On 4/12/2002 3:04 PM, "lbo-talk-digest" <owner-lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com> wrote:
> When we (i.e., most marxists, plus many anarchists, radical democrats,
> probably some other categories) -- when we speak of X being a "social
> relation" we are _NOT_ ordinarily speaking of direct personal relations
> (e.g., between lovers).
Call this an anthropologists' dream, but isn't this a pretty serious failure? What's society without persons, subjectivities, psychologies, loves, little neuroses and very direct experiences? Don't you (meaning that "we" you defined above) end up substituting your own images of persons into social relations? That's been my tendency anyway, whenever I try to understand something like game theory or Marx: to imagine the sort of person - full blown, actualised human being - who lives in these equations and schema. Without the flesh and bones of social life the sociological imagination ends up in a state of sensory deprivation. Sooner or later, the hallucinations set in...
Thiago
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au