> > this is a functionalist argument.
>
>Well, yes and no. Functionalism has to do with cause and effect. The idea
>that
>our "ideas" are in direct relation to our senses and perceptions. My
>argument is
>far more dialectical than that (although I would argue that there is an
>object
>cause of desire) - since I would argue that the cause can only be
>reconstructed
>in retrospect, after the fact, which is to say that the effect "exceeds" the
>cause through its own re-interpretation of its events. This isn't
>functionalism, unless you're using a "new" definition of functionalism that
>assimilates negative dialectics.
*sigh* ok. i'll mosey on over to the pile of books in crates and look for some phil of sci books and mebbe i'll get a hitch in my gitalong and splain it to ya someday. for now, the argument is that you end up doing the same thing a functionalist does: you explain what is as the result of a process of fufilling a basic human need (a social function)
> > why is childhood invented--if it is. is it really "invented"?
>
>Insert Sarcasm: No, it's natural. Just like rubber zoot suits. Genetics,
>really. We're all genetically programed to be kids, and somewhere between
>16-21
>is the Real drinking age - it's all in there, in our genetic make-up, along
>with not wearing white after labour day. Consciousness counts for nothing.
>"Let
>kids be kids!" It's all natural: capitalism, destruction, the social Darwin
>dudes got it right. Survival of the fittest. There is no desire, only cause.
>Childhood isn't invented, it's an objective state of affairs. Langauge is a
>totality, and we've got the hotline to God through our method.
i was objecting to the language. invented? it was invented? by who? you write as if there is some conscious intention here to create something for the purposes of answering the question "when is it ok to drink"? it smacks of conspiracy theory. more importantly, you wipe out complex processes involved: the competing interests that coalesced and clashed over decades, the panic over children working in factories that were seen as horrid dreadful places, the craft unions seeking ways to tighten the labor pool, urbanization, the various groups who wanted to change society in bigger ways but zeroed in on children as a reasonable place to start (just do it for the kids!), the separation of home and work, the technological changes that allowed for the dispersal of activities out of the home and taken care of by "professionals" with associated tenets of professionalism and expert knowledge. all of this can be viewed through the lens of class conflict.
if that stuff mattered to you, i'd think that you would write about it. but you say we're just hemming and hawing over the dead body of history when we do so. you say you want to intervene in the joy i get out of taking the above position on why "childhood" came to be understood as a stage of life? and who gets to intervene in the joy your derive from intervening? i mean, how fucking arrogant can you get and all the while saying "i'm a blabbering idiot, so i say nothing" which is supposed to be some sort of joke, yes?
aaahhhh screw it.
childhood wasn't "invented" to fill some perceived lack.
> > as if "seeing" what you see is somehow objective or just plain there?
>
>I think you're slipping into an illusionary expectation. I'm not aiming to
>explicate the view from the object, I'm trying to ruin the fun we derive from
>such objects. There is always a speculative element when we're talking about
>the imaginary, but without this we lapse into the most rigid of iron cages.
>Nearly every theorist I've ever read outlines the importance of the
>imagination
>in theory and in practise. Unfortunately, only a few of them actually think
firstly, i was taking issue with something else altogether: your claim that you see a film and see lacanian thematics. somehow or other, you maintain that others are circing a dead body taking up positions. and yet, you seem blithely unaware that your own is an interpretive position as to what you see in those films. how is it that what you see (and lacanian theory in general) escapes your own critique of those who "invented" childhood to fill a lack.
aside from that: no, i'm afraid that you can't slip out of this "view from the object". when you seek to intervene--in the manner of critical theorists--you nonetheless uphold a social theory and, inevitably, take the view from the object. it is implicit in all critique. you cannot escape this. one thing i admire about the frankfurt buoyz is that, in the better moments, they rec ognized this. perhaps it sent them straight to a corner to investigate their navels but they did grapple with the problem.
>about the implications.
>
> > > My frame of reference isn't
> > >objectivistic, it's invertentionist.
>
> > THIS IS HILARIOUS. what a piece of slippage. it's beautiful ken. just
>beautiful. i think i'm going to drift off into a frenzy of hypervetilation
>and have a smoke later after i'm sated.
>
>Encore!, eh?
>
> > my problem is that you, the lacanian, take up the position of telling
>eveyone else what they're "really" doing.
>
>Tis a lie. What I'm really doing is telling everyone else what they're really
>doing. The problem is, everyone already knows exactly what they're doing
>(which is why this says nothing) - but they're still doing it!
ok. ken. fine. have fun dissertationing on that one.
at any rate, embedded in the above is an epistemology and, implicitly, an explanation as to why folks aren't doing things the way you wish they would economists have same when they bemoan their findings that people don't act perfectly rationally. i can't recall what it is now , something like "satisficing" rather than "optimizing" their self interest. marxists have same when they explain the failure to engage in revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as false consciousness. you end up taking the view from the object no matter what whenever you engage in critique.
> > now, that's not so bad if you insist on an objectivist epistemology. but
>you're not. so you're fucked. just as fucked as everyone you're
>criticizing.
>
>Smells like functionalism, bleh [subtexted]
well, if you aren't advocating an objectivist epistemology then you're advocating something else and you need to come to terms with it.
kelley