Giroux and Joe Kincheloe, forged together the religious liberationist Marxism of Freire, literally a Liberation Theologian, with the "European theorists," including both Critical Marxists like Marcuse and postmodernists like Foucault 

In other words, when @jordanbpeterson identified what we now call "Woke" as "postmodern neo-Marxism," he was exactly right. It was neo-Marxist critique that had taken a postmodern turn away from realism and reality. The right name for that is "critical constructivism." 

Critical constructivism contains (or synthesizes) two disparate parts: "critical," which refers to Critical Theory (that is, neo-Marxism or Critical Marxism), and "constructivism," which refers to the constructivist thinking at the heart of postmodernism and poststructuralism. 

Critical Theory we all already generally understand at this point. The idea is pretty simple: ruthless criticism of everything that exists; calling everything you want to control "oppression" until you control it; finding a new proletariat in "ghetto populations"; blah blah blah. 

More accurately, Critical Theory means believing the world and the people in it are contoured by systems of social, cultural, and economic power that are effectively inescapable and all serve to reproduce the "existing society" (status quo) and its capitalist engine. 

Critical Theory is not concerned with the operation of the world, "epistemic adequacy" (knowing what you're talking about), or anything else. They're interested in how systemic power shapes and contours all things and how they're experienced and gives (neo)-Marxist critique. 

Constructivism is a bit less familiar for two reasons: 1) We've done a lot of explaining and criticizing Critical Theory already, so people are catching on, and 2) It's a downright alien intellectual landscape that is almost impossible to believe anyone actually believes. 

You're already very familiar with the language of constructivism: "X is a social construct." Constructivism fundamentally believes that *the world* is socially constructed. That's a profound claim. So are *people* as part of the world. That's another profound claim. So is power. 

I need you to stop thinking you get it and listen now because you're probably already rejecting the idea that anyone can be a constructivist who believes the world is itself socially constructed. That's because you're fundamentally a realist, but they are not realists at all. 

Constructivists believe, as Kincheloe says explicitly, that *nothing exists before perception*. That means some objective, shared reality doesn't exist to constructivists. There is no reality except the perception of reality, and the perception of reality is constructed by power. 

I need you to stop again because you probably reject getting it again. They really believe this. There is no reality except perceived reality. Reality is perceived according to one's social and political position with respect to prevailing dominant power. Do you understand? 

Constructivism rejects the idea of an objective shared reality that we can observe and draw consistent conclusions about. Conclusions are the result of perceptions and interpretations, which are colored and shaped by dominant power, mostly in getting people to accept that power. 

In place of an objective shared reality we can draw conclusions about, we all inhabit our own "lived realities" that are shaped by power dynamics that primarily play out on the group level, hence the need for "social justice" to make power equitable among and across groups. 

Because (critical) constructivist ideologies believe themselves the only way to truly study the effects of systemic dominant power, they have a monopoly on knowing how it works, who benefits, and who suffers oppression because of it. Their interpretation is the only game in town. 

All interpretations that disagree with critical constructivism do so for one or more bad reasons: not knowing the value of critical constructivism, being motivated to protect one's power on one or more levels, prejudice and hate, having bought the dominant ideology's terms, etc. 

Critical constructivism is particularly hostile to "Western" science, favoring what it calls "subjugated knowledges." This should all feel very familiar right now, and it's worth noting that Kincheloe is largely credited with starting the idea of "decolonizing" knowledge. 

Kincheloe, in his own words, explains that critical constructivism is a weltanshuuang, that is, a worldview, based on a "critical hermeneutical" understanding of experienced reality. This means it intends to interpret *everything* through critical constructivism. 

In other words, critical constructivism is a hermetically sealed ideological worldview (a cult worldview) that claims a monopoly on interpretation of the world by virtue of its capacity to call anything that challenges it an unjust application of self-serving dominant power. 

When you are "Woke," you are a critical constructivist, or at least suffer ideological contamination by critical constructivism, whether you know it or not. You believe important aspects of the world are socially (politically) constructed, that power is the main variable, etc. 

More importantly, you believe that perception (of unjust power) combined with (that) interpretation of reality is a more faithful description of reality than empirical fact or logical consistency, which are "reductionist" to critical constructivists. 

This wackadoodle (anti-realist) belief is a consequence of the good-ol' Hegelian/Marxist dialectic that critical constructivism imports wholesale. As Kincheloe explains, his worldview is better because it knows knowledge is both subjective and objective at the same time. 

He phrases it that all knowledge requires interpretation, and that means knowledge is constructed from the known (objective) and the knower (subjective) who knows it. It isn't "knowledge" at all until interpretation is added, and critical constructivist interpretation is best. 

Why is critical constructivist interpretation best? Here comes another standard Marxist trick: because it's the only one (self)-aware of the fact that "positionality" with respect to power matters, so it's allegedly the only one accounting for dominant power systems at all. 

We could go on and on about this, but you hopefully get the idea. Critical constructivism is the real name for "Woke." It's a cult-ideological view of the world that cannot be challenged from the outside, only concentrated from within, and it's what you "wake up" to when Woked. 

