>But what stayed with me were the last three paragraphs:
>
> "But here's the twist. [Reformist Social-Democratic
> Leftist Nelson] Lichtenstein is part of a perfectly
> Rortyite reformist Campaign for a Living Wage at
> the University of Virginia. This campaign is not
> about ending sexism, racism, or homophobia, but
> about getting janitorial staff a few extra bucks
> an hour. Who are its volunteers? Primarily, says
> Lichtenstein, faculty and graduate students from
> the pomo literature and theory crowd.
[etc]
>Perhaps other people stopped reading at the bottom of the first column?
So what you're saying is that Alterman is to be excused for writing an incoherent column?
If the pomoistas are fighting for the local working class in a concrete and important way, then why the slashing of the early part of the column? Maybe there's no conflict between "ending sexism, racism, or homophobia" and fighting a living wage campaign? Maybe sex and race have something to do with the low pay of janitors. I spent 3 years in Charlottesville and I remember it as one of the most racially hierarchialized places I've ever been; a British friend said it reminded her of Johannesburg. And if you don't think sex and sexuallity have anything to do with the construction of race - in the hometown of Thomas Jefferson, where you can practically get arrested for mentioning the name Sally Hemmings - you need psychoanalysis.
Doug