Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, that wasn't the point at all. The point was about the power of love, not the power
> > of the state.
>
> ===================
>
> Again the issue is one of defining power in such a way that it dissipates it's role in
> explaining human interaction. If I can define love as power, what human capability can I
> not describe in terms of power?
At least once a month a thread on LBO reminds me of an utterly fruitless paper topic I gave to a freshman class back in 1961 or so. I asked them to describe or define (I forget the exact words of the assignment) "thoughtfulness." Every paper in effect made "thoughtfulness" an exact synonym of every other word of praise in the English language. It's very nearly a belief in word magic. "Power" is a powerful word :->, and clearly it holds such an attraction to some people that they _must_ use it for any human activity they find impressive.
It is I suppose perfectly in keeping with word usage to speak of the power of love. But to use the word in that sense in a political conversation is really a sort of superstition, or even fetishism. We can say "power of love" and we can say "power of the constituent assembly," so (the bizarre logic goes) the same 'thing' is present in both. This sort of thing can be cleared up easily enough in conversation; and in journal articles (political or academicd) it's the editor's task not to accept any articles which so confuse categories. But this sort of wrangle can go on for ever in a maillist.
I used to point out to students (with what success I don't know) that there were many more things in the world than there were words in any language, so it was necessary to use the same word for quite different things. To speak of the power of love and the power of the state in the same sentence puts us in the realm of the joke post a few days ago about Hu is the leader of China.
Carrol