Archive for Socio-cultural
On Feb 6th Lori Gotlieb wrote a article for NYTimes called “does more equal marriage mean less sex?” inspired by life experiences and a correlation study titles “egalitarianism, housework and sexual frequency in marriage“. Note: correlations are not the same causality, and these articles identify correlation. A psychologist friend of mine raised Lori’s question to a group of our friends in a discussion forum that week, to explore what society is actually ready for as women and men become more equal i with regard to the types of work we all do.
Here is vlogger Greg Jacobsen with a quick vlog on ownership in relationships. Lori’s article and Greg’s comments inspire me to consider ownership in sexual relationships and how it relates to Integrationalism.
From an economic standpoint it is necessary to establish separation between the varied ownerships of things and space (whether temporary or permanent) by individuals and institutions. As I elaborated on previously our portable value is derived from our ownership. Its good capitalistic practice to identify all participants when ever possible, as the pool of value is directly connected to the actual monetary values (wealth) measured by economists. Ensuring that separation of roles and responsibilities in any methodological structure is crucial to the expansion of our capitalistic system of value. Intimate and sexual relationships are not safe from this exploration.
Its necessary to understand a few definitions first:
- sexuality is a primal phenomena that occurs in all animals, even the asexuals and gender changing species (e.g. amphibians and now mammals via humans).
- relationships (including marriages) are methodological systems that have benefited human evolution from a political, sociological, and economic standpoint.
- methodologies are a kind of technology. All tech are either: methodological, hardware, or software.
- Technologies are about capturing potential, and control. Our survival is dependent on them until they are rendered obsolete by new designs.
- methodologies are a kind of technology. All tech are either: methodological, hardware, or software.
The correlations that we see in the NYTimes article and corresponding study are results of a breakdown in the modern method of relationships, per the ideal of a successful relationship involving some variance of sexual passion or emotion. In our modern era, which succeeds the hunting-gathering era women have been deemed less equal because of their inability to produce at the same capacity. As we’ve evolved form hunters and gatherers our early tools (hardware tech) required some of the brawn that only sufficient testosterone can create. Methodologically, cultures developed around the work that brought us what we consider modern civilizations, feudalism, the industrial revolution, and women were more or less auxiliary. We’ve come a long way with our tech, so far that women are back in the driver seat as they once were when hunting and gathering was the equalizer of production between genders. Our tech infrastructure is increasingly precious to human-rights.
The frequency of sex in a relationship is not specific to the sexuality (primal), but is specific to the relationship (tech). Our technology is deterministic in how it is dictating our ability 9or inability) to live comfortably within antiquated relationship methods. More plainly I mean to state that, the methodological work of relationships take away from the primal sexual emotional “systems” (as Helen Fisher would call them) and divert our attention to more collaborative efforts with our partner(s). Of course there are anomalies and extraordinary couples out there; however, sex is not about tech, or social norms, or rights/wrongs, or scientific understanding even, its about sight and smells and tastes and sounds and stuff we can touch.
Finally, where is the tech taking us? I’m extrapolating towards polyamory: which allows for relatively uninhibited multi-partnered non-ownership of others. Polyamory, also acknowledges individual’s ability fall in love (and abstraction defined as a system of brain activities by Helen Fisher) with many other individuals. Love, per Fisher’s explanation renders monogamy ill-equipped to accommodate modern (more egalitarian) relationship structures. more to come………
Please watching this video of wise rants by ALEX ‘SANDY’ PENTLAND. I agree with most of what he has said. I should start recording thoughts on film more. Ideas on how we leverage data to identify each other is where the heavy lifting of socio-economic philosophy resides in this century. Narrowing the focus from averages of groups to the individual. We are in extraordinary times. Over the course of the next few weeks when I get some downtime for the holidays, i will comment in more detail about Pentland’s conversation.
