On Oct 6, 2009, at 9:56 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>so you approve of Michaels characterization of the work done by
>folks like Laura Agustin on immigrant sex workers? That of David
>Harvey in Potter Addition? They're just a bunch o f people who seek
>to obtain respect for the poor and working class, right? Their
>interest in 'agency' isn't to be taken seriously -- charachterized
>in a sympathetic, internally critical way -- but is simply dismissed
>out of hand as the work of handmaidens to neo-liberalism.
>> This is delusional.
Is this a fair characterization of what Laura Agustin and others like her are up to? Is it a fair characterization of my work?
"And, not content with pretending that our real problems is cultural difference rather than economic difference, we have also started to treat economic difference as if it were cultural difference. So now we're urged to be more respectful of poor people and to stop thinking of them as victims, since to treat them as victims is condescending -- it denies them their "agency." (p 19)
The reason why he is opposed to exploring agency (which he thinks is suspect project altogether, hence the scare quotes) is that he believes that "the commitment to the poor is based on the sense that they are deprived, that they are victims."
remember: you asked why anyone could possibly agree with him and disagree at the same time. there is it. it's not delusional: he uses the marxist language of class to advance a liberal reformist agenda based on a model of social stratification. Again: he's opposed to inequality, not class exploitation -- which is why the manipulation of marxist language is annoying.
he uses that same language to get away with dismissing all leftists as handmaidens to neo-liberalism when, in fact, the way leftists conceptualize things like "agency" and "victimhood" are far more complicated than he will allow.
he uses the language of radical marxism to make himself out to be opposed to neo-liberalism when all he really is is a reformist Welfare Liberal.
I suppose we could use more of them simply to alleviate the worst vagaries of capitalism. But don't expect me to applaud Michaels like some adoring obamafan ignores his warts.
shag that is why is arguments are largely sound, but then he veers of the deep end and you find you can no longer support him.
if he's like to write a book where he actually engages work like that of Laura Agustin to show how her work advanced neo-liberalism,that'd be great. I'm all eyeballs.