Problems of Functionalism

[Justin Schwartz]

I haven't read B&G on education in an age, and can't comment on whether you 
are right about it. I don't advocate the views you criticize, and neither 
does Kelly. I was defending the utility of a specific sort of functional 
explanation that you don't address. I was arguing in defense of a version of 
HM based in part on that sort of functional explanation; you change the 
subject. I think it's not approppriate to attack the tenability of people's 
views by remarking on where they ended up when they changed their minds. You 
said nice things about Genovese, with which I agree; but look where he is 
now. Gerry Cohen, who taught me more than I can say, appears to have lost it 
entirely. (I say "appears" because, while I have read his  lectures with 
horror; I have not yet seen the "new"  edition of KMTH.) I don't think you 
are a Stalinist, but the "look where he ended up" is a Stalinist pattern of 
argument. --jks


>
>Justin:
> > Well, this discussion just reached a dead end, since Leo is off not 
>debating
> > straw men, and objecting to views no one where had advocated on the
> > classical Stalinist political grounds of why they might lead in 
>someone's
> > political trajectory rather than whether they are true or false. --jks
>
>Justin:
>
>I wish I understood why you have the need to bring to an end every 
>discussion
>that involves the two of us with this kind of statement.
>
>In response to a point Kelley made, I offered some general observations 
>about
>functionalist theories, followed up with a specific illustration of what I
>saw as a classical example of Marxist functionalism, Bowles' and Gintis'
>_Schooling in Capitalist America_. I raised that example because, as I
>explained, it is something on my mind, given my focus on education, and it
>seems pertinent to the general issues we were discussing.
>
>You could decide that since this particular tangent of the thread was not
>written in response to what you said, you would ignore it. That seems the
>most obvious option.
>
>Or you could decide that you wanted to comment on it, since it was part of 
>a
>general thread to which you had been contributing. You could say any one of 
>a
>number of things:
>(a) My critique of functionalist theories is all wet.
>(b) Whatever the value of the critique of functionalism in general, it does
>not apply to Marxist functionalism.
>(c) B&G did not make a "Marxist functionalist" argument.
>(d) B&G made a poor "Marxist functionalist" argument which is not
>representative of Marxist functionalism in general.
>(e) There is no intellectual continuity between B&G's functionalist account
>of education in _Schooling in Capitalist America_ and Gintis' functionalist
>espousal of school vouchers.
>And that is hardly an exhaustive list.
>
>Instead, you seize the opportunity to denounce me as a Stalinist. Even the
>choice of personal insult seems designed to produce maximum irritation and
>negative reaction in me.
>
>If you don't want to discuss, don't discuss. If you do want to discuss, 
>let's
>avoid this completely unwarranted sort of personal attack. I was going to
>prepare some thoughts on your last posting in this thread, but I don't see
>much point in trying to carry on a discussion that takes this form of
>personal insult.
>
>Leo Casey
>United Federation of Teachers
>260 Park Avenue South
>New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
>
>Power concedes nothing without a demand.
>It never has, and it never will.
>If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
>Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
>want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
>lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
>-- Frederick Douglass --

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com