Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > I think, using Yoshie's rough distinction between power elite and
> > ruling
> > class, that it is the _latter_ that should be subject to this debate.
> > Power Elite is _normal_ politics (analogous to "normal science")
>
> That's not Mills' definition, if such things matter to you.
It would matter if we were discussing Mills. I'm writing in the context established by Marvin & Yoshie in this thread. I'm not particularly attached myself to any particular definition of "power elite," and in fact doubt that it would be worthwhile to assert one. Compare "ideology": My principle with that word is to accept the meaning any given writer ascribes to it and argue not about the verbal definition but focus rather on whatever social reality (or alleged reality) the writer is concerned with describing, judging, etc. Why argue over words? Mills's use of it is to begin with a philological question, like Shakespeare's use of "natural." My interests here concern the mideast, not philolgy.
As I use to tell my classes, there are more 'things' in the world than there are words in the language, so we have to make most words and most phrases fulfill multiple purposes. Yoshie's use seems adequate for present purposes.
Carrol
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk