82
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
82 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13469 readers
834 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ah, not true the post-modernist left did in fact apply psychological terms to entire societies. Specifically, schizophrenia if I remember correctly from Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Lacan also loved mixing psychology and sociology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Schizophrenia
Not the greatest fan of these works, but at least they are being specific and academic in their usage and have psychological training. Modern libs are bastardizing even that.
Also I think it's much more valid to point towards a society as a whole as a social organism, and attempt to apply similar mental conditions to see if it makes any sense - at least in an academic thought experiment type of way, I don't think it has much explanatory power personally. However, libs instead just say "Trump is a narcissist. Putin is a sociopath. Kim Jong Un is a psychopath." etc. which is much more of an issue as they're just armchair psychologizing other people without any formal training whatsoever in order to smear political opponents. It's chauvinist, it's ableist, it's straight charlatanism
Very interesting! I wasn't aware of these works and I can see what they are trying to get at, so yet another thing libs have to ruin. The examples you use at the end are definitely along the lines of what I was thinking about though.
my reading of that book was that Deleuze was suggesting it as a way to fight capitalist control over thought and behavior -- i.e. if you think and behave in a way that's non-rational, you can escape the capitalist mind prison. idk though, it's a very hard book to read because it takes post-structuralism farther than the post-structuralists did and adopts his own thesis. so it's entirely possible I'm misreading him. he expands, in a more elucidating manner, in Societies of Control, so it's worth reading that as context for the book.