START BACK HERE

https://medium.com/writing-for-change/the-four-steps-king-said-we-need-to-make-nonviolent-action-succeed-6ffe94c2364f

What can we learn? More importantly: was any philanthropy the subjects did this year just .... not included? Not significant enough to make a difference? What do you think? * Tech giants have grown drastically over the last decade but this year tech stocks at many firms fell substantially in 2022 as pandemic sales waned (Meta and Tesla the farthest -65%, Apple the least at -26%). The broader market also plunged this year due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, inflation/interest, and decreases in consumer spending. This has led to hiring freezes and layoffs. * Musk - Lost $132B, current $139B. No longer richest in the world. Decreased electric vic demand in China, rising cost of supples, Twitter distractions. Prior to a large stock gift of $6B to his foundation this year, Musk had only given about $280M over lifetime. * Bezos - Lost $84B, current $108B. Stepped down as Amazon CEO. Amazon hit by inflation and slowing growth from pandemic sales. In November he announced he would give away most of his wealth over his lifetime. As of November, he had donated abt $600M in Amazon shares and thus far he has given around $2.4B lifetime. * Zuckerberg - Lost $80B, current $45B. Meta has increased competition from TikTok and other apps, and a tougher digital ad environment. Lifetime giving as of Jan '22 was $3B, combined with Priscilla Chan. * Page and Brin - Lost ~ $44B each, current ~ $82B each. Stepped down from exec roles at Google/Alphabet in 2019 but still on board and hold voting shares. Digital advertising environment has impacted growth. Brin divorced wife earlier this year. Page has given about $15B lifetime (as of 2019), but 96% of that has gone to DAFs. Brin gave away $127M to his foundation (which has $3B in assets as of 2020) and the Michael J Fox Foundation at the end of 2022. * Gates - Lost $29B (20%, roughly even with the market), current $109B. Microsoft shares shrank by > 30% as expects slowing growth from cloud revenue which led to Wall Street sells (also weaker PC sales and less ad spending on LinkedIn and searches). Lifetime giving as of Jan '22 was $33B. * Steve Balmer - Lost $20B, current $86B. Microsoft slides ate into earnings. Purchases LA Clippers. Forbes profiled billionaire's lifetime giving in early 2022. Lifetime giving as of Jan '22 was $2B.

Read

!!

This validates the idea that the construction of the canon was done in a way that evades sociologies origins in colonialism.

Stadial development

This is similar to anthropology. Elsewhere I've seen noted that anthropology has had to reckon more with its role in colonialism as compared to sociology (which could imply that the construction of a canon could in part be an evasion of this as well as a way to differentiate the field from other social sciences, although this is just my own conjecture).

Thinking about how learning and evaluation can further workplace democracy

Read

"Yes and" approach (deconstructing binaries)

How does TU anticipate that some groups' goals may be in conflict with the goals of other groups? E.g., when a groups goals are formed within the context of white supremacy? Also thinking about the idea of a universal goal and potential issues or ways this could be coopted or regressive--seems to be addressed by the idea that goals aren't just "everyone has the same level of wealth" but also--everyone has what they need to thrive, which requires solidarity and cooperation.

Based on this logic does the equity lens also implicitly set whiteness (or other hegemonic power structures) as aspirational in some ways? What are critiques of targeted universalism? This analysis sees an equity approach as disparity-based (e.g., "closing the gap") as compared to an approach that focuses on universal thriving (e.g., making sure everyone gets what they need to thrive). Also curious about examples/case studies.

Strengths and limitations of the equity approach--recognizes differential relationships to systems and structures but focuses on ending disparities rather than achieving universal thriving

History of shift from equality to equity across discourse about racial justice

Follow developments with Justice40 and implications for climate justice movement.

Outlines three ways of looking at reparations: * Moving resources and repairing harm * Repairing relationships at multiple levels * --> Constructive view: the above plus changing the structure of how we interact with each other, how economies work, political structures work, building and rebuilding institutions and changing who has power

Is this the origin of the term solidarity economy?

Four criteria for a revitalized definition of "rigor"

