Explananda Re: Psycho-sexual explanation

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Sat Mar 29 18:40:14 PST 2003


At 5:52 PM -0800 3/29/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>The term "psycho-sexual explanations," however, suggests that what
>is being advocated is the use of "psycho-sexual" matters as
>explanans. Besides, no one here is objecting to the use of what is
>said to be "psycho-sexual" matters -- feelings about abortion,
>motherhood, etc. -- as explananda. We are objecting to the idea of
>the "psycho-sexual" as explanans.
>* * *
>
>Who we, Yoshie? You and the other mechanical Marxists? No oneelse
>has chimed on on that, so better stick to the first person singular.

I'd speak for Carrol, James Farmelant, and Miles Jackson, then, if they let me. :->

At 5:52 PM -0800 3/29/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>The P/S aspects are not the complete explanation, but they are
>important explanatory factors, things without which you cannot
>understand or expalin what is going or why the phenomenon occurs.
>Frankly, there's justs o much that calls out for P/S explanation,
>that is, P/S explanans, that I mystified taht you should regard P/S
>factors as epiphenomenal. You cannot understand racism without it --
>the mystique of the big black buck, the fear that They will marry
>your sister and rape your women (see here the great study White Over
>Black by some Berkleley historioan whose name escapes me); you
>cannoy understand war ands militarism without it, the ideal of
>manliness ans strength as killing; you cannot understand (no such)
>women's oppression without, with people 's identies being wrapped up
>in gender-specific roles (this is part of Luker's point).

(A) What, however, explains the origins and developments of what you mention above: the myth of black men's sexual rapacity; the ideal of manliness as the ability and willingness to kill when you are ordered by your commanders to do so; and social identities based upon gender-specific roles? (B) What explains the fact that while some Americans subscribe to one or more or all of the above while others do not?

At 5:52 PM -0800 3/29/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>But the notion that the P/S is never independently explantory, that
>it is always to be expalined by something else, is so ludicrously
>stupid

You'd have to explain why you think of the idea that the "psycho-sexual" cannot explain the "psycho-sexual" as "ludicrously stupid." Name-calling is not an argument. You might present convincing "psychosexual" explanations -- explanations that use the "psycho-sexual" as explanans -- for (A) and (B) instead. -- Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list