False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Skool » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:00 pm

Eh, I was especially attentive to the tl;drs.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby twenty » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:58 pm

Skool wrote:The problem is, everyone in the "legal system" (for lack of a better word) has a good sense of the way things really are, what the stakes are, what their values are (basically non existent). They also understand that their survival depends on not publicly challenging any of the fundamental values/goals/financial structures/social relationships that undergird the legal world.


Depending on where the "legal system" starts, I'd be inclined to argue it is a rarity that someone within has a good sense of the way things really are, what the stakes are, what their values are, etc. A part of this problem is that the "legal system" purposefully excludes people (read: shitlibs) that have since abandoned practicing because practicing law "isn't fulfilling." You also have a lot of people that are miserable, but not really totally sure why.

I wouldn't write off socialust fappury here quite so quickly.

User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Skool » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:08 pm

The main thing that everyone understands (students, professors, administrators, associates, partners alike) is that there are not enough of the comfy seats at the table of American prosperity. For most law students, law school is there only real chance at a ticket to one of those chairs (making no comment about the real likelihood of actually getting a seat).

Most indebted law students start from this position. Starting from this position and understanding the amazing levels of competition it takes for "top law students" to just get to top law schools, I'd be surprised if these same students forget how disposable they are since there was a long line of people behind them at the gates ready to pay the law schools for the chance at the comfy seats.

The easy disposability of law students and lawyers is pretty easy to see without looking too far and this is probably the biggest source of unhappiness for young lawyers. Why would any law firm or law school value you when you're so easily replaceable?

People understand that they're disposable and that every part of the system treats them as if they're disposable ("I could tell the professor that his method of 'socratic' teaching is more of a form of intellectual terrorism than a legit method of instruction, but I'd only hurt myself and no one would give a damn" or "I could try to organize with fellow students to lobby for a two year program and an accompanying reduction in tuition, but what if I fail and the administration hurts my career"). I would suggest that the complete absence of any sort of vocal support from student organizations after the New York State bar people announced their intention to let students sit the bar early in exchange for a semester or two of public service, which would open up an avenue for students to demand a tuition reduction, shows that students know the line and won't step over it, even in their own interest.

At every step of the way for young lawyers and law students, you're just trying to survive. That's your only value. And you'd step over any amount of corpses as you try and scale the pyramid--- anything to keep yourself from being counted among them. This we all know. The question of, "what's a law professor or partner's values" answers itself.

tl;dr, lawyers and law students are disposable and that's why they're unhappy. People aren't unaware of the fact that they're disposable, nor of the link between their disposability and their unhappiness because that's why they decided to go to law school in the first place.
Last edited by Skool on Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby utahraptor » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:13 pm

Skool wrote:I would suggest that the complete absence of any sort of vocal support from student organizations after the New York State bar people announced their intention to let students sit the bar early in exchange for a semester or two of public service, which would open up an avenue for students to demand a tuition reduction, shows that students know the line and won't step over it, even in their own interest.


What? People didn't applaud the change because law schools generally announced they'd support the program but that they wouldn't give a tuition reduction. If you know that going in, what's the point of graduating early?

User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Skool » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:21 pm

utahraptor wrote:
Skool wrote:I would suggest that the complete absence of any sort of vocal support from student organizations after the New York State bar people announced their intention to let students sit the bar early in exchange for a semester or two of public service, which would open up an avenue for students to demand a tuition reduction, shows that students know the line and won't step over it, even in their own interest.


What? People didn't applaud the change because law schools generally announced they'd support the program but that they wouldn't give a tuition reduction. If you know that going in, what's the point of graduating early?
But why such a passive attitude? Why "I don't care about the change because the law schools won't give me a discount anyway" As opposed to, "this is an opportunity to get a tuition reduction. The law schools won't go for that, but how do I organize with my classmates to ally myself with stakeholders like the NY Bar to advance my interest in a tuition reduction."

