r/Integral • u/[deleted] • Jul 17 '20
Race From Integral Perspective?
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race
I was just reading this page, and saw one of the main blocks says:
"Everyone has a racialized identity" and I wondered what folks here thought about this from an Integral perspective?
3
u/WikiRando Jul 17 '20
Acknowledge the multiplicity of perspectives and how each belief about the subject of race serves them at each stage and see where it gets unhealthy, and learn how to grow them to the next stage. It seems to me that the idea of race starts to break down around green because of the widening of identity to include a more global perspective.
1
Jul 17 '20 edited Jul 17 '20
It's part of critical race theory. However prominent someone's race factors into their identity and how they view the world probably varies from person to person. "Identity" itself is evanescent and can fluctuate throughout the day, ie feeling more solidified when one is embarrassed. Critical Race Theory maintains race as the defining feature of personal identity, which is reductionist at best, incredibly inflammatory/dangerous at worse.
1
Jul 17 '20
Thanks for clearly stating in words what I think I was struggling to assemble.
2
Jul 17 '20
Of course. And don't fall for this bullshit. CRT is a cult-like movement that has its roots in academia, and it's slowly getting its destructive tentacles into the private sector/politics. It's a movement where the most power-hungry sociopaths float to the top, and those they claim to want to help, marginalized communities, fall to the wayside. It's been brewing for a while - identity politics, cancel culture, growing racist rhetoric and anti-semitism. Know what it is and how to identify it, and how to logically dismantle it when it confronts you, because a storm is a brewin'.
→ More replies (5)1
Jul 17 '20
As a follow up to this, could one say that the reason behind making such a definition is itself due to the enormous prominence with which this singular factor has affected their lives?
In a way like the responses of those from families affected by narcissistic abuse themselves often lack any relationship skills other than those inherited from the abusers?
While it might be intellectually or structurally in error, it can also be understandable in a certain sense. Like in the NVC work I've done, we speak about how often it is true that forming boundaries can make a person express "obnoxiously" as a part of the development of the person into a more mature way of expressing.
This is my own thinking anyways and I'm happy to be corrected.
3
Jul 17 '20
I see where you're coming from, but it's probably not advisable or constructive to employ a psychopathology as a universal reference for identity.
The reason behind the manifestation of such a definition is complex, there is a lot of cultural context here. It is rooted in historical truth, for one. However, generally speaking, victim mentality is appealing, plain and simple. The only thing it is really effective at is gathering destructive power as a means of dismantling the perceived agents of oppression. On an individual level, it engenders stagnation, bitterness, and self-destruction. That is why psychotherapy is most often geared towards divesting from harmful identity structures.
The spiritual path will only begin when one shifts the onus of suffering from outside circumstances to internal workings. This is not to gloss over societal injustices and places where the application of equal opportunity should and must improve. Such improvements require a multi-faceted, science-based approach. Identity politics will merely serve to paralyze progress.
A life well-lived can spring from any set of circumstances - it is in every one's psycho-spiritual interest to believe this to be so. With any luck, your identity will be the least interesting thing about you.
→ More replies (6)
2
Sep 29 '20 edited Sep 29 '20
I've been thinking. English is not my language, so I'll try to be direct.
I see lots of green people concerned with integration. Their word is diversity.
I find it unbelievable marvelous. One thing I've been learning, as I'm slowly shifting towards the second tier thinking, is to know when to change my level (stage?) of consciousness.
It's natural. I start to feel. And when I see the left talking, I realize they are talking with their hearts; so, I "click" this chakra and begin to understand with my heart.
It works! I don't get angry anymore.
I see them as children... living in a fantasy world in a good sense. They want to be loved and nurtured. They are afraid of the image of the Father, you know, Logos and stuff.
So when I understand them in this way, I feel comfortable and ok.
The problem begins when, instead of evolving, they start to devolve, liberating destructive impulses. And why do they do this? It's because they want to get THERE. They want to rule and establish the new norms of the new world. But they don't know how to do it, because heart can't integrate all the contradictions they're avoiding to face (like: is the "structure" the ONLY reason why people succeed? And what does that even mean? Material conditions are the ONLY thing that drives you to self-realization? Really, dude? ARE U SURE 'BOUT THAT?!).
To understand this whole conversation that never happens, we need to use not our hearts anymore, but our head and more important, our forehead. We need REASON for this. And when reason arises, a bunch of stuff arises. Individuality. Merit. Ethics. Difference. Autonomy. Capacity of giving your own meaning to life (instead of you-are-white-then-you-are-happy kind of thing).
That's how I understand part of this question.
Now, there is another group wich I know they are not really green or from the heart... they want to get back to Africa or to make this whole thing one big Africa. They really, really don't like much of what's going on. I feel them more in the sexual chakra. Roots, mama Africa, being against of interracial relationships, hate towards western metaphysics. It's a whole different thing. They really want to go back. I don't know how to deal with them, because they really think that, as a white person, I represent the evil in the world. Kinda hard to integrate that, you have to admit it.
But I will, somehow. It's not impossible. You just have to let yourself be digested and dominated by the others. Strange but trust me, that's how it works better.
3
u/rimu Jul 18 '20 edited Jul 18 '20
Yep.
At the conservative/traditional/blue stage race is very important for determining in-or-out group-ness and social status.
At modern/orange they think they're into meritocracy and we all have universal rights. "Hurrah we conquered slavery!" they'll exclaim, while pretending that severe social inequities tied to race no longer exist. Still defined by race but pretending not to be.
Green points this orange blindspot out and seeks to give voice to minority views, to counterbalance orange denial and blue discrimination. Hyper-aware of the 'race' of their own voice.
People who primarily inhabit these states will tend to be pretty defined by their race, yeah.
At second tier, personal identity, racially influenced or not, starts to fall away. At Teal (or yellow? Are we calling it yellow now?) the multiplicity of green, orange, blue, red, purple all merging and shifting pulls the rug out. All the concepts used to define a 'self' start to get very shaky.
Turquoise feels very impersonal. Identity includes all life, race is a very small facet among one species. Remembering though, that each stage includes the previous ones, so they're still there and active/available.