Neoliberalism

I am still learning to understand what it means to live in an age of unprecedented uncertainty. I believe that the ideology which can go by many names, including Neoliberalism has so ‘distorted’ reality in such a manner that it may be beyond repair. In one sense Neoliberalism is just another iteration of Capitalism. Yet, I can’t help but feel that this iteration is of a particularly damaging mode precisely because it operates at such a subtle level. This means that, like the great Italian Marxist much of our oppression and exploitation now occurs by ‘consent rather thatn coericion’. I am also aware that this is an ongoing struggle. In this entry I would like to point out somethings that I think might help us fight the old/new patterns of exploitation which plague not only our species but the precious planet.

1. I would say that the first task is our need to be very explicit in our position as Anti-Capitalist. I also think that our critique towards the system has to be precise without being pedantic. I think we have to be willing to embrace an element of more traditional categories and understandings around political-economic theories. There is a famous story told of how Karl Marx once said “I am not a Marxist”. It was, I believe, given in the spirit of not wanting to be dogmatic in ones understanding of Marxist tradition(s). I think that it is very, very important to be vigilant to avoid dogamtic thinking, however I also believe that it is important to truly engage any and all intellectual traditions in a way that shows that we are sincere and serious about their content. I think we are waaaaaaaaaay to ‘cautious’ about not wanting to appear ‘like Marxist’! So much so, that I know many United States intellectual that are profoundly ignorant of Marx. I honestly believe that this is completely unexcusable given that he is without question one of the best, most precise critics of Capitalism. I wish to state that I am not saying agree with him (or don’t agree with him!). I am saying that, given that we live in world that is profoundly shaped by Capitalist logic, reality, concepts etc. it is imbecilic to be ignorant of the work of one of its seminal critics. One of the danger of this degree of ignorance in the United States can be seen in the example of a recent book written by Mark R. Levin entitled American Marxism. To say that this work is a tragic waste of paper is to be a bit too generous. I do feel sad that natural resources were used to produce this work. However, I have talked to some people who have read it and think that, in doing that, they have a ‘grasp’ of Marx and the Marxist tradtion(s). We, particularly the educated elite have to be willing to familarize the general population enough with Marxism to know when a intellectual hack is doing a butcher job. It is not enough to say. “I don’t like Mark Levin”. You will just be told that you are against his political perspective. It is very important to be clear that he is categorically and factually incorrect in his understanding of the Marxist tradition(s). The other benefit of familiarizing yourself with Marxist thought is that it will make it ‘less scary’ for the lay person. I will end this section by reccommending the work of Richard Wolfe. This includes his online presence. He is a remarkable economist that is within the Marxist tradtion. Unlike some academics (you know who you are! LOL) he is able to ‘talk regular’ so that he can explain Marxist theories with a great facility. Great work!!! I would also reccomend the work of Hadas Thier.
2. I have spoken about this earlier in various formats, but I think we must move away from our ‘silo’ liberation mentality. This includes a very intentional and ongoing commitment to the Other. Here I will go back to some of my work that I did in writing my dissertation. I did some study on the work of Emmanuel Levinas for my doctoral project. Levinas spoke eloquently about the deep commitment to the Other. He spoke of the birth of Ethics as beginning with the encounter with the Other. I certainly found his work incredibly convincing. I was also deeply moved by the Cuban-American theologian, Justo Gonzalez as describing Jesus as embodying the life of a “man for others’ in the most profoundest sense of that phrase. I believe that the best way to manifest this ethical insight expressed as a deep commitment in solidarity with the Other we must be willing to rethink some traditional categories of liberation struggles. Pope Francis speaks of the ‘hyper individualism’ that is so toxic to our world today. I would argue that this ‘hyper-individualistic’ worldview is sometimes carried into our liberation struggles. To give a simple example I obviously don’t just see myself as Dr. Rene Sanchez but I view myself as a proud Chicano Theologian/Ethicist. I take seriously how my accomplishment of a Ph.D. is also helping (in some form) the larger struggle of Raza to dismantle the shackles of White Supremacist existence. But I also am aware that in one sense my focus on my Chicanismo is another form of ‘hyper-individualism’! Only now I have defined the ‘individual’ within the context of the Chicano/Raza experience. It is still in the end about me, in some iteration. I used to joke with my students about how Justice (Just Us) could never be about Just Us! 🙂 But I now realize it can also never be about any Just Us. So that Chicano Justice can never be about Just Us Chicanos! Catholic Justice can never be about Just Us Catholic’s. etc. I believe Levinas’ insight is correct. Ethics (or Justice) begins with the Other! Simply put, no iteration of ‘me’ is acceptable to do the work necessary to liberate us from our current predicament. I think we have to begin to create IN EVERY SOCIAL MOVEMENT a particular aspect of that movement whose sole purpose is to concern themselves (as a community/movement) with the well being of another community. The key, is to do this with great intention. This would include giving material support to the other communities. This will require a massive shift in our priorities. I recall Bernie Sanders in some of his early presidential rally’s asking everyone in atttendance to commit to ‘fight’ for people that didn’t look like them, think like them etc. This call for deep solidarity is an absolute must for the struggles ahead.
3. The third feature will appear to be a reversal of all that is said above…lol. Just see it as ‘dialectical move’. 🙂 . I think we have to create alternative communities and resources etc. outside of the circuitry of Capitalist structures. I see this especially in 2 areas. The first is in education. The Right has been absolutely brilliant at understanding the importance of attacking the foundation of an educated citizenry by attacking the education system. Their attack on public education is a clever and smart way to create the necessary preconditions for exploitation and domination. We need to create an entire way of speaking to the need for popular education. This would entail the creation of some new strategies and a reinvigoration of older strategies; here I will only give two projects that I see as indispensable as we move forward. What I mean by this is that these projects wil have to be worked on in order to liberate ourselves from our current level of ignorance/intellectual torper.
   • We must be clear that education should not (and can not ) properly function within the logic of the Market. There are certain things that are destroyed by placing them within Market parameters. This will go against the foundational logic of Neoliberalism. It is one of the “Big Lies” that we have been sold. Simply put, it is a load of crap. We must be willing to openly admit that all education is a kind of indoctrination. There is no ‘neutral’ education. That is a myth. There is no ‘source’ of knowledge that exists outside of human experience. Because this is the case, all education is ultimately a profoundly contested terrain. We only weaken our position when we try to speak of a ‘good education’ that doesn’t take sides. To paraphrase Howard Zinn; “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”. One of the ways we will have to confront this reality is in the painful way in which education, particularly private education (especially Cathloic schools which I am so familiar with) is beholden to wealthy endowments and corporate structures. The very nature of this relationship creates conditions that make genuine liberative education impossible.
   • The second area that needs a strong reimagining and reconceptualizing is the area of government. We must be clear about the need to reinvigorate faith in politics in general and specifically in the State. There are many ways to understand this question. I have found the work of Quinn Slobodian, and Ellen Meiksins Wood among so many others to be helpful in better understanding this issue. One of the fundamental features, and another of the big lies of Neoliberalism is the ongoing ‘bad mouthing’ of Government. This intentionally opaque term has been used to discredit one of the only instruments found in society that can combat the evils of Capital. We seem to hear about how ‘the government’ is always a inefficient, bureaucratic, regulatory monster which only exists to impede our freedoms and invade our lives. Making our lives a living hell. The subtlety with which this concept has been introduced to the ‘common sense’ of the people is incredible. Taking the form of comedic jibes offered by everyone from late night hosts to ‘liberal’ pundits that claim to be for liberation. This has allowed the rise of many dangerous ideologies to appear rational, this includes but is not limited to the most absurdist Libertarian positions having some cache and gravitas in our political discourse. I wish to be clear that I am deeply troubled by how the Capitalist Class has captured the functioning of all aspects of the State. However the fact that the government is working remarkably well for the Ruling Class is precisely why I know it can work so well for the common good. One of the ideas conveyed in the writing of Slobodian is that the Ruling Class actually ‘encases’ itself in the government in order to protect its actions and execute some of the necessary actions for it to continue to exploit, accumulate wealth etc. The State also functions to not only protect property, but to give them an easy scapegoat when it comes to explaining the contradictions found in Capitalism (over-regulation is the problem, or government interference etc.). This disallows the larger population to marshall evidence for a more accurate critique of why things are as they are. So much more could be said about this, but suffice to say that we must find a way to speak of the government, and the State in a way that shows our ongoing support for its importance in creating a beloved community. We have to articulate a vision of the government as an instrument that is indispensable in the creation of a more just social order. We can do this in such a way that avoids the mistakes made in the past, including the ‘state-run’ Capitialist enterprise that has at times been mistaken for an authentic Socialist State.

