>
>Wolfe slides from a sensible observation that not all individual behaviors
>are susceptible to sociological explanation -- much less pop sociologizing
>with its contradictory prescriptions -- into an odd & oddly tautological
>assertion that "evil 'is about' evil," probably motivated by his wish to
>defend the so-called "middle class" & suburbanization from critical
>scrutiny. Why does Wolfe need "evil"? Because without it his centrist
>celebration of Americanism (Americans value "tolerance" & are united by
>respect for "individual choice" -- mostly "moderates" just like Wolfe!) --
>of which the so-called "middle class" in suburbs are, as usual, the
>central character -- might become compromised.
>
>Yoshie
substitue the word inexplicable and it wouldn't be so easy to come up with your answer yoshie. there is much to critique in wolfe. i would suggest that you actually read what he has written and report back to us. i'd also suggest that wild speculations as to what he supports and celebrates while typical for you are not supported by anything he has written in this one article. though i'll bet that if you were to actually read his books where he has time for a more nuanced explication of his position, you can find plenty to critique and plenty more to work with if you _really_ want to cut lose in a diss avoiding frenzy. i personally let him have it at a conference. but that was based on knowing what he'd written, not on some half assed analysis of an essay in the NYT. you will find in one of the books mentioned a person wrangling with the problem of liberalism and liberal tolerance, who recognizes the problems on several sides, and has chosen to come down on the side of tolerance for a number of reasons. like it or not, people don't always agree with you. of course, you have the easy answer to it all: they're not marxists. and that, of course, is its own tautology. they don't do marxist analysis because they are not marxist! now there's some explanation fer ya!