> > Carrol, I just don't think these "two contexts" are this separable (let
> > alone this easily separable). Show me an operation of social power which is
> > not instantiated in personal relations, or the other way around. I just
> > don't buy it.
>
>Layoffs.
The people being laid off have personal relations to every element of the being laid off process, and with their families friends and so on who are all affected by it, then there are personal relations between coworkers, whether laid off or not, and so on and so forth.
>There was no personal relations between the politicians and generals who
>decided on the firebombing of Tokyo and the thousands killed in that
>bombing (nor was there any personal relationship between the plane crews
>who dropped the bombs, the workers who produced the B-29s, the
>stockholders of the corporation that produced the bombs, and those
>killed in the raids.
personal relations to the bombing would not only include the people who did it, who were bombed, who cleaned up after, and so on, but those who've studied it after or who visit the memorials in tokyo
>It seems to me that your position here makes sense only on the basis of
>Margaret Thatcher's argument that society doesn't exist, only
>individuals.
no. i'm simply saying society isn't some structure outside of how we live, but manifest in how we live, which is not the same as saying we have direct control over it.
>Do you believe that social relations are _real_? Or are you assuming
>somekind of radical nominalism? Perhaps your argument is as much with
>Aristotle as with me.
Nah, Aristotle and I are fine. Yes social relations are real, but that doesn't mean they're not also ideal, and stuff in between.
Catherine