Some friends recently invited me to the movies; they were going to see a documentary about James Baldwin, i.e. “I Am Not Your Negro“. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to join them, but their invitation got me interested in James Baldwin, the American writer and activist whose works were very much a part of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s (and who lived in France for much of his life). Not being familiar with his works, I looked Baldwin up on the web and watched some You Tube videos about him from the 60’s.

James Baldwin was certainly an interesting figure; one article said that he straddled the uncharted territory between MLK Jr and Malcolm X. He was a little too radical for MLK’s movement, given that some of his writings hinted at black violence against white society. And yet he never embraced separationism as with Malcolm or Bobby Seale or Stokely Carmichael (who coined the term “Black Power”). Baldwin most definitely rejected the “moral authority” of Euro-Western Civilization, saying that the white man has nothing the black man should want except power. And yet, Baldwin talked about the need for compassion and a broader perspective regarding collective truths, both on the part of whites and blacks. Baldwin did not totally write off the ability of white society to acknowledge its wrongs and change, even if he wasn’t terribly optimistic about it. In a nutshell, James Baldwin was a complex and compelling figure, well spoken and well written.

The video that most intrigued me was a 1965 debate at the Cambridge Univ Student Union (in England) between Baldwin and conservative writer William F. Buckley. The debate was very formal and proper, very British. The proposition being debated was “Has the American Dream Been Achieved At the Expense of the American Negro”. Spoiler alert, a ballot of the students who attended the debate was taken,  »  continue reading …

Not too long ago, I wrote a piece about integrative complexity and the transexual bathroom debate. I was trying to make the point that a lot of modern social issues (such as the matter of trans-sexual people and which bathrooms they should be allowed to use) have become highly politicized. There has been a lot of polarization as a result (or perhaps just as much a cause) between those on either side of an issue. And thus there has been less and less opportunity for reasonable compromises to evolve in this age of digital communitarianism (a fancy word for the polarizing effects of social media). The ease by which people can affiliate with others of like mind (it can be done right on your smartphone while waiting at the supermarket checkout!) makes us less and less able to consider why the other side might have some legitimate points, as compared to dealing with other people in person.

In the wake of the tragedy 2 weeks ago Orlando (the shooting and killing of 49 victims in a gay nightclub by Omar Mateen, a young American of Afghan family descent who expressed his sympathy for radical Islamic causes, but was not directly tied to any of them), there has been a lot written about whether new gun control laws are needed to help prevent future incidents similar to this one. And a lot of this writing reflects strong viewpoints that are passionately held by those both in favor of and opposed to gun laws. So once again, we have an issue (actually, a number of related sub-issues) that has caused a lot of polarization and unwillingness to consider the legitimate concerns of the opposing side. And once again, a handful of proposed legislative attempts to inject more state oversight into who buys what kind of weapon came to naught.

Once again, we need an integrative complexity approach to the questions that have been raised anew as another deranged individual uses high-powered weapons that were legally available to him, as to inflict a lot of suffering and take away a lot of innocent lives in a very short period of time. Can integrative complexity help to beat the NRA? Well, so far nothing else is working, so it seems worth a shot (pun NOT intended — just trying to relate to the pro-gun people, in the name of integrative complexity).  »  continue reading …