Politics of Functionality

graffiti-1088873_1280The functionality movement needs to unify by educating and reforming itself so as to become capable of transformatively educate and reform society at large. We need thus structurally diagnose society rather than assign inherent fault to individuals.

1. DEMOCRACY of DIVERSITY

2. EPISTEMOLOGY of the FLESH

3. LIMITS of the BODY of LOGOS

4. FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIFICATION

5. ECONOMICS of DIVERSITY

6. ARCHITECTURE of DIVERSITY

1. DEMOCRACY of DIVERSITY

The history of “disability” is one of structural bullying and structural stigmatization in enforcing the cultural hegemony of ethnonormativity, a.k.a. “culture”.

Technological progress means that humans are socially constructed into becoming increasingly unable to survive without increasingly advanced socially hegemonic technologies. This means that technological developments makes human beings typically increasingly “disabled”.

The notion of “diagnosis” also means that society can disregard and discriminate a person with a diagnosis on the basis of the notion that the fault is in the individual and not in society’s lack of adaption to diversity.

The politics of disability has been been that of identity politics in marginalizing “disabled people” into niches of diagnoses whose advocates/lobbyists in practice compete among themselves for the attention of elected politicians.

The politics of functionality rather needs to leave the identity politics of physionomistic taxonomism and so the functionality movement needs to make joint demands as a unified movement for functional emancipation. About twenty percent of the legally adult population in Sweden is estimated to identify somehow with the label “disabled” and so this would be an important electoral segment if somewhat politically unified rather than prejudicially divided along the lines of taxonomistic diagnoses. This means that the movement needs to centralize its lobbying activities in creating a large, well-funded and influential lobby in every country.

While a unified movement with a unified and strong lobbying arm obviously needs to lobby for specific demands from specific functional communities needs the movement also make overarching structural demands of a politically transformative nature. While legislative change is essential is education even more important in that a new school subject of applied diversity needs to be created whose purpose would be to train students in how interact constructively in diversity of persons. Applied diversity will also need to be taught to all adults and should e.g. include learning how to not discriminate. The functionality movement should join with feminists, the LGBTQI movement and others in demanding that the subject of applied diversity is taught to everyone, including in professional educational tracks.

Applied diversity would create not only awareness of functional diversity as irreducible to Eurocentric taxonomies of diagnoses but would importantly teach practical social skills in how to interact with different others without reproducing demeaning structures of physionomism and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice). If the demand for teaching the science of applied diversity to all is presented and advocated for together with other anti-physionomistic movements will it become possible to build political support much faster for this in legislatures.

In particular needs applied diversity become absolutely central to the teaching of architecture and engineering to the point that not accommodating functional diversity will rightly become considered as completely incompetent indeed.

A unified lobby will become very powerful in the various functional communities no longer needing to professionally lobby legislators as they will instead present their demands to the unified functionality lobby which will perform well-funded, extensive and highly professional lobbying activities on behalf of each and every functional community.

Identity politics is ineffective and tends instead to reinforce existing oppression such as through the physionomistic discourse of diagnostic taxonomies. The applied science of diversity will be the basis on which a unified functionality movement will stand and together will the diverse functionality movement be able to effect very substantial change.

One problem is that many in the movement are quite conservative in their outlook in simply looking for social privileges and special funding rather than functional equality in essentially asking for charity from the government. If functional discrimination is criminalized not only in hiring but also in architecture and technology will this effect very substantial change in society indeed. The movement’s current approach of typically asking for small things for small minorities is politically ineffective and the way to unify the movement is to first teach applied diversity within the movement itself. The reason why the functionality movement remains fractured along taxonomic lines is precisely that the movement itself lacks training in applied diversity.

The movement needs to embrace innovative political language of equality, universality and individuality in articulating emancipatory discourse in thus articulating new ethically innovative norms rather than as of now articulating “exceptions” to the current norms. The movement needs to oppose the language of functional exceptions in embracing a universal language of functional equality and societal individualization for all and not merely for persons with diagnosed functional variations.

The functionality movement needs to work with other movements opposed physionomism & DOLP including feminism, movements of purported minorities of desire, movements against ageism, the Animal liberation movement and others. Rather than seek emancipation for some need we seek emancipation for all. A unified functionality lobby working together with fellow anti-physionomistic movements have indeed the potential to become both democratically and discursively powerful in articulating the universality of diversity in functionality in universal emancipation indeed.

The tremendous functional diversity within the functionality movement needs therefore become transformed from as of now effectively a political liability of fractured special interest groups to instead resolutely move towards democratic unity in universal emancipation.

Advocacy and lobbying as based on diagnostic taxonomies reproduce physionomistic ideologies of dysfunctional physionomism and the diagnostic “apartheid” fragments the movement and makes it politically ineffective. Functionality advocacy at the regional and municipal levels need also become unified and synchronized as it is questionable if diagnostic patients’ associations are even needed.