One of the insights brough to forefront by Antonio Gramsci is that the ruling class who is in part defined by ‘owning the means of production’ would eventually own the ‘means of mental production’. This of course would include the ideas that were circulated among the population. This comes in the form of realizing who. in fact, controls the media, education, social content (both entertainment and informational). This would include understanding the profound way in which ownership begats perspective and interpretation. It is always astounding to me how truncated our vision of the possible is in the United States. But this is true all over the world to varying degrees. One of the ways that Neoliberalism has succeeded is that it has been a master at creating a seamless ‘natural’ world in which this is ‘just the way it is’. This includes re-writing history, science, culture etc. The absolute most cogent and precise artculation of this issue is found in an article written by George Monbiot in The Guardian entitled “Neoliberalism-the Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot). In this article he does a masterful job of summarizing the way in which Neoliberalism has ‘hijacked’ virtually all social discourse and reality all while staying ‘invisible’. I think one of the great functions of Marxism (among other Radical critiques) is that it denaturalizes the social reality in which we find ourselves. I remember that a famous line by the comedian/Prophet George Carlin is that “It’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it”. I think it is time we wake up from our slumber.

The Authority of Our Master

 “Do we believe in God? or do we believe in our beliefs about God and, in so doing, perhaps really believe only in ourselves or in what we would like to think about ourselves?”

Johann Baptist Metz: A Passion for God, Theology as Theodicy.

          I sometimes write impelled by rage. This is one of those times. I am writing as I contemplate the full repercussions of the overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. I am also speaking not only to the secular forces but also to the religious forces that allowed this to occur. Because I believe that they are, in a phrase made popular by Cornel West, “inseparable but not identical”. I am very conscious that this event occurred sometime ago. I began this entry back then but have recently come back to it. Particularly given that this an election year and that I know these issues (like it or not) will have some visibility in public discourse.

I am a very proud Theologian/Ethicist who is formed (and informed) within the broad Catholic tradition. I always seek to shape my conscience (I aspire to a ‘properly formed conscience’) using the tools of this broad and inclusive tradition. When I teach the proper formation of conscience, I remind my students that they are to always engage three sources in making am moral decisions: Scripture, Tradition, and Experience. In the debate or discussion about two particular issues that are seen as so significant in importance I am constantly amazed at the way in which all Faith has been lost, this is particularly true among some of the religious hierarchy.

I remember Alan Jones in his wonderful work entitled Soul Making writes that ‘The opposite of faith isn’t doubt it’s certainty’. I find this to be a deep, wise, and significant insight. I have always found that my authentic Faith has sprinkled in a healthy dose of lingering doubt. The doubt comes not from my lack of belief in there being an actual Truth but in my acknowledgment of my inability to fully grasp this, Truth. I have faith in God/Truth/Reality not in my beliefs about God!

I am constantly amazed that the two vital issues that have shaped Catholic/Christian political discourse in the United States is abortion and homosexuality! What is most staggering, and I truly mean utterly stunning is that neither of these issues is ever addressed by Jesus. The Master of our Religion. The person we claim is God on Earth! In the entire corpus of Gospel writings (and even the apocryphal writings, to my knowledge) Jesus never, ever, ever, ever (yeah, I know…. a lot of ever!) ever, ever, ever, ever brings up either of these issues. This is not a matter of trying to ‘interpret’ what he means on this issue! I mean that he never speaks about this at all! In the ‘language’ of the young folks that I teach….wtf!!! How in the hell did inclusion into a Faith tradition that is explicitly based on the life of one person (The Scandal of Particularity!) have been hijacked by idiots who can claim, with a large degree of impunity that the central tenet of Faith is something which the Master never spoke of! How is this possible?

I would like to briefly go through some of the dumbest ‘lines of defense’ that many folks who defend these positions speak about. I also want to be exceedingly clear about where I stand on these issues. I obviously think that as a person of Faith, and even particularly as a disciple of Jesus, I am called, as we are all called, to have positions (and dispositions) on various issues. This will include a variety of issues not addressed in the Gospel texts, and even within the larger Living Tradition. I also want to be very clear that we are, thanks to the great advancements in Biblical Scholarship, more aware than ever before of the wariness one can have on exactly what ‘Jesus said’. I am sympathetic to the danger in getting completely wedded to the ‘words’ of Jesus. That being said, when I teach the use of Scripture I teach the students to think thematically, or what I informally call the ‘big ideas’ found in Scripture. These idease include, part are not limited to; Covenant, Widows, Orphans, and Sojourners, the place of God’s Sovereignity amon many others.

I also remind the students that the Tradition is much, much larger than its remarkable moral wisdom, heritage and insights. I obviously have a deep love for this component of the Tradition. My favorite classes during my theological education were always the ones that dealt with ‘moral issues’; although I still have love (and curiousity) for all areas of the Tradition (Sacramental understandings, Christian Anthropology etc.) I am also deeply aware that all components are deeply imbricated in practice.

In terms of the experience piece of the moral method, I remind the student to be particularly atune to the various individuals, communities etc. that are involved in any moral issue. I remind them of the particular attention that we as Christians give to ‘the least among us’. This was articulated in liberation theological writings succinctly at a ‘preferential option for the poor’. This will require a being in constant vigilance towards the ‘signs of times’. This is particularly true in a commitiment to the best of social analysis and pastoral practice.

With all this foundational work. I want to address the frequently stated concern and defense given to the way in which the Catholic Church addresses the issue of Abortion and Homosexuality.

In common language the concern or defense might be articulated like this: “Yes, Rene you are correct, Jesus didn’t address either abortion or homosexuality however there are many things he didn’t address. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about these. Or worse, not take a moral position on these important issues of our day”

I absolutely agree with the latter portion of this statement. I do think there is so much which Jesus didn’t talk about nor truly could address given the nature of historical reality. I know he didn’t say anything about nation-state ideology, Capitalism, Communism, labor unions mass media, the internet, invitro fertilization etc. I also equally believe that we are called to respond; as followers of the Master on every one of these issues and many others. I openly acknowledge that there is literally nothing in my life that is not influenced by my Faith and my commitment to follow Jesus. I think my entire world view is deeply formed (and informed) by my Faith. I also know that there are ‘layers’ to the certitude that I would give to certain moral positions and insights. In general I try to hold my moral perspectives with some degree of humility and openness. So in addressing things not spoken of in somewhat ‘explicit’ terms I would be humble in my appraisal. Let me give just one example. I am certain I am not alone in this, but nonetheless it might serve as a model. I for much of my life have been called as Communist, Socialist, Marxist etc. I will be honest, I have deep love for all of these labels. I don’t run away from identification with any of these identities but I can say with 100% assurance that my political, economic, social etc. worldview is most deeply influenced by my attempt at trying to live the Gospel values. This may shock people but I would say that given our historical juncture the best (maybe only) way to truly live out the Gospel value is to have a Socialist/Communist/Anarchist world view and to be explicitally anti-Capitalist. Obviously there would be many caveats I would put on this perspective but my for mY purspose of this entry I will just allow this simplistic articulation of my position to be stated in this manner. This being said, I would never, ever, ever say that this is THE CATHOLIC POSITION. It is precisely because Jesus didn’t talk about Capitialism or Communism or Socialism or Finance Capital or Extraction of Surplus Labor etc. that I would humbly say that this is the best articulation that I have of how to live the Gospel values given this historical period in these areas and on these specific issues. I believe that what grates me the most about how the Catholic Church (specifically elements within the Magesterium) and certain members of the Body of Christ speak to the issue of abortion and homosexuality is the profound arrogance and certitude with which they speak about these issues. Again, the opposite of Faith is not doubt but certitude. I also would never allow myself to even entertain the idea that I could dictate participating in the Sacramental life of the Church on ones position on Labor Unions ! Or that mebership in the Body of Christ (not Body of Rene!!) is based on your being in lock step with me on the proper functioning of the State in regulating the excesses of Financial Capitialist formations in 21st century reality! It is not that I think you should be ‘Pro-Choice’ (a label that I frankly detest) to be Catholic but rather that I think to speak of this issue with such a truncated and distorted understanding of the complexity of, not only the issue itself, but the entire Living Tradition is morally shallow, and lacking in critical engagement with both the issue and the Tradition.

