What do you think?
Rate this book
IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND Conversations with Erik H. Erikson and Huey P. Newton
Random pages have underlining or check marks, bottom front corner folded. No crease to spine. 1974 Dell, 4 1/4 By 7",
Hardcover
First published June 1, 1973
6 people are currently reading
268 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
August 29, 2023A very productive book regarding the relationship between psychoanalysis and Marxist theory. Essentially, both are emancipatory projects that seek to free human beings from forces unbeknownst to them, whether external (Marxism, in form of political and economic control) or internal (psychoanalysis, in the form of psychological control).
I also found the discussions of violence and pacifism very interesting. Erikson here mostly deals with the example of Gandhi (given that he wrote a book on him), while Newton deals with it from the perspective of colonial liberation (he uses the examples of African-Americans and the Vietnamese most often). In short, Gandhi's rhetoric of non-violence involved a call for greater consistency in the part of the British, with their theoretical ideals of freedom and equality and their practical realization in the form of imperialism and colonialism, an act which was in-itself disruptive despite being non-violent. Netwon, on the other hand, discusses how arms were, and are still, needed for the project of liberating oppressed peoples, but that these weapons are used merely as a means to an end, and end that is entirely peaceful (namely, a people having a nation and a way of life that they can call their own which isn't being impinged upon by foreign aggressors).
Recommended for people interested in Newton, Erikson, or the link between psychoanalysis and Marxism. It's short and sweet, and the prose isn't bogged down with too much academicisms.
I also found the discussions of violence and pacifism very interesting. Erikson here mostly deals with the example of Gandhi (given that he wrote a book on him), while Newton deals with it from the perspective of colonial liberation (he uses the examples of African-Americans and the Vietnamese most often). In short, Gandhi's rhetoric of non-violence involved a call for greater consistency in the part of the British, with their theoretical ideals of freedom and equality and their practical realization in the form of imperialism and colonialism, an act which was in-itself disruptive despite being non-violent. Netwon, on the other hand, discusses how arms were, and are still, needed for the project of liberating oppressed peoples, but that these weapons are used merely as a means to an end, and end that is entirely peaceful (namely, a people having a nation and a way of life that they can call their own which isn't being impinged upon by foreign aggressors).
Recommended for people interested in Newton, Erikson, or the link between psychoanalysis and Marxism. It's short and sweet, and the prose isn't bogged down with too much academicisms.
May 20, 2024
A SERIES OF STATEMENTS AND DIALOGUE BETWEEN THESE FIGURES
The Introduction to this 1973 book by Kai T. Erikson (Erik Erikson’s son) states, “The following is a record of conversations which took place on two separate occasions, the first at Yale University … in early February 1971, and the second in Oakland, California, about two months later… These discussions are almost a study in contrasts. To begin with, the two principals had to reach across a number of differences in outlook and experience to begin their search for common ground… The [Yale] conference was large and structured, and the dialogue which emerged from it was occasionally marked by a certain formality of address and even wariness of approach. The Oakland talks… were a good deal more informal, and the record taken at that time reflects the increased comfort that comes from closer acquaintance and more relaxed surroundings… what follows is not meant as a summary of the common ground reached during the talks but as a record of the search itself.”