Examples of methods for evaluating systems change

The Fictions of Modern Social Theory Fiction about rise of West divorced from colonialism and its relationship to the rise of modern social theory. At best, colonialism thought of as stage on way from feudalism to capitalism. Argument here is a renewal of sociological theory with colonialism at core. Five lessons learned from engaging with modern theorists. 1. State of Nature and stadial development - First developed by Hobbes and Lockes, used to justify inequality and differential treatment. Depends on construction of state of nature and state of society (Europe), stages of societal development, and hierarchies of societies with types of social relationships. Colonialism directly connected to emergence of modern society but comes to be attributed to late stage of feudal society with people at earlier stages of development. Taking of people seen as not just profit-making, but as civilizing. Need to move to understanding how colonial connections structure ideas of difference and domination. 2. Modern subjectivity - Modern society understood to inaugurate a distinctive type of rational individual capable of property contrasted to those incapable of or indifferent to private property. Modern reason about development of autonomy and freedom and subjecting institutions like religion to reason. Also creates possibility of self-criticism, like in Frankfurt School's critical theory. Idea of unfinished project of modernity involves idea of modernity itself as project of civilization where all premodern societies viewed as beset by traditional authority and inadequate selves and not as societies we can learn from. 3. Nation state - in development of idea of modern individual, two forms of sovereignty outlined--one individualist, other political authority that guarantees authority of individuals. Early on, associated with commonwealth and extension of colonial territory. However, political authority comes to be associated with European nation states, understood to have sole monopoly on violence due to responsibility to citizens, but not all citizens regarded as equals. All European nation states and settler offshoots either empires or supported construction of empires by movement of people. Subjects of empire are denied inclusion in community to whom patrimony of empire is distributed and after decolonization denied citizenship. Immigrants seen as threats to solidarity of nation and its social contract which excludes them. 4. Class and formally free labor - Marx recognized society developing as class-divided society, associated with system of private property. On basis of development of class division, proletarianization would lead to socialism. Class division depends on centrality of formally free labor, however, this is called into question once we understand colonial nature of modernity. Commodified labor power doesn't develop as central form of capitalism, and capitalist states able to divide their populations between national citizens and colonial subjects. Du Bois noted this provides possibilities of decommodification of labor power within metropole using colonial patrimonies in provision of welfare denied to those in larger empire. At same time, colonial subjects denied status of free labor and subordinated with forms of indenture. Enslavement represents commodification of laborer and emancipation leads to new forms of indenture (e.g., migrant labor and seasonal visa arrangements). Both are enduring features of modernity. 5. Sociological reason - Dominant forms of sociological methods present sociological reason as ahistorical preconditions for inquiry. Sociology aligns itself with a critical project which continues project of Enlightenment. However, this project is not self-critical project it claims--in arguing this, not proposing relativism but transformation of own perspective from learning about others' experiences. First thing is recognizing limitation of one own's understanding. Colonialism structures European thought and then represents a necessity and opportunity to practice sociology differently.

Readings about Du Bois

Du Bois: Addressing the Colour Line * W.E.B. Du Bois was freeborn in 1869 in MA, five years after the Emancipation Proclamation and contemporary with Weber and Durkheim. As a teenager, he saw Jim Crow laws undoing the gains from Reconstruction. * So far, theories in this series have discussed universal claims confounded by racialized difference. Du Bois work, instead, moves from deeply embodied engagement with racist US society to a universal claim about how the global "color line" is constructed in colonialism. * Alongside Du Bois' scholarly work, he was also one of the founders of the NAACP and was very politically active. Delegate to UN, involved in pan-African caucuses, and was an anti-war activate. Ambivalent towards US involvement in WWI, Du Bois saw African American participation as a way to move towards equal citizenship. * In The Philadelphia Negro, Du Bois pointed to social causes of poverty among Black people living in Philly. First empirical sociological study of a specific population within US (usually this title given to work of a white sociologist 20 years later). Sociology in US started in universities of Philadelphia in Atlanta in 1890s, not at University of Chicago in 1920s. * As Du Bois became more active politically, he saw importance of linking Black struggles in US to global struggles. * Du Bois work on reconstruction challenged notion that it had failed because suffrage had been extended too quickly and Southern institutions had been unjustly dismantled (Dunning school--thought it a tyrannical overreach into white society). This understand was fundamental to Jim Crow laws. Du Bois clear that it was not a failer, but had been opposed and subverted. Three key benefits: brought about democratic govt, established free public schools, and address poverty across the color line. Black Reconstruction in America represented a narrative shift, and argued strongly for contributions made by African Americans and wrote emancipated enslaved people back into the narrative. This points to the gap in the dominant history, and as Du Bois said "to regard the truth as more important than the defence of the white race". * Broader aim of Du Bois work was focused on social theory and its narratives. Du Bois wished reconstruction and enslavement to be an upheaval of humanity, e.g. as Weber would have said, a world-historical event. * Wrote about the color line in The Souls of Black Folk and later in The World and Africa: Color and Democracy wrote that colonialism was the issue most needing to be addressed. For a long time, he argued for the need for solidarity and to address the disenfranchisement of Black people in the US, the colonization of India, and the partition of Africa as linked issues. * Du Bois prescient about links between colonized populations inside and outside of colonizing countries. Democracy in America and Europe impedes democracy in Asia and Africa. Until these issues addressed across the board, democracy cannot develop satisfactorily. * Du Bois argued for race to be understood as a product of racism.