Critical constructivism is an insane, self-serving, hermetically sealed cult-ideological worldview and belief system, including a demand to put it into praxis (activism) to recreate the world for the possibility of a "liberation" it cannot describe, by definition. A disaster. 

There is a long, detailed academic history and pedigree to "Woke," though, so don't let people gaslight you into believing it's some right-wing boogeyman no one can even define. It's easily comprehensible despite being almost impossible to grok like an insider. 

People who become "Woke" (critical constructivists) are in a cult that is necessarily destructive. Why is it necessarily destructive? Because it rejects reality and attempts to understand reality that aren't based in the subjective interpretations of power it is built upon. 

Furthermore, its objective is to destroy the only thing it regards as being "real," which are the power dynamics it identifies so it can hate them and destroy them. Those are "socially real" because they are imposed by those with dominant power, who must be disempowered. Simple. 

To conclude, Woke is a real thing. It can be explained in great detail as exactly what its critics have been saying about it for years, and those details are all available in straightforward black and white from its creators, if you can just read them and believe them. 

[self-loving-vampire]

The thing about Julia Serano's criticisms of the gender constructivist model is that she is arguing with transphobes who are fundamentally dishonest about what their actual goals and motivations are and who embrace gender essentialism in practice while pretending to oppose it. They're gender abolitionists only in their own fantasies too.

They say "Gender is a construct so no one should transition, instead you must go to conversion therapy until you don't want to change your body anymore."

But instead I say "Gender is a construct. You can do whatever you want with your own body and also identify however you want. You don't need to follow a specific set of rules or a dress code. You don't need to have any kind of physical quality either but you can acquire whichever parts you want, mix and match as you please, and even switch them up when you feel like it."

[starlostlix]

Could the Moriarty plan/group be considered a religious organisation in sociology? And if so, which one?

[Here im putting a CW for mentions of cults and a short mention of su!cide as part of that too. As much as I'm looking at this from a perspective of defining them and not the experiences involved, it is important to consider the negative effects real cults have had on people when discussing them]

As i'm revising my sociology topics (this time it's beliefs in society) I am going back over the definitions of churches, denominations, sects and cults. This made me wonder if the Moriarty group we see in the series would fit any of these, being a group focused on social change with limited membership. My main focus was originally just matching them to a possible definition but the discussion of whether they could be considered religious felt important to add too.

First, defining religion, which is not very easy. There are 3 main views - substantive, functional and social constructivist.

The substantive view, proposed by Weber, is that religion is a belief in a superior/supernatural power that is above nature and can't be scientifically explained. This to me clearly does not include the Moriarty group.

The functional view is the idea that religion is defined by the social or psychological functions it performs for individuals and society, which includes many more groups. This could be said to include the Moriarty group, as its function serves as a way to moving to change society for the better, but it is hard to tell.

The constructivist view is that focuses on how members of society define religion for themselves, making religion a 'social construct' without universal definition. This theoretically includes the Moriarty group if they were to consider themselves a religious group (it is hard to tell if they do this, as they do hold some religious beliefs but don't necessarily say they are religious).

In my opinion it is hard to tell if the Moriarty group can be considered a religious group, but I will approach matching them to a definition under the guise that they were to be considered as such. By saying that they match a definition, this does not mean I am saying that they are definitely a religious group.

To get back to the types of groups, the first two definitions come from Troeltsch in 1912 with churches and sects. To put the obvious first, the Moriarty group does not really resemble a church - it is not large enough, it doesn't accept the norms of society, it requires much more commitment, and it doesn't have a centuries long history. They may make reference to some christian beliefs but this is not the main focus of their beliefs/plans, as far as we can tell.

However, the Moriarty group does somewhat resemble a religious sect. To Troeltsch, Sects are small voluntary groups with charismatic leaders who are critical of mainstream society with exceptional commitment, which matches up to the general ideas behind the formations of the Moriarty group. Where it gets harder to discern is that sects usually hold a monopoly on truth and can continue beyond the death of the leader (and may develop into a denomination). It's hard to say with the Moriarty brothers claim a monopoly on truth but it's not a far off idea, and the group could be said to continue after the death of William but with new ideas and a new purpose (although how much it resembles the original workings of the group is up for debate).

The next two definitions come from Niebuhr in 1929 with denominations and cults. A denomination doesn't really fit the Moriarty group either, as these are usually larger organisations that share most norms and values with the state. However they still share ideas of strong commitment.

The definition of cult is what intrigued me the most at first. According to Niebuhr, a cult is a small group with charismatic leadership, much like sects and the Moriarty group. Where they differ from sects is that they are more reclusive and withdrawn from society with their differing prevailing norms and values, which could match many members of the Moriarty group (like Louis in particular, and you could argue it matches characters like Moran who is, yknow, legally considered dead). The tea party chapter could be interpreted to show an element of reluctantness when engaging with others outside of their group. The main thing I focused on is how they often die with their leader, claim to be improving life and some can result in su!cide pacts (much like the ending of the Moriarty plan originally having most members give their lives for the cause). The major difference I can see is that sometimes cults can treat their followers as 'customers' or 'trainees' which doesn't quite match the way the Moriarty group works.

