On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan, you wrote a 695 word essay, but I could not find anything in it
> that addresses the point I made. To reiterate that point: "there are
> very different outcomes justified by the same general ideals, so it is
> clear that these general ideals do not explain the variation of
> outcomes."
>
> So unless you are claiming that social relations are all the same
> under capitalism, which means some 80+% of human population, how do
> you explain cross national (or cross-social class) differences in
> attitudes toward government regulations of the economy (which was the
> original question in this thread?)
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dude, don't be a jerk. Of course material conditions mediate the actual
> > expression of hegemonic philosophies. At the same time, your argument
> > suggests that the philosophical foundations that grounded the
> > materialization of modern capitalism/production, modern
> > democracy/bureaucracy and modern science/technology - and which are not
> only
> > embedded in how just about everyone is socialized to understand, approach
> > and reproduce these relations but are also strategically used by the
> > economically, politically and technoscientifically powerful to legitimate
> > their power and their role in solving the problems their power produces
> are
> > less important than the particular practices of specific firms,
> communities,
> > organizations, etc.
> >
> > What is demonstrably false is your perspective on ethnography.
> Sociological
> > ethnographies, 99 times out of 100, study and compare groups within a
> > society not to determine what makes the qualitatively different but to
> > evaluate where commonality and singularity lies. Anyone studying a
> > "subculture" - a term now long out of vogue in the theory of ethnographic
> > methods - who asserts that that subculture is qualitatively different
> from
> > other subcultures within the same society necessarily rejects the idea
> that
> > social structures are substantively meaningful. Really nice work has
> been
> > done by Charles Ragin and others on using comparative methods in order to
> > parse difference and commonality along these lines. Furthermore, and
> you're
> > the one who recently quoted Marx in another thread, a foundational
> argument
> > Marx makes about capitalism is that it's need for growth makes it a
> > powerful, global homogenizing force. Radical geographers, like Henri
> > Lefebvre, David Harvey, Neil Smith, Erik Swyngedouw, Richard Walker,
> Matthew
> > Gandy and hundreds of others have over the last thirty years done a
> really
> > nice job of exploring the dual dynamics of capitalist homogenization and
> > differentiation.
> >
> > You've recently taken on the habit of radically overinterpreting what
> people
> > write in response to your posts. It is a very unattractive trait. I
> never
> > said that all you needed was Utilitarianism to understand contemporary
> > social relations and, since you've been reading my posts for two years
> now
> > (I hope), you know I never would. In terms of the Catholic
> Church/Aquinas
> > example: that's weak, too. You've completely inverted the point. If I
> were
> > saying what you're claiming I'm saying - which I'm not - then the
> argument
> > would be that Aquinas was actually no different than any other Catholic
> > theorist because all you need to know is the outlines of Catholicism to
> > understand Thomism or any other sect with The Church. In fact, my
> argument
> > is exactly the opposite... you can't understand Aquinas, the debates he
> > engaged, positions he took and subsequent interpretations and rejections
> of
> > his work without understanding Catholicism.
> >
> > If you want to read on subcultures, Dick Hebdige's books, Subculture: The
> > Meaning of Style and Hiding in the Light: On Images and Things, do a
> > masterful job of addressing issues of the economic, political, scientific
> > and cultural production of the category "youth" and the subsequent ways
> that
> > the agencies of the market, government, researchers, and kids themselves
> > have made and remade the category BUT always within the bounds of a
> > hegemonic political economy. If you're interested in even more along
> these
> > lines, Rob Latham's, Consuming Youth: Vampires, Cyborgs and the Culture
> of
> > Consumption (2002, UChicago) draws explicitly on Marx but in really
> > provocative ways. Here are two quotes:
> >
> > “As Dick Hebdige has observed, “The relationship between the spectacular
> > subculture and the various industries which service and exploit it is
> > notoriously ambiguous. After all, such a subculture is concerned first
> and
> > foremost with consumption…. It operates exclusively in the leisure
> sphere…
> > It is therefore… difficult to maintain any absolute distinction between
> > commercial exploitation on the one hand and creativity/originality on the
> > other.’” [Latham 2002: 67]
> >
> >
> >
> > “Building on Michel de Certeau’s analysis of how the strategic power of
> > dominant institutions calls forth tactical resistance on the part of
> those
> > subjected to its hierarchies—a resistance that takes the field of
> operations
> > established by those institutions as its own terrain of agency—Bukatman
> > extrapolates this argument to the realm of cyberspace, a network of
> > information controlled by corporate and governmental and governmental
> > authorities yet at the same time vulnerable to a concerted ‘nibbling at
> the
> > edges of power and thus an elision of control.’” [Latham 2002: 224]
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan: "Wojtek, its almost as if you've never heard of Utilitarianism.."
> >>
> >> [WS:] Utilitarianism is a philosophy. A belief that society operates
> >> by philosophical principles in everyday life may be acceptable to
> >> economists, philosophers, or lit-critters, but strikes me as rather
> >> odd when pronounced by a sociologist. It is like saying that
> >> Catholics, or even the Catholic Church operates by the philosophical
> >> doctrine developed by Thomas Aquinas. This is not only demonstrably
> >> false, but undermines the very assumption on which ethnography,
> >> anthropology and sociology rest - that local cultures are different
> >> from each other and studying them matters. If the collection of ideas
> >> - whether organized into a coherent philosophical system or simply
> >> assembled in some form of scripture - was the only thing that we need
> >> to know how society operates, we would not need ethnography,
> >> anthropology and sociology - philosophy and lit-crit woud be
> >> sufficient, and more cost-efficient too as studying text costs far
> >> less than field research.