Why the former and not the latter, that's the question. Because on the other side of the table, you can believe the law deans are "working with the NY Bar" to ensure this change occurs in such a way that their programs aren't "truncated," read: tuition revenues aren't threatened. Where are law students in the conversation? And if they're not in the conversation, why not?
Last edited by Skool on Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:24 pm

Skool wrote:People understand that they're disposable and that every part of the system treats them as if they're disposable

The second part is almost true. Applying is the strongest position of bargaining power and lowest level of systemic "awareness." This is a high-RC thread in an admissions subforum. The first part is not remotely true, for this audience or any other. The rhetorical questions in your post are real questions that need to be asked by real people. Your line of reasoning may be just fine as regards the conventional wisdom. It does not seem much fun to go through distinguishing between the present and the future, or this thread and scamblog logic all over again.

e: This thread includes the latter on later pages

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby utahraptor » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:26 pm

Skool wrote:
utahraptor wrote:
Skool wrote:I would suggest that the complete absence of any sort of vocal support from student organizations after the New York State bar people announced their intention to let students sit the bar early in exchange for a semester or two of public service, which would open up an avenue for students to demand a tuition reduction, shows that students know the line and won't step over it, even in their own interest.


What? People didn't applaud the change because law schools generally announced they'd support the program but that they wouldn't give a tuition reduction. If you know that going in, what's the point of graduating early?
But why such a passive attitude? Why "I don't care about the change because the law schools won't give me a discount anyway" As opposed to, "this is an opportunity to get a tuition reduction. The law schools won't go for that, but how do I organize with my classmates to ally myself with stakeholders like the NY Bar to advance my interest in a tuition reduction."

Why the former and not the latter, that's the question.

Because it would be a waste of my effort? This wasn't a missed opportunity. There was no opportunity. Why don't all students band together to get tuition reductions now? Why don't 0Ls band together to shorten the length of law schools? There's a difference between fungibility and genuine impotence.

I think you're projecting something odd here and I don't buy it at all. Maybe you should read the thread.

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby fats provolone » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:27 pm

not sure I agree with your premise. I think most (upper/middle class) people think they've earned what they've got, that the less fortunate are partly to blame for their misfortune (and partly means fully because all we're looking for here is a decent argument/rationalization to get our brain off our case), and that you shouldn't complain about the system because at the end of the day hard work is rewarded.

User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Skool » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:49 pm

utahraptor wrote:Because it would be a waste of my effort? This wasn't a missed opportunity. There was no opportunity.


The plan inherently truncates the three year program. Converting that truncation into cash savings is an opportunity. A challenge to be sure, but an opportunity. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

Your consciousness/argument is sounding a little reified to me.


Skool wrote:The first part is not remotely true, for this audience or any other.

The motivations of law students, professors, lawyers et al. are not mysterious and they can be explained without reference to false consciousness. I don't think people need internet lectures on Marxism. People get it. What they really need is to organize.

Maybe it comes down to how optimistic or pessimistic you are about people.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:04 pm

Skool wrote:
utahraptor wrote:Because it would be a waste of my effort? This wasn't a missed opportunity. There was no opportunity.


The plan inherently truncates the three year program. Converting that truncation into cash savings is an opportunity. A challenge to be sure, but an opportunity. I don't see how you can see it any other way.

Your consciousness/argument is sounding a little reified to me.

You may mean to address this to me, in which case, fine. His was to read the thread.

Skool wrote:
The first part is not remotely true, for this audience or any other.

The motivations of law students, professors, lawyers et al. are not mysterious and they can be explained without reference to false consciousness. I don't think people need internet lectures on Marxism. People get it. What they really need is to organize.

Maybe it comes down to how optimistic or pessimistic you are about people.

Yes, or whether you read the thread.

