>
> too lazy to retrieve the book and summarize it properly but I think I've
> finally figured out why, while I agree with you in this debate, there's
> always a point where I pull back from the super-structuralism that
> statement seems to advance, if only by virtue of the typical DSM-IV
> 302.9 that goes on during this eternal debate. :)
>
> shag
I recognize that I tend to make statements that can easily be construed as "super-structuralism" and treating people as "social dopes" (remember Garfinkel!). I fully agree that we are not as individuals always fully determined by the social conditions in which we make our way through our lives. (And let me take a moment to honor the creative and profound ways that we navigate those treacherous waters!)
Miles