The second issue that I have with this defense is that it consciously or unconsciously allows (or disallows us) from engaging in things that are addressed in the Gospel and teachings of Jesus. It is very true that he did not speak explicitly about abortion or homosexuality but he is said to have said the following words.

¹² Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. ¹³ But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, ¹⁴ and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 4:12-14)

 24″No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24)

¹² My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³ Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command. (John15:12-24) (Here it is important to note that it is not to take somones life in defense of another but rather to die….lay down one’s life! for the defense of another)

I wish to be very clear; I am opposed to the proof texting in defense of one’s political position but nonetheless these are actual words credited to being spoken by the Master. The God/Man we are told to follow. To show the profound hypocrisy and distortion in our claim to be following the Gospel let me site two statistics. (1) The United State possesses the largest military budget in the world. In fact, at one point, we spent more than the number 2-10 countries combined. (2) We have many leading church members regularly engage in fellowship with the moneyed class. This includes our current Catholic University systems deeply beholden to wealthy donors to continue their various programs. I think it is somewhat apparent why it rings so hollow to speak with such assurance of our need to ‘protect the innocent unborn child’ (which I am in agreement with) while we give a ‘pass’ at other situations found in our current milieu. Particularly when it doesn’t take much hermeneutical expertise to figure out what Jesus’ teaching might mean for today’s situations!

I want to remind people again that even with the level of clarity offered by the texts mentioned above (among, many, many others) I would still be resistant to saying ‘this is the Catholic position’ on wealth, military spending etc. I certainly think I can make a strong case for certain positions and would challenge other positions as not as tenable. But in the end if we are serious about the Primacy of Conscience then we must be willing to submit in humility to something larger than one’s own position. This is not only true of each individual member of the Body of Christ, but I would argue that it is even more of an imperative for the entire Body of Christ. For we must remember we are members of the Body of Christ, not the Body of Rene, Cardinal X or Pope Y. At our best we are a Pilgrim People helping each other along the road.

I will close with the beautiful quote by Rumi who reminds us that in the end “We’re all just walking each other home”

Book Reviews (Kinda!)

I am reading two wonderful books. One is by Liz Featherstone and the other is by Massimo Borghesi. They are both incredibly wonderful and informative. I would recommend them both.

The Book by Featherstone is called Divining Desire. It is subtitled Focus and the Culture of Consultation. It is a remarkable appraisal of and critique of the use of focus groups in a manner which supports Capitalism and undermines Democracy. It is deeply historical and also analytical.

The Book by Borghesi is entitled Catholic Discordance: Neoconservatism vs. the Field Hospital Church of Pope Francis. It deals with how the conservative Catholic movement has mis-read, misunderstood the way in which Pope Francis theology is actually a continuation of the larger Tradition. And not, as they would understand him, as somehow a ‘heretic’.

I very much reccomend both books. One of the great things about our technology is that I am certain there are ‘summaries’ or even lecturers given by these authors. Well worth finding out anything you can about their insights.

Why Historical Dialectical Materialism Really, Really, Really Matters in History….ugh! :(

I am reading many books. Which is no big surprise….lol. I am reading one that has been on my reading list for a long time. It is entitled Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics by Stedman Jones. I have always contended that one of the best ways to understand all of the disparate elements of our social is to understand is to view it from within a historical materialist hermeneutical ‘lens’. I am aware that in vulgar language this puts me in the Marxist ‘camp’. This is a title I no longer try to run from nor frankly care to dispute. My experience with people that speak in these crude analytical terms are not really worth engaging. I know that this sounds profoundly dismissive but frankly these are some of the same people who believe that Mark Levin author of American Marxism is an actual ‘critique of Marxist theory! Ugh!

I have in some of my writings referred to the larger narrative (sometimes awkwardly called a Master Narrative) in which we find ourselves as Empire (or Empire Logic). In my thinking I feel like this is a larger more wholistic way of containing the various elements of reality. In my dissertation I spoke of the way to understand reality as being compose of various distinct, autonomous (but not arbitrary) Dimensions. However, I also always begin with the Economic element of human reality. Here I would say that I mean Economic in the way that is best expressed by Enrique Dussel. He speaks of his Philosophy as always being a Philosophy of Life. In that sense what constitutes reality is a desire for Life. This will always include all elements of Life, including those that we might at first perceive as death! It is not by accident that I am writing this on Holy Saturday the day in which Jesus is DEAD! Yet we know that this is not the end of the story. I am reminded of the magnificent meditation that is the song Thank U by Alanis Morissette which goes in part:

“How ’bout no longer being masochistic/ How ’bout remembering your divinity/How ’bout unabashedly bawling your eyes out/How ’bout not equating death with stopping” [Bold type and italics added]

But why I think it is so important to retrieve the Historical Materialist Dialectical tradition is precisely because of something that the Jones book points out. The rise of Neoliberal politics is/was profoundly powerful because it has ‘naturalized’ entire explanations of human existence. It has brought to bear the incredible forces of the owning class onto our consciousness. This is something that the Italian Marxist spoke of in his writing. He along with the Hungarian philosopher George Lukacs in his magisterial work History and Class Consciousness spoke about how the ruling class, who always ‘owned the means of production’ (a very Marxist way of understanding Class) could now create consciousness by owning the means of ‘mental production’. Others have spoken about this with much greater clarity (and frankly in a more ‘popular’ tone!). This includes Noam Chomsky, Matt Taibbi, Arundhati Roy etc..

The creators of the social order sometimes referred to as Neoliberalism were deeply aware that they had to win ‘the battle of ideas’. This has recently been ‘packaged’ as winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of those countries we (The Empire) occupy. This includes, incredibly enough, not even seeing our presence there as an ‘occupying force’! While many progressives have done an admiral job of citing and applying the work of these great thinkers. Particularly the wonderful work of Gramsci, what seems to be lacking from the actual application (and understanding) of contemporary folks who use these two thinkers is their adherence to their Marxist origins and ongoing commitment to the Marxist vision and some of its foundational (not dogmatic) tenants. This includes understanding the all-encompassing logic of Capital accumulation which they believed to be a bedrock of all social reality grounded in Capital logic. This would not change because they spoke of something as ephemeral as Consciousness. Precisely because they believed this, they would demand that all talk of ‘consciousness’ be understood within the framework of historical materialism in general. It would also be inseparable from understanding that the final ‘telos’ of Capitalist derived ‘consciousness’ is the continued accumulation of (and maintenance of) Capital. What this means is that the way to undermine ‘false consciousness’ for both Gramsci and Lukacs was not merely to ‘change’ the ‘consciousness’ of the people but to actually change the material (historical/social) conditions under which they existed. Because they (Gramsci, Lukacs) were from what is broadly called the historical dialectical materialist school they would never submit to a crude cause and effect logic in dealing with any problem. Because they were dialecticians of the first order we should not get into a crude ‘which came first the chicken or the egg’ debate.