Businesslady wrote:I want to start to talk about "law school and economics" from the perspective of Jean Tirole, institutional power vis-à-vis the T14/ABA/NLJ (I don't know what the last two even do) from the perspective of Marcuse/"transparency", and think about what it would mean to break the link between elite legal education and rent-seeking prestige-to-dollars conversion associate-churning from a game-theoretical perspective. Is there any way to reintroduce the <1800-hour model through administrative channels and get the scribe class's soul back into the social fabric? I mean, gunners gonna gun, but like, this is a market power question. Surely there's some systems framework to think about rehumanizing associate work through the institutions - and designing, not capitulating to markets, actual markets - that doesn't break everything straight away. Is demand coming back for real? Is the job already "overpaid?" Can the institutions themselves shift power? Is there granular, high-level analysis on how the biglaw work allocation model actually works? Are the rumours of the death of a generation's soul greatly exaggerated? This is literally an organized labor / Drew Faust universities-as-socially-responsible thing.


e: The points on density of text with respect to masses are well-enough taken, as they were the first time, when bk1 raised them

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:14 pm

fats provolone wrote:not sure I agree with your premise. I think most (upper/middle class) people think they've earned what they've got, that the less fortunate are partly to blame for their misfortune (and partly means fully because all we're looking for here is a decent argument/rationalization to get our brain off our case), and that you shouldn't complain about the system because at the end of the day hard work is rewarded.

Some say the social order necessitates empathy and realism. However, those concepts are social constructs in the first place. Checkmate libs

User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Skool » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:59 pm

Businesslady wrote:
fats provolone wrote:not sure I agree with your premise. I think most (upper/middle class) people think they've earned what they've got, that the less fortunate are partly to blame for their misfortune (and partly means fully because all we're looking for here is a decent argument/rationalization to get our brain off our case), and that you shouldn't complain about the system because at the end of the day hard work is rewarded.

Some say the social order necessitates empathy and realism. However, those concepts are social constructs in the first place. Checkmate libs
Exactly. But just because something is "socially constructed" doesn't mean that it isn't a useful and even necessary instrument. The fact that making decisions you believe to be based in something called "reality" seems to confer advantages on those who follow that school of thought about how to behave, suggests we disregard "reality" at our peril. Keep it until there's reason to throw it away.

I take the point about reading the thread. It becomes less unwieldy the further you get away from the earlier pages. Later pages turn toward points I redundantly suggested especially regarding organization. However, I still maintain that the names Deleuze & Gutarri are prima facie good and sufficient reason to tl;dr.

I also still think the thread is weird and fundamentally misguided in it's style and target audience.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:42 pm

I also believed that. Then I read Deleuze and Guattari. That's 2 of us who didn't read. I also don't advocate sociopathy, for the record.

Skool wrote:But why such a passive attitude? Why "I don't care about the change because the law schools won't give me a discount anyway" As opposed to, "this is an opportunity to get a tuition reduction. The law schools won't go for that, but how do I organize with my classmates to ally myself with stakeholders like the NY Bar to advance my interest in a tuition reduction."

Why the former and not the latter, that's the question. Because on the other side of the table, you can believe the law deans are "working with the NY Bar" to ensure this change occurs in such a way that their programs aren't "truncated," read: tuition revenues aren't threatened. Where are law students in the conversation? And if they're not in the conversation, why not?

I didn't see these edits. Here is the stripped-down version with hardly any Marxism. I think large blocks of theory are just fine for the part of this that is not redundant with scamblogs. Someone who knows more about this can be Engels and OP a less theoretical version of this with only the parts that are less offensive to people who think they might want to go to large blocks of dense text school but don't like reading small to medium blocks of dense text. They don't have false consciousness or alienation problems so NBD. Then I can take the T2.0 out of the title, which I should probably do anyway because it's still bothering me to be so clickbait-y and I feel like a poseur.