A merged and unified functionally movement will not only have potential to become democratically powerful but will importantly also have the capacity to become democratically transformative in moving beyond current discourses and ideologies of physionomism, taxonomism and charitable special interest groups deserving attention and special funding.

A unified functionality movement needs importantly reform normative language use with respect to functional diversity and so move to phase out the physionomistic terminology & discourse of exception, aberration, abnormality and deviation with respect to functional diversity. Medical diagnoses should be numerically indicated on scales and this should no longer define “pathology” but ought rather rather simply define medical need for treatment and assistance.

Critical theory is certainly needed in this field as well and so needs to substantially deconstruct current hegemonic physionomistic ideologies of which the current movement certainly is part and hence is politically disabled by the hegemonically physiomistic paradigm of oppression. This means that critical theory needs to transcend current physionomistic categories in diagnosing society rather than society as of now finding inherent fault in individuals for being discriminated, oppressed and stigmatized indeed.

2. EPISTEMOLOGY of the FLESH

The epistemology of the flesh is what Jacques Derrida termed carnophallogocentrism. What does carnophallogocentrism mean? The explanation depends as to what science the explanation pertains. In the the trajectory of history of ideas does it refer to the Christian theological idea how ostensibly disembodied LOGOS (“reason”) is mystically invested in human flesh by divine intervention. In the secular (i.e. Para-Christian context) does it mean the nefarious, indeed infernal reincarnation of this notion as pervasive physionomistic cultural hegemony as indeed prejudicially pervading all long since established sciences.

In terms of intersectional science (gender science as extended to study of ethical problems of diversity generally) is carnophallogentrism simply physionomism generally and oppressive physiognomy specifically.

In terms of psychology is carnophallogocentrism the practice of stuctural objectification, meaning judging a person by the surface. While psychiatry is a continuation of physiomistic physiognomy is psychology the very opposite in being devoted to unde understanding the exterior by means of understanding psychometric diversity. Psychology is thus for the most part a progressive and emancipatory science in opposition to physionomism yet is itself highly structured by carnophallogocentrism in the sense as acting on the unstated and usually subconscious premise of ostensibly “secularized” carnophallogocentrism. How is this so? Psychology lacks grounding in natural science and this is so primarily due to its reliance on carnophallogocentrism as indeed pervasively underpinning all long since established sciences.

Intersectional science (i.e. critical studies as devoted to the study of oppression from the perspectives of its victims) is certainly not in any sense unaffected by prejudice, yet as psychology does intersectional science strive towards reversing physionomistic physiognomy into epistemology physiognomy in the sense as the embracing the diversity of expression in exterior as expressive of psychometric diversity.

How did physionomism as pervasivley expressed through carnophallogocentrism become so pervasive in academia? First is there the original Christian doctrine to begin with of course and its nefarious, infernal secularized incarnation as physionomism is pure evil indeed. Second was there the Catholic notion that disability is divine punishment for sin of the previous incarnation. Third was Euro-Christian “normality” established as a most deplorable ideal of mediocrity. Fourth has prejudicial physiognomy always mostly been an intelligence science and so is its pervasive influence over academia unfortunately not entirely easy to detect by means of study of footnotes. Fifth did intelligence physiognomy produce multiple modern academic fields including particularly psychiatry, racial biology, physical anthropology, sociobiology, neuropsychiatry, medicine and gynaecology. Sixth is the influence of largely nefariously secularized forms of Christian metaphysics pervasive across all of academia and there is little to no academic criticism thereof beyond the epistemological science of deconstruction.

Carnophallogocentrism is thus the ethnocratically patriarchal practice of judging the interior from the exterior rather than embracing understanding of exterior (appearance, behavior etc.) as expressive of diversity in individual personhood. Is the idiosyncratic regarded as deviation from an illusory psychometric norm of carnophallogocentrism (as ultimately derived from structural misunderstanding of ehically Jewish nature of the Pharisaic rabbis of Jeshua and Joshua) or is it recognized, embraced and respected as expressive of individuality of personhood?

What is hence needed is a strategic reversal of the epistemology of the flesh from judging interior by exterior (i.e. the practice of objectification) to understanding exterior expression as expressive of both individual personhood and internalized structural oppression indeed.

It is precisely essential indeed to embrace diversity in personhood and recognize the non-existence of normative personhood. Furthermore need we focus on enhancing potentials of persons with disabilities as opposed to solely seeking external remedies to socially constructed functional limitations for which cosmetic solutions are distinctly insufficient indeed.

3. LIMITS of the BODY of LOGOS

What is normality? While the answer would seem obvious at first is it not obvious at all. First of all is normality performative, which means that it is neither true nor false but simply enacted as structure of learned collective behavior. Normality is typically described by the amorphous term “culture”. What then is culture? Culture is somewhat broader than normality and normality is best described as collectively neurologically synchronized, neurological patterns of collective behaviors.

