<<this is purely academic for the sake of discussing it and so probably rather unimportant, but I'm concerned that, on this account, it seems that all forms of knowledge are tainted, no? i was concerned about that because i guess i'd say that this is offering a grumpy synchrony, a one-dimensional view of social research.>>
all forms of knowledge _are_ tainted. if I didn't think this was the case, then I would think that there was a place outside ideology, which I don't. if we think about how to work our way through and against this, then we have to think of it not as a separation of spaces (ideology here, non-ideological knowledge over there) but that all knowledge and ideology is both brought into being because of (to put it in ken's word's) an indigestible remainder, and in Marx's words, a surplus (value); and that, in its conservative moments, seeks to really try and render this leftover into a manageable piece of reality, which as we know, Marx clearly saw that even the classical economists never really could successfully do, even within its preferred discursive space, and in its best moments, tries to (as Dennis pointed out) move with (or deciphering) the preponderance of the object. this is not synchronic, but dialectical (diachronic); certainly not a question of being able to be 'not tainted'.
Angela _________