Societies are organized far differently than they were 50-100 years ago, and while I think the issue partly relates to perception, I don't think that problems like economic disparity and police brutality are merely a matter of perception.

Integration, on the whole, remains a concept more than a reality, and I think we should ask why, because I see no reason that this has to be the case -- It's a matter of choice.

@Dray2k

If we contrast the overt fascism associated with the past, with what has been called the "friendly fascism" of today, which would you say represents a greater danger?

Also, would you say that the appreciation for subliminal communication that modern artists have is roughly the same as that of their predecessors? And what of the general public's ability to consciously perceive, has that changed significantly with the passage of time?

Have a degree that heavily focused on literary studies - and a degree in creative writing - (plus two others in the natural sciences) - and I just find that argument in the cultural studies to be utterly inane. The process of creating art can't be separated from the biography of the person creating it; and despite what the death of the author says people creating art / writing spend a hell of a lot of time thinking about what they do. Analytically, technically, emotionally, and practically. Have first hand experience of that. That intention counts for something. And I think it counts slightly more than interpretations that might be valid, but veer off vastly from the original aim.

Now I DO accept that cultural works become part of society - but utterly and completely declaring the author dead can only come from the perception that how and why choices are made are invisible to the person producing art. Said otherwise - if you utterly disregard original intention you are a lot more likely to miss metaphors and implied meaning that's there between the lines, implicit, or slightly hidden and obscured. And oh, boy, is including those an important aspect of creating something with emotional and intellectual depth.

Who the hell opened the window and let all that fresh air into the thread! LOL
Yeah, it's not people that cause things to happen, it's spirits. lol

I didn't really conclude my "rant" by stating that oppression isn't systemic. I even wrote that the general systema throughout the world has seen positive changes throughout history, and that said change is gradually which also mean that its more difficult to pinpoint racistic behavior, because there is less racism and seggregation nowadays than it was even mere 50 years ago.

Let me tell you this, I don't have a strong oversight in American economics and I don't think its the most important issue (it might be for you for obvious reasons) but my assumption is that the American bureaucracy and the general addiction towards the persue of wealth within its superstructure (I'm using this term loosely here, I'm also refering too the general inequality/wealth divide between Americans) is so gargantuan that marginalized communities are still not accounted for, this includes all ethnicies living in impoverished suburbs. So in laymans terms, those with the smallest voice are left out and have less chance to succeed compared to the louder ones. Its a shame that for such a rich and wealthy country a lot of people seem to be left out no real reason, while like a fraction of a percent have like most wealth there.

Just out of interest, if you have statistics regarding the correlation between racial demographics, please post them here or send me a PM. I'm very interested in that sort of stuff.

Thats not a loaded question at all, hahaha oh my. First you must establish what "friendly fascism" means, however. Because without proper context this phrase is practically meaningless and I've also never heard of it. So what do you mean, exactly?

I'm not a scholar in art, but I would say that nowadays the abilities of sublimal communication are fairly more developed.

This has nothing to do with fairytales, regardless of what you believe. People have an inert drive towards (technological) progress and the fight for freedom, which only accelerated things thanks to the time we call renaissance. I'm fairly sure you can track back and quantify the "degrees of happiness" within each cultural timeframe within most countries and compare them to data that was gathered during this or the last year to compare how people (in the first world at least) suffer less than ever before.

I do kinda agree with your assesment that the Death-of-the-Author is an impossible state, though what do you mean with "having first hand experience"? I mean everyone can make their own assessment in judging art, you're an expert with the craft so your word matters more obviously. But you don't really say anything else but "I don't think you can declare death of the author and I think its dumb and impractical", at least establish some axiomatic principles and talk about them so people can see your viewpoint better. Establish some rules of what you've learned, please.

I know nothing about this topic and I believed that observing art is a deeply individualistic persuit (and thus is also the general persuit of creativity) but I might be totally wrong here.

These sorts of stats are very easy to find, or were in the past. Haven't checked recently and the links I have are fairly old and most of them are probably dead. But as you probably know, race and class also correlate very closely. So 20-30 years ago blacks on average were earning a little more than half of what whites earned on average. This is mostly influenced by what's going on in the top percentile, obviously, and taking into consideration how interest works, I think it has to be concluded that nothing short of a socio-economic revolution is going to significantly change the degree of economic disparity that presently exists in this world, which I would describe as catastrophic.