For later

To read

to read

I'd like to find and read this at some point

Durkheim: Modernity and Community * Often argued that Durkheim is most conservative of theorists. He came from a Jewish family and was born in France, in a part that was occupied between German troops between 1870 and 1873. * Less direct engagement with colonialism. Karen Fields (who wrote Racecraft together with her sister, Barbara Fields) sees parallels between Durkheim and DuBois as outsider sociologists. (At some point it would be interesting to read more of her work on DuBois.) * Durkheim's mechanic and organic solidarity--in traditional view, Durkheim is seeking to understand nature of individualism in society within a stadial framework. This interpretation is reinforced by his ideas about key aspects of religion. However, Fields argues that Durkheim is trying to identify a core substance common across all religions (and he is trying to claim at our core we are the same). Fields also argues that he is not arguing for a linear replacement, but that in modern society both kinds of solidarity exist. * Durkheim also regarded as a positivist, and thought that society must not be understood as the sum of actions of individuals (the system has its own characteristics--mechanical and organic solidarity are two facets of one reality). * Main problem in Durkheim's view was class conflict, with unequal power between workers and employers which required regulation by the political authorities, itself justified by regulatory mechanisms. The state is the ultimate guardian of regulatory frameworks, legitimized by individual rights it ensures. * Durkheim looked beyond France and thinking about the annexation of Alsace Lorraine thought that states need not find their destiny in expansion. In Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, argued "Societies can take their pride, not in being the greatest or the wealthiest, but in being the most just, the best organized and in possessing the best moral constitution." In this way national patriotism could become a fragment of world patriotism. Here, Durkheim fails to address false division of labor between French administrative territories and forced labor in its colonies. He also fails to discuss the colonial and imperial form of the modern state, although he does raise the rights of the individual above the rights of the state (despite the fact of colonized peoples' rights being upheld). Yet, in his discussion of the Dreyfus question, he addresses it differently from other theorists. Weber addressed from standpoint of assimilation, Marx addressed it as human emancipation (establishing a secular state), and Durkheim imagines a pluralist state of religious solidarity within a secular republic with interfaith dialogue. These views are interesting in the light of current widespread Islamophobia among white supremacist states.

Really great resource for thinking about questions at different parts of the organizing life cycle

Evidencing power building work should not take away from time for actual organizing and can come from updates or notes, or external or dedicated researchers--organizers themselves do not need to be spending time writing things up (and in general we should be thinking about ways to challenge dominant communication practices around evaluation)

This is a bit reductive and excludes several other types of evaluation that could be useful in an organizing context

Really great questions for broader reflection

Cool resource for finding alternative meeting structures

To read

Yes! Would have loved to be in this session--these are my people!

To read

Read sometime

This is interesting! At some point I'd like a better way to have task management and project management all be in the same place (and have it be integrated with my calendar)... I'm always moving from Excel to a task manager to my calendar and back.

Sometime page through and consider these

Spend more time with this sometime

Print this out sometime?

I keep meaning to read this and never get around to it--I feel like now would be a good time because it's tied to a lot of other things I've been thinking about

-Very rough notes- Zimmerman argues that Weber's political positions (including his belief in the cultural inferiority of Poles in Germany; Weber was a stout German nationalist and anti-Polish and anti-Black racist) fundamentally shaped his social science and theorizing and must be seen in that concept--Weber cannot be used to support political and scientific positions that were not his own. Weber rejected biological racism for cultural racism, and was an exponent of internal exploitation, differentiation/segregation, and subordination rather than external conquest. This is the basis for his theorizing on the role of cultural differences in explaining economic productivity (e.g., his work on various world religions, which he viewed as relatively static in essentializing ways, and their impact on economic development). Additionally, Weber himself was deeply entrenched in his own values in opposition to the value-neutrality that is often ascribed to him. Weber was worried that capitalism would destroy rural communities by freeing peasants to become workers (paternal relationships with feudal lords --> less personal relationships with managers) and that in combination with social welfare would lead to revolution (Weber was an opponent of social democracy), but also argued that capitalism would entrench the Protestant ethic/motivations within workers (e.g., stahlhartes Gehause)--the solution to this was to segregate ethnic minorities within labor markets.

Curious what DuBois' perspective on Weber was (or what he knew of him), also on Schmoller since he studied with him

Right-wing academics tendency to elevate cultural explanations of differences in economic development (neoracism; this approach finds justification in Protestant Ethic) over a structural understanding of global inequality.

"capitalism’s insatiable drive to resolve its inner crisis tendencies by geographical expansion and geographical restructuring" from Globalization and the Spatial Fix

Weber: Religion, Nation, and Empire * Weber was upper middle class, born right after unification, lived through German empire and died in 1920 just as Weimar Republic was being established. Work done in context of empire but rarely discussed. His work was influential on many areas, including Marxism and rise of capitalism. * Work formed in context of imperialism and German national interests. Weber encouraged internal colonialism via peasant smallholder farming, for example, at same time as concerns about Germanifying non-"German" populations including Jewish people--this is part of the context for Protestant Ethic. For Weber, capitalism depends on favorable material conditions as well as "spirit of capitalism" (which for Weber, needed to not be greed, needed to be Protestantism--interested in the wording here as this makes it seem like this was intentional). * Consequences of Protestant Ethic: capitalism has European personality and is also a spirit of freedom, "spirit of capitalism" can be exported (I.e., multiple modernity theory). Form of capitalism Weber treated was very colonial internally (against ethnic Poles and Jews) and externally (e.g., in Africa). Capitalism associated with settler colonialism in US, for example, via Ben Franklin. Weber thought that Confucianism prohibited growth of capitalism in China (was forcibly opened for trade via Opium Wars). * Weber's definition of the state (monopoly on violence) is commonly accepted in social sciences, but period that establishes modern state is period of expansion and external domination--this is not theorized as a characteristic of the state by Weber. Imperialism is a constitutive aspect of the modern nation state, and requires division between domestic and foreign populations. Justification for imperialism is economic dividends for nation. * Is colonialism an explanatory issue? Or only a question of values? If there are explanatory issues, we need to revisit how they shift our understandings of Weber's and others' theories.