Huey P. Newton said in his opening Yale statement, “If you are a dialectical materialist… Marx’s racism does not matter. You do not believe in the conclusions of one person but in the validity of a mode of thought; and we in the Party, as dialectical materialists, recognize Karl Marx as one of the great contributors to that mode of thought. Whether or not Marx was a racist is irrelevant and immaterial to whether or not the system of thinking he helped develop delivers truths about processes in the material world.” (Pg. 27)
He continues, “We say that the world today is a dispersed collection of communities. A community is different from a nation. A community is a small unit with a comprehensive collection of institutions that exist to serve a small group of people… the struggle in the world today is between the small circle that administers and profits from the empire of the United States, and the peoples of the world who want to determine their own destinies. We call this situation intercommunalism. We are now in the age of reactionary intercommunalism, in which a ruling circle, a small group of people, control all other people by using their technology.” (Pg. 30-31)
In the Q&A time, Newton said, “We do not believe that the oppression of women or gays will end by the creation of separate communities for either group. We see that as an incorrect idea, just like the idea of a separate nation. If people want to do it, all right; but it won’t solve their problems. So we try to show people the correct way to resolve these problems: the vanguard has to include all the people and understand their defects. O.K.?” (Pg 43)
On the second day, Newton explained, “the Black Panther Party is against violence and works for the day when it will no longer be necessary. We want to abolish all guns and all wars because we believe it is better for the people to resolve their differences without violence. But we are not idealists, and because we are not idealists we try to understand things in their material context. And until the actual conditions exist where defense with a gun is not necessary, we have to act appropriately. It is insane to ask the Vietnamese to lay down their guns when the American ruling circle is napalming them. It is insane to ask the underground operating in South Africa to put down their guns when blacks there are treated like slaves. It is insane because you are asking people to suffer materially for an ideal that will not benefit them. So we condemn violence, but we make a distinction between the violence of the aggressor and the self-defense of the people.” (Pg. 63)
He says during the Q&A section, “They’ll commit themselves. Uncle Sam calls and they will be over on the soil of the Vietnamese people risking their lives and even giving up their lives. It’s not a question of giving up your life. The real question is: For what cause will you give up your life? We in the Black Panther Party will not give up our lives when the ruling circles call for us to do so. We would rather give up our lives trying to expropriate the ruling circles.” (Pg. 87)
In the Oakland meetings, Kai T. Erikson stated, “But students have not really heard very much ideology before. Radical politics on campus has largely been a thing of action, movement, feeling, protest, students are just not accustomed to hearing anyone present a calm and reasoned ideological statement, no matter how revolutionary its thrust. That’s one reason why the your white radicals these days and the older socialist radicals who learned their politics in the thirties and forties have such a hard time getting together. Have you heard very many serious ideological conversations on campus?” (Pg. 102)
Newton said, “No, I don’t advocate violence. I advocate nonviolence. If I really had a choice, I would prefer the nonantagonistic kind of contradictions because they usually can be resolved in peaceful way. But of course we have to deal with the concrete conditions and the reality of the situation at this time is that there are many contradictions that probably can only be resolved in antagonistic ways and will probably result in violence---and this will probably be the case until man and society develop to the point where contradictions will no longer be antagonistic. So I am working for the day when antagonisms will no longer exist. And this will probably be only after people commonly own and share things.” (Pg. 115)
Newton admitted, “I was not satisfied with a statement that I was writing to the Vietnamese because there was a contradiction in it. Let me share this with you. I was telling the Vietnamese that the Party supported their nationalism, their revolutionary nationalism, even though we were not nationalists. We were internationalists and could not be nationalists; no Americans could afford to be nationalists because we are all guilty on one level of another of being the exploiter or accepting the exploiter of accepting the bribe of the exploiter or accepting the bribe of the exploiter if we are not at war with him. So I said that I disclaim nationalism because it is a thing of the past but that I would support their nationalism nonetheless.” (Pg. 133)
Mostly interesting for Newton’s contributions, this book will interest some (though not many interested in Erik Erikson).
The Introduction to this 1973 book by Kai T. Erikson (Erik Erikson’s son) states, “The following is a record of conversations which took place on two separate occasions, the first at Yale University … in early February 1971, and the second in Oakland, California, about two months later… These discussions are almost a study in contrasts. To begin with, the two principals had to reach across a number of differences in outlook and experience to begin their search for common ground… The [Yale] conference was large and structured, and the dialogue which emerged from it was occasionally marked by a certain formality of address and even wariness of approach. The Oakland talks… were a good deal more informal, and the record taken at that time reflects the increased comfort that comes from closer acquaintance and more relaxed surroundings… what follows is not meant as a summary of the common ground reached during the talks but as a record of the search itself.”
