Democratizing of Culture ~ Diversity in the Social Imagination

The democratizing of culture is serious and its happening here and all over the world. It all starts with the jump on the band wagon catch phrase ~ 'diversity'. Of course, diversity can be a good thing from time to time. We add diversity to our diet for better health, we need a variety of information in our life. We take in new 'diverse' information and make it our own. That is how we understand new information. We make it our own. However, in that way, the diversity taken in is not the same diverse information any longer. It melts in, gets absorbed but that is how we make use of any kind of information or anything, even nutrients.

In that process, the group that does the taking in remains what it was and yet somehow new as in refreshed... just like when we hit the 'refresh' button on our computers. It refreshes the screen yet it remains recognizable.

In America, we are no longer able to recognize ourselves as 'Americans'. What had happened was that new information came in and it was absorbed.

However, that is no longer the process...it no longer gets absorbed, it gets democratized. That means new information remains what it is ~ 'diverse'; and thus, remains on the outside. It is not taken in and 'used' as integrated or made part of the old information system. Why? Isn't diversity all that matters. Yes and No. Yes, because diversity does matter and it matters only because it is there to be used because it is different.


No, because though diversity matters it only matters because it is different and in that state can be put to use. Diversity that is not used as in absorbed is useless. Why would we take in something that would not 'refresh' the system in place? Absorption could be seen as good and bad for the 'newbie' as it is truly good for the older information in place.  All in all, it is a both a win win and lose 'loss' situation. When newbies come, they lose but they also win. They are no longer who they were but become part of something much bigger than what they were. They become integrated into the older information which takes in the new and thus grows and yet remains what it was ...now refreshed. It retains its original character 'culture' and adds to it, taking in and refreshing.

What is interesting is that new information cannot be entirely alien. It has to have something we can recognize and at the same time see and even taste the difference. The best example is in the case of ethnic food. You can never get a truly good ethnic dish here in America ... exactly the same as you would in the place it came from. Yet, having new dishes added to our diet is good for us, it gives us some diversity, it refreshes our palette but it would never be taken in if it wasn't already presented as similar and yet new to the "American menu". The similarity is that it is food, the difference is the combination and taste presented on a recognizable plate.

Social imagination works in the same way. Social reality 'our shared imagination' is about the way we live, breathe and eat together in a place that has a given menu. We need that in order to recognize what restaurant we are actually in. If we democratized the menu to the point that there isn't anything different and everything is exactly as good as it was where it was and exactly the same serving there as here; then, everyone would be cooking his/her own meal at the restaurant - what's the point, don't we go out to get what we can't get at home. Don't get confused just yet. Though we like it our way, we make it our way, we still begin with seeing a difference.

Otherwise, in a sense, it is like 'relativizing' everything we do because we think we are and everything is the same... complete and non-distinct islands of information; and in that sense, each island is completely good as it is and that would mean we don't even need diversity because our island of information is not in need of diversity. Even if we were to take in what we thought was new information or variety how could we justify it since we are already seeing sameness cause that is what democracy does, it creates a majority of sameness. Which is both necessary and yet stagnating. Hence, we need to hit the refresh button and absorb some diversity- difference. Again, if we could take it in new information because it is not different as we agreed with it being like our own, then I guess it being so like us would make it not diverse.

Wait. Does that mean the new information we take in as described earlier on in this post goes through the same process? In the sense that we take in only that which seems similar. Yes and No. Yes, because using the argument just above means that though we need to have need of different information it cannot be so different. And, No, because when we do take in something different and make it our own, we first have to see and accept that it is different. Today's diversity lovers start from the premise that it is not different. So, what then is the reason to absorb new information and make it our own if is not different? There is none. We cannot absorb anything that is the same as we are, uses the same information we use.


....and so what would the picture look like if we started from the premise that there is no diversity since our assumption is that all people are like us anyway. I suppose, in that case, we might get a picture that looks like this... ironically, in saying that this image looks like it makes some kind of strange sense since as it is all the same. However, was anything absorbed???

No, nothing, since in the condition of sameness there is nothing different to integrate or absorb and nothing to see that says there was a viable difference to begin with; hence, no residues, no after effects, and no integration...and certainly no refreshment.




Is there a picture for when new 'different'  information gets integrated- absorbed and it is visibly apparent?

Yes ~

What is going on in the Social Imagination?

That's a good question. We are witnessing the revision of what was a 'stable' social imagination as in vertical into horizontal social imagination. I am speaking to the individual perspective in our social imagination today.  Though we become more horizontal we are not exactly becoming or creating something new in our social imagination. That is why, I don't say changed or new because there is nothing new under the sun and it wasn't just Solomon who said that. Cornelius Castoriadis a Greek and yet French philosopher and social critic.