In many ways, I see that many progressives, liberal, leftist etc. have inadvertently bought into the distorted vision offered by Neoliberalism. This includes saying such things as “perception is reality” (It’s actually not!) or a ‘symbolic gesture’ is identical with actual historical movement. Simply put, having a few more ‘diverse looking’ billionaires will not change the nature of how exploitation is an absolute prerequisite for certain levels of wealth to be attained. The exploitation is the sin, not who is doing the exploitation, or what they look like, or even how they ‘identify’. The unpacking of this will require a completely different entry but simply put this is one of the reasons that I am against using the term ‘Class’ in the same way that I use Race, Gender or Orientation. This for me is key, you see that diversity in Racial identification may (or may not) include the destruction of a certain Racial identity, this is true for Gender etc. But what seems to be the case is that the existence of a certain community (identified as a Class) to exist by Exploitation (specifically identified as those who now garnish unwillingly the ‘fruit’ of another person’s Labor) can only be resolved by the destruction of this exploitive relationship. That exploiter community would cease to exist…qua community (as a Class). What is also true for me is that the incredible level of marginalization that must be part of any system to continue to ‘exploit’ leads me to always fight in Solidarity with those communities that are marginalized. But for me this is predicated precisely on their commitment to also end exploitation. It is not predicated on their being members of a marginalized community. In a White Supremacists system that is part of our current condition I will always be ‘marginalized’. That being said, I have no ‘monopoly’ on anything which might be good for the ending of exploitation of others (including Madre Earth!) so my agenda, strategy, ideas, motives, perspective has to constantly be questioned, interrogated by myself and others. I have to be part of an ongoing community of people moving towards a larger vision that cannot ever be fully encompassed (or realized, seen etc.) by any one marginalized perspective.

This means, ultimately, that there will be some degree of surrendering absolute assurance that ‘my way’ is the ‘right way’ (it will certainly never be the ‘only way’). But the solution to this conundrum is not to surrender the understanding that there is a ‘there, there‘ or an actual Way. We must always be willing to surrender to larger visions, insights always knowing that while our struggles are provisional, they are not ‘arbitrary’. We continue to move…. with deep Love, Wonder, and (to paraphrase Abraham Joshua Heschel) Radical Amazement.

Trip to El Paso (

Having just come back from El Paso it seems like a natural thing to write about my journey. It was in many ways a remarkable trip. It is something that I am sure I will be processing for a long time to come. These are just some Dispatches from the Road! : )

The first thing I felt was that as Al would say there is a way in which the journey allowed me to connect with some part of who I am. It was both an epiphany and an affirmation. I tend to not believe in any kind of solid ‘essentialist’ version of ‘culture’ (Ex: All Latino people are warm and hold strong family values etc.). But what I did see where some consistent ‘patterns’ of conduct, attitudes, dispositions etc. Here are some that I noticed are part of my personality and now I see one place where these qualities were cultivated, experienced, expressed (therefore impacted me!)

1. A strong sense of humility. I felt like the people in El Paso as a whole were much more deferential to myself and other people in general. I know some of this was me being an ‘outsider’ but nonetheless it was very clear that these people have a remarkable sense of being humble (not unimportant!) in their general disposition. I feel like in California everyone is sort of trying to be ‘discovered’. We are after all near Hollywood. You hear all the time that “Everything is bigger in Texas”. That may be true for certain communities but certainly the dialectical balance to it would be a quiet sense of ‘appropriate size’ in terms of your relationship to the world around you.
2. There was something about the simplicity of the aesthetics involved in the desert landscape. It allows for a truly lived sense of how ‘less is more’ in all areas of life. And not in the way that in California the ‘less is more’ is frequently followed by a ‘look, see how I am doing less with more’ attitude that undercuts the entire premise of the aesthetic which is being attempted.
3. Finally, there was in a sense a very clear and omnipresent quality to death as a companion to life. I think when I was younger (when I lived there) this was experienced as an ongoing sense of dread or fragility. But in retrospective, and with some 55 years of living in between, I can now see the way in which it adds a degree of sacredness to all reality. It is not by accident that I am writing this rumination on Holy Saturday….the day when Jesus is DEAD! Making the celebration of Easter Sunday all the more joyous and authentic. I here was reminded of how so much is made in the California of the plastic surgery industry. This speaks to a deep denial of (and fear) of the natural and inevitable ‘decay’ of all matter, especially of ourselves.

I am aware that all of these are generalizations. I am certain that there are people that are humble, simple and profoundly aware of the sacredness of life in California. I am speaking more of a general milieu found within the larger communities. I am also certain that I will continue to mine and develop new insights from this journey. I also hope to go there again, as we say in Spanish (something I am sure I learned in El Paso)….’si Dios quiere’.

Kyle Rittenhouse and the “Framing of Justice”

So much has been said about this trial. I thought it would be nice to visit this issue in particular but speak to how White Supremacist ideology colors the entire discussion in a way that goes frequently unnoticed. One of the most insidious qualities of any type of ‘privilege’ is that it not only imposes a view of the world, forcing us to see things an also, and maybe more importantly, disallows us from seeing certain things. It actually frames certain realities and gives us only a partial view and claims this ‘perspective’ to be the totality. In the Scriptural traditions this inversion of partial vision being substituted for the whole vision would be seen as a type of Idolatry. We can, in one sense speak of White Supremacist ideology as a type of idolatry.

As the trial came to its conclusion, I have heard many people say that Rittenhouse was vindicated not only as it pertains to his behavior (he was found innocent of various felony charges and a possession of dangerous weapon charge) but also and in one sense, even more important, as it pertains to his character/value/political position etc. That this was all seen by the ‘evidence’ presented in the trial. This may be true but to speak of a trial of this nature as existing in a ‘neutral space’ or some ‘hallowed ground’ where no social force(s) can come into play is the most absurd, and oddly enough White Supremacist (Racist) perspective of all.

I will begin with some anecdotal information. I am deeply aware that there is a danger in starting with this but I think it is very important to understand the larger context in which these events occurred. Kyle Rittenhouse went to a protest/rally/march etc. in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This protest was that was to demonstrate the killing of Jacob Blake by police officers. Blake was shot ‘multiple times at close range’. The killing of Blake occurred approximately 3 months after the death of George Floyd. This particular protest was part of a much larger movement and manifestations of social unrest that has been occurring in the United States in recent times. What is important to understand is to enter this ‘arena’ in general and this protest in particular while visibly carrying a high-powered firearm and then to profess a kind of naive ‘innocence’ about how things can get so ‘out of hand’ is profoundly ignorant/stupid at best and consciously falsifying one’s position at worse. It is also important to note that Rittenhouse went there essentially uninvited, none of the sponsors of the protest/rally asked him to show up. Now part of why this is so important is because of the following. After the verdict I asked, albeit informally, 12-14 African-American young men close to Rittenhouse age if they would, under any circumstancesm, go to a highly volatile situation with a high-powered rifle, uninvited, where one of the ‘features’ of the protest was its ever changing and unpredictable dynamic. I also asked them if they had killed two people (no disputing that the bullets came from their rifle) and had injured another person would they expect to credibly speak of ‘self-defense’ as a reasonable defense. I am going to say this very clearly…and yes, loudly! NOT ONE PERSON SAID THAT THEY WOULD DO THIS OR EXPECT ANYONE TO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE!!! NOT ONE PERSON! I want to highlight something that I thought was powerful, and insightful in its own way. I asked an Asian-American young man. He said he might, (but most probably not!) consider going (maybe without a gun?!) but he WITHOUT HESITATION SAID THAT IF HE WERE AFRICAN-AMERICAN THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL HE WOULD GO! Because he knew damn well what would happen. I don’t know if I can speak with his certainty (maybe I can?) but even he knew how the issue would be “Framed” given the structure of color/race etc. in the United States of America.