How is normality enforced? It operates by a) a hierarchy of persons and b) a hierarchy of morals. What are those morals? Usually moral prejudice as enforced by structural oppression. This is extensively studied by anthropologists who typically merely observe and write down and that is unfortunate indeed for understanding another culture also requires advanced rational emotion, in other words insight of deconstruction, the highly emotional science of epistemological investigative journalism.

This structure has two victims, first those subjected to domination and second those excluded from the structure and discursively and often socially placed outside of it. It is common for cultures and subcultures alike to assign collective scapegoats as it is superficially much easier to blame someone else rather than assume responsibility and change by means of conceptual innovation, social innovation and technological innovation.

This is structured by nefariously “secularized” forms of Christian metaphysics in Eurocentric culture yet similar structures exist in all cultures. This of course is not deny the need for organization and delimitation but rather that theses delimitations and organizations are questionable in terms of both justification and purpose thereof.

There are different names for normality in different cultural/subcultural contexts and these are all descriptive of vice falsely posing as virtue. Even Western anthropologists tend to believe that “Western” culture is fairly rational and reasonable although of course not considering it perfect or ideal.

Let us continue with the question of ontology. What is the relationship between CORPUS ET LOGOS? This is an essential question indeed and philosophical inquiry alone is insufficient. The answers of course are found in neuropsychologically which unfortunately is not a very advanced science.

Reason is an evolutionary survival mechanism which permits survival by drawing logical conclusions about how to act in order to survive and procreate. Reason is simply a product of evolution, nothing more and nothing less.

But that is merely the ontological explanation, reason of course cannot be reduced to its ontology just as sexuality cannot be reduced to its reproductive imperative. Just as sexuality is fare wider in scope than mere reproduction however important is reason far more than mere survival. There is thus in both cases a narrow core of evolutionary origin as surrounded by tremendous excess and expression.

The next question relates to ethics as relevant to both reason and sexuality. Indeed both reason and sexuality need become delimited by ethics as expressed in carefully engineered gynocentric etiquette rather than as of now largely moral prejudice.

There is distinctly need for an applied science of intersectional anthropology whereby anthropology will not remain merely descriptive but rather expressive of understanding of structures of power and exclusion.

In order to undo structural oppression generally including as regards irrational subordination and irrational exclusion of persons with varying functional variations need we study such subordinations and exclusions cross-culturally. The purpose of course is not naturalization but rather studying diversity in unreason, diversity in depravity and diversity in oppression in every culture including obviously first and foremost one’s own.

The purpose is no less than social reengineering of culture itself. The critical person will ask whether this will not go awry? The answer lies in verifying outcome. This means that social experimentation must be carefully studied. Experimentation should thus take place in multiple parallel contexts with outcomes most carefully studied. Once sufficient serial verification of quality in outcome is ensured may social engineering of culture be introduced in greater and greater contexts indeed.

The political question of disability thus cannot be separated from the issue of intersectional sciences. UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION MUST BE SCIENTIFIC INDEED.

4. FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIFICATION

What is objectification? The term is derived from Karl Marx’s doctrine of Commodity Fetishism. What is Commodity Fetishism? Commodity Fetishism is the notion of believing that value of a person’s work lie solely in the product of the person’s work. Do we respect the carpenter for her skills or do we merely appreciate the products of the carpenter’s skills? Do we appreciate the wooden table without appreciating the carpenters who made the wooden table?

Of course that raises further considerations as to the unethical nature of using wood as this is based on destroying living environments of innocent sentient, conscious and thinking beings, FULL PERSONS indeed. It also raises the question as to whether the carpenter should only be appreciated for her professional skills? Is this precisely not objectification itself to reduce the carpenter to her profession?

Radical feminism realized that women and not only employed workers are the subject of structural, indeed comprehensive sexual objectification in being socially reduced to mere depersonalized tools of patriarchal gratification of desire and it is our purpose her to investigate the nature of objectification of persons with identifiable disability. It needs be emphasized that any inability is disability and that disability is relative to contemporary technological condition and contemporary technological organization. Disability as a social construction refers the practice of stigmatizing others for perceived or actual lacks which are not ethical deficiencies and are in no way the fault of the persons thus stigmatized.

What then is objectification of what is problematically referred to as disability which is an iteration of oppression itself for it repeats this very act of stigmatization by not seeing the strengths of an innocent person and instead seeking fault with an innocent individual?

The employer receives an employee for an job interview without priorly realizing that the person was wheelchair-driven. The employer automatically thinks that this persons must have nothing valuable in her head. Why does he think so? He subconsciously assumes that because that her head is disabled due to her legs being disabled. What is this? It is several things. First it is incompetence. Second it is evil. Third it is objectification in that the person’s head is reduced to the device of the wheelchair. Fourth is it precisely projective disability on the part of the employer although in no way inherent but rather structural. It is in protest to this infernal thinking of evil that the term wheelchair-driven is preferred to the structurally objectifying and discursively passivizing term wheelchair-bound.

The fact is that just as women are constantly reduced to their perceived or actual anatomical cavity and persons of color are reduced to their pigmentation are persons with “observably inherent” inabilities reduced to their very functional limitations.

There is no question that objectification is pervasive to physionomism generally, indeed that objectification itself is an important part of the nefarious, yet often seemingly innocently and naively expressed physionomism.

WE NEED OPPOSE OBJECTIFICATION SPECIFICALLY AND PHYSIONOMISM GENERALLY AND NOT MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF WHOM IT TARGETS.

5. ECONOMICS of DIVERSITY

Discrimination is severely costly to the national economy and it is most peculiar that investments are not made in counteracting discrimination. The general assumption in the political class is that nothing can be made about discrimination other than condemning prejudice via mass media.

The problem is that creating bad conscience is very ineffective in affecting social change. Half of all Germans hold significant Anti-Jewish prejudice despite decades of inculcating feelings of guilt about the Holocaust.

Now imagine living openly Jewish in Germany where each of every two adult humans hold some level of hatred towards you. Inculcating guilt and shame is an ineffective means towards effecting social change. It rather creates dangers of hypocrisy and it is not pretty.

The pervasive discrimination in the labor market and/or the housing market is largely irrational. In the United States is there pervasive discrimination in the housing market on the basis of pigmentation while in Western Europe is there pervasive discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. In the United States is the housing market discrimination partly “rational” due to the phenomenon of blockbusting, meaning that if a white person in a white neighborhood sells his house to a black person is that liable to very negatively affect property values of houses of the neighbor. Yet such considerations are of course unethical, unacceptable and furthermore illegal.

What the can, ought and should be done to counteract discrimination? The answer is educational training, including Social Behavioral Training (SBT). Human persons generally and managers and executives in particular need learn how to act non-prejudicially. Structurally discriminatory behavior is PURE INCOMPETENCE and costs shareholders and tax payers vast sums annually due to the enormous social and economic cost resulting from incompetence in the sense as not employing the most suitable persons and pertaining to persons living on the dole on account of being perceived as unemployable due to pervasive discrimination in the labor market.

6. Architecture of Diversity

What is the telos of architecture? This may seem an unexpected question to pose yet is certainly a highly important one. Why does architecture exist, for whom and and what is its purpose and teleology? What implications will feminist social revolution of universal emancipation have for both present and future architecture?

The virtual reality (VR) and replication (3D printing) revolutions will have significant consequences for architecture in the sense that current cities will become increasing depopulated due to the advantages of city life increasingly becoming available in VR. This is so as gainful employment in VR society will be almost entirely performed from home.

This means that current cities after a number of years of individually elective depopulation as involving mass migration to rural areas with far higher quality of life and and far lower cost of living will lead to comprehensive demolition of cities with the exception of buildings that constitute valuable historical architectonic heritage.

The implications even from the perspective of functionality are immense since VR thus will largely eliminate disadvantages of various diagnoses of functional limitations.

The challenge is hence to rebuild architecture of human society by means of feminist social revolution in universal emancipation. This means reconstituting human societies through new social units of intentional communities in polyamory with inclusively feminist architecture everywhere. This is so as vast numbers of new homes will need be constructed by means of replication (advanced 3D) technologies in repopulated rural areas.

Since some rural areas are certainly more attractive than others in terms of quality of life will natural values gain economic value. This means that environmental diversity and environmental quality will become increasingly valued on property markets. Economic history is one long trajectory of previously undervalued properties suddenly becoming valued by markets. This will lead to extensive landscaping of currently unattractive rural areas with construction of artificial lakes, planting of beautiful trees and beautiful bushes, the paving of recreational paths of various kinds and aesthetically attractive reconstitution of nature.

Since we are thus given the opportunity to fundamentally reconstitute architecture is it essential that feminist architecture becomes optimally inclusive, meaning as inclusive as conceivably possible. This e.g. involves the disappearance staircases in being supplanted by elevators and other technologies. Houses should be built with very thick glass with steel frames as encapsulated in geospheres of glass/steel which will ensure perfect outdoor climate around the year.

Architecture that is not optimally inclusive is fundamentally incompetent and even evil. Masculinist architecture is a scourge and hence the need for inclusively feminist architecture. Glass (which is made from sand) and steel are fully recyclable and so will it be inexpensive to rebuild by means of replication (advanced 3D) technologies. Since the indoor/outdoor distinction will literally become deconstructed will this profoundly affect human architecture and human life generally.

The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project

Screenshot 2017-12-01 at 23.30.32