So, the two definitions that best match the Moriarty group out of these are sects and cults. The organisation has many elements of both of these types.

Of course, these are sociological definitions that may not apply to every single group out there, and may be not entirely accurate to modern day equivalents due to the age of the definitions. But since these definitions were credited not too far off from the setting of Moriarty the Patriot (which is 1879, so the definitions were published between 33 and 50 years later than the show is set) I feel this is how they may have been categorised at that point.

In terms of which of the two matches the group the best, I personally would say it is most like a sect. My main reason for this is the emphasis on sects being critical of mainstream society as opposed to having completely different values like cults do, but the topic can also be considered up to interpretation.

[This was an interesting little post for me to dump a bit of revision into a topic I like yet again. I've got another one like this for BSD somewhere that I may or may not post but I still enjoy doing these.]

[ayakho]

The real reason I ultimately came back here is comparing and contrasting my Twitter and Tumblr feeds. Twitter is full of assholes and it turns you into an asshole with it.

To boil the problem down to its essence:

When I tab into Tumblr and refresh I see a cute pop cat meme or some cool constructivist art... or some neat cityscape art.

When I tab into Twitter I see people telling each other to kill themselves and Charlie Kirk complaining about CRT. This was the case prior to Musk as well.

Thing is, I never was a huge Tumblr nerd. I did lurk here back in the day but it was far from my primary social media interface. I'm one of the ten people who actually liked and enjoyed using Google +.

Tumblr has done with social self-moderation what Twitter was never able to do with millions of dollars into an actual moderation team: cultivate, eventually, a respectable and pro-social community that doesn't unilaterally reward mind-numbing mean-spiritedness.

It's not like this website doesn't have problems! I have noticed this website does have a sizable TERF community but, critically, because feeds are self-curated here and not fueled by an algorithm designed to promote aggressive argumentative anti-social behavior... I never see it unless I seek it out.

[cogandstar]

long and ramble-y post about persona 5 tactica and politics below the cut. spoilers and all that jazz, thou hast been warned.

persona 5 tactica has Interesting politics to me. because, well, it talks an awful lot about revolution and that jazz. and in the Kingdoms, you do a fair bit of revolution-esque stuff, complete with mass movements which are necessary for the overthrow of tyrannical rulers.

(the rebels are tbh one of my favorite parts of the game, especially with how they could very easily have been relegated completely to background noise, but instead at multiple points they are key for the success of the Phantom Thieves. it's great!)

in the cognitive realm, the game seems to come down pretty solidly on the side of "revolution is worth the accompanying violence" -- see the scene of Yoshiki presenting the Thieves with footage of the rebels suffering against the Aizen Squad, and, of course, the final boss being a god of peace who has decided to crush the revolutionary impulses within the hearts of humanity to ensure peace and tranquility.

Salmael is actually pretty interesting as a criticism of that general mindset of "peace over positive change." he's kinda (or at least can be read as) a symbol for the same thing Disco Elysium represents with the ideology of moralism. the thing that's most striking to me about him is his second form, wherein his appearance changes to be partially composed of bullets and other symbols of violence. with this, not only does p5t argue that the maintenance of peace over positive change is bad, but that it is, under the cover of gentility and nonviolence, itself fundamentally built upon violence and force.

it's not that hard to construct a leftist reading of this, even without the influences of Soviet constructivist art on the menus and UI, and the presence of Che Goddamn Guevara as a heroic Persona in the form of Ernesto. it's a game where the heroes organize mass movements to overthrow tyrannical rulers based on, respectively, a wealthy corporate heiress and a corrupt politician. (i'm not really counting nakabachi because he's not a real ruler and also Kingdom 3 is just less political than the others, it's very heavily focused on Toshiro as a person without really even a political surface level.) then, the heroes fight against the God of Liberalism, revealing the hidden violence underneath its guise of peace and moderation, and ultimately defeating it.

but you kind of run into an issue of like, what are the Thieves' revolutions for? ultimately, they're basically just all against what the tyrants do. in kingdom 1, they're against a wealthy aristocrat forcing people to set up a wedding for her and her forced-groom. in kingdom 2, they're against a ruler running an all encompassing surveillance system and forced labor camps. in kingdom 3 they're against school staff blackmailing students for personal gain.

and i think it's notable that both Marie and Yoshiki are mainly presented in settings that distance them and their wrongs from modern day capitalism. Marie's Kingdom is based on vaguely-revolutionary France, and she herself is fairly clearly based on the pop culture image of Marie Antoinette, from her name to her behavior and aesthetic in the Kingdom and even how in the real world, she makes reference to "the poors" and "commoners." if there's any class being criticized through the character of Marie Anto, it's not the bourgeoisie -- it's the old feudal aristocracy.