Simply put the very fact that Kyle Rittnhouse felt he ‘could’ go to a place like this with a fully loaded high-powered rifle is incredible. Now I know that every ‘white’ person I know (that is not a racist!!!) has dozens and dozens of ‘friends’ that are African-American … 🙂 . But I don’t have that luxury so I actually had to ask what might be the experience of African-American’s in this type of situation. By searching out some information to get a different ‘frame’ of reference.

I also now wish to deal with two other questions that seem to be put forth to show how Rittnehouse is not a ‘racist’ (whatever the hell that means?!) The first is that he had some interest in the community and even had some ‘ties’ to the community. The second issue is that the people he killed were white.

Let us begin with the first issue. It is very admirable and even commendable to know that one is deeply connected to various communities no matter where one lives. But an element of exploitation, oppression and privilege is that it allows for ‘loyalties’ to be defined, redrawn, ignored, our highlighted depending on one’s ‘agenda’. I regularly used to drive by a very, very wealthy neighborhood where I would see many signs on the lawns (particularly near the road) which read “Drive as though your child lived here”. I was particularly frustrated because I had just heard that the vast majority of the people living in this neighborhood (and surrounding area) had recently ‘rejected’ a new tax that would allow for more funding for schools all over the state (not even to mention the federal level). It occurred to me that while these people want me to ‘drive as though my child lives here’ but certainly they don’t want to be taxed as though other children who live in other locations also matter?

The second issue is the ‘color’ of the victims. People have made a big ‘issue’ of the fact that the victims of his violence were white. I do understand that there was a huge confusion about the victims including the reporting that the victims were African American. I know that some very powerful, brilliant, intelligent people made a huge issueof this mistake. This includes two people who I have incredible respect for; Jimmy Dore and Glen Greenwald. I certainly feel that this is very important point, and the error is egregious but still the fact that these people and many others have made an issue of this goes to show you how bizarre and truncated the discussion about Race in the United States has become. Anyone that is fighting against White Supremacist ideology/Structural Racism etc. will become a target of those who benefit (or think they are benefitting) from these social realities. This does not preclude people of various ethnic backgrounds, colors, orientations etc. of becoming targets. The color of the victims does not in anyway make this a racist act or not. What I found most surprising was that the people mentioned above never thought to speak in these categories after Heather Heyer. She was a white women and yet, it was obvious she was a victim of a racist motive attack.

In the end, these events are tragic at so many levels. I hope that as we process this experience in particular and these types of experiences in general we can use them as Grist for the Mill (a la Ram Dass) and specifically use it to help Build the Kingdom.

How “Inside” do we let ourselves go before we turn around? or What must we give up to stay connected to each other?

One of the most insidious elements of contemporary Empire logic is its incredible understanding and use of the symbolic universe and specifically the power of ‘representation reality’. It is precisely because of this new development that previous strategies used in liberation struggles are now counter-productive. I am speaking specifically about the place of what is sometimes termed “Identity Politics”. I think we must re-evaluate this strategy in light of the much more sophisticated way in which ‘place holder’ identities are used to prop up the status quo and continue patterns of exploitation, dispossession, marginalization and ultimately wealth accumulation.

Some of these reflections are based on my recent reading of the works of people who speak of a kind of racialized Capitalism. It is also based on some of my recent discussions with various interlocutors. Here is what I am struggling with. How are communities that have been traditionally marginalized by the various patterns of domination respond to these continued injuries in our present moment? So we can speak of patterns of economic exploitation of Capitalism, patterns of gender violence (and exclusion) caused by Patriarchy and Heteronormativity, patterns of Racialized violence and marginalization created and perpetuated by White Supremacist’s ideology, patterns of ecological violence wrought by mindless consumption patterns and narrow visions of advancement as only defined by the narrow vision of consumerism, and ‘progress’. These are but a few.

One of the issues is how the Powerful have, in contermporay settings harnessed the place of what I am terming ‘place holder’ symbols to obfuscate the continued exploitation patterns. One of the foundational shifts in recent times is that the powerful, exploiters and those causing injuries have found out ways to create alternative ‘narratives’ and even symbolic expressions which give the illusion of actual change while in fact merely maintaining the status quo. Keenaga-Yamahtta Taylor speaks of the strategy of placing ‘Black faces in high places’. The most obvious and extreme example in recent times was to have an African-American become the highest elected public official in the United States of America. This for many represented the ushering in of not only a “post-racial” society but a kind of utopian vision realized. Many (not all) people in the United States had truly believed that the election of Barrack Obama as president of the United States would allow us to finally turn the corner on many of the most malignant problems found in the United States. It also offered for some in the world a beacon of hope for the possibility of change. If the United States of America, one of the most blatantly white supremacist country whose long legacy of slavery, and neglect/abuse for virtually all communities of color could free itself from the shackles of bitter hatred it seemed to portend that any thing was possible. Or so it seemed. While I firmly believe that the election of Obama to the presidency allowed for an unprecedented opportunities for all liberation struggles, I think we have to also see it as a ‘strategy’ by the powerful to forestall their demise.

I wish to posit another possibility. This is not to say that there was not an actual ‘shift’ in the horizon of possibility that did in fact open to the body politic in the United States after Obama was elected president. I do believe that the ‘historical force’ of his victory was much more than just the election of one African-American man into the office. Here we do see the incredible power of symbols and representation. What I wish to suggest is that I believe that the ruling elites had already seen the proverbial ‘writing on the wall’ that was begun by the authentic freedom movements of the 60s and 70s and had to create a strategy to displace the genuine anger, analysis and movement of the people.

During this fruitful period of revolutionary fervor there were some powerful alliances that were being shaped. There is large amounts of evidence that indicate that various oppressed, exploited and marginalized communities were joining forces and identify common enemies, and patterns. One of the books that explores one such example is found in the work of Lauren Araiza entitled “To March for Other: The Black Freedom Struggle and the United Farm Workers” . It is also important to do a much more sophisticated reading of the roots of the Gay Liberation struggle. I have found many other depictions of this ‘intersectional’ understanding of struggle from this historical period. We had multiracial groups do incredible work in analyzing the class dimension of many struggles. One need only think of the Blank Panthers using Maoist analysis to understand their predicament. It might be helpful to remember the wonderful insight of Brother Malcolm X who said; ” You can’t have capitalism without racism! It’s impossible too for a white person today to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism..” Or to remember that Caesar Chavez was in fact first and foremost a Labor Leader!

The power elites, or owning class began to figure out the true danger this degree of intersectional analysis and activism which portended disaster for the powerful. They went into their ancient ‘tool box’ of strategies for oppression and pulled an ‘old standard’. It was the ‘divide and conquer’ but with a brand new twist. Part of what was done was allowing certain ‘members’ of the previously marginalized communities to become part of the Empire apparatus. Simply put they were able to ‘co-opt’ some of the more gifted and charismatic leaders within each community. If they were certainly not the most important figures within the communities of origin the powerful were able to ‘create’ the illusion of importance and allow these figures to speak with an authority disproportionate to the communities they represented.

There are many examples but I will use only a few. One that comes to mind most immediately is the relative recent interaction between Whoopi Goldberg and Bernie Sanders in a recent interview on the View. It was very clear that there was already an agenda in the interview. The agenda was motivated by the ‘damage’ that a Sanders presidency would do to various elements/communities/individuals within the power elites wealth and power. It is also not by ‘accident’ that the person chosen to conduct this bizarre ‘ambush’ interview was an African-American female. The corporation who is in ultimate control of the content in this show knew precisely well why the use of someone like Goldberg would ensure a built in ‘defense’ against any critique. Particularly given that Bernie is ‘visually’ the representation of virtually all elements of the ruling class. Bernie being an old, white, wealthy man who has been involved in government for decades. Yet, when one takes a different hermeneutical lens to the situation you begin to see that the ‘representative’ of the marginalized community is here representing the traditional power arrangements.

