I’m having big swings of feelings as I wrap up the Bevins book. He referenced this one in his last chapter. I think I need to dig deeper.
My question before reading: is this what sociocracy does?
I wish I read more fiction
This link opens in a pop-up window
I’m already nervous that this book is so entrenched in the “brain-as-computer” competitive/individualist paradigm of cognition that it will never even touch issues like situated learning (which I consider to be the most important issue in any discussion of learning, teaching, education, and schooling). Let’s see!
Christine reminds me periodically how dangerous it is for me as a european-american white person to put indigenous north american peoples and histories constantly on a pedestal, and how easy it is to slip into some newfangled version of the “noble savage” bullshit. I also keep trying to resist the pull of becoming some kind of myopic Dawn of Everything fanboy. AND YET ever since reading that book, I find myself coming to any/every political analysis wondering: why doesn’t this writer start with a treatment of the n.am indigenous critique? Why on earth would anyone start a massive critique of the mess that europe hath wrought by looking exclusively to european-worldview ideas for solutions?
So basically I’m wondering, after reading just the introduction, whether I’m gonna be able to get much out of this. But I’m gonna try!
I know the historical parallels are not all aligned, but it sure does feel useful right now to understand what it’s like to live through a collapse. I’m curious to see how much time she spends on all the different margins and peripheries versus trying to get to some kind of universalizing experience.