Overall argument seems to be that often people assert that Marx failed to allow for the growth of the middle class, but Harris is arguing that this is because people take Marx's simple theory of class struggle as put forward in political writings like the Communist Manifesto without qualifications. In reality, Marx was analyzing capitalism by abstracting it into what he called pure capitalism, which was characterized by conflict between the capitalist and working classes to which the middle classes were incidental because its tendency is to become absorbed by either class (and it is unclear whether he thought that the middle class would actually disappear--again, he was analyzing through the lens of an abstraction). Marx also argued that because of this vacillation, the middle class was inconsequential to the ultimate fate of capitalism. What he did not foresee was the important political role the middle class has currently (my first thought here was thinking about common left analyses of the petite bourgeois as the base of fascism, but reminding myself that it is a mistake to use a solely material analysis to understand fascism, I would like to read more current analysis on the role of the middle class within capitalism). Another question left unanswered by this is how accurate Marx's analysis is here (note: read more on hollowing out of middle class).

Here are papers that have cited Harris' paper or stem from those papers. It looks like more recent research (e.g., from the 1980s onwards) has focused on understanding and measuring bipolarization. Some of the more widely cited recent(er) papers include: * Atkinson and Brandolini (2011) who argue for measures beyond just income to measure class. * Pressman (2010) who argues that the middle class serves as a buffer in class warfare and that Marx missed this, and is key to democracy (Tocqueville would agree). Argues that US middle class has fluctuated but on average decreased due to income polarization, and that declines in middle class are lowest in social democratic states. Worth spending more time with this paper. * Esteban and Ray (1994) focus on measures of social polarization. * Foster and Wolfson (1992) find polarization rising in the US using curved rather than ranged estimates of polarization.

At some point would like to read more literature on polarization.

Key

"Proletarianization"

Tocqueville: America and Algeria * Political instability in the early/mid-1800s in places like France and Algeria were motivating concerns for Tocqueville who was interested in the conditions necessary for political stability. * In Democracy in America and The Ancien Regime and the Revolution, Tocqueville explores the French and American revolutions as world historical moments defining modernity in relation to equality. He argues that democracy follows from pre-existing equality in the US, and in France the claim to democracy opposed hierarchies in society. While former can be represented as pure democracy, France's democracy developed as a tyranny of the majority. Tocqueville omits colonial aspects--dispossession and forced movement. * France was consolidating colonial excursions in Africa (in Algeria) around 1830 and US was expanding westward. Tocqueville anticipated a US empire. Haiti also liberated itself from French control and enslavement during years of French revolution. * Tocqueville clearly stated in one chapter of Democracy in America (that was abridged from US versions until recently) that his writing on democracy was only about one of three races living in the US, while other two were subjugated by institutions praised as embodying democracy. * Displacement of indigenous peoples contiguous with expansion of US settler state, especially with 1830 Indian Removal Act. Tocqueville believed indigenous peoples were doomed to extinction and aware of contradiction within democratic America with genocide of indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans. However, his central idea of development is stadial with previous societies being doomed. He saw presence of enslaved Africans as endangering white democratic state and system of possession and ideas of property, and described slavery as evil. * Tocqueville fails to mention Haiti (then San Domingue) and revolution leading to abolition of slavery in all French oversea colonies. Napoleon's attempt to reinstate slavery in 1802 was then an attempt to enslave citizens. Tocqueville was aware of this but suppresses it from his narrative, possibly because of threat self-abolition of slavery posed to French colonial engagements. He did concern himself, however, with an orderly process for emancipation that involved state to compensate slave owners and then be reimbursed for expenses by tax on wages of formerly enslaved peoples working for the state for a transitionary period (reparations for enslavers not for enslaved people's loss of liberty). For Tocqueville, French values of equality compatible with colonialism which included subjection of local populations (evident in letters to Algiers) and genocide. Thought French imperialism was central to its stability--empire was Tocqueville's solution to international stability. * Tocqueville's arguments in US better understood in light of his comments on Algeria--democracy in US racialized, and Tocqueville willing to restrict functioning of democracy along racialized lines in service of French colonial interests. Unifying racial theme in Tocqueville's writing is marginalization of cultures of people of color.