The second even more glaring is the use of Sarah Palin as a ‘representative’ of working women and specifically Soccer Mom’s and Momma Bear personas In these two examples we see the use of members of the truly marginalized community (Women, African-Americans etc.) being used to re-introduce some very standard rationalizations for continuing to continue the old power arrangements.

The final is in a sense the most tragic. We are now entering our 18th year of our ‘war’ with Iraq that was based on the lies of the WMDs that were part of Saddam Hussein’s military threat. Besides Dick Cheney, the two ‘public faces’ of this war were Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. It is not by accident that one of the most recent imperialist venture of the United States was ‘sold’ to the United States and the world by an African-American man. It is also interesting how the moment that Powell began to ask genuine questions and express authentic concern of the situation he became persona non grata in virtually all public discourse. This is also true, but in a much lesser degree, for Rice.

Here I find myself asking the famous question articulated by Vladimir Lenin in his magisterial work. “What is to Be Done?” I wish I could give some simple solution but we know that the historical reality in which we find ourselves (maybe this is always true?!) offers no ‘easy answers’. Here I will only give two or three cursory observations that might be developed to become a strategy.

Step One: I think we have to be honest that some of the ‘language’ and even the strategies that were once so important in previous periods of struggle may no longer serve to move any real humanistic, progressive agenda forward. I mean here particularly the place of ‘recognition’ as a good measure of not only where we are but also where we want to be? The Empire has figured out that it can in many cases (obviously not all!) just create the ‘illusion’ of progress or liberation by having individuals or ‘acceptance’ (or even more recently tolerance/celebration language) as a way to show they are on ‘our side’. This comes in many forms but frequently takes the shape of elevating certain individual persons or narratives as ‘evidence’ of how this systems is working and basically healthy. Instead of seeing it as merely a cynical ploy to cover-up the moribund quality of said system. I found this point recently salient in an interaction I had with a student. I had with a student of mine who is very much a product of his social location and also a defender of the status quo. He actually asked me (I have been asked this many times before) how I could be mad at a system that has worked so well for me? I grew up incredibly impoverished in El Paso, Texas. The son of a Bracero couple and here I am a Doctorate level educator. What more evidence do I need that indeed the meritocracy that is so present in our system works. The ‘cream’ really does rise to the top!! I had to remind the student that as a person of Faith, the measure of success in life is not measured by anything of ‘this world’ but rather by the capacity for the Kingdom (Reign) of God to be reflected “on earth as it is in heaven”. Basically we have to move away from the “Super” Individual model of success and recalibrate our criteria for what constitutes true and substantive victory.

Step Two: I think we in communities that have been horribly hurt by various other communities must find ways to not only mend the past (Not erase it) but also move past (through) it. This is best done by developing strong bonds of solidarity. I think this is especially done through a materialist approach to our communal struggles. What if the Brown Berets as part of their foundational documents always explicitly put in something about seeking justice for low wage workers? What if all women organizations designated a certain amount of their budget to the care of the differently abled community? What if every community that is struggling, exploited, marginalized made it a point to make part of their communal well being be measured by the well being of members not in their ‘tribe’?! I mean that this would be made manifest in very concrete elements.

Step Three: I think that we must move from language (and experience) of acceptance, tolerance and even celebration to delight. In the Scripture the language of God delighting in God’s Creation. If we are to try to walk the walk we must actually begin to delight in all of our sisters and brothers. This includes all creation!! To the degree that we speak in the other terms (acceptance, tolerance etc.) we are bound to a kind of individualistic paradigm that posits a kind of uniqueness to each of us that can at time be detrimental. The reality is that we are all creatures of something much larger, mysterious and grander than we will ever be able to fully comprehend! That which made us (I hesitate to give any word here) seems to delight in us! Let us do the same with/for each other. This also must include our defending those who seek to harm creation and this beautiful covenant reality with a fierceness that can only come from understanding our common kinship. Think of how we defend those who seek to harm our ‘self-identified’ tribes, or communities. What if we extended this loyalty to all creation, and frankly all reality. How might this shape our politics, economics, cultural practices, sexuality, etc.

In the end my work has always been about trying to learn how best to live the Love Commandment as expressed by my Master; Jesus. I think we are at an interesting juncture in which not only a new language of love must be co-created, but a new praxis of love.

Charity-ing your way toward Justice?

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
― Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings

I was once complimented by a former colleague of mine for ‘turning a phrase’ in a way that brought clarity to a situation. We were talking about the place of wealthy donors (Gates Foundation etc.) in creating a just society. Because we are both from within the Catholic Moral tradition we spoke in terms of what is the place of charity for building the Reign of God. In simplest terms we were rehashing the age old debate of the relationship of Charity and Justice. I said that in recent years I have become much more suspicious of the wealthy class desire to get into the philanthropic arena. I didn’t believe that their desire was grounded in anything that can be a called an authentic desire for justice. I said, ‘you can’t charity your way into justice’. I still very much believe this to be the case. To the degree that Justice is understood as ‘right relationship’ and Charity is necessary precisely as a response to an unhealthy relationship. We can speak of these two modes of existence as actually have an uneasy ‘alliance’ at best, and diametrically opposed goals at worse. In other words to the degree that one becomes ‘satisfied’ in ‘giving charity’ (and looks forward to it) one is attached to maintaining the conditions necessary which gave rise to such a need.

I have recently been reading the wonderful book by Anand Giriharadas entitled; Changing the World: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. It speaks precisely to this issue. In many ways it has verified much of what I had intuited from my work/studies. His argument is basically that the ‘new’ found desire on the part of the elites (wealthy, powerful etc.) is ultimately a subtle (and not so subtle!) desire to maintain control of the current social order. It is paradoxically the manner by which to ‘change’ the world without sacrifice or foundational/structural movements. As Brother Douglas articulates above they want ‘crops without plowing up the ground”, “rain without thunder”, “ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”

I was impressed by so much of what Giriharadas said, but I wish to focus on just a couple of points. In the text he speaks of the difference between Critic and Thought Leaders. The sharp distinctions is found in how thought leaders are allowed to do a critique of ‘the system’ (even to the very creators of said system!!) without asking them to cop to their place in creating the problems found within said system. He speaks of a wonderful way in which the critic becomes a thought leader by slowly ‘compromising’ certain elements of their analysis. He terms this the thought-leader three step. I would like to briefly introduce the three steps and then end with elaborating on how my research and most importantly my teaching has been impacted by the desire within me to stay in the place of critic and not surrender to forces that lead to becoming a thought leader.

The thought-leader three step is composed of three ‘shifts’ that occur on the part of analyzing, and articulating an unjust situation, and more importantly proposing solutions for the situations. Remember that the fundamental project is to create ‘solutions’ that allow those in power to not only continue to maintain power but to feel as though they are actually doing ‘something’ towards eradicating the pain and suffering found in the given situation (poverty, racism, sexism etc.). This has to be done in a way that will in substance not impact the current arrangement of power, resources, material life of any community.

The first step is to make certain that one focus on the victims of injustice rather than the perpetrators. I remember hearing about an article that was entitled something like ‘Sin without Sinners”. If you think about the horrible tragedies in the world you will notice that frequently the signifiers that express these realities are expressed in ‘passive’ or at best ‘neutral’ terms so that they seem to occur out of ‘nowhere’? So we speak of The Poor not The Impoverished. The term impoverished is defined as “reduced to poverty” or ‘deprived of strength, vitality, creativeness etc.” It is not just that people are poor. Which is profoundly sad, but any analysis that doesn’t speak to how people are made poor by exploitive systems allows people who create these conditions to talk about them without being held accountable for their existence. A Critic will be much more forthright in ‘connecting the dots’ that show a causal (even if it is a very complex web of causation) link between wealth accumulation of the few and the impoverishment of the many. This can also be seen in the shift recently from speaking of this abstract thing called Racism (which honestly, no body seems to like or be!!) to White Supremacist Ideology. Which not only has some specific implications for who ‘benefits’ from Racism but also how it functions within larger systems of exploitation and oppression.

