Joanna
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
>> This is a very confusing moment to be sure. At least for me.
>>
>> No doubt, by admitting this I'm creating an opening for all sorts of
>> criticism
>> centered around my failure to understand this or that simple solution.
>
>
> No doubt you are, but not from me. Years ago, when I was visiting Duke
> on Wahneema Lubiano's invitation, I remember her then-partner Raphael
> Allen asking me a question about what my aim was with my writing - "a
> better empiricism, like Chomsky, or something more." A lot of what I
> had been doing was that "better empiricism," based on the belief that
> if we could just explain things better people would come around to our
> side. I'd been coming around to thinking that that just wasn't enough
> - but his question really crystallized the problem for me, and I've
> been thinking about it ever since. No, people won't come around if
> things are just explained better to them. That something more -
> understanding and dealing with all the layers of fantasy, of
> manufactured ignorance and indifference - is really important too.
> Unfortunately, I haven't figured that one out yet. It's a lot easier
> to say that household income is stagnant three years into an economic
> expansion. It is, but aside from a vague sense of annoyance, the fact
> has little political salience.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>