Huey P. Newton said in his opening Yale statement, “If you are a dialectical materialist… Marx’s racism does not matter. You do not believe in the conclusions of one person but in the validity of a mode of thought; and we in the Party, as dialectical materialists, recognize Karl Marx as one of the great contributors to that mode of thought. Whether or not Marx was a racist is irrelevant and immaterial to whether or not the system of thinking he helped develop delivers truths about processes in the material world.” (Pg. 27)
He continues, “We say that the world today is a dispersed collection of communities. A community is different from a nation. A community is a small unit with a comprehensive collection of institutions that exist to serve a small group of people… the struggle in the world today is between the small circle that administers and profits from the empire of the United States, and the peoples of the world who want to determine their own destinies. We call this situation intercommunalism. We are now in the age of reactionary intercommunalism, in which a ruling circle, a small group of people, control all other people by using their technology.” (Pg. 30-31)
In the Q&A time, Newton said, “We do not believe that the oppression of women or gays will end by the creation of separate communities for either group. We see that as an incorrect idea, just like the idea of a separate nation. If people want to do it, all right; but it won’t solve their problems. So we try to show people the correct way to resolve these problems: the vanguard has to include all the people and understand their defects. O.K.?” (Pg 43)
On the second day, Newton explained, “the Black Panther Party is against violence and works for the day when it will no longer be necessary. We want to abolish all guns and all wars because we believe it is better for the people to resolve their differences without violence. But we are not idealists, and because we are not idealists we try to understand things in their material context. And until the actual conditions exist where defense with a gun is not necessary, we have to act appropriately. It is insane to ask the Vietnamese to lay down their guns when the American ruling circle is napalming them. It is insane to ask the underground operating in South Africa to put down their guns when blacks there are treated like slaves. It is insane because you are asking people to suffer materially for an ideal that will not benefit them. So we condemn violence, but we make a distinction between the violence of the aggressor and the self-defense of the people.” (Pg. 63)
He says during the Q&A section, “They’ll commit themselves. Uncle Sam calls and they will be over on the soil of the Vietnamese people risking their lives and even giving up their lives. It’s not a question of giving up your life. The real question is: For what cause will you give up your life? We in the Black Panther Party will not give up our lives when the ruling circles call for us to do so. We would rather give up our lives trying to expropriate the ruling circles.” (Pg. 87)
In the Oakland meetings, Kai T. Erikson stated, “But students have not really heard very much ideology before. Radical politics on campus has largely been a thing of action, movement, feeling, protest, students are just not accustomed to hearing anyone present a calm and reasoned ideological statement, no matter how revolutionary its thrust. That’s one reason why the your white radicals these days and the older socialist radicals who learned their politics in the thirties and forties have such a hard time getting together. Have you heard very many serious ideological conversations on campus?” (Pg. 102)
Newton said, “No, I don’t advocate violence. I advocate nonviolence. If I really had a choice, I would prefer the nonantagonistic kind of contradictions because they usually can be resolved in peaceful way. But of course we have to deal with the concrete conditions and the reality of the situation at this time is that there are many contradictions that probably can only be resolved in antagonistic ways and will probably result in violence---and this will probably be the case until man and society develop to the point where contradictions will no longer be antagonistic. So I am working for the day when antagonisms will no longer exist. And this will probably be only after people commonly own and share things.” (Pg. 115)
Newton admitted, “I was not satisfied with a statement that I was writing to the Vietnamese because there was a contradiction in it. Let me share this with you. I was telling the Vietnamese that the Party supported their nationalism, their revolutionary nationalism, even though we were not nationalists. We were internationalists and could not be nationalists; no Americans could afford to be nationalists because we are all guilty on one level of another of being the exploiter or accepting the exploiter of accepting the bribe of the exploiter or accepting the bribe of the exploiter if we are not at war with him. So I said that I disclaim nationalism because it is a thing of the past but that I would support their nationalism nonetheless.” (Pg. 133)
Mostly interesting for Newton’s contributions, this book will interest some (though not many interested in Erik Erikson).
September 7, 2023
Enjoyed spoke alot about a basic introduction to intercomunialism as well as dialectics and really showed a good link between psychoanlysis and marxism. As it is structured in a discussion style it was very easy to read
Would definitely recommend to someone who wants an intro to Heuy P Newton and Black Panther Ideaolgy, it roughly touches on psychoanlysis not till later but doesnt delve into basics of it as the conversationalist both have an understanding already.
Would definitely recommend to someone who wants an intro to Heuy P Newton and Black Panther Ideaolgy, it roughly touches on psychoanlysis not till later but doesnt delve into basics of it as the conversationalist both have an understanding already.
January 30, 2025
Extremely interesting as a time capsule. I wish psychologists still engaged with revolutionary theory at this level, even though it was extremely unsatisfying to see Newton’s insight so frequently fall on deaf ears.
November 20, 2018
A very intense examination of the writings of Huey P. Newton and concepts in modern psychology.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews