topp8564 at mail.usyd.edu.au wrote:
>
> 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?
No! Your objection is the same as if someone shouold object that quantum mechanics do not teach us how to plub in a lamp or that geology does not show us the route to Grandma's house. Social analysis can no more give us any direct informatin about personal relations than chemistry can give us direct information about the amount of sugar to add to a cornbread batter. Do you want one theory to explain everything?
Carrol