- Last 7 days
The lineage of domination from childhood in schools and at home to adulthood in the workplace is clear. Its purpose is to habituate us to hierarchy and psychological enslavement. Our aptitude for autonomy is atrophied and our vitality is suppressed so that we are reconciled with regimentation and can replicate and reproduce it throughout our interpersonal lives, politics, and cultures. That is Why Revolution Needs Therapy.
It's incredible how our work ideology is shaped by a hierarchical way of thinking that you can see in many places of our society.
- Jan 2023
3.1 Guest Lecture: Lauren Klein » Q&A on "What is Feminist Data Science?"<br /> https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/162-foundations-applications-of-humanities-analytics/segments/15631
Theories of Power
Patricia Hill Collins' matrix of domination - no hierarchy, thus the matrix format
What are other broad theories of power? are there schools?
Relationship to Mary Parker Follett's work?
Bright, Liam Kofi, Daniel Malinsky, and Morgan Thompson. “Causally Interpreting Intersectionality Theory.” Philosophy of Science 83, no. 1 (January 2016): 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/684173.
about Bayesian modeling for intersectionality
Where is Foucault in all this? Klein may have references, as I've not got the context.
How do words index action? —Laura Klein
The power to shape discourse and choose words - relationship to soft power - linguistic memes
Color Conventions Project
20:15 Word embeddings as a method within her research
General result (outside of the proximal research) discussed: women are more likely to change language... references for this?
[[academic research skills]]: It's important to be aware of the current discussions within one's field. (LK)
36:36 quantitative imperialism is not the goal of humanities analytics, lived experiences are incredibly important as well. (DK)
- power frameworks
- digital humanities
- Foundations & Applications of Humanities Analytics
- feminist data science
- Michel Foucault
- Lauren F. Klein
- Mary Parker Follett
- matrix of domination
- Patricia Hill Collins
- Dec 2021
What is the state? the authors ask. Not a single stable package that’s persisted all the way from pharaonic Egypt to today, but a shifting combination of, as they enumerate them, the three elementary forms of domination: control of violence (sovereignty), control of information (bureaucracy), and personal charisma (manifested, for example, in electoral politics).
- Jan 2020
In the original German, 'prevails' is rendered "herrscht." Herrscht shares a common root with the ordinary German word Herr (Mister, or, more evocatively, Master). 'Lordship' (as, in the chapter of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, on 'Lordship and Bondage' is rendered Herrschaft.)
My own reading of Capital tends to center upon the question of domination in capitalist societies, and throughout chapter 1 (in particular, in The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof) Marx is especially attuned to the distinguishing how the forms of domination that are prevalent in capitalist societies are distinct from the relations of "personal dependence" that characterize pre-capitalist modes of production.
It seems prudent, therefore, to take note of the way that the seemingly innocuous notion of 'prevalence' is, for Marx, in his original formulation, already evocative of the language of mastery, domination, perhaps even something like 'hegemony'.
Furthermore, the capitalist mode of production prevails--it predominates. Yet, as Louis Althusser observes in his discussion of the concept of the 'mode of production' in On the Reproduction of Capitalism, every concrete social formation can be classified according to the mode of production that is dominant (that prevails--herrscht). In order to dominate, something must implicitly be dominated, or subordinate. "In every social formation," Althusser writes, "there exists more than one mode of production: at least two and often many more." Althusser cites Lenin, who in his analysis of the late 19th c. Russian social formation, observes that four modes of production can be distinguished (Louis Althusser, On the Reproduction of Capitalism, Verso 2014, p. 19.)
In our analysis of social formations, the concrete specificity of each can be articulated by carefully examining the multiplicity of modes of production that coincide within it, and examine the way in which capitalism tends to dominate a multiplicity of subordinate modes of production that, on the one hand, survive from past modes of production but which may also, on the other, be emerging in the present (i.e. communism). Thus even if capitalism tends towards the formation of a contiguous world-system dominated by its particular imperatives, this does not mean that this process is homogenous or unfolds in the same way in each instance.
For some commentators, capitalism is defined by the prevalence of wage labor and the specific dynamics that obtain therefrom. Yet this has often led to confusion over, whether, in analyzing the North American social formation prior to 1865, in which slavery coexists with wage-labor, the mode of production based on slave-labor is pre-capitalist. Yet as we find here in ch. 1, what determines the commodity as a commodity is not that it is the product of wage labor, rather that it is produced for exchange. As Marx writes on p. 131, "He who satisfies his own need with the product of his own labor admittedly creates use-values, but not commodities. Insofar as the slave-system in North America produced commodities (cotton, tobacco, etc.) for exchange on the world market, the fact that these commodities were produced under direct conditions of domination does not have any bearing on whether or not we identify this system of production as 'capitalist'. Wage-labor is therefore not likely the determinative factor; the determinative factor is the production of commodities for exchange. It is only insofar as commodities confront one another as exchange-values that the various modes of useful labor appear as expressions of a homogenous common substance, labor in the abstract
It is in this sense that we can observe one of the ways that the capitalist mode of production prevails over other modes of production, as it subordinates these modes of production to production for exchange, and thus the law of value, regardless of whether wage-labor represents the dominant form of this relation. Moreover, it provides a clue to how we can examine, for example, the persistence of unwaged work within the family, which has important consequences for Social Reproduction Theory.
Nonetheless, we can say that insofar as commodities confront each other on the market in a scene of exchange that they implicitly contain some 'third thing' which enables us to compare them as bearers of a magnitude of value. This 'third thing', as Marx's demonstration shows, is 'socially necessary labour time', which anticipates the way that wage-labor will become a dominant feature of capitalist society.
- Dec 2019
C’était la première fois de ma vie que je me sentais intellectuellement dominée par quelqu’un.
Signe de subordination à Sartre.
- Nov 2019
Mais lorsque je m’abandonnais à ces exquises déchéances, je n’oubliais jamais qu’il s’agissait d’un jeu. Pour de vrai, je ne me soumettais à personne : j’étais, et je demeurerais toujours mon propre maître.
Beauvoir joue avec les rapports de domination. Elle affirme toujours sa propre autonomie, en restant lucide et maître[sse] d'elle-même.
- Apr 2019
life as the reigning queen of Rupaul's Drag Race
Certainly, it would be interesting to discuss how normative male domination doesn't leave place for posthuman drags deemed by society as "otherness". Otherness would not be the right term to convince the multiple identities embodied by drags. I think you can challenge the relationality between multiple others in so may ways (inanimate objects, cyborgs...), because posthuman drags' life are diverse (multiple characters). There is even maybe some self-styling notion.
Maybe, you can also introduce some limitations of the posthuman drags boundaries.
- Feb 2019
Local file Local file
Is the freedom of the individual served by neoliberalism? Centrality of the state for this freedom, which NL denies. “neoliberal thinkers deliberately sustain the fiction that ‘the market economy’ is a natural and spontaneous order that must be placed beyond politics … The question of how authority can be something other than domination and private power shaped the ideas and action of those who built the tradition of constitutional democracy in western societies from the 16th to the 20th centuries … basic needs were those that had to be met before the individual could practically enact the status of a free subject or person. It was such needs provision that made it possible for individuals to be both personally secure and to enjoy an equality of opportunity to develop as individuals free to discover their talents and gifts … the representation of market society as a spontaneous order is pitched to the punters while, within the tent of the doctrine’s initiates, it is fully understood that the state has to be both a strong state, and to be re-engineered in order to impose neoliberal institutional design.” YeatmanFreedom.pdf
- Nov 2013
I'm very optimistic about the Fellows ability to affect change in the world!