We need to back up. I wrote offlist and now I've read more and I see the problem: you're misunderstanding what I mean by sophisticated. As I said offlist, an example of what I'd also describe as more sophisticated is Marx's intervention into the war between materialism and idealism.
I was unhappy with what seemed to be Chomsky's position on naturalism--not because I necessarily support naturalism--rather, because I think there are stronger criticisms he could make/ I think he, unfortunately, remains trapped in the classic oppositions, reproducing them, rather than moving beyond them. Carrol made an excellent point in his footnote and in his post overall.
I don't think anyone has to do Big Theory, use big words, or make things terribly complicated. That is NOT what I meant by sophisticated. But, like Doug, you won't see me ritually castigating pomo, poststructuralism, cultural studies, literary criticism, or anything else because I don't see how they are a threat to anything. What's at stake if Judith Butler uses too much verbiage? Dave keeps saying that NC isn't obligated to take on flat earthers through immanent critique. I think it's pretty dismissive to equate all of social theory with flat earthers. If there is nothing at stake--since they're wacky flat earthers--why get in a tizzy over it?
I guess I don't understand why someone would ignore all the work done by people who are much more closely aligned with NC than the easy marks he's taking on. While I'm not big fans of their work, Randall Collins and Jonathan Turner both reject the "bullshit" pumped out by pomogators. They argue against obfuscation and for "clear language," but also argue rather convincingly that it is possible to develop a theory of society, to show the same kinds of successes that the physical sciences do, and even follow the covering law model advocated by phil. naturalists. Again, I'm not fans, but there it is: Two theorists who don't abjure empirical work, two who reject anti-naturalism, and two who dislike the pomoistas about as much as the C man. IIRC, Collins wrote a hilarious send up of some of the more bizzarre postmodern crits of the natural sciences. I'd call their defense of naturalism far more sophisticated than the marks C has taken on, just as I'd said that Hempel's defense of naturalism (1962 JF) is more sophisticated. By saying they're sophisticated, I just mean that they're worth arguing with and doing so might strengthen the C's position.
I haven't read every lick of his work. I do think that, from what I have read, it'd be nice if he did more than make a blanket claim about the impossibility of "social theory" by taking on some some of the more convincing attempts to ressurrect social science from the onslaught of pomo overdrive.
Now, having said all that, I'm not saying that he must agree with these thinkers. I sure don't agree with them. And why I actually have to add that caveat... well, it's a shame.
>To me, Big Theorists are the people who over-rate theory and smother
>everything (usually including their own vacuity) in its verbiage. Louis
>Althusser and virtually all post-modernists are prime examples of that,
>IMHO.
:) take out the H, and I'll buy you a beer.
Unfortunately, I think folks are too used to having to defend the C man in other forums. so, I want to make clear that I think that NC is a treasure, an important thinker on the left. I expressed disappointment, not rejection. The piece from which the Chomsky quote was taken was disappointing. I'd rather see left critics take the pomos seriously and if they don't want to, then they should leave the task to those who do. Richard Bernstein does a fabulous job with some of them and he's not hard to read!