No kiddin' Quincy. But there is such a thing as subjectivity, ey? And that's what I'm after. While y'all will want to insist that such a position is a form of idealism I think that this is a hopelessly confused position. People have ideas about who they are and what makes them who they are and why. They act on those ideas in particular sorts of ways and thus they manifest themselves in concrete material actions in the world. That doesn't mean you have to subscribe to the position that ideas change material reality, because you can, at the same time, examine how those ideas are shaped by material realities. Examining the fissures and gaps in the operations of capitalism that might enable some people to think differently about themselves is an important task it seems to me. So, while I'm interested in people's 'subjective' understandings of their social class I do so by examining what I will call more meso and meta level operations of the economy and culture.
Carrol and you I assume are talking social theory and I have absolutely no problem with your position, it is also mine. I however am examining mucky reality and you need more refined concepts to understand that and I believe that they are worth using.
As for my question to Carrol. I was trying to draw Carrol out a bit to hear what he had to say, to see if he had an argument for this position that might strengthen my own. That said, as I recall Marx did make distinctions
in his historical work on the French Revolution was it? All my books are in boxes so I can't for the life of me remember specific refs.
Kelley