Yesterday I attended an event at the City University of New York’s Center for Lesbian & Gay Studies for a roundtable discussion on Black/Queer/Diaspora the seeming ultimate in minority topics. I have to admit that I was unsure what would actually be discusses at the event. To my surprise topics related to the “connectivity” explored in Integrationalism were at the forefront.
In a special issue of GLQ, Jafari Allen beckoned us to see that “Black/queer/diaspora is an organic project of multivalent and multiscalar reclamation, revisioning, and futurity (yes, all at once).” This event brings together preeminent writers and thinkers at the forefront of engaging with this work. Issue editor Jafari Allen (Yale) and contributor Vanessa Agard-Jones (Columbia) present research from their new projects emerging from the conversations of the special issue. Robert Reid-Pharr (CUNY Graduate Center), and Rosamond S. King (Brooklyn College) will offer responses to this new work, informed by their own scholarship and research interests. Collectively, they will each present new research that considers and expands the methodological and conceptual inquiries grounding the issue.
After the presentation of Allen’s new book project Black/Queer/Diaspora and a Agard-Jones’s beyond fascinating paper What the Sands Remember (which could suggest radical political warfare on ethnic and sexual minorities via unethical bio & chemical policy. READ IT) their critiques made the event much more compelling. Rosemond King’s poetry was beautifully easy yet provocative, although I’m not sure she’d agree with my choice of language. But the kicker was Dr Robert Reid-Pharr’s critique of Allen & Agard-Jone’s work. He said
Black Queer Diaspora should be presented as a heuristic
Meaning that it “can” go away. In writing about the future colleagues, peers, critiques, and I regularly explore the ends of things to push understanding beyond the linear site of our day-to-day lives in an effort to understand the exponential growth of our actual reality. I’ve never seen so many minorities clash at one, and to think that they are a problem to potentially be solved with less-than optimal outcomes; or rather a diluted existence in to the tolerances and acceptances and general culture of a (or all) societies is quite likely what will happen per the history of all other physical systems in their respective evolution.
Even further and most interesting to me as a socialized African American, although my genome sequence reads quite different, was question posed from the audience by a woman asking Jafari Allan if he agreed with Rober Reid-Pharr’s comment about heuristics. Allen agreed that “Queer” could go away, as he elaborated about his and the academy’s difficulty with the term. He continued to say that “Black” could never go away.
To this point I haven’t dealt with Afro-futurism mainly because it is not an interest of mine, even after the request of editors at organizations like Humanity+ & IEET. Having stated that, the writings and comments around Afro-futurism concern me simply because I am classified as black. Phenomenologically I am inclined to reject Allen’s suggestion that “Black” could never dilute, especially while considering “Queer” to have the potential to do so. While we are still early in the commencement of our technological evolution it is possible to consider the potential of ethnic ranks pervading the humanoid population. Simply, human selection aside from that of natural selection allowing human-kind to design itself in the favor of its ambitions has commence. I’m compelled to think of the green-honed four-toed tri-breasted Spanish-speaking avatars designed in SecondLife and those in real life. Our population will be a large sea of minorities, identifying as a singular spectrum of species. From a socio-cultural standpoint, I think that Anthropologists can find and will continue to find remnants of tolerance leading to acceptance from individuals living OUT or transparent lifestyles to dilute the majority and minority normative: exposing everyone as a participating individual.
I just happened to be out at a festival in Brooklyn this past week and there was a table from the AK Press, as there are frequently. On the table are a few dozen pamphlets with Anarchist reads. so I took about 20, just to see what the people at this particular event are taking in. I’m not sure how many people were reading this stuff, because I was the only person asking questions at the free literature table for at least 30 minutes. This text Capitalism, class and class struggle for (ex) dummies tries to sum up capitalism in a friendly way, they even call the readers (ex) dummies. I’m unsure who the authors are, as they weren’t presented, but I do know that it came from someone or many @IOHNYC via @libcomorg & @AKPressDistro.
