> to say. It was a conference on "Radicals in the Professions," held
> in Ann Arbor in (I believe) the summer of 1967. At one of the
> plenaries the chair asked, "Are we radical professionals or are we
> radicals who are professionals?" I decided then that I was the
> latter, not the former; and that, as Frost said, made all the difference.
well, lordamighty, finally i agree with you.
few things puts a bee up my butt faster than these nominalistico- scholiasts who preface their remarks (or, rather, append whatever to their substantive prefaces) twaddle about 'as a radical...' or 'what should a radical do when...?' the specific term in question (radical, marxist etc.) makes little difference because the basic question or issue posed is classicizing and conformist--which, al- most without exception, serves as a bogus stand-in for 'rigor' of a particularly professionalized kind.
this is why it's such a riot to read someone like yoshie denounce psychoanalysis as a 'confession' then go on to cite one master af- ter another as authorities that put the question to rest--without regard to the profound differences between them. the *only* thing they have in common is, of course, Authority. and the 'confession' par excellence is, as saul who fell off his horse made clear, all things to all people--authoritarians being a subset of 'people.'
happy new year, carrol.
cheers, t