Marx: Colonialism, Class and Capitalism * Marx wrote on capitalism, as well as colonialism, with limitations. Marx's dialectics used for a broad variety of social theories (e.g., standpoint theory, postcolonial theory), however his theory of capitalism also involves a stadial theory of development (e.g., modes of production--capitalism evolves in Europe out of feudal relations). * Marx described capitalism in terms of exploitative character derived from class division. A post-capitalist society would arise from these contradictions. Colonialism, for Marx, was part of transition from late colonialism to early capitalism (primitive accumulation of wealth). Capitalism has a separate logic from colonialism, and then expands through a separate logic of globalism called imperialism. As global expansion becomes complete, contradictions of capitalism become more evident. * Things that disrupt Marx's analysis--1) capital-labor relation not as central to capitalist modernity as Marx believed, 2) capitalism not as tightly coupled as he believed, and 3) colonialism and empire function to provide patrimony that allows welfare and wages to accrue to whiteness at capitalist metropolitan centers. * According to Abram-Harris, Marx sets out capital-labor relation in terms of theory of pure capitalism abstracted from historical contingencies which varied in locations. Processes understood as real processes to which different contingencies gradually become subsumed. In pure capitalism, labor free but must sell labor to capitalist for wages. Capitalist combines labor with other means of production to produce goods for sale on market. In effect, then, capitalism a structural contradiction b/t (a) market for labor power and (b) market for products of labor process. In (a) prices of wages are driven by competition down towards subsistence of worker, in (b) capitalist seeks to find advantage by investing in new machinery to increase productivity, but this only temporary as competition drives innovation, more producers go out of business, and ownership becomes increasingly concentrated. * For Marx, these are central conditions and consequences for capitalism: skilled labor reduced to unskilled labor and differences (race, gender, disability, etc.) eroded in process of proletarianization. On other side, wealth becomes more concentrated as capacity for political intervention to ameliorate circumstances is reduced and only intervention possible is transformation of capital-labor relation itself. * Marx argues that large-scale capitalism depends on formerly free labor and commodification of labor power. This is an approximation of what was happening in Europe, but poor description of European colonialism. In colonies, dispossession of indigenous peoples accompanied by enslavement and indenture including the Atlantic slave trade. In line with this theory of pure capitalism, Marx predicted replacement of slave labor by free labor--but where slavery was abolished, it was replaced by indentured labor--e.g., global phenomenon of plantation systems. * As Harris argues, variation in forms of labor and increased differentiation of division of labor undermine Marx's predictions of proletarianization. Where there is more or less advantaged forms of behavior, is discriminatory access to jobs. Colonialism creates new systems of difference not necessarily inherited from pre-modern past (although I think Cedric Robinson might argue that these systems did not arise out of nowhere). * Marx's view of a tightly coupled system also extended to possibilities of political intervention, which Marx thought only possible form was revolution following process of proletarianization and struggles to transform capitalism from within. E.g., eventually proletariat must understand that we need to overthrow capitalism and institute system oriented to need rather than profit. These arguments go back to 1840s when Marx discussed conditions of Moselle wine growers and how logic of capitalist political economy required market processes and outcomes, and wasn't possible politically to address their poverty but by the 1860s, Parliament was discussing things like progressive taxation and public utilities (which would have been excluded by doctrines of classical political economy of which Marx was a part). This was also at height of European empire and the possibility of expanded state budgets and spending on domestic projects. Possibilities of private (charity) and state action expanded within bounds of European nations. Patrimony of empires (philanthropy or taxes) made available in metropole (not to populations subject to taxation and extraction in empire). * Marx makes room for analyzing colonialism, but within it being subsumed by pure capitalism. Also centers a European proletariat, but which is in reality bound to consumption of global appropriated resources.

Early Modern Social Theory: Europe and its ‘Others’ * See video description for an overview. * Origins of modern social thought are misrepresented by dominant accounts of their development. * 1600s: Hobbes and Locke concerned with identifying rights and obligations associated with private property, and with justifying colonialism with which they were directly, deeply engaged. Private property must be understood in context of capitalism, so that we properly understand capitalism as developing from colonialism. Hobbes "state of nature" described by him as a fiction, but thought it was similar to indigenous people native to places of "European discovery" which is a serious misrepresentation with the purpose of establishing need for government grounded in agreement among property holders for their mutual protection (indigenous people assigned to state of nature and placed outside this). Locke set to argue god-given right of self-determination, and how what was given to all could be taken into self-possession. His idea was that if you mix your labor with something you take from state of nature, you make it your private property (which is constrained only by what is due to others). Locke writing contemporarily with process of enclosure, and he justified this with an obligation to put land to use ("spoilage"). Tension of accumulation of wealth with concept of spoilage reconciled through the development of money, which could be put to other productive ventures and expand possession in a virtuous circle. Enslavement contradicts right to possession directly, but for Locke, Africans and other indigenous people existed in state of nature and their "warlike aggressions" placed them in breach of their natural rights and so they could become property. Later theorists filled in stages between state of nature and modern state using various combinations of subsistence methods with forms of property--hunter gatherer, pastoral herding, settled agriculture, and commercial society. * 1700s: Scottish Enlightenment authors like Hume, Smith developed typologies of society as stages of human development (not mentioned here, but also Rousseau). Colonial encounters conceptualized as encounters with people at different stages of development, and modernity presented as project of progress. Slavery conceptualized as feature of societies in earlier stages (e.g., agricultural or hunter-gatherer, and often equated with serfdom) at the same time that colonialism forced the expansion of forced labor. Hegel argued that slavery would be good for Africans and bad for European societies, and Hegel used opposition to slavery as mark of savagery and lack of humanity. European barbarity was ignored. * These ideas contribute to view that freedom is a product of European modernity which operates from an internal logic (which excludes/displaces colonialism from its proper context in social theory). European society (capitalist society, etc.) seen as proper focus for social theory and its conflicts (I.e., class, gender) become focus of sociology. Racism rendered as non-essential and deriving from colonialism. * John Holmwood is a former president of the BSA, educated at Cambridge. His work has focused on social stratification and the relationship between social science and explanation. His later work has concentrated on issues of pragmatism in public sociology. * Comments: Helpful analysis of how foundational European theorists' thought was deeply implicated in justifying colonialism. This analysis was missing from the Western Political Heritage class (POLI 202) I took from Ryan Davis my junior year at BYU (in 2016)--I wonder if I could find any of my old papers?

