Post by alvb on May 4, 2016 8:07:31 GMT
Hey everyone, thought I would pick up a thread from one of our previous discussions that seemed worth exploring further. One question came up that seemed to go unanswered: Is it possible to construct a form of universalism that is not oppressive, and what does that mean in the context of this particular social project?
To function properly, universalism must be capable of being assumed. A theoretical universal can be set out in detail a number of times on a number of platforms, but the end goal must be that it can inform ways of thinking without being specifically invoked. Otherwise, some other principle applies and colors people's judgement or view.
As I see it, the purpose of universalism in the context of Inventing the Future is to be able to say that certain principles of economics and social attitudes, etc. can be applied universally, in every society and context, as they allude to when they speak of creating a new, leftist global hegemony. Is that sound? Can we agree to that, or do you disagree? Please let me know.
Today, the hegemonic universal is a heterosexual cis white male. This version of a human is the unmarked generic by virtue of centuries of effort. What efforts can be made to undo this, and remake the concept to be more inclusive? Do you believe it is possible to do so? Some of you took issue with the book's assertion that the universal was necessary. I see some merit in their desire to reclaim universalism as a productive unifier, but I also don't really know how that could be accomplished.
So, to sum up, in this thread, for those of you who reject universalism entirely or don't like the author's treatment of it, I would really like to hear why, so I can get some insight into other people's thinking.
Also, if you think universalism *can* be reformed, I would really like to hear your thoughts on how.
To function properly, universalism must be capable of being assumed. A theoretical universal can be set out in detail a number of times on a number of platforms, but the end goal must be that it can inform ways of thinking without being specifically invoked. Otherwise, some other principle applies and colors people's judgement or view.
As I see it, the purpose of universalism in the context of Inventing the Future is to be able to say that certain principles of economics and social attitudes, etc. can be applied universally, in every society and context, as they allude to when they speak of creating a new, leftist global hegemony. Is that sound? Can we agree to that, or do you disagree? Please let me know.
Today, the hegemonic universal is a heterosexual cis white male. This version of a human is the unmarked generic by virtue of centuries of effort. What efforts can be made to undo this, and remake the concept to be more inclusive? Do you believe it is possible to do so? Some of you took issue with the book's assertion that the universal was necessary. I see some merit in their desire to reclaim universalism as a productive unifier, but I also don't really know how that could be accomplished.
So, to sum up, in this thread, for those of you who reject universalism entirely or don't like the author's treatment of it, I would really like to hear why, so I can get some insight into other people's thinking.
Also, if you think universalism *can* be reformed, I would really like to hear your thoughts on how.