Yoshiki is also distanced from modern electoral politics by being predominantly shown in a world based on Bakumatsu-era Japan. it's also notable that, in the Kingdom, he is described as being a general, not in any way elected. so while in the real world, his power comes from the edifice of liberal democracy as it stands in Japan, the system that you actually lead a revolution against is a feudal-military dictatorship.

this is all without mentioning that, underneath the political veneer, the Kingdoms are all in-universe metaphors for what's going on in Toshiro's head. in the end, everything's very personal! and ultimately, after Toshiro has gone through all his character development and unleashed Che Goddamn Guevara as the manifestation of his true self, what does he do in the real world?

he gets two specific bad actors arrested, apologizes for his personal role in their corruption, and then restarts his career as an electoral politician.

as soon as p5t retreats from the cognitive world, so too does it retreat from the idea of revolution against prevailing power structures. i cannot recall a moment where anyone, really, even considers the thought of revolution against the systems that produced Marie and Yoshiki and Nakabachi; they have defeated Salmael and gotten the bad actors arrested, so it's all good.

so, i guess in summary, p5t presents pro-revolution (even pro-revolutionary violence!) and borrows aesthetically from communism, and though you can certainly read certain parts (i.e. Salmael) as fairly pointed criticisms of liberal capitalism, but. considering the game as a whole, it's structured in a way that distances its arguments in favor of revolution from those modern power structures both by limiting them to the metaphorical realm of cognition and by structuring the most political cognitive realms as historical oppressive structures.

[belladonna-wright]

Constructivist Criticism - Nessie

[theoutcastrogue]

Venice in the art of Alexandra Exter (1882-1949)

Carnival in Venice (oil on canvas) 1930s

Carnival Procession (oil on canvas)

Masked Figures by the Banks of a Venetian Canal (oil on canvas)

Venetian Masks (oil on panel)

Pulcinella (gouache on paper) late 1920s-30s

Venice (oil and sand on canvas) 1925

Venice, 1915

"Aleksandra Aleksandrovna Ekster, also known as Alexandra Exter, was a Russian and French painter and designer. As a young woman, her studio in Kiev attracted all the city's creative luminaries, and she became a figure of the Paris salons, mixing with Picasso, Braque and others. She is identified with the Russian/Ukrainian avant-garde, as a Cubo-futurist, Constructivist, and influencer of the Art Deco movement. She was the teacher of several School of Paris artists such as Abraham Mintchine, Isaac Frenkel Frenel and the film directors Grigori Kozintsev, Sergei Yutkevich among others." [x]

"Exter painted views of Florence, Genoa and Rome, but ‘most insistent and frequent were images of Venice. The city emerged in various forms: via the outlines of its buildings, in the ‘witchcraft of water’. In glimmering echoes of Renaissance painting, in costumes and masks and its carnivals’.

"Exter’s characteristic use of the bridge as a stage platform, seen most clearly in Carnival in Venice, is a legacy of her time as Tairov’s chief designer [Alexander Tairrov, director of Moscow's Kamerny Theatre]; the director believed in breaking up the flatness of the stage floor which the artist achieved for him by introducing arches, steps and mirrors. Even in her easel work, the emphasis is at all times on theatricality. Bridges are used as proscenium arches, the architecture creates a stage-like space in which to arrange her cast."

"For all her modernity, references to Venetian art of the past abound in these paintings. The masked figures are influenced by the Venetian artist Pietro Longhi, to whom Exter dedicated a series of works around this time. The incredible blues used in both Carnival Procession and Masked Figures by the Banks of a Venetian Canal are a direct reference to Titian, who was famed for his use of ultramarine, the pigment most associated with Venice’s history as the principal trading port with the East." [x]

"Exter had long since abandoned the Cubist syntax by 1925 but her sense of colour remained together with a strong conviction, shared with Léger, that a work of art should elicit a feeling of mathematical order. In its graceful interaction of fragmented planes and oscillation between emerging and receding elements, Venice (1925) echoes the more precise qualities that also appear in Léger's work at this time, both artists occupied with the continuous modulation of surfaces and the 'melody of construction' that Le Corbusier was still advocating in the 1930s. But while Exter subscribed to Léger's theory that 'a painting in its beauty must be equal to a beautiful industrial production', she never fully embraced the aesthetics of the machine and rejecting the common opposition between ancient and modern, her work often retains a classical edge - for example in these trefoil windows, arches and vaults. Human figures, which had been nearly absent from her Cubo-futurist paintings, also return in other works from this period."

"She was undoubtedly aware of the concept of 'defamiliarisation', a term first coined by the influential literary critic Viktor Shklovsky in 1917:

'The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects 'unfamiliar,' to make forms difficult to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged.'

An instance of this device is discernable in the present tight formation of the oars, seen from above. Like Braque and Picasso, Exter incorporates sand into certain areas of pigment to enhance the differentiation of surfaces, a technique also used to 'increase the length of perception'. The occasional lack of overlap between the boundaries of the textured surfaces and colour planes strengthens the paradoxical combination of tangible presence and elusive abstraction that makes Venice such a powerful work."