Decolonizing Modern Social Theory * Calls to decolonize the university came alongside broader movements for decolonization. Issues include institutional benefits of colonialism to Western educational systems (endowments, personnel) and legacy of colonial thought in social sciences. * Examines context of development of Western theory in relation to colonialism and the subsequent erasure of that information in Western discourse. * Colonialism displaced as well in neglect of rise of European imperialism out of colonialism, in contrast we see colonialism rising out of capitalism. Colonialism and empire are seen outside the dominant framework of modernity (something prior to modernity), despite Marx, Weber, and Durkheim writing at the height of colonialism which culminated in a global war b/t colonial powers. * European history often uses stadial account of social development (e.g., see Dawn of Everything) and represents slavery as a pre-modern phenomenon. * Colonialism has not been dealt with systematically within social theory. * Purpose is to decolonize and disrupt concepts and categories (e.g., class) that "modern" social theory has given us to open up new ways of thinking about modern social thought. * Post WWII, sociology expanded and was incorporated into many curriculums worldwide. As empires declined, sociology came to focus on nation-state. At same time, European countries challenged by decolonial movements (Algeria, India, etc.) which transformed the world order although sociology did not see these conflicts as defining social structures, rather as entanglements between nations. * Issue isn't to add colonialism to sociology's covered topics, but how the absence of colonialism has shaped sociology and how including it as central reforms sociology. * Gurminder Bhambra is President of the British Sociological Association (22-24) and her current projects are on epistemological justice and reparations and on the political economy of race and colonialism. * Comments: Appreciate the dual focus on grappling with institutional benefits of colonialism to Western institutions alongside the legacy of colonial thought. Really interested in the questions posed here and their cross-applicability to other fields (e.g., evaluation). Wasn't quite clear on whether she was arguing that the linear process in the development of colonialism was capitalism --> colonialism --> empire, or if she was arguing for another (e.g., non-linear or differently ordered) conception of this process (I.e., similar to what Cedric Robinson does in Black Marxism).

• Writing in the newsletter of the American Sociological Association's theory section in 2019, Magubane argues that the day for sociology to reckon with how its structures of knowledge (frameworks, analytical categories, methods, and data) are shaped by colonialism. She argues that the dominant sociological canon (particularly Marx, Weber, and Durkheim) serves a uniquely integrating function as a shared ritual in sociology.
• Magubane discusses Raewyn Connell's pathbreaking article "Why is Classical Theory Classical" and hostile responses. Citing Connell, Magubane highlights the disciplinary crisis that struck sociology after WWI when sociology recentered from focusing on progress to society and difference and disorder within the metropole. She argues a point that Connell does not make but that is central to understanding the implications of decolonizing sociology is that race was central to the "difference and disorder" in the metropole. Sociology was committed to understanding racism in America, but did not do so very successfully in part due to the standpoint of many sociologists within the white, male professional managerial class. The shift to focusing on race coincided with the discipline's "deep suppression of the discipline's roots in colonialism via the construction of the classical cannon" which deleted the discourse of imperialism from sociology.
• Decolonizing sociology will require a deep examination of its history and how it has dealt with racism. This includes reading the classics differently, to see how key concepts took shape because of theorists' engagement with the global majority, and restoring intellectuals who have been excluded from the canon (e.g., W.E.B. DuBois, Anna Julia Cooper, and Charles S. Johnson) while rigorously engage them in ways that "interrogate and emphasize their intellectual disagreements" rather than lumping them under homogenizing labels.
• Zine Magubane is a scholar whose work focuses broadly on the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, and post-colonial studies in the United States and Southern Africa. Magubane was born in Chicago, Illinois. Her father, Bernard Magubane, was a prominent South African scholar and one of the leading anti-apartheid activists based in the United States. Magubane received her undergraduate degree in politics at Princeton University, and obtained a masters and Ph.D degree in sociology from Harvard. She currently works at Boston College.
• Thought provoking analysis of the role of the "canon", the role of the study of racism in the re-construction of the field post-WWII, and of how to approach decolonization within the discipline. The latter provides extremely helpful insights into how to "do" social science work and engage with its theory in a decolonial way. The article focuses on the decolonization of the canon, and it would be helpful to also read discussions around disrupting colonial structures within sociology, academia, and related systems.

Also, looking at this process looks like in "applied" disciplines like evaluation--what are the ways in which evaluation and "its interpretive frameworks, core analytical categories, methods of analysis, and data have been impacted by the colonial encounter"

Two aspects of 'decolonizing' the sociological canon pointed to here: reading the classics differently to understand how central concepts were shaped by their author's engagement with the global majority, and to restore intellectuals who have been excluded from the canon without homogenizing them under "different voices".