I think there may be reason for more assumption of heterogeneity among "law deans" and the faculties that choose them
- and it should be a competitive advantage for a school's admissions office to be able to show that the institution is
--capable of and
--interested in
-doing something about the future of its student populations like
--Debt reduction?
---LRAP?
---RTK?
---Scholarship to waive OCI?
--Functioning as market advocate?
---Can you do this when HLS has 500+ and might like to keep it that way?
----How does a school avoid - or tactfully play - the costly and inefficient admissions warfare game this way?
-----Would quantitatively better candidates go to a differentiable place on the basis of lifestyle and heterogeneity?
-----Or is HYS gonna HYS?
-----How do you know? Show your work
----Is the school there to print money for the parent institution?
-----Or does it enjoy support?
-----Or is it relatively independent?
--and also society
---It's fucked up "critical legal studies" was pigeonholed in the first place
----r>g so I imagine law and econ has a lot of catching up to do
---Applicants need to know what Georgetown section 3 or whatever even is
----What even is it?
----Besides "expensive as shit"
-----Just kidding, Georgetown, it sounds cool. What is it? I'm serious this time

Students don't set prices for the most part
-Applicants do
--They've never been and "biglaw + clerkships" doesn't seem as crazy as it is
--What they want is going to be what a school positions itself to provide
--So like
---Who's selling what to whom
----admissions stories to applicants?
----the imprimatur of and proximity to faculty to students?
----students to employers they know nothing about?
----or are institutions functionally selling a screening service and prestige to the boomer rentiers and taking a cut?
---where
----how does each place roll?
-----are there any distinctions?
------indications of it?
---when
----0L?
----each year as payments come due?
----OCI?
----when the loan hits?
---why?
----"False consciousness / alienation"
----Collective action problem / banality of evil
-----"That's what ____s want"
----This is a marketplace of rational actors, that's why we know so much about justice. GTFO
-I assume students can still kind of define the product
--Why don't they?
---The most qualified applicants did something else because fuck LS?
----Seems like a shitty dystopian fate for the professional class trained in the law
---Bargaining is more limited right now for students already in debt?
----That's the sick structure of the pricing model
----But see 40% of Duke debt-free
-----What the fuck is going on?
-----Is the misery overstated by the miserable?
------Seems unlikely
--What would they ask for?
---NYC to >$180k?
---NYC to <1800 hours?
---2L/3L to <$18k?
---Social responsibility in the curriculum?
----Or at least an effort to look like it, like, damn
----But seriously law and sociology quants are going to be tight I bet
--Would anyone care?
---How do you know? Show your work
--What does the ABA/NYBA even do?
---What is the student's interface?

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:31 pm

Oh, and also the thing where America is turning into a failed state and biglaw is writing the script or whatever

Image

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/po ... neral.html

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:00 am

Lifeworld or something

Image

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/spe ... rt/scotus/
I actually don't know if I care very much about this one as it's just all over the place and also duh

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby jbagelboy » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:00 am

on the subject of student activism and the possibility of some collective bargaining power with law school administration, thoughts on the recent Ferguson/Garner trauma solicitations and identity and person of color politics? I appreciate the fundamental differences between these issues and the source of their political will/manifestation, but if properly engaged, the current energy could broaden to student mobilization against the system more generally // it wouldn't be the first time progressive movements operated in tandem, e.g. vietnam/indochina wars & civil rights mov't, proto-feminist & paris commune, ect.

see https://columbialawcoalition.wordpress. ... -of-color/
https://harvardlawcoalition.wordpress.com
https://georgetownlawcoalition.wordpres ... -students/

(if there's the student-driven political capital to effect "demands" re: postponing exams & promoting diverse spaces, which has been demonstrated, could there be for debt/tuition, increased transparency, ect. or just wishful thinking)

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:00 pm

It's weird that race and class are always treated as opposing theories. Like, there's a shitload of racism, obviously, and there's also crazy rentier banana republic fuckery, but you don't have to pick one or the other. This is a police union guy:

Image

and it's like, well, dude, it's also stop and frisk and constant harassment and profiling and about a million other fucked up things, but it is true that these issues fundamentally come down to power asymmetries. On here splitting race and class almost sounds like anti-AA "but what about poor whites" and it's just, like, that's not you, you sheltered adult fucking children, you're clearly just being resentful and ignoring actual race problems, but also, yes, actually, poor whites do get fucked, so why don't you do something about systemic economic inequality?