"Venetian subjects occur in Exter's work as early as 1915. A gigantic panneau of the city was one of the final works she produced in the Soviet Union and exhibited in the 1924 Venice Biennale." [x]

"The specific theme of the Commedia dell’Arte first appeared in Exter’s work in 1926 when the Danish film director Urban Gad approached her to design the sets and marionettes for a film which was to tell the story of Pulcinella and Colombina, transposing them from the Venice of Carlo Goldoni to contemporary New York. Pulcinella most likely relates to the artist’s subsequent experimentations on the theme of the Commedia dell’Arte. Pulcinella, who came to be known as Punch in England, is one of the classical characters of the Neapolitan puppetry. Typically depicted wearing a pointed hat and a mask, Pulcinella is an opportunist who always sides with the winner in any situation and fears no consequences." [x]

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Knowledge Theory

The philosophy of knowledge theory, also known as epistemology, is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and how we can differentiate between true knowledge and mere belief or opinion.

Epistemology is concerned with several core issues, including:

Definition of Knowledge: One of the central debates in epistemology is the definition of knowledge. The traditional definition, dating back to Plato, is that knowledge is "justified true belief." However, this definition has been challenged and refined over the centuries, particularly with the introduction of the Gettier problems, which illustrate situations where justified true belief might still fail to constitute knowledge.

Sources of Knowledge: Epistemologists investigate various sources of knowledge, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony. Each source has its strengths and weaknesses, and understanding how they contribute to knowledge is crucial for a comprehensive epistemological framework.

Justification: This involves exploring the criteria and methods by which beliefs are justified. Theories of justification include foundationalism, which posits that certain basic beliefs provide the foundation for all other beliefs, and coherentism, which suggests that beliefs are justified by their coherence with other beliefs.

Skepticism: Epistemology also addresses skepticism, the view that certain or all knowledge is impossible. Philosophers debate various forms of skepticism and attempt to refute or accommodate them within their theories of knowledge.

Epistemic Virtues and Vices: This area examines the intellectual character traits that promote or hinder the acquisition of knowledge, such as open-mindedness, intellectual courage, and intellectual humility. Theories like virtue epistemology focus on these traits as central to understanding how knowledge is gained and maintained.

The Role of Context: Contextualism is the view that the truth-value of knowledge claims can depend on the context in which they are made. This approach addresses how varying standards of evidence and justification might apply in different situations.

Key Theories in Knowledge Theory

Empiricism: The theory that knowledge primarily comes from sensory experience. Prominent empiricists include John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

Rationalism: The theory that reason and intellectual processes are the primary sources of knowledge. Key rationalists include René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

Constructivism: The theory that knowledge is constructed by individuals through their interactions with the world. Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are notable figures in constructivist thought.

Pragmatism: The theory that knowledge is validated by its practical consequences and utility. Key pragmatists include Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.

Reliabilism: The theory that beliefs are justified if they are produced by processes that reliably yield true beliefs. This approach focuses on the reliability of the cognitive processes involved in belief formation.

Virtue Epistemology: This theory emphasizes the role of intellectual virtues—character traits that contribute to the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Figures like Linda Zagzebski and Ernest Sosa have contributed significantly to this field.

The philosophy of knowledge theory is a dynamic and complex field that continues to evolve as new challenges and perspectives emerge. It plays a critical role in our understanding of how we come to know what we know and in addressing fundamental questions about the nature and limits of human cognition.

[nwtdwy]

Thoroughly good video on conceptual historical formation and performativity of sex and gender through a constructivist lens.

It bugs me that we're always on the defensive. When people ask us "why are people trans?" I think we should reply "why are people cis?" or, as Alexander puts it, "why does anyone have gender, cis or trans?" By having to explain ourselves, we don't expose cis people's underlying assumptions about gender, thus inadvertently naturalizing cisgenderedness. We also fall into the double standard imposed on any marginalized group, in which our successes are ignored and our failures heavily criticized, in which we are judged by the worst behavior we can display, which is, of course, no worse than anyone else's.

The latest Philosophy Tube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVilpxowsUQ) also goes into this but in a more entertaining way and focuses mostly on Judith Butler's work.

[thatfrenchacademic]

I’m always amused when I come across a but of writing that affirms the author is a) a human and b) has a sense of humor. Thought I would share this here (from Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt)

“Over the years it has come in for substantial criticism, but critics sometimes throw the systemic theory baby out with the neorealist bathwater” (pg. 17)

Honestly I am the same ! And Wendt is such a delightful writer, I am glad you are enjoying this one, thank you for sharing it!

(Neo)realists have the cool sounding one-liners, but constructivists is where wit found a home and stayed there ever since 😎 you have some good reads, anon 👀

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: James Lindsay

Published: Jun 7, 2024

From the woman (pretending to be male) who was the Satanic designer whose work led in part to the gigantic Target boycott last year: "transitioning is alchemy." I would like to discuss this Socially Gnostic/Hermetic statement in some depth to clarify what gender ideology does.

The first thing to understand is the term "alchemy." Alchemy is a magical process with particular metaphysical commitments beneath it. The basic idea is believing that some essential substance can be transmuted into some other essential substance, but it goes deeper than this. 