Would be really interested in looking at what social theory courses look like in different spaces (e.g., where does the "canon" vary and where does it stay relatively consistent)?

Thinking about the critique I read before about how Elias' theory doesn't engage with colonial power structures and how violence doesn't increase, it's just displaced to the periphery of the colonizing society.

Interested in perspectives on violence from anarchist theorists (not the popular view of anarchy=chaos). It seems like some anarchist theorists might critique Elias' theory of state formation and its relation to self-constraint here by saying something like people are inherently self-regulating? Or maybe it relates to the development of the alternative, non-hierarchical, non-state structures (e.g., confederations).

Bureaucracy starts

Interesting to follow his thought process here of deciding what is important (signal/noise)

Related to his concept of the "iron cage" or "steel-hard casing". Would be interested in reading more contemporary cultural analyses of capitalism (e.g., grind/hustle culture, consumerism, commodification of self, etc.).

Saving this as something to read later

Take all of this in context--at least according to this widely accepted 2010 study by Cantoni, his theory of the effect of Protestantism on capitalist development/economic growth is false. Also, see this 2016 survey of research on the topic by Becker, Pfaff, and Rubin starting on page 31.

Seems to be saying in order to analyze complex phenomena we need to decide on what aspects of them are important or "essential" in the context of what we are studying.

Seems that he's saying something along the lines of descriptive analysis is helpful as a first step to understand the cultural significance of a phenomenon, but to make sense of a phenomenon's role in the world we need to develop a causal theory of the phenomenon to understand its historical significance.

Weber's definition of social action

Interesting when put in context with his ideas about "value-free sociology"--did he ever go back on that?

Is this really the classical definition? Marx used the category of petite bourgeoisie

People want power to be able to exploit other people vs people want power for power's sake

This is a really interesting discussion--would love to see a more current take on this

Not all of this necessarily contradicts Marx (although it is in tension with some interpretations), and is more in line with analyses from the Black radical tradition (e.g., Cedric Robinson) and intersectional approaches developed within Black feminism. A framework like racial capitalism might synthesize these two views in some ways.

Overall, each of these view assert broad statements and the reality is most likely a mixture and contextual

Ahhh eeek this is so colonizing

This reminds me of the approach used in Barbara and Karen Field's Racecraft.

Elsewhere I've seen folks describe social facts as social norms and institutions, in which case you could almost think of social facts as a type of systems level analysis, but I'm curious whether that actually reflects Durkheim's analysis. This wording makes it seem like Durkheim thinks they exist at the level of the conscience collective.

This seems so common within the Eurocentric canon of sociology--thinking back to David Graeber and David Wingrow's critique of Rousseau and how he based his theory of development on assumptions that didn't hold up to scrutiny.

This is really helpful guidance for thinking about how to incorporate UFE into all evaluations--what needs to be included as a minimum. I appreciate that he goes back on the 17 steps a bit here--they felt overly prescriptive. * Honor the personal factor. Identify and engage primary users. Who is the evaluation for? * Be purpose driven. Focus on priority intended users. What is the purpose of the evaluation? * Facilitate process use. Be active-reactive-interactive-adaptive in engaging users in all aspects of the evaluation. * Take a full journey stance. Focus on use from beginning to end and every step along the way. How will everything that is done from beginning to end affect use? * Monitor and adapt to context changes. When the context for an evaluation changes, the evaluation may need to change. This also reminds me of the APF project management framework and USAID's adaptive management approach.

At some point I'd like to watch the full hour webinar on UFE min specs.

These questions seem like a great entry point into using UFE across evaluations.

I appreciate this stance, and the idea of a principles-based rather than a steps-based approach (e.g., using steps seems to be a very Eurocentric approach to rigor--"if we follow these steps, the evaluation will be rigorous", whereas using principles allows more flexibility and adaptability to context).

This graphic addresses some of the questions I had previously about whether there are "phases" and does a bit better job of breaking down the still-linear assumptions inherent in that kind of language. I also wonder if there are any resources out there on blending evaluation approaches? This is something evaluators do frequently but I'm not sure I've ever actually read anyone's thoughts on how to do this effectively.

I appreciate how these steps anticipate how different audiences may engage with and process findings.

I wonder if the choice to not organize the steps into phases was intentional? While doing this would make it more digestible, the way it is also allows the learning and evaluation team to do this in a way that makes sense for their work.

Why fall of capitalism is inevitable, according to Marx and Engels

This reminds me of David Harvey's concept of time-space compression.

This analysis of globalization and the adaptability of capitalism is interesting in the context of Marx's predictions that the demise of capitalism would come much sooner than it has in reality (e.g., idea that while he definitely considered this, he also underestimated it).

See Cedric Robinson's argument in Black Marxism that while Marx definitely considered slavery and colonialism when analyzing capitalism, he did not analyze it as central to the development of capitalism (which Robinson does in Black Marxism and argues that all capitalism is racial capitalism).