Thank you for your response.

Hey no problem, glad to have talked with you.

The reason why I'm so reluctant to talk about this is because its from a American angle, which is almost insignificant compared to the general population of the world. The problem I see is that the greed of some vs the inequality is almost homogenous in culture. This problem is not something that only americans are involved with and is, from what I can see, a general problem regarding capitalism and the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth. The disaprity will only get bigger as time goes by, but so does the drive to change things and to push forward.

The term superstructure was chosen by the translators of the Engels/Marx papers for a good reason I believe, lol.

Anyway, regardless of how you see this problem and how dismayed you are by the general state of things I hope that you still stay positive my dude. I stand by my words that things will get better and that in general things will look far more positive in the next 50-100 years than it does now just like how we see the past from a similar lens to compare it with the present.

It refers to fascism that has the outward appearance of "democracy". Policy is decided by an elite polity rather than by electoral politics, and if you are familiar with America's history of foreign intervention and military-industrial primacy, you should understand very clearly that it is a picture that is decidedly fascistic.

I find sociology to be something less than science. How can it be rationally concluded that culture has greater impact in the world than hierarchy when corporations are more powerful than nations? In my estimation, it cannot, but if you think you can show otherwise, I'm willing to listen. ;p

Last post by me, don't want to derail the thread any further.

I didn't want to post on this thread as much anymore since we've parted ways on good terms, but I disagree with the notion that sociology is something less than science, because you still apply the scientific method to many of the already established fields.

For instance, what we've both talked about kind of applies in parts to the field of structural functionalism.

As for the question whether or not corportations are more powerful than nations, I think thats a misguided question. I don't believe that the powerstructure argumentation isn't the non-plus-ultra that brings any philosophical discussion to its conclusion (in a way, its the basis of post-structualism). Besides that, every "might makes right" argumentation directly has lead to a type of fascism, which ultimately failed flat even if (human and morale losses) in the end were catastrophic.

I mean what you're saying is basically the stuff about cyberpunk and I don't want to fully dismiss it. But coperations, no matter how powerful they are are fully inept to handle wide ranges of any populous. At best, they can function as a utilitarian arm of any government but I don't think that they can literally become more powerful than states. To give a popular example, the Hanseatic League was lightyears ahead in regards to any other powerful trade alliance and back then, it also once was amongst the most powerful institutions in the world (along with christdom). It collapsed simply because it became too big for its own good and its leaders couldn't fully understand nor handle the rising competition (for instance, the Swedish Empire) and the general rise of diverse political power inside Europe and most importantly, northern Germany and Poland. Its a similar type of power that lead the Swedish Empire to fall 150 or so years later.

Its of course impossible to predict whether or not a large company will overtake all countries, which in the end of days will lead humanity into hyperfascism but lets just say I'm skeptical about the possibility of something like that happening.

The "ineptness" is precisely what I find disturbing, and I see it manifesting as ever-increasing global chaos, which is leveraged by deranged opportunists to further increase economic disparity. "Never let a crisis go to waste", as they say. Personally, I think crisis management has more to do with their creation, than their mitigation.

I would posit that governments have been subsumed by these "megacorporations". And I think the only question is, to what extent? But it could certainly be reversed, and it's impossible to say how it's going to play out. But it's certainly a far more entertaining drama than what you find on the telly these days. ;p

I was going to ask you about your thoughts concerning the chronically inadequate socio-economic opportunities that are commonly observed in ghettos, but I suppose that will have to wait for another day. Alas.

White supremacists, Nazis, and babies on bayonets. And a toothpick, if you don't mind.

Yeah, women who are bodybuilders and work out every day of their lives are probably stronger than some fat, short guy, but those are just exceptions that prove the rule. Why do you think sports are (mostly) gender segregated?

Sorry, but the overlap is much larger. I'm not some fat, short guy, but I also do not work out regularly and I'm sure that many women are stronger than me.

Anyway, interesting question, what is the real overlap of physical strength between men and women.