Historical Materialism and Racism/Sexism/Heterosexism

[Kelley Walker]

At 06:35 PM 3/13/01 -0500, LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
>Justin:
>>You say "functionalist" like it's a bad thing, Leo. I'm not a Parsianin
>>functionalist who thinks that everything on society can be explaineda s
>>functional. I'm a historical materialist, who thinks there is a dialectic
>>between functional explanation of social stability and nonfunctional,
>>anti-functional (fettering) explanation of social change. I don't have to
>>say, I reject, the proposition that class is the fundamental cause of
>>everything.
>
>
>I am not sure I understand you correctly here. Are you saying you are not a
>structural functionalist a la Talcott Parsons [Parsonian functionalist] or
>are you sayiong that you would differentiate yourself from the so-called
>French "structuralists" as some sort of generic category, in the way that a
>Foucault often makes a functionalist, almost Weberian argument [Parisian
>functionalist]?  It's not clear to me from the context. I see both forms of
>functionalism as flawed, but for somewhat different reasons. In that sense
>you are correct; I do see functionalism as a 'bad thing.'

i don't know what justin's position is, per se.  i do know that marxist 
social scientists can be functionalists.  i read justin as defending that 
sort of functionalism against the diatribes against durkheim, parsons, etc.

ehrenreich's stuff on class is considered marxist functionalism.

kelley