topp8564 at mail.usyd.edu.au wrote:
>
>
>
> The idea that subjectivities (ie. people) are odiously boring and ripe for
> cataloguing is just what's on my mind when I worry about the assumptions made
> within hasty generalisations about social relations. As for limp leaves plonking
> to the ground, I know some such people, but they are hardly representative.
>
Look at like this. You are in effect claiming that you can understand the "subjectivity" of Mark Cox of Chicago (my son). That is outrageous. We really can say a lot about the social relations which structure historical possibilities under capitalism. We are learning to say a lot about the human brain and its constraints and _possibilities_ (not the inevitabilities). But you can't know anything about my "subjectivities" without knowing me. You know nothing (and can't know anything) about the indefinite number of contingencies & direct relations which constitute me. Human beings aren't machines, and you may not know it, but by claiming social theory must deal with concrete subjectivities you are in effect considering humans to be machines.
Carrol
> Thiago
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au