This critique will be short and is specific to Integrationalism which is the notion that we are all physiologically connected; based on my previous writings on “Human Nature / Technological Determinism / Competition as as spawn of Individualism”. The brief read was entertaining, and the use of prose made their concept of capitalism digestible. It elaborates that capitalism was established by other-than “natural” forces. More specifically: violence and imperialism. Sorts of politics by the first advanced countries in Europe as they aimed to compete for scarce resources.
- Humans cannot have nature.
- Technology is deterministic when applied to the human condition.
- Individualism has spawned competitive events resulting in arbitrage.
The term nature will forever be ambiguous, because of its reference to the physical world; and as we are physical entities, all that we can know is a apart of the physical world/realm. “Natural” can also reference a nostalgic or more primitive state of existing socially and technologically. This is where I have to assume that the argument for capitalism by force (for lack of better phrases) stems. This notion of force is a false, as the first technologically elite nations fought over scarce land, resources, and allusive faiths. This competition stems from the inherent arbitrage that already existed by a more primitive brand of capital from tribal times: land & people.
We live in a dynamic physical realm where growth is essential to our survival. Human-kind is inherently ambitious in this regard.
While it is impossible phenomenologically for human’s to actually have a nature about themselves, the one thing that we’ve always tried to do is control our situation to better manage the risks of uncertainty. It’s not an ill mission, but the pathology of our altruism often shows that it is our most stifling virtue. Projecting our idea of greatness onto the entire population is not progressive, even as technology progresses. we must compel growth via our technologies.
Regardless of the horrible brand at places like http://capitalism.org/ the economic phenomena (not system) of Capitalism is human-kinds most technologically advanced attempt at distribution of values, and while it has its flaws, the growth and ability of our information tech and bio tech will allow us the opportunity (if we so choose to seize it) to better distribute value and compel growth by participation of persons. This text called Capitalism for (ex)dummies is misleading and a dangerous attempt to bring attention to one of the most important issues of any time.
Today, the Supreme Court decided it would “decline” to uphold Proposition 8, an opinion expected in the tea leaves that doesn’t allow as many same-sex couples as it could have to get married — or, based on the Court’s ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, to be recognized by the federal government.
In recent week’s I’ve been asked multiple times to explain the different between the central ideal in the book titled “Networked” and Integrationalism. On my last post I mentioned the term networked individualism, which per this site and the first group of essays from Integrationalism, was an older term, but more well define recently in a the great read above. Integrationalism is not about technology specifically. Kudos to Barry Wellman and Lee Rainie, they’ve done a great job of elaborating on the very tangible dependencies of our successes and pitfalls brought on by the technological might of the last few decades.
One way that I’ve always tried to explain “what” Integrationalism “is”, was to use terms like networked-individualism….as the first text was essentially an attack on the inefficiencies and ineffectivenesses of philosophies that stem from rigid individualism as an understanding of human-kind. In the second text I elaborated more on the physical connections that actually create a recognizable network and the foundations of string field theory that allude these connections…among other things.
Networked Individualism is a grand display of how human-kind and its dependents have moved away from the sociological frameworks of “tribalism”. Wellman’s text didn’t use this term specifically, but as a sociologist he refers regularly to the transition in how human-kind is surviving (discovering, developing, and deploying its progress). The term, from a philosophical standpoint is less phenomenological and more socio-cultural. Integrationalism in its shortest, replays that we are connected physiologically, and not “other-lly” (which could take on many interpretations). Network Individualism would be a manifestation of physical connections, making the perceived notion “real”.
I’ll be sure to elaborate more on this in the coming future, as I’ve found that >250 words on a post starts to lose eyeballs.
I’m getting my genome sequenced and making it public information, I’ve been working through the study guide to formally give consent for this study at Harvard University. How risky are the privacy issues associated with this study? of course it depends on the individual, but for someone widely exposed like myself…how risky? I think that I need to know…and further, that transparency is the only way create the kinds of changes in the Political, Economic, Sociological, and Technological realities of today.
I thought you all might be interested in read this study exam or joining the project HERE.