The comments on the GULC post are predictably terrible and just full of the deadening "moderate" institution apologist "let's explore both sides of this" and it's like, Fuck. Off. Dipshits. Ethnic minorities get fucked with constantly and are patronized and microaggressions are real AF and this month has been dehumanizing as shit. If you want to try to get on that level, the line is "I'm having my life and the scope of opportunities available to me fucked up by a mountain of debt and it's systemic and institutional and I also want that acknowledged," not "What makes you so special? This isn't Georgetown's problem." Resentment is such fucking garbage. BLSA is right to be MAF. Everyone should be MAF. Everyone is getting fucked. That doesn't mean everyone is getting fucked the same way or to the same degree, but yeah, solidarity would be cool. There might be a causality thing where 200k of student debt (and a garbage social safety net besides) makes it harder to hang a shingle to take local ACLU or NAACP referrals or however that works, so everyone's maybe kind of in it together?

Image

Well, OK. Maybe I'd like to see more faculty appointments of openly Angela Davis-style intersectional researchers, but also law professors who do papers with economists who explore inequitable wealth distribution and policy. Fund fellowships in social research and figure out how to keep "law and sociology" from getting pigeonholed under "critical legal studies" and marginalized this time. Also, ban >1800 hour firms from OCI and let people apply themselves if they want those jobs. Or figure out how pro bono works firm-to-firm and let people know when they bid or something, like calories on menus, don't you people have Cass Sunstein there? Ask him how to get lawyers back into the public sphere responsibly. I know fuck all about that whole thing and I'm making things up. Maybe HLS is already good at "public interest" and everyone else needs to step up their game. I have no idea.

But yes, I mean, the shit this last month is just insane and I don't see how the homogenization of the legal community on spreadsheets - in terms of both ethnic and life backgrounds, and by tying a training in the law with a debt load that compels indentured maintenance of pooled capital's interests - could possibly fail to exacerbate the underlying issues. False consciousness, alienation, crisis of democracy and capitalism, etc.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:31 pm

GULC student:

Image

Like, holy shit. Straw man much? Do you really not see the connection? That last part is aneurysm-inducing. Let BLSA cook

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Tue Dec 09, 2014 2:38 pm

Businesslady wrote:There might be a causality thing where 200k of student debt (and a garbage social safety net besides) makes it harder to hang a shingle to take local ACLU or NAACP referrals or however that works

Also "lol at pro bono hours, just lol" is depressing as shit even if it reflects a present reality

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby jbagelboy » Tue Dec 09, 2014 4:05 pm

Businesslady wrote:It's weird that race and class are always treated as opposing theories. Like, there's a shitload of racism, obviously, and there's also crazy rentier banana republic fuckery, but you don't have to pick one or the other. This is a police union guy:

Image

and it's like, well, dude, it's also stop and frisk and constant harassment and profiling and about a million other fucked up things, but it is true that these issues fundamentally come down to power asymmetries. On here splitting race and class almost sounds like anti-AA "but what about poor whites" and it's just, like, that's not you, you sheltered adult fucking children, you're clearly just being resentful and ignoring actual race problems, but also, yes, actually, poor whites do get fucked, so why don't you do something about systemic economic inequality?

