[lbo-talk] Re: working class? (and other responses) (and otherresponses)

ravi listmail at kreise.org
Wed Oct 19 12:05:26 PDT 2005


At around 19/10/05 2:08 pm, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> One would think that you would apply your analytical skills your use in your
> professional field to other fields, but you seem not to - you seem take
> vague and ambiguous concepts for what you want them to mean and then get
> upset when others do not see what you do.
>
> A cop arrests a man. Some see a black guy being arrested and cry racism,
> while others see a criminal being arrested and cry law and order. The
> controversy could be easily solved by looking at the specifics of the case -
> or not - but neither side is interested in finding it out, because that
> might render the case useless as an example in the moral story there are
> telling. Instead, they assault those who do not see what they do. This is
> why it is not about reality anymore but about storytelling and believing
> competing narratives and literary genres (also called "tropes").
>
> <...>
>
> One would think that an analytically minded professional would be able to
> distinguish between reality and various narratives pertaining to that
> reality. One would also think that such a professional would distinguish
> between dismissal of a narrative and dismissal of the person who likes that
> narrative. So if you make this distinction, why do you think that my
> comments are arrogant and aggressive? Would you use the same for someone
> who claims that the bible is but a bunch of poorly written fairy tales?
>

It seems like your argument above is not dissimilar from that of self-proclaimed left scientists (e.g: Sokal) against pomo philosophers. This analysis can be used recursively. Just as Sokal did, the excesses of the revisionist side, rather than the central contentions of their argument, can be used to criticize/dismiss their point.

Let me try to avoid getting into the philosophy of science issues surrounding the use of terms such as "fact" and "narrative" (and the question of how understands "reality" sans a "narrative"). Instead: Left argument that the *analysis* of the *data* on black arrests points to a general bias. This is not "storytelling" (in the sense in which you use the word). You are lumping together those who analytically derive such criticism and those who assume apriori that any facts have to be interpreted per cherished views (stories), because their conclusions are the same.

You are wrong in thinking that I am upset about anything. I am not upset. I am trying to find friends here and learn what best I can do to contribute to the cause(s) of the left.

If you said to me that the bible is a bunch of poorly written fairy tales, we may have a good laugh about it and I may not object. If you were to say that to Mother Teresa (whom I continue to admire despite Hitchens) I would indeed say you are being aggressive. To begin with "poorly written" is a subjective judgement and its mention (relative to context) could be nothing more than a gratuitous insult.


> For somebody trained in social science, this is largely a rhetorical
> question. We all learn in Sociology 101 about the "breaching experiments"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_experiment
> and know that they evoke hostile reactions. We also learn that stock
> knowledge and folkways become a part of who people are and challenging that
> stock knowledge or folkways may become a personal threat. We also learn,
> but that comes later, maybe in a graduate program, about sociological
> intervention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Touraine about using these
> challenges to survey, and perhaps influence, social movements. So from that
> point of view, reactions to my postings are as expected - people feel
> threatened when their stories and received wisdom is being challenged,
> especially by someone from their own camp.

As I pointed out, your criticism, of what you consider received wisdom (which you have hardly demonstrated as consensus opinion here on LBO!), itself tends to older forms of received wisdom!

It is the very analytical impulse of my training (not really used much in my mundane profession ;-)) that motivates my attempt to break this loop of meta/psycho-criticism and ask that we look at the substantive issues! There are issues of deduction and burden of proof that need to be addressed and could lead to productive results.

I think that's my quota for today.

--ravi

-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list