>
>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. :->
Let them speak for themeslves, they do just fine.
> (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?
What's your theory, it's all class oppression? Look, these are deep, dark, and complicated matters over which much ink has been spilled by historicians and theories of race and class. Frankly, you have more time than I do to go back over that literature, and you are probably more familiar with it than I am. But I have some familiarity, and I think it's plausible that in both of these cases it has to do in part with specifically sexual anxieties and drives that are rooted in the fact, which is prior (temporally) to class, that humans build their identities around gender and sexuality first of all. How this plays out in specific contexts has everything to do with history, class, and lots of other things.
> (B) What explains the fact that while some Americans subscribe to one or more or all of the above while others do not?
Haven't a clue. Is that supposed to be a problem for me?
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."
Because it's totally contrary to every scientific principle to say that that one cannot expalin a phenomenon by reference to other phenomena of the same time. Moreover as a logical point that runs into an infinite regress. If,a s some suppose, physics is the fundamental level of explanation, on your principle there can be no physical explanations, because are are no deeper ones, and you have ruled out same-level explanations. Or if you think that economics is the fundamental level of social explanation, there can be no economic explanations, that is, no explanations of economic phenomena.
To put it another way, not all explanations are or can be reductive. To think otherwise is indeed ludicrous and stupid. Some explanations are merely causal. And causal relations can go ever which way, horizontally within an explanatory level included. This should be totally obvious. Most explanations are of this type. It is no more bizarre to say that you can have a P/S explanation of a P/s phenomenon than to say you can have a political/social/economiic explanation of a political/social/economic phenomenon. Why is the Shrub Prez? Because Gore bollocksed the campaign. Because a GOP dominated S.Ct lawlessly awarded him the job for partisan reasons. Because Nader drew too many votes in Florida. What's so hard about that?
> 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.
On the internet? In another life. You haven't presented an persuasive non P/s explanations of them either, I note. Get back to organizung against the war.
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030329/f8a3e2ec/attachment.htm>