Alchemy rests on a metaphysical commitment to a kind of Gnostic and Neoplatonic dualism that sees true substances as divine and physical/real substances not just as mundane but as fallen, vulgar, and contaminated. Alchemy is an esoteric process of freeing the divine from the Fall 

"Transitioning is alchemy" is therefore a statement referencing a fundamentally spiritualist belief that there is a true substance to the person that is being liberated from its fallen form, which imprisons it, through a magical process of transmutation. It is (dark) magical. 

Perhaps the greatest contemporary expositor on alchemy is George Soros, who explains that its purpose is "operational success." He claims alchemy doesn't obtain in the physical sciences; only in the social sciences, which should be called "social alchemy."

This point from Soros is incredibly important to understanding the phenomena of "gender transition" and "transgender," thus bearing on all of "gender ideology," which is a shorthand for "a critical constructivist ideology of gender." 

First, note that Soros identifies social alchemy explicitly as a dialectical process, which locates it not only in the same current as Marxism but also in the Hermeticism (Gnostic occult belief) I already suggested. That's a challenging term, but we can make sense of it. 

A good lay definition for "dialectical" would be "blending truths and lies for operational purposes." That is, it's manipulating people's understanding of a circumstance so that they'll adopt actionable beliefs with political consequences. It explicitly relies upon distortions. 

Soros says explicitly that what moves history isn't truth but the difference between truth and what people actually believe (or can be led to believe). That is, he says history moves through "fertile fallacies," i.e., politically productive errors or lies. 

Social alchemy is therefore achieved in the following way: Conditions are set to lead significant numbers of people to believe a politically actionable lie (or set of lies) so that they then act upon them. The lie then becomes consensus or convention, i.e., socially "true." 

You will notice, of course, that this is the same method and purpose of propaganda as infamously explained by Joseph Goebbels. The idea is that a lie repeated often enough gets treated as true. This process has been called "social reification" or "legitimation by paralogy." 

There's a lot here, but what it all tells us is that the point of gender ideology isn't individual transition; it's *social transmutation*. It has little or nothing to do with the individual in question, who is little more than a wedge to transform social beliefs and attitudes. 

Put more plainly: unlike the older practice of transsexualism, which was/is individual, *your participation is required* in transgenderism. In transgenderism, what matters is what people will accept and believe about the "transgender" person. Transmutation is a social thing. 

In other words, just like Soros indicated, the alchemy of gender transition is a social phenomenon. It is not an individual process that obtains in physical reality; it is a social process that obtains in social "reality" through social reification/legitimation by paralogy. 

That means that "gender transition" is a matter of people believing "gender transition" is a real thing, which is to say that it isn't a "transgender" person daring to live in the world but one forcing everyone else to live in a world that doesn't exist. That's a big difference. 

The foundational literature in Queer Theory, (Foucauldian) Sexuality Theory, Feminist Theory, etc., all attests to this understanding. The "soul" (divine part) is not imprisoned by the body so much as the body is imprisoned by the soul. That's Foucault's and Butler's view. 

What it refers to is the idea that one's soul (who you are) is actually a social phenomenon, a constructed part of the broader Geist (dialectical Spirit) of society. Bulter's view (following Foucault) is that the Geist constrains the soul so that it is "scripted" onto the body. 

That is, people do with their bodies what they believe they are supposed to do with their bodies. If they are male, society (Spirit) tells them to present as masculine (soul), so they live and present that way (body). Hence "sex assigned at birth." 

Critical constructivists believe every phenomenon is the result of social reification. A doctor "assigns sex at birth" and then society, "obsessed with genitals," creates conditions that socially reinforce expectations about one's sex/gender in a giant society-wide drag show. 

They also believe that by adopting critical constructivism ("Woke"), a person can see through this imprisoning dynamic and set the divine part of themselves free from the "controlled" set of social expectations (cf. Demiurge and his archons). It's a Gnostic Cult. 

The point isn't to see through it (understand society), though. It's to transmute society (change it!). That is, the point is to use "gender transition" to force society to accept and socially reify the critical constructivist ideology of gender under "gender transition." 

That's the alchemy, and it happens SOCIALLY. Again: your participation is REQUIRED.

Their view is that since all reality is socially reified reality, they should seize the means of production of social reification to maximize spiritual liberation of imprisoned souls. 

"Transitioning is alchemy" is deadly serious, then, as visualized with the skeletal artwork at the top. It is also inherently totalitarian, requiring mass "ideological remolding" to create the social reification necessary for it to be "socially real" ("valid"). 

This is the "gender ideology" (oc)cult religion, which requires universal belief.

Again, it isn't about "transgender" people daring to live in the world. It's about using "transgender" people to force everyone to live in a world that doesn't exist. 

Incidentally, this also explains in part why Leftism always produces radically ugly presentations in people, which is a tragedy. By presenting their fallen, vulgar form as ugly and degenerate, they seek to force you to recognize the divine part within themselves. 