Three of the four aspects of alienation of labor (product, production process, from fellow workers, and from self as human being)

Marx argues this elsewhere as well (that relationships of production --> private property and not vice versa)

Marx's definition of the alienation of labor

This is a really interesting line of thought and also seems to be more in line with intersectional feminism

This is related to theories of social reproduction from Marxist feminism

I've wondered sort of this same thing--what is the usefulness or analytical value of historical materialism as a mode of analysis if you can't really separate base and superstructure in any meaningful way? Sayer here says:

social relation x is essential to, and therefore a production relation of, mode of production y, the case needs to be empirically argued, and counter-claims can be empirically evaluated

which seems to be saying that the core of historical materialism is the argument that we can hypothesize that X social relations are an essential component of the mode of production for Y thing (the other being the forces of production like labor and the means of production), and that we can evaluate this claim empirically. Like he says below, claims that historical materialism is arbitrary only pose a risk to its validity if the types of claims above are not empirically evaluated a posteriori and in specific contexts. This is a lot more nuanced way of explaining historical materialism than I've heard elsewhere (honestly in a lot of current left wing discourse like podcasts, blogs, etc. historical materialism gets thrown around in a lot of vague and handwavy ways).

Note that Sayer is arguing against Cohen's stance here and argues that Marx himself did not see the two as necessarily separate (see the fruit vs lemon analogy later).

Seems to be arguing here that Marx never meant for the base and superstructure to be mutually exclusive.

Marx's approach to defining property conflicts with Cohen's interpretation

If I understand correctly, what Sayer is arguing here is along the lines of that Marx's "base" should be interpreted as theoretical/abstract, which takes concrete forms in the superstructure (and that taking this stance lets us critique Thompson and Acton's arguments that you can't separate the two in practice).

reification fallacy - confusing a model with reality (source)

"not legal"

Derek Sayer's website

This reminds me a lot of this little clip of Murray Bookchin talking about work as play

Fromm thinks that Marx is a humanist existentialist. See this critique from George Novack:

Are existentialism and Marxism compatible? Are they opposites or affinities? Can they be synthesised into a coherent unit?

Most interpreters and adherents of existentialism, especially the theists among them, do not think the two are reconcilable. They reject Marxism totally because it fails to recognise what to them is the most meaningful aspect of being: the sovereign subjectivity and dignity of the individual. They maintain that materialist theory debases people to mere objects while socialist practice stamps out personal freedom.

Orthodox Marxists no less firmly insist that the contending philosophies have far too many principled differences to be welded into one.

In between stand a variegated group who agree with Sartre that the two can be fused into a single alloy that will reinforce both. In the United States the noted psychoanalytical sociologist Erich Fromm is the most ardent champion of the thesis that existentialism and Marxism are substantially identical. In Marx’s Concept of Man (1961), which presents Fromm’s concept of Marx, he asserts that Marx’s thinking is humanist existentialism. The doctrines appear alike to him since both protest against the alienation in modern society and seek ways to overcome it. “Marx’s philosophy”, he writes, “constitutes a spiritual existentialism in secular language and because of this spiritual quality is opposed to the materialistic practice and thinly disguised materialistic philosophy of our age. Marx’s aim, socialism, based on his theory of man, is essentially prophetic Messianism in the language of the 19th century.”

This transmutation of the materialist Marx into a precursor and preacher of existentialism is typical of radical humanists of very different backgrounds and beliefs; Fromm is their chief American representative They locate the “true” Marx in the early Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, which mark transitional stages of his development, instead of in the ripe conclusions of his mature thoughts. They contend that Marx has been misrepresented as a crude dialectical materialist by his orthodox disciples from Engels to Lenin—until the radical humanists revealed that he really was an ethical existentialist.

Fromm’s equation of dialectical materialism with existentialism is as ill-founded as his astonishing statement that “Marx’s atheism is the most advanced form of rational mysticism”. The atheistic Marx is no more a mystic than the Marx of scientific socialism is an existentialist.

Personal note that this interpretation is fascinating in contrast with how I was taught the concept of idolatry growing up as a Mormon. It's also related to conversations I've had with friends before about how certain parts of Mormon religion (e.g., idea of receiving promptings from the Holy Spirit) alienate you from understanding yourself--by externalizing your own feelings you grow to trust yourself less.

About Eric Fromm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm

Reminds me of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution

Marx often interpreted as overly deterministic (e.g., base --> superstructure), here Fromm arguing that Marx was clear about there being a reciprocal relationship

E.g., often we are not aware of the ideological nature of our ideas and what the roots of those ideas are--this is why critical consciousness is so important

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_Concept_of_Man - psychoanalyst Erich Fromm writing about Marx's theory of human nature

Knowledge production also determined by relationships of production

Overall context for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theses_on_Feuerbach

Not sure if I'm understanding this right, but it seems like here he is critiquing Feuerbach for calling himself a communist but lacking praxis? E.g., being a communist is not about having the correct understanding but about changing "the existing state of things".

Core assumption--history is not primarily driven by ideas, but by productive relationships. To understand social change, you need to look not at the history of "great ideas" (or religion or politics as he writes below), but primarily at social relationships (specifically productive relationships).