> The alternative is a theory capable of accounting for both historical changes and synchronic cultural differences in the "psycho-sexual" among other politically interesting phenomena, with or without direct references to class interests as explanans. That's nota  theory, it's a statement that we need a theory. > The "psycho-sexual" as explanans, in my view, cannot explain historical changes and synchronic cultural differences. I never said it could, all by itself. i said it was an important explantory factor. At 7:49 AM -0800 3/30/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote: >Luker's account of the importance of motherhood in the abortion wars > Luker examines the "psycho-sexual" as explananda, but she doesn't use it as explanans. I've already described her descriptions and explanations and offered what political insights we may gain from them: I think you misread Luker by overintellectualizing her subjects. As I read her, the antis are people who, having made a choice for motherhood and having given up a lot in terms of potential self-realization for it, come to naturalize their choice by seeing itr as inevitable and God-commanded, and so view the very idea that there is a choice as a threat. Obviously this doesn't make the psychosesexual the only element in the theory, but its an important element. It's a good historical materialist approach: Class operates as a constraining framework, while sexual anxieties operate as motivating causes. > You've yet to offer a better account of Luker's work than mine. Done. At 7:49 AM -0800 3/30/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote: >psychosexual impulses that cause the racist effects (1) A question of historical change: what makes you think that psychosexual impulses caused racist effects, rather than the other way around, i.e., racist oppression (itself caused by class interests of the white planter class) giving rise to racist ideology and "psycho-sexual impulses" that had not existed before? Read Jordan; his quasi-Hegelian story is quite complex. Again, the point is not, which is the real cause. Class rarely operates as a cause. Part of your fundamental confusion is that your identify explanations with causes, and then compound the error by treating reductive explanations as causal. jks<HTTP: solidarity.igc.org /> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">Yahoo! Platinum</a> - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">live on your desktop</a>!