[perestroika-hilton]

What are the principle criticisms of Serrano among good faith transfeminists

I have a knee jerk skepticism towards brain sex just as someone who's like isn't neurology too primitive for claims like these to hold and as maybe a vulgar social constructivist bc let's face it 18 with no background going into de beauvoir isn't the most promising read

I've never read her just Abigail Thorne's use of her to find a middle ground in the social constructivism vs sexual determinism was super frustrating to me

[optikes]

Klippel with assemblages in his studio

Number 1060, (1995) painted wire, tin  22.5 x 7.6 x 7cm

Number 714 - Prototype for Adelaide Plaza (1988)  Construction of brazed and welded steel, geometric sections, found objects, formed sheet metal. 69.5 x 64 x 49.5 cm without base

Number 329, (1977) assemblage of collected wood parts  300 x 350 x 135cm

search @www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au

A Klippel's practice exeplifies the interconnectedness of the conceptual and the material. His bodies of work explore the relationship between the organic and the mechanical.

B By the time Robert Klippel died in Sydney in 2001, aged 81, he was critically acclaimed and well collected in his home country. But as with most Australian artists, although he had lived for stints in Europe and the US from the 1940s until the 1960s, his work was largely unknown abroad.

Eleven years on, his son has secured a blue chip shot at changing that. Klippel junior has signed Galerie Gmurzynska in Zurich as the sole representative of his father’s estate worldwide, catapulting the artist into the company of Pablo Picasso, Yves Klein, Alexander Rodchenko and David Smith, whose estates the gallery also represents.

  Some of Klippel’s large wooden sculptures have already been on the Gmurzynska stand at Art Basel, Art Basel Miami and ArtHK, and a substantial publication and exhibition is being planned for the coming year.

  Klippel is the only Australian artist to have been taken on by the 50-year-old gallery, which is best known for introducing the Russian avant garde to western Europe and for representing modernist artists working up to 1980.

  “We have a solid reputation for ­scientific research, and for promoting interesting, important historic figures who have created something authentic but who have not had the exposure they should have had,” says gallery co-owner Mathias Rastorfer.

  Klippel, an abstract artist and loner not easily slotted into one particular movement, was loosely influenced by surrealism, cubism and constructivism.

  According to Deborah Edwards in the 2002 Art Gallery of NSW retrospective catalogue, “his attitudes to art making were grounded in European modernism and postwar intellectual thought”. It is for this reason, in part, that Gmurzynska was interested in taking him on.

  Rastorfer says: “We found him very interesting due to his connection to the constructivists, his Polish ­origins, his time in America. The more you go into Klippel, the more modernist links you find.

“We will introduce his work in the context of those peers, taking him out of the Australian context and putting him into an international one. We want to show where he fits in worldwide.”

  Klippel’s bronze sculptures have been the most collectable in Australia. They appear regularly on the secondary market and can fetch more than $100,000. The top price paid at auction – $507,800 – was in 2006 for a miniature steel, tin, acrylic paint and coloured paper collage.

  Gmurzynska plans to use the large, wooden sculptures and tiny coloured plastic ones that Klippel did in the late 1980s and early 1990s to introduce him internationally. This is in part for practical reasons, because this is most of what is left in the estate, but also because he thinks these will work best there.

  Rastorfer expects to take at least three years to achieve traction internationally for Klippel. “One of the biggest temptations is to sell the four or five most important works straight away, because that’s the easiest thing to do,” he says. “But then the estate is left with the lesser known work and often doesn’t know what to do with it.

  “It’s about placement in museum collections, in significant private ­collections, and with opinion makers, not just about selling. If we show him in the context of his better- known peers, the rest will follow.”

  There are no guarantees the strategy will work, but Andrew Klippel is quietly excited that his father, to whom he was very close, is getting a posthumous chance at an inter­national career.

After years in the music business, where things happen very quickly, his foray into the visual arts is teaching him a new virtue: patience. “This is a long play.”

  Katrina Strickland http://www.afr.com  (2012)

[pwlanier]

Composition #70

Albert E. Gallatin

American, 1881–1952

A native of Philadelphia, Albert E. Gallatin established himself as an influential painter, critic, and collector in New York between World Wars I and II. In 1927 he opened his Gallery of Living Art at New York University-the first modern art collection on public view in the United States. Gallatin was a key figure in the American Abstract Artists (AAA) group, and was part of a sub circle of members dubbed the Park Avenue Cubists for their wealth and social status, which allowed them to widely promote abstraction in the art world. Directly inspired by the art of leading European modernists such as Picasso and Léger, whom he knew and whose work he collected, his dynamic “compositions” reveal Gallatin’s distinctive synthesis of cubist and constructivist ideas.

High Museum

[ntximnyiam]

Reading Response #4

The readings inform about performance art. Performance flourished through reconstruction through scripts, photographs, etc. Due to such rise of the use of performance, it is much as art. The first reading goes over how performance art gets used for political statements. When WWII happened, it sparked a change in performance and art, and how it can be utilized. The idea of performance art was a hard concept to acknowledge at first for awhile. Fast forward to the present and this form has advance in "a way of animating the many formal and conceptual ideas on which the making of art is based". The second reading defines performance art as a form of arts practice that involves a person or persons doing an action or more within a certain time frame in a certain space or location for an audience. It is the body and it's key components are time, space, and the relationship between the performer and audience.

