SnitgrrRl,
I have a thought on this socio-historical dimension
>Also, I find "historically constituted"as
>a good "cousin" to use with "socially
>constructed."
Yes, yes of course. It's my discipline coming out. But I was careful to point toward history in that post. But I like socially constructed for strategic purposes; I want to emphasize people. Historical leaves people out; doesn't have to, but it does in some versions of it. I'm sure you know what I mean. History then appears to operate behind our back and over our heads. But again, political disciplinary reasons for that. _________
Charles: I have something even worse to say about history. It is the dead. But this is one of our big advantages over the animals. We have a lot of the experience of dead generations of our species. Our SOCIAL goes not only around the living generation but includes many, many messages from dead members of our species. The historical is one way that our social is qualitatively different than other species' social. I don't mean to go on an on , but I just realized this a few months ago, and it really links the social and historical into a socio-historical for me.
>If you are interested,
>I have some other thoughts on
>the rules (or culture) that governs
>our conduct as you describe. Have
>you considered how the systems of
>rules change ? This opened up a new
>idea for me recently , after considering
>this puzzle for a long while.
Yes, yes. Oh this is excitin' Charles. Very interested. This stuff is great for use in the classroom. I also like to use the little ditty the real estate agents give you about 'how to sell your house' Basically, make it look like no one lives there: neutral paints, nondescript decor, clean it all up, make it smell good. _________
Charles: How'd you know I was selling my house ?
________
Anyway, what you point to: this THIS is what it is all about; this is what, *ultimately* matters and why we should bother at all. I'm working on an article right now developing the argument that marxist theories need to be considered on the basis of whether or not they explain social change adequately on an ontological/epistemological level. _________
Charles: I can't claim credit for this focus on this THIS, of course, this changingness. Engels hipped me to it, actually, and then Karl Marx said the thing is (this this) to change the world. ____________
I'll tell you more if'n you'd like. _____________
Charles: Do tell.
_________
But don't worry I don't leave people out; I connect the abstract discussion w/ actual work done involving a community fight against a radioactive nuke dump
Oh and do tell me about what you were reading. An article? A list exchange? ________
Charles: Yes, change the world of people to the world for people.
I was reading a book _What is Property ?_ from the old Soviet Union for a discussion on another list on property and whether the U.S. Civil War was a revolution, and the book right off cleared up this point of double relation people-people-thing. Yea you are right about the commodity fetish level, within the way people actually think they think about it.