The second step is essentially to do a complete reversal on the foundational insight made (among other places) by the Feminist Movement which help popularize the phrase “The personal is political“. In this way it sought to locate the origins of some of our pressing personal problems within the arena of the larger social/political/economic/cultural schema of our existence. The second step which transforms a Critic into a Thought Leader is the step made when one reverses the order and seeks to caste the issue as “The political is personal“. I wish to give an example here from my own life. Part of my experience growing up in the United States is to experience myself as a very insecure, low self-esteem, somewhat ‘not good enough’ person. I have done some major healing in this area. I have been blessed to use a multitude of healing modalities (therapy, 12 step work, body work, self-help books, spiritual practices etc.). Two areas that I had a strong negative self image (and lack of self-acceptance) was in feeling embarrassed about my parent’s accent, and also my physical appearance (particularly hair and size of my nose). I always figured I was just a guy who had ‘self-esteem’ issues. Which was no doubt true. I also don’t wish to discount the importance of personal/psychological/ inner work. But at one point when I was working with children at a day care I noticed that the vast majority of children who were my Chicano/Latinx Sister’s and Brother’s had similar psychological issues!! I got to thinking….”Wait a minute, we can’t all be personally neurotic in the same way!! How can we all have the same personal psychological wound!!” I also noticed that certain ‘accents’ were not treated with a kind of ‘disdain’. Hugh Grant has a charming accent. Diego Luna has an accent that seems to not be as ‘charming’ certainly not as versatile in the avenues that his characters can inhabit. I remember feeling like my nose was ‘too big’. When I teach this concept now I remind my students that ‘large and small’ is always a contextual assessment. So something is large or small relative to ‘something (or someone) else. Now when I was looking at myself (by myself!!) in the bathroom mirror and assessing my nose as ‘too big’ who/what else was there/their with me?!! Years later I began to realize the effects of White Supremacist’s Ideology as one of the ongoing ‘companions’ of my journey. That this enemy was located first and foremost outside of myself. It was not just ‘little Rene’ that felt bad because he was ‘neurotic’ but that little Rene was very specifically wounded by forces outside of himself that had a vested interest in wounding him and continuing to wound him in a very particular way. These forces or enemies are clearly of a political/economic/social/cultural nature. Remember I am in no way discounting the place of personal/psychological healing but to paraphrase a phrase I have heard attributed to Mao Zedong that in order to win revolutions you must ‘identify the enemy accurately’. I now realize this must include naming names and calling systems/people out who benefit from very specific patterns that do in fact cause injuries that are made manifest within the ‘personal’ life of people. This is precisely what the Thought Leader can never do if he/she wishes to ‘hang out’ with the owning class.

The final step is to always propose solutions for any of the structural injustices which must are addressed in ways that are immediately actionable. This is obviously a very important step. However, the danger is that the solutions must fit into ‘prepackaged’ solution slots. What Giridharadas’ calls plans that are ‘constructively actionable.’ In one sense this manifests in creating a ‘strategic plan’ that can be executed within the current social arrangements or in other words, to change the world without actually altering in any foundational or fundamental way the way the world is currently arranged. It is simply changing without change. I am again, reminded of the wonderful quote found at the beginning of this entry.

There are many things wrong with this final step which is offered by the Thought Leaders and sanctioned by those in power. The first is that it is speaks to the existence of a virulent and unhealthy form of anti-utopianism. It is unhealthy precisely because it surrenders to the atrophied and distorted social imagination which is offered within any system. This is especially pernicious in our current situation because one of the ways that the project of Neoliberalism continues to hold sway in our world despite all material evidence against it is because of the ‘naturally fallacy’ which holds sway among so many people. Essentially the ‘natural fallacy’ can best be summarized by the the line made famous by Margaret Thatcher that “There is no Alternative.” I believe it is Slovoj Zizek who said that the tragedy of our current climate crisis is that so much of humanity can envision the end of human life on the planet more easily than the end of Capitalism. This surrendering our ability to imagine and envision outside of the reality we currently inhabit asserts that if we cannot immediately create the solutions to our problems from where we stand than this problem can never be solved. This lack of social imagination is caused by our reliance on a certain type of cognitive methodology. In the dominant system we have long ago destroyed or effectively rendered mute our artists, mystics, visionaries etc. This is not an accident. By effectively erasing all members of the community that connect us to the ‘transcendent’ element of reality and the human experience we automatically render certain options unavailable by default. It is not that I am against a solid analysis (see my entry on anti-intellectualism) but rather that we must have available to us the very important human faculty of imagination. The second problem with this way of understanding solutions is that it renders all critique impossible because it asks those making the critique to come up with the ‘alternative’ without giving proper space (both temporal and geographical) for solutions to arise as part of revolutionary praxis and struggle. The nature of dialectic movements and social change is that there is always going to be an ‘unknown’ or even an ‘improvised’ element. So to demand an ‘answer’ to the questions posed by a critique as a criteria for taking seriously the critique is to render all criticism unacceptable. When the U.S. revolution was beginning the owning class new very little about what the new ‘nation’ would look like as a fully realized entity. Much of the clarity of their vision was expressed in what they were ‘against’ (“No taxation without representation”). It took some time to deal with the formulations of what this ‘Republic’ would finally look like. Some might even say that the ‘final form’ has not yet been fully realized? All new ‘creations’ will go through a period of chaos or confusion prior to any type of ‘stability’ or ‘resolution’. This is the nature of dialectical development.

I want to close this entry by speaking about how I have tried to maintain the ‘critic’ perspective in my pedagogical methods. The most obvious thing that has changed is that I have tried to introduce much more the ‘victimizers” that create the victims. This includes showing the ways in which the ‘system’ is very much a product of human agency. There really are perpetrators that actually damage and wound people. I have moved away from the ‘we are all part of the problem’ paradigm. At some very abstract level this is of course true. I have found, however, that this phrasing (and the thinking which it creates) functions in a very ideological manner. I use the term ideological here in the way that is used frequently within the Marxist traditions. It is actually used to obscure and obfuscate reality rather than reveal it. I recently saw an interesting little internet meme (I think that is the term?) which illustrate more clearly how I view our predicament. While far from an exact quote it basically says ‘We are not in the same boat. We are in the same storm and some of us are in luxury yachts and some are in life rafts” This to me more accurately reflects the reality. Furthermore I think we have to be honest about who in fact is in charge of the ‘weather patterns’ that created these ‘storms’. For me one way to understand this shift is by grounding myself much more in the Materialist philosophical traditions (of which Marxism is the most well known).

In my classes (particularly those dealing with morality, ethics and social justice) I used to show a lot of the images, perspectives etc. of the victims. What I have been doing much more lately is showing how the perpetrators live, exist. There is something mind-blowing about showing how a billionaire can buy an entire stretch of beach front property (with cash!!) while there are houseless people (many who actually have jobs!!) living in close proximity. This in fact is precisely why the life of the wealthy, owning class is a sin, abomination, and a betrayal of all of the values that the majority of people (including of course, the wealthy) espouse. This change of focus has left me open to many critiques. In another entry I will address some of these. For now it is sufficient enough for me to say that I will continue to seek to move in the direction of a Critic and not a Thought Leader. I am aware that this type of authentic critique poses a much more existential threat to the material conditions of the wealthy, owning class and those that serve them.

I will end with a line I first heard said by Richard Rohr. He said, “The truth will set you free, but first, it will make you damn uncomfortable”….here is to more authentic discomfort which comes at the service of our search for truth, mercy and ultimately love.

Anti-Intellectualism and Street Cred? (Theory or Experience?)

Here is what I struggle with.

I think in the United States we have two ‘streams’ or ideologies that feed off of each other and they work together to keep us in chains. The first stream (or ethos) is that there is a deep suspicion of the ‘intellectual’ life among many ‘regular folks’. I think this is somewhat well founded by the fact that there is frequently a deep ‘disconnect’ between the ‘intellectual class’ and the proletariat, particularly the ‘blue collar’ type. I sometimes see this in how certain people speak of how my ‘education’ has somehow taken me away from ‘living’ or not really ‘living’ this thing called the ‘real life’. Again, I am very aware of how education can also ‘form’ (deform) our connection with various ‘struggles’. I am especially aware of how education has been used by the Neoliberal project to create a group of people that ultimately do the bidding of the owning class to screw over the rest of the world! That includes the myth of a ‘well informed’ community based on some sort of ‘meritocracy’ which included going to the ‘right schools’ etc. However, sometimes the solution becomes articulated in an ‘unintentional’ anti-intellectualism that is the mirror image of the arrogance and elitism of the intellectual class.

What ends up happening is that any analysis or intellectual “labor” is treated with contempt or minimally, as suspicious. The classic ‘what do you think you’re better than us’ thinking. I have taught for many years and one of my most striking memories is of an event that illustrated my response to an event in my class. When I look at it now, I sometimes view it as my responding from a place of wanting to be ‘radical egalitarian’ about all knowledge. I think this is good but I realized that I didn’t intervene in a way that could have made a much more important point and even more importantly brought a degree of ‘consciousness’ to the situation.

I was teaching a class on Social Justice. As part of the curriculum each student was to do a research project and come to a moral position on a moral issue of their choice. They were to present their findings and their conclusion to the entire class in an oral report. A young woman gave a report on the issue of Capital Punishment. What was most striking about her report was that she spoke about how she began by being ‘for Capital Punishment’ prior to beginning the research paper. At the end she spoke of how she had moved to being against Capital Punishment. A young man who spoke up in class said, that he still believed in Capital Punishment no matter what she said. I, trying to create a sense of reconciliation, spoke of both parties having equally validity in their perspectives. But the reality is that they were not equally ‘valid’! She had actually done ‘intellectual work’ he had not! She had actually thought about this issue and analyzed the various issues and perspectives. I am not talking here about the conclusion. I am talking about the actual quality of the opinion. She had explored various aspects of this issue. He had not. This included interrogating some of the common ‘myths’ that are part of the defense for Capital Punishment (deterrence, ‘eye for an eye’, cost effectiveness for the community etc.). The reality is that a more honest answer that I could have given would have been something like: “Sorry, she has a better informed opinion. She knows more about this issue than you do. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But don’t mistake the ‘quality’ of your opinion as equal to her. She is, on this issue, more informed. Now we can have an honest debate about it but to somehow to ‘pretend’ that your opinion is equally as reflective of reality and worthy of equal consideration is really not a good idea’. “

I wish to say, that this is about a specific issue. I remind my students that I have a Ph.D. in theological ethics, part of what this means is that in one sense my ‘understanding’ of this topic is very strong. No, not perfect, but very strong. If you are seeking an ‘opinion’ on how to transport a large amount of chemicals from one state to another, I am not your man! :o( If you want to know about how to paint your house, I am certainly not ‘an expert’. Have I painted some homes in my life, yes. Would I match my ‘knowledge base’ with someone who has been doing this for their entire professional life. Of course not! Knowledge matters! It is super important to actually have people that are good at social analysis, and understanding the ‘inner working’ of systems. This requires a deep commitment to the intellectual life. I think we do a tremendous disservice to many people when we don’t honor the ‘experts’. Now again, I am not naïve, I don’t believe that knowledge automatically makes you a ‘good person’ or even a ‘virtuous person. But there has to be a place for life that does not rely solely on just having a lot of ‘experience’ (whatever that actually means!?).

I would like to give one more example of where this desire to place ‘experience’ over analysis is very detrimental. I sometimes remind my student’s that WWI was called by some ‘The War to End All Wars”. We as a species have a helluva lot of ‘experience’ at war, but we sure as hell haven’t done much to ‘analyze’ properly the real causes of war, prevention of war, the manner by which we can seek actual alternatives to war. I would suggest that one of the reasons is because anyone that seeks to move outside of certain epistemological categories gets accused of ‘not knowing what the fuck they are talking about’. Somehow ‘experiencing’ war gives you some intimate knowledge that allows you to see the larger (and deeper) picture to the issue of war. So ‘peace loving hippie’ or ‘pacifist’ types don’t fully ‘understand’ what is involved in war.

I remember years ago a very popular bumper sticker was one that simply said HONOR LABOR. My point is not to deny the absolute importance of some degree of experience or exposure to the real life conditions that one is talking about in any situation. What I wish to suggest is that we can not be ‘simplistic’ or parochial in our placing this distorted concept of ‘experience as the be all and end all of true revolutionary work. It can not replace analysis and actual intellectual labor. I do believe that ‘book learning’ has a place in revolutionary work. I think it is dangerous to diminish its value precisely because it plays right into the hands of the ruling elite and their agenda of creating an atmosphere of ‘anti-intellectualism’. Intellectual labor really is a kind of labor. All I am saying is HONOR LABOR.

Censorship in the Age of Empire

I was responding to some questions raised by a dear Brother (and fantastic Human Being!) about the recent censoring of Donald Trump. Let me say, that these are damn scary times. Also, I have no doubt that the ideology that guides Trump and his followers are a very real threat to our democracy and the planet! I am also very aware that theirs are not the only things threatening our existence at this moment. So below are some reflections. For me what is most troubling is the all to common manner in which the United States seeks to “erase” uncomfortable aspects of our history. Pay close attention to the words of Moonves near the end of my reflection. Trump didn’t “fall from the sky”. He, and his racist, fear mongering, demagoguery, sexist, etc. existence was aided and abetted by other folks (and ideologies) that gave birth to his particular embodiment of evil.

I really struggle with the issue of censorship in a democratic society. The history of virtually all desires to “control” speech, information etc. ends up being used against leftist, progressive movements. As someone who has had dealings with the State intelligence apparatus. I have 0% confidence that these measures in the end are truly going to be used for the betterment of the world or the common good! Trump is an embodiment of a failed System. He is a symptom of the problem. Not the cause of it. Some years ago I worked with a guy who had an ear infection that was brutal. It made him feel constantly dizzy, and because of dizziness he felt nauseous (horrible upset stomach). For a long time the doctors gave him medicine for his stomach “problems”. The ear infection eventually worked its way into his brain! The doctors figured it out in time, but just barely!? I don’t want to just treat the “stomach problems”. Note, not either/or….I am a good Catholic. So always believe in both/and. Obviously you deal with upset stomach, but get to the root of the problem! . My experience has also demonstrated that decisions arrived at while under duress are rarely very good in the long run. Think Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc. after 9/11.

I forgot who said this but the problem caused by democracy (rule of the Demos. .the People) can only be cured by more democracy. Again, I get the concerns. It’s absolutely terrifying what is happening. I am just very damn suspicious, and skeptical that a large multinational corporation run by the wealthy for Profit have all of a sudden become “woke” to the horrors of racism, xenophobia, militarism etc. I don’t know if you remember this incredible quote by Les Moonves the CBS executive when asked about the then Presidential campaign of Donald Trump “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS…Man who would expected the ride we’re all having now?…The money’s rolling in and this is fun… I’ve never seen anything like this before, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry, it’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going,” I will repeat, I completely understand the dangerous world we are living in, but I have no damn faith that the wealthy have “all of a sudden” found a conscience.