Pslf proposed elimination

[PsyDr]

I appreciate the honesty on this thread and it seems we're agreeing that the way racism/inequality/privilege is talked about is clumsy, perhaps offensive to some. I think we're also agreeing that some may feel their accomplishments and/or perceptions are invalidated when the word "privilege" gets used. I agree that words matter, perceptions matter, feelings matter.

Can we also agree that structural inequality exists? And that it's not random?

As Jon Snow wrote earlier, "I think we should talk about institutionalized racism. I think we should talk about structural racism." Yet, much of this thread, and others when the topic comes up, tends to revolve around semantics, definitions, word choice, how people feel when these conversations occur, rather than structural racism itself. Why do y'all think that is?

Could we move toward talking about institutionalized racism?

How did institutionalized racism come to be? How do you explain/understand the stats Jon linked to earlier? What can we, as a society, as psychologists, do to combat it? Do we need to combat it? What do you do to combat it? Can it be undone?

You can learn the fundamentals of Strauss' structuralism, focaults ideas of power structure, and how lacans use of language bridges the gap. If it's presented to you, it's meant to be for you. Just like that ***** at apa who said marijuana would cure racism.

Or bourbon. I don't know.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted106747]

You can learn the fundamentals of Strauss' structuralism, focaults ideas of power structure, and how lacans use of language bridges the gap. If it's presented to you, it's meant to be for you. Just like that ***** at apa who said marijuana would cure racism.

Or bourbon. I don't know.

I'm reading Focault right now. What do you think he proposes to combat it? I'd say how he lived his life demonstrated some of that.

 

[PsyDr]

I'm reading Focault right now. What do you think he proposes to combat it? I'd say how he lived his life demonstrated some of that.

IIRC, Focault said something about not fighting power, but by becoming aware of power dynamics through linguistics/use of language affects the same. Which is a fall back to Strauss' idea that a culture's language creates an inherent structure, of which power is one facet. Lacan discussed how language/linguistics formed a structured process as the conscious/ego/superego is mediated by language. Lacan proposed awareness in how that plays on an intrapsychic level.

It's sorta reflected in how we say, "Joe Smith is a billionaire" and this term evokes ideas of Joe being powerful, better in a host of ways, and having a better life. None of those implications are real. That sentence means Joe has a bunch of rectangles of green paper. But there has been a structure created in society and language.

That's just some ramblings though.