He brilliantly remarked on 'change' which is not change but revision of what was. However, I can say that what in his social imagination at the time of his writings is still largely true the one thing he did not anticipate was the kind of technology that we have today. But, then technology has always been with us too. The hanging gardens of Babylon were an amazing feat of 'technology' and so was the tower of Babel and not to mention the pyramids.

As for the individual perspective, perhaps we are more 'relativistic' than in the past, but one thing for sure it existed in the past. What is different today if we can say so is that more people are relativistic whereas in the past such perspective was held more by elites than the masses; but, today's elites cling just as much or more to their relative thinking.  And, I would argue anyone that the general simple public would do more for the 'good of society ~ social imagination' than would any elite in the ruling class.


What is going in in the social imagination? For me, I see corruption of the masses. It is being orchestrated from the top down by elites for their privilege. Hence, there is nothing new under the sun here. They like to divide the masses and thus conquer or at least keep them at bay and under control. They use propaganda to instill fear and hate. You see, if they, the elite and I mean those with money and position including the university intelligencja in this country, really preached what they say 'that race is socially constructed', then there would be no way to divide and conquer which again to reiterate is the means to retain power, position and money.

The Social Imagination ~ Spatial and Tactile Interaction

Many models of education have been and are discussed. It is interesting to me that most educated people think that years ago, education was simple or a lesser quality than today. That is not true. Look at the discoveries made during that last several hundred years and you will be amazed. We could go back even farther.

Today, we actually recognize that students are regressing in their studies and wider knowledge of all things, mechanical, artistic, historical, political, philosophical etc. Universities are more interested in teaching racial formation, gender expectations if any, and water downed versions of just about everything else. Yet, they claimer on the band wagon of educational reform and its overall improvement.

How then to go about improving education? Many think that the Rasch Model. As I wrote, Georg Rasch promoted psychometrics which is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. One part of the field is concerned with the objective measurement of skills and knowledge, abilities, attitudes,personality traits, and educational achievement. Rasch was interested thus in the calculation of social imagination. That sounds witty but it is not wise. Numbers produce results no doubt about that. But, they do not reflect the true nature of the social imagination.

My argument was that though like Rasch, psychometric researchers have concerned themselves with the construction and validation of assessment instruments such as questionnaires, tests, raters' judgments, and personality tests to understand the human mind, the human social imagination. I wrote then and repeat here "Oh, how they deny themselves the true intimate nature and understanding of the workings of the social imagination".

How can that be bad? It is because the key requirement of the Rasch model is embodied within the formal structure. Consequently, the Rasch model is a method of assessment that looks at how the assessment should be changed to meet the requirement of what is being studied. This sets up a false idea of what the naturally occurring data is. It presumes that the data is like 'that' or 'this'. We have to only set up proper assessment in order to see the data we presume to be there or want to achieve.

I cannot imagine how that will improve education. When I wrote my doctoral dissertation, I was fascinated with and wrote strongly about the social imagination and how it actually works. The phenomenon of the mind in a tangible body reaching out into a sphere of information configurations and locating meaning.


Meaning is what makes us human, and it makes one social reality 'culture as in social group in a place' just that much different from another. It requires spatial and tactile encounters with information. Our body is a kind of avatar for the mind-  the consciousness within.  It requires interaction with others but with other kinds of information that is created through social interaction and crystallized into this or that which must also be interacted with and can be in this given social dimension of being.



The best example is again beginning with mother. She holds a cuddly toy in front of her infant/child and interacts with her child. She also informs him or her about what she holds. The baby reaches out into space for the object, mother repeats what it is and the baby touches it. This is the process of programming or socializing. Socialization happens in this way throughout life. We need space and touch to concrete incoming data - to make it real.

Children today are limited in this experience. They spend too much time indoors and in front of screens which they cannot reach into and touch.



Young minds need this experience and through that they grow their mind.

The Socializing Of You!

You are a composition of all your social encounters which began with your mother even before you were born. The socialization process is complex though starting from a very simple upward and outward progression. Though born with distinct genital equipment and its use by natural design; role expectations of male/female are socialized (beginning with the mother) depending on the culture.


So, effectively you are a social creation. The success of your being either a productive and positive male or female in society depends on your socialization of it and the health of the society from which information comes that you are given during socialization.






Could you be born a man or woman? Well, you are in fact either or from birth. Could you change that? The fact that anyone would want to change that is a direct result of the socialization process. Could you be born white, black, Asian, or other? Well, you are in fact born into a culture and with that there could be passed on to you distinct racial features.  Could you change that? The fact that anyone would want to change that is a direct result of the socialization process.

Rebelling against the socialization process leads to deviation and negative behavior. Is it rebellion? Perhaps, it is the result of poor socialization. Most social engineers think that it is a direct result of poor socialization. Poor mothering? Women have more power to create a better world than they realize. The best way is to be a mother and not a father.




Society has distinct roles for a reason  - Social stability. I speak directly to women because they are the first socializing agents. Women cannot be both male and female. They should socialize girls to be girls and boys to be boys... but when the time comes, let them become men (under the supervision of their fathers) so that they won't become women. Wake up society!

