Sahlins

[Maureen Therese Anderson]

Charles wrote:
>
>Yes, I think you are about to teach me something here. Isn't the D/M
>concept of "classification" in Marxism in Marxism's emphasis on
>antagonistic classes when we discuss capitalist societies ? Shouldn't
>postmods and poststructuralists trace their ancestory to Marx , instead of
>D/M ?  Why does it seem like postmods distinguish themselves from Marxism
>so much ?
>

(Maureen:)
I'm not sure if you're wondering about direct theoretical geneologies or
about inherent affinities between ideas.

Think I'll pass on the pomo question because I'm abstaining now from
generalizations about post-anything on the list (as opposed to particular
theorists).  It's too charged!

I think you'd like an essay by your erstwhile classmate, wildboy Taussig,
called "Maleficium: State Fetishism" (in _The Nervous System_).  The bulk
of the essay is his meditation on what it is that Durkheim is tapping into,
in _Elementary Forms of Religious Life_.  The badboy Marxist makes almost
no references to Marx in the essay.  (Though, getting back to the Hegel
theme: he does mention how Durkheim in effect sociologizes Kant's a priori
categories, echoing what others say Marx did with Hegel's Subject.)

Don't be fooled by the typical Taussig theatrics, I think it's one of the
profounder things he's written.  It's also a visceral tour through a part
of the woods that contemplates classification (and its relation to
materiality/signification questions) differently than Marx.  Which isn't at
all to say the parts of the woods don't connect!

Maureen