The comments on the GULC post are predictably terrible and just full of the deadening "moderate" institution apologist "let's explore both sides of this" and it's like, Fuck. Off. Dipshits. Ethnic minorities get fucked with constantly and are patronized and microaggressions are real AF and this month has been dehumanizing as shit. If you want to try to get on that level, the line is "I'm having my life and the scope of opportunities available to me fucked up by a mountain of debt and it's systemic and institutional and I also want that acknowledged," not "What makes you so special? This isn't Georgetown's problem." Resentment is such fucking garbage. BLSA is right to be MAF. Everyone should be MAF. Everyone is getting fucked. That doesn't mean everyone is getting fucked the same way or to the same degree, but yeah, solidarity would be cool. There might be a causality thing where 200k of student debt (and a garbage social safety net besides) makes it harder to hang a shingle to take local ACLU or NAACP referrals or however that works, so everyone's maybe kind of in it together?

Image

Well, OK. Maybe I'd like to see more faculty appointments of openly Angela Davis-style intersectional researchers, but also law professors who do papers with economists who explore inequitable wealth distribution and policy. Fund fellowships in social research and figure out how to keep "law and sociology" from getting pigeonholed under "critical legal studies" and marginalized this time. Also, ban >1800 hour firms from OCI and let people apply themselves if they want those jobs. Or figure out how pro bono works firm-to-firm and let people know when they bid or something, like calories on menus, don't you people have Cass Sunstein there? Ask him how to get lawyers back into the public sphere responsibly. I know fuck all about that whole thing and I'm making things up. Maybe HLS is already good at "public interest" and everyone else needs to step up their game. I have no idea.

But yes, I mean, the shit this last month is just insane and I don't see how the homogenization of the legal community on spreadsheets - in terms of both ethnic and life backgrounds, and by tying a training in the law with a debt load that compels indentured maintenance of pooled capital's interests - could possibly fail to exacerbate the underlying issues. False consciousness, alienation, crisis of democracy and capitalism, etc.


I agree, this is what I was getting at. I find it interesting and worth pursuing on a broader level that the affinity groups have turned their distress/anger over state-sponsored violence, both racial and otherwise, toward the university institution, and this energy could be harnessed by students generally, in both form and substance; e.g. resistance to providing open spaces and promoting minority voice -> subset of coercive power relations and the abusive alliance of educational institutions in finance capitalism with "the firm"

the trick for the liberal agenda is avoiding the label of appropriation and remaining veritable "allies" without taking voice & agency away from the actual targets of public disenfranchisement. already seeing this kind of backlash in berkeley and all lives/black lives

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:19 pm

jbagelboy wrote:I find it interesting and worth pursuing on a broader level that the affinity groups have turned their distress/anger over state-sponsored violence, both racial and otherwise, toward the university institution, and this energy could be harnessed by students generally, in both form and substance; e.g. resistance to providing open spaces and promoting minority voice -> subset of coercive power relations and the abusive alliance of educational institutions in finance capitalism with "the firm"


It would not be the first time.

Image
Image

Image

50 years ago next year so obviously the last sentence is subject to the caveat of the passage which contains it.

User avatar
J3987
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby J3987 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:39 am

Skool wrote:But why such a passive attitude? Why "I don't care about the change because the law schools won't give me a discount anyway" As opposed to, "this is an opportunity to get a tuition reduction. The law schools won't go for that, but how do I organize with my classmates to ally myself with stakeholders like the NY Bar to advance my interest in a tuition reduction."

Why the former and not the latter, that's the question. Because on the other side of the table, you can believe the law deans are "working with the NY Bar" to ensure this change occurs in such a way that their programs aren't "truncated," read: tuition revenues aren't threatened. Where are law students in the conversation? And if they're not in the conversation, why not?


It seems like you're identifying a collective action problem that exists. Ok. How do we solve collective action problems? Game theory is a good place to start.

Depending on the specifics of the social dilemma, various solutions exist to offset the potential of negative outcome: creation of third-party institutions or legal and regulatory frameworks, full or partial privatization of the resource, institution of responsibility principles and coordinated punishment mechanisms [5], [8]. In a situation of social dilemma, how can voluntary cooperation [9], [10] be enhanced when relying on punishment and sanctioning mechanisms or other costly third-party apparatus is not an option?