 

Of course, there are those that think socializing role expectation is no longer necessary as it is somehow detrimental; after all, people can be any gender they want and of course why not any race, or ethnicity if they feel like it. If someone feels like a girl, its because they have a inborn proclivity toward the female side of their brain. If someone white feels like they are black, why not be black; after all Everyone came out of Africa according to Darwin. Right? Or is that going too far? If it is, then we could think that those who want to change from who they were socialized to be have actually been poorly socialized... first by the mother and then by the larger group; after all, the group produced the mother.

What is on the horizon of the social imagination? A new person bred or 'socialized' for a brave new world. Who is then socializing? Mother? Less and less it is 'mother'. More and more it is the State which does not need nor want anyone socializing anything that it does not mandate as critically relevant information.

Are we are seeing the results of that now?

Rasch's Equations model relationships we expect to obtain in the Real World.

Really? I would like to ask Georg Rasch what the real world is what? Why? Because, it is obvious he does not understand what it is. The real world is only that which can be called the 'paramount reality'. Alfred Schutz put that phrase forward long before Rasch. What does that mean? The paramount reality is the first social reality we encounter - society as the world of work as in 'doing and being' in a place.

In every society as in culture, this is perceived differently due to religion and geography and the socio-history that is the 'story' of the people in a place and what successes and failures they have experienced in a place and how they see themselves moving forward in that place which again has everything to do with their idea of who they are in the place and also that place within the greater cosmos. Why is any of that important or how does it influence what people do in 'their or a particular' place as pertaining to their moving forward in that place... what we might call 'new' developments in education and technology in a place (not considering yet a 'global' type citizen whose place is the world)?

It is important to talk about place because it has a direct impact on who we are and what we do.  It causes certain meaning to be given to things and to people.  When I talk about place, I do not mean just geography. I mean all social events, cognitive' collective consciousnesses driving such events, that takes place in a certain location that we can notice not taking place anywhere else. As a sociologist, I talk about meaning in a place. This is truly fascinating, it cannot be measured as we like to think it can. Of course, we can come up with probability statistical that will show a tendency but it lacks the depth of meaning. Which of course can be argued by mathematicians that like to reduce society to numbers.  In doing so, they reduce meaning, they reduce social imagination to calculated propensity.

They think that they are seeing something as naturally occurring data. But, they are not. They are seeing what they want to see. What they want to see is part of 'their social imagination'. All things lie in our social imagination. We can imagine a wonderfully creative and meaningful place or a dry cold numbered place that tracks and calculates.

You see, Georg Rasch was of the later. He promoted psychometrics which is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. One part of the field is concerned with the objective measurement of skills and knowledge, abilities, attitudes,personality traits, and educational achievement. He was interested thus in the calculation of social imagination. That sounds witty but it is not wise. Numbers produce results no doubt about that. But, they do not reflect the true nature of the social imagination.

Some psychometric researchers have concerned themselves with the construction and validation of assessment instruments such as questionnaires, tests, raters' judgments, and personality tests to understand the human mind, the human social imagination. Oh, how they deny themselves the true intimate nature and understanding of the workings of the social imagination.

Why would I say that? It is because the key requirement of the Rasch model is embodied within the formal structure. Consequently, the Rasch model is a method of assessment that looks at how the assessment should be changed to meet the requirement of what is being studied. This sets up a false idea of what the naturally occurring data is. It presumes that the data is like 'that' or 'this'. We have to only set up proper assessment in order to see the data we presume to be there or want to achieve.

The model of assessment should be changed so that this requirement is met, in the same way that a weighing scale should be rectified if it gives different comparisons between objects upon separate measurements of the objects. This does not provide true measurement. It supposes what we think we see or want to see. The scale example is a good illustration for this. As I might measure the same and rectify the scale in order to obtain what I want or think it should produce. It is a dangerous kind of social imagination in my opinion.
Because the intention is to make everyone the same, supposing a high level can be met if we assess it properly.

The real world is more like web of intricate patters, some have smaller detail, some have larger spaces and no one pattern is exactly the same. Each 'fractal' though repeating is not the same fractal in everything and in everyone. Though, from God's view it is just one big incredible fractal. It may have the same components but the arrangement is different. You see, it is because a fractal has irregular or fragmented shape at all scales of measurement.  Just Ask ...What would be the purpose of making them the same? What would that mean? We suppose that it would mean something better, it would reflect a greater intelligence? or greater social imagination. Meaning is everything for the sociologist. Before the equation, there is meaning.

*Fractal - first described by French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot as a geometrical or physical structure having an irregular or fragmented shape at all scales of measurement between a greatest and smallest scale such that certain mathematical or physical properties of the structure, as the perimeter of a curve or the flow rate in a porous medium, behave as if the dimensions of the structure (fractal dimensions) are greater than the spatial dimensions.