At 11:36 AM 10/5/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Lit-crit was doomed thirty years ago, if not earlier,
>when lit was stripped of non-lit context.
>
>mbs, ex-lit-crit student
ummm. well wasn't that because you took freshman english once?
i thought we cleared this one up when carrol informed you that you didn't have a klew about lit crit. i mean, this was months ago!
wojtek baby! i have been pulling all nighters for daze now catching up on work and making this dang web page. moreover, i've not read habermas in five years so i can argue by the seat of my pants with ken doll, but to give a plain talking c wright mills.... i did my best with the excerpt....
i'm not sure what you want to know anyway. you want a trans of the exerpt? basically, the notion that social theory can be grounded in a standpoint has been torn asunder by various phil, lit and social theoretical movments [interpretivism, wittgenstein, post structuralism, feminism, kuhn, etc. a standpoint theory would be one in which the truth of a theory rests on the social location of the "subject" [and rests on a rather hegelian [among others] epistemology] marx's proletariat, feminisms "women's standpoint", some of the ways in which third world people have been taken up as a "revolutionary subject" on the part of those who've severely misread spivak [who criticizes the subaltern studies group for their own varients of essentialism]. horkheimer argued for marginalized intellectuals. marcuse for the marginalized in general. all of these social locations are claimed to provide the standpoint from which to see the truth behind ideology
does that help? prob not as i'm falling asleep at the 'fuser....
so maybe i'll try again later.
ps., my first paper i ever presented was a critique of hab and some post struc theories by reference to social research on new social movments. before i presented the paper, the moderator said, "well they say that german habermas scholars like to go to english language conferences on habermas, imagining that if they hear him interpreted in english they might understand him.
heh. but wojtek, the guy told me that i did pretty good at clarifying hab's work, so i'm not understanding what's got your shorts in a bind.
i'm pained.
>wojtek (aka eurocentric, racist, conservative, pseudo-marxist, positivist,
>no-respect-for-celebrities-intellectual-or-otherwise chauvinist)
hey, you forgot to add: 'stinking' reactionary sociologist to the list, too. you modernist believer in science you.
>
>