Our experiment tests if a specific modification of the modality of interaction – goal- v. process-ascription – has an impact on levels of trust and hence, on the participants' willingness to cooperate with each other later in ulterior interactions. Teams of participants were first being asked to follow a set of specific instructions organizing their participation in a collective sequence of actions. In one condition, the transparent, participants were being shown the goal/result of their collective action (process), while, in the other condition, the opaque, participants were kept unaware of the goal/result of their interactions. Thereafter, they played a public goods game. Our prediction was twofold: (i) participants in the transparent condition will be more cooperative than the ones in the opaque condition and (ii) that difference in cooperative levels will correlate with participants' expectations about other group members' willingness to cooperate. We also looked for effects on participants' emotion.


What is much of this thread about? Maybe I shouldn't give it away before you get the chance to read it.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064776#pone-0064776-g001
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/33/5/623
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14792779643000029#.VIfpVbl0zIU

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:28 pm

Obviously violence sucks so I'm not even mad at psyc ops. Just feed and educate people. Speaking of applied social science:

Image

Methodology critique: Not feeding people is political violence. Not educating people is political violence.

Image
Image
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -breakdown

Image
Image
http://zeroanthropology.net/2010/02/16/ ... -darkness/

And it's like, this is just so inefficient. Maybe we won't have to do all this if we just quit letting coal buy government.

I love when the Guardian gets all half-Economist, half-Jacobin:

Image
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pr-growth

But the state can be pretty cool, and so can markets, and I'm not really Malcolm X about foreign policy (because I kind of just don't know if I can care that much, despite e.g. that recent Cowen piece), much less into fucking shit up for the sake of fucking shit up, or Zero Hedge apocalyptoid fantasies - or even necessarily transparency as an absolute rule where opacity isn't fucking people over.

Still, just holy shit at what "federalism" and captured, opaque local interests do to efficiency sometimes. Those 2 grand juries could cost so much money and cause the misallocation of so many resources. That's fucking crazy. I mean, or it could be ultimately productive and get things working more efficiently and make people care and do more and better work on social projects with positive externalities. Like, the rule of law is really expensive for society if people fuck it up. I think maybe more talented people should go to some form of law school and work on some things that might save taxpayers the bill on dystopian urban strike forces made up of people that would probably rather be at home with their kids. Also, you know, like, climate change. That's going to be expensive as shit and everyone knows it. Quit charging people $200k for a badge to work on big problems through civic channels.

So like, I don't think it's too much to ask that institutions, through their individual members, tell better stories about the way the present relates to the future and get Ray Dalio hyperrealist about systems and their own role.

For that matter, I don't know how to think about the potential reification of the anthropologists' institutional codes of ethics as transposed onto the military. That piece on the Israeli army reading Deleuze was kind of chilling but their GINI is closer to Canada's than to ours so maybe militarization isn't even problematic per se if you don't fuck it up with a parliamentary majority's right-wing racism. Foucault's historical "police state" in Security, Territory, Population actually sounded like it could be pretty good at distributing grain if it had computers, but if Peast or Pear wants to chime in with logistics knowledge that would be cool. I may not even be properly Marxist because I don't even know if I have a problem with a banking/merchant elite existing in a UBI/UHC/free education/free housing world. But being enclosure fuckboys seems vestigial and self-harming for the bourgeoisie ("disappearing middle class," whatever). I just don't see the appeal of feudalism. I only really know about law school application websites.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby Businesslady » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:54 pm

Image

TBF getting fucked with every day, demanding cameras, then helplessly seeing a video of a killing may not feel "aesthetic"

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: False consciousness / alienation / Transparency 2.0

Postby ResolutePear » Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:32 pm

Businesslady wrote:I only really know about law school application websites.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I concur with your assessment of the Police State involving the distribution of grain.

What does that say about me? :shock:




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests