Post by CrucifiedDionysus on Sept 9, 2014 9:24:26 GMT
sociological deconstruction of (and/or sociological) self
G. Eric Latham, Jr.
The simple scenario that follows shows the deconstructive social (and/or social psychological) current in action (within society and self.) It is general enough that most should be able to see it through their perspective without confusing it with any Goffman style vision. It is more along the lines of theself-talk ultimate result of a conversation between Mead's "I" and "me" gone reflexive then deconstructive.
Depending on your theoretical biases you will have one behavior follow this active ultramicro-social deconstructive force or the other: either the "active: affirmative" or the "reactive: negative." That active affirmative may be intellectual or ignorant. The same can be said for the reactive negative. Affirmative ignorant would be to happily go along with the conclusion without "getting it," so to speak. Negative ignorant would just be to ignore it. Affirmative and/or negative intellectual may be a number of things.
From Nietzsche to Derrida this has been the one accepted "non-foundation." Yet we have yet to see a sociology fully operate within this arena. We've seen areas go that route and pull it off. One has to an imagine the possibility of a sociology or any social science for that matter to be able to fully operate within said "non-foundation." Of course, this is difficult to imagine because it is almost a style of reversing one's train of thought. One sees the way text deconstructs at the very moment it is constructing itself. This goes for meaning, truth, knowledge, data, fact, all of it. There is plenty of room for construction just as there is plenty of room for deconstruction. If the field of sociology is itself like its social forces, then we must have deconstruction lest we are nothing more than pile upon pile upon pile of who knows what anymore. Yet I can see how the field much like its subjects are cautious and would prefer tip toe. Thankfully, there are plenty in the field who are the more Affirmative intellectual types in sociology I feel. If there is a field that will fully develop its deconstructive realm, so to speak, it will be sociology. I hope anyway.
G. Eric Latham, Jr.
The simple scenario that follows shows the deconstructive social (and/or social psychological) current in action (within society and self.) It is general enough that most should be able to see it through their perspective without confusing it with any Goffman style vision. It is more along the lines of the
Who am I? Nah, where am I? There is this serious ass motherfucker over here. There is that crazy ass over there. There is that serious art like crazy and that artistic comedy like crazy. Then there is this complete jackass that thinks he can reflexively explain it all like a fucking expert or something (trying to hang on to at least one 'I'.) Then there is the dissolution of all that into an empty figure lacking even context. The definition of which is an infinity of possible interpretations (much less some 'I' and/or 'me.')
Depending on your theoretical biases you will have one behavior follow this active ultramicro-social deconstructive force or the other: either the "active: affirmative" or the "reactive: negative." That active affirmative may be intellectual or ignorant. The same can be said for the reactive negative. Affirmative ignorant would be to happily go along with the conclusion without "getting it," so to speak. Negative ignorant would just be to ignore it. Affirmative and/or negative intellectual may be a number of things.
From Nietzsche to Derrida this has been the one accepted "non-foundation." Yet we have yet to see a sociology fully operate within this arena. We've seen areas go that route and pull it off. One has to an imagine the possibility of a sociology or any social science for that matter to be able to fully operate within said "non-foundation." Of course, this is difficult to imagine because it is almost a style of reversing one's train of thought. One sees the way text deconstructs at the very moment it is constructing itself. This goes for meaning, truth, knowledge, data, fact, all of it. There is plenty of room for construction just as there is plenty of room for deconstruction. If the field of sociology is itself like its social forces, then we must have deconstruction lest we are nothing more than pile upon pile upon pile of who knows what anymore. Yet I can see how the field much like its subjects are cautious and would prefer tip toe. Thankfully, there are plenty in the field who are the more Affirmative intellectual types in sociology I feel. If there is a field that will fully develop its deconstructive realm, so to speak, it will be sociology. I hope anyway.