The main point of the first reading is that performance has been around longer than we think. And though it has been around through dance, politics, etc. it is still a challenge to art critics and the public as it questions the basic foundations of how art is evaluated. But it is very accepted now today. Performance is complex but simple. The form must involve the body. Whether that body is defined as a human being or certain part of the human body or even an object. The action the body does is the art and the relationship with the audience also makes it art. It breaks a wall from just looking at a painting or video but being immersed into the art.

I learned that performance art suggests a level of playfulness or satire. There is no boundary and it doesn't have to be political and it wasn't political in the first place. I can imagine this change of understanding of art by embracing the flow in art and history in art. As I think about this project, the theme is about traditions and though that is something that can be sentimental it can also be joyful and playful.

I didn't quite understand the part of Futurists, Constructivists, Dadaists, and Surrealists part. But from what I understand is that these types of people were artists. How could revolutionary art be politically influenced to the public?

Three artworks that I found interesting are the "Reading Position for Second Degree Burn", "I Miss You!" by Franko B., and "Rest Energy" by Marina Abramovic. I feel these pieces were interesting because it's bare and simple.

These readings are being theoretical through it's cliff-hanging, loose description, and broad performance. I think that readings suggest that performance art is much different than a historic painting. It opens a discussion of endless perceptions. It could be simple or it could be so complex and deep.

[abihespgormley]

Readerly Exploration #4 

Due Date: October 8th 

Titles: Fisher, et. al. (2020), Chapter 2, “Whole-Class Reading Instruction: High-Level Support for Learning”

Sipe (2002), “Talking Back & Talking Over: Young Children’s Expressive Engagement During Read- Aloud Storybooks”

Big Takeaway: In Chapter 2 of "This is Balanced Literacy" by Fisher, one of the key points is that a balanced literacy approach should include both reading and writing instruction. This means that students not only engage in reading activities, but also have opportunities to develop their writing skills. 

A big takeaway from Sipe (2002) is that young children actively engage with storybooks during read-aloud sessions by expressing their thoughts and emotions. This highlights the importance of creating an interactive and engaging reading environment for children to enhance their language development and comprehension skills.

Nugget: In the study by Sipe (2002), it was fascinating to see how young children not only engage verbally by actively participating in discussions and asking questions during read-aloud sessions but also express themselves nonverbally. They use gestures, facial expressions, and body language to convey their thoughts, emotions, and understanding of the story. This nonverbal engagement adds another layer of richness to their overall expressive involvement and demonstrates how children use multiple channels to connect with the story and communicate their experiences. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing and valuing these nonverbal cues as part of their expressive engagement during read-alouds.

An interesting aspect from Chapter 2 of "This is Balanced Literacy" by Fisher is the emphasis on providing a variety of texts for students to read. This includes fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and other genres. By exposing students to diverse texts, they can develop a broader understanding of different writing styles, topics, and perspectives. It helps foster a love for reading and encourages students to explore various genres and expand their literary horizons.Task: “Provide an interpretation of the assigned reading through the lens of another course you’ve taken”I first chose this task because I thought it would be interesting to reread the text through a deeper lens and maybe gather a deeper understanding of what I am trying to read. It gave me a second chance to examine the text which is always important. When examining the study through an Educational Psychology lens, it is interesting to consider how the findings relate to theories of child development and learning. For example, the active engagement of young children during read-aloud sessions aligns with the constructivist theory, which emphasizes the importance of hands-on, experiential learning. By actively participating and expressing their thoughts and emotions, children are constructing their own understanding of the story and making connections to their prior knowledge. This active engagement promotes cognitive development and enhances their comprehension skills. It's fascinating to see how these findings align with educational theories! When examining Chapter 2 of "This is Balanced Literacy" through an Educational Psychology lens, it is interesting to consider how the balanced literacy approach aligns with theories of learning and development. For example, the emphasis on both reading and writing instruction supports the idea of a holistic approach to learning. According to educational psychology, students learn best when they actively engage in the learning process and have opportunities to apply their knowledge in meaningful ways. By incorporating both reading and writing activities, the balanced literacy approach promotes active learning, critical thinking, and the development of language skills. It's fascinating to see how educational psychology principles can inform and support effective instructional practices! Looking at these texts through an educational psychology lens can help me engage with the reading by providing a deeper understanding of how students learn and develop. By applying educational psychology principles, I approached the texts with a more informed perspective, recognizing the importance of active engagement, meaningful application, and the connection between theory and practice. This lens helped me make connections between the concepts discussed in the texts and real-world educational contexts, enhancing my comprehension and critical thinking skills.

This is a picture of my notes I used to reread the texts for the second time. I was able to have my notes up while I was rereading text to help ensure that I was looking through Educational Psychology Lens