>first up, why should even bother to rely to a post that was (variously)
>accusatory, flattering, demanding and bizarrely suspicious?
mebbe to flame?
you might get
>something from this kind of exchange, but I don't.
i see that the post to wojtek is a bit more cognizant of theoretical differences. given that these exchanges over sociology and its conservatism are so heated, might it possibly be because of a shared theoretical language and intense dispute over how sociology 'fits' with marxism and so forth? and, of course, the different ways we position ourselves in this regard?
>we disagree. it's that
>simple and i would have thought uninteresting.
disagreement uninteresting?
i think figuring out what it is that we think we disagree about might be a good idea and not at all uninteresting since the issue is about the *how* of debate and this involves power. you've engaged in such discussions elsewhere when you intervened w/ chaz in the war over charges of racism. you've also intervened to mediate suggesting that others we're being unduly hostile. you've also suggested that the jordan/chaz/henry war was narcissistic. this is a judgment on modes of argumentation, no?
as for others: if ppl don't want to read: ddddd. click trash.
1. imposing a theoretical language on a question,interpreting it in one and only one way, and redescribing it as something you know someone clearly rejects is a problem that i've called theoretical colonization. an exchange w/ wojtek revealed same and he replied the same way i have, "wait a minute, cut me some slack and listen to a defense of how i'm not saying what you think." i asked a question and got an entire paragraph attributing epistemological positions to my question that i don't take.
2. deploying an external critique utilizing a specialized theoretical language is something that ought to be pointed out. it gets done all the time, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated. people have called others on it for other reasons. it's inevitable; we all have different knowledge domains and we have to do the work of translation. people don't understand the specialized language of the economists on the list, or cognitive psychology, or sociology, or balibar or zizek or lacan or butler.
witness recent commentary on the new constellations thread. it's not clear why anyone should be expected to understand what 'subjectivation' or 'territorialization' or even 'geographies' and 'bodies' mean without explanation, particularly when they're deployed in order to critique another position. it doesn't do much for convincing anyone of the reason why that theory might be a welcome addition to discussion and something others might want to explore further.
as bill lear asked long ago re butler, "why does she use 'subject' rather than self, etc." a question like that is legitimate and the answer may have enlightened folks. or not. but, i imagine that the answer probably has to be addressed in some language other than butler's--as much as possible--for the answer to be adequate. otherwise, bill wouldn't have asked the question b/c butler's language wouldn't have been a problem. doug makes an attempt to do this without reverting to the specialized language, so it's possible.
3. i'm demanding nothing of you other than to explain what you mean if you are criticizing or arguing or whatever. you bring up zizek and balibar as useful theoretical formulations, but it's not clear that i've got to figure out on my own what they're saying if i'm not familiar with the theoretical language.
it was argued several times that balibar is a useful framework for understanding racism and what i've called 'classism.' the argument was that other approaches to racism are culturally essentialist and that classism is a subjectivist formulation. okay. but perhaps it is possible that one doesn't need to use balibar etc to provide a structural account of classism. that claim should be respected, heard on its own merits, and argued with. and v/v.
**yes i know complete understanding is impossible. however, as i said, some semblance of understanding is possible, otherwise we should all turn off the fusers.
4. when i said i expect engagement, particularly from you, that was because you recognized that i rejected foundationalism yet suggested that i didn't by virtue of a question i posed. also, sorry, but it's coz you have shown yourself to be level-headed and judicious; often enough you intervene in the midst of what appears to be violent disagreements with the hope of mediating; you're generally calm and thoughtful in your assessments but passionately so and committed to rather admirable social concerns. shall i go on? no, this is starting to sound like a birthday card horriblescope.
5. addendum: folks might argue that it's not possible to step completely outside of a theoretical framework in order to explain to someone who doesn't understand. this isn't completely true. why? because we spoke another language prior to learning a theoretical language. and we have to talk to 'laypeople' all the time, so we should be capable of drawing on that language. if we really couldn't step outside theoretical frameworks, then no one would learn the theoretical framework to begin with.
substantively, i asked some questions, to wit:
1. do you think we can do social research at all if social researchers generally have more power than those they study? if you do, how should that project proceed?
2. suggestions that social researchers shouldn't do research on those who have less power than them can and are being used as a form of essentializing identity politics in the academy. how do you rescue your criticisms of sennett from complicity with this sort of politics, particularly if you do agree that other researchers can do justice to the project that sennett tried to undertake?
3. you maintained that we should 'research up' and study capital and capitalists, is that the only set of power relations that are operative? [gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity]
i don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask, especially if you've published these criticisms in a review of sennett. i'd love to read it too but i got the impression that it was in the works. which reminds: i tried to send ken and kirsten a copy of that bologna piece that you sent me. but it was zipped and i couldn't unzip it for some reason. and now my 'fuser crashed and it's blowing in the cyberwinds. if you still have an unzipped attachment would you mind? ken too. and kirsten at infothecary.org.
>no, you were read as assuming that a theory of social change is possible as
>more than a retrospective account, as history; ie., that it is possible to
>have a theory of the transition from capitalism to communism (or something
>other, or better, or other than capitalism) and not simply a theory of why
>and how past events and processes of social change occurred. that would be a
>fairly reasonable interpretation I think.
one of the problems here was that i was speaking specifically to ken. had i asked you.... actually i don't think i would have asked you coz i know your position on marxism for the most part. so i was asking ken a question specifically about zizek/lacan---if one can find in their account or extrapolate or whatever a theory of social change. so i was asking specifically how *he* understood lacan/zizek which was something we'd been discussing elsewhere in terms of traversing the fantasy. ken wanted to use the term to introduce a new listserv, pulpculture, and i didn't get it and wanted an explanation blah blah blah. i've been reading lots of lacan and zizek in my spare time but i'd not yet come across that concept. i read about it recently--and yes! i get it. and yes, i was asking for ken's take on lacan/zizek and not that he mediate as some sort of empty conduit.
otherwise, social change happens all the time, right? how did feminism come about? if families have changed, why? what about the green movement?
or home schooling? in the US, how have anti-racist struggles come about? etc. and you just gave an account to wojtek about the family wage. awesome. i wasn't talking simply about capitalism--communism at all.
as for the theory you offered, i was wondering if you thought it worthwhile to try to show how an account of the subject is compatible with marxism. you know, as some freudian feminists tried to do and as the freudo-marxists tried to do. yep, i realize that you might not think this is worthwhile. just wondering. i don't think it's an unreasonable question as it does get asked all the time and has been asked here in other ways, say w/ regard to butler.
kelley