> >>
> >> One more point - the underlying assumption of organizational
> >> sociology - in which I was trained in graduate school - is that
> >> organizational behavior is determined by the cast of organizational
> >> actors - their interests, relative power, mutual connections, values
> >> etc. - but it is ex post facto rationalized by references to the
> >> dominant ideology or mythology, such as utilitarianism, efficiency
> >> maximization, economic rationality and similar Platonic ideas. The
> >> point is that there are very different outcomes justified by the same
> >> general ideals, so it is clear that these general ideals do not
> >> explain the variation of outcomes. Hence the focus on the cast of
> >> social actors, their interests, power, subculture, etc. Consequently,
> >> while I do appreciate abstract economic, philosophical or theological
> >> theories as art forms, I do not see them as very useful in explaining
> >> social behavior.
> >>
> >> Wojtek
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Wojtek, its almost as if you've never heard of Utilitarianism... the
> >> > philosophical foundation that undergirds not only the kinds of
> "economic
> >> > rationality" you ascribe to a deviant subculture of capitalists but
> also
> >> to
> >> > the who rational, self-interested, individualistic, and personally
> >> > responsible norms and values that pervade what you appear to think is
> the
> >> > rest of our non-deviant society. But, then again, you (implicitly)
> admit
> >> to
> >> > having a sense of it when you point to he ways that these norms and
> >> vallues
> >> > are celebrated and glamorized in the media and most areas of the
> academy
> >> > (and, by the way, its not just academic literature... it is how
> students
> >> are
> >> > told to be entrepreneurial in their pursuit of a degree and faculty
> who
> >> are
> >> > insufficienty "rational, self-interested, individualistic, and
> personally
> >> > responsible" are told to go elsewhere).
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, it is true that there are other values resident in and produced
> by
> >> > other kinds of less-utilitarian social relations out there. But,
> since
> >> > Utilitarian norms and values also undergird modern representative
> >> democracy,
> >> > the heroic brand of technoscience and the rationalization of
> >> bureaucracies
> >> > everywhere, as well as the secularization of previously religious
> >> > ontologies, these other arenas are constantly under threat within
> >> > modernity... thus the myriad forms of reactionary anti-modern
> movements
> >> here
> >> > and abroad.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Miles: " personal responsibility, individualism, self-interest"
> >> >>
> >> >> [WS:] Where do these come from? This discussion started about
> >> >> breaking laws & government regulations. Business propaganda (quoted
> >> >> by Michael P.) argues that this is a universal condition and
> >> >> regulations will never work - which is the standard spiel of most
> econ
> >> >> textbooks. I countered that it is not, because regulations work if
> >> >> compliance with them is a part of business subculture, in which case
> >> >> it is enforced by informal sanctions (e.g. Japan.) On the other
> hand,
> >> >> if noncompliance is legitimized in that subculture - they will not
> >> >> work (e.g. the US.) Furthermore, a subculture that justifies breaking
> >> >> the law for a personal gain is considered deviant by generally
> >> >> accepted standards - whether it is corporate subculture or a street
> >> >> gang subculture. The only difference between the two is that the
> >> >> former receives good press and legitimation by academic theories
> >> >> whereas the latter does not.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what do personal responsibility and individualism have to do with
> it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wojtek
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > On 10/30/2010 05:59 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In sum, different social groups and networks develop different
> value
> >> >> >> systems, which in turn affect the behavior of members of these
> groups
> >> >> >> and networks. Some of these value systems are considered deviant
> by
> >> >> >> general population, but most of them are not. This is Sociology
> 101.
> >> >> >> What makes the deviant value systems of the capitalist subculture
> >> >> >> different than those of "ordinary" deviant subcultures is the
> immense
> >> >> >> propaganda effort undertaken by the media and the academia to
> >> >> >> legitimate it. This creates a highly deceptive illusion that
> these
> >> >> >> deviant norms are "natural" and prevail in every human society.
> In
> >> >> >> reality, however, they are limited to a narrow group of
> capitalists
> >> >> >> and their mouthpieces. It follows that fighting the deviant norms
> >> and
> >> >> >> behavior of the capitalist class is much easier than the noise
> >> machine
> >> >> >> that glamorizes it claims - it is fundamentally no different from
> >> >> >> controlling (if not eliminating) other forms of deviance that all
> >> >> >> human societies do.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hey, I love Soc 101, so I agree with most of this. I do have a
> hard
> >> time
> >> >> > thinking of the norms of capitalists as "deviant" when they are in
> >> fact
> >> >> the
> >> >> > dominant norms of our society (e.g., personal responsibility,
> >> >> individualism,
> >> >> > self-interest). For instance, if you ask the majority of people
> in
> >> our
> >> >> > society why some people are poor, they will typically point to poor
> >> >> people's
> >> >> > personal deficiencies. I agree that's the result of the
> incessantly
> >> >> > reinforced norms and values of capitalism; however, from a
> >> sociological
> >> >> > perspective, there's nothing "deviant" about it; it's just the
> >> dominant
> >> >> > perspective in our society right now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Miles
> >> >> > ___________________________________
> >> >> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ___________________________________
> >> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > *********************************************************
> >> > Alan P. Rudy
> >> > Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> >> > Central Michigan University
> >> > 124 Anspach Hall
> >> > Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> >> > 517-881-6319
> >> > ___________________________________
> >> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *********************************************************
> > Alan P. Rudy
> > Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> > Central Michigan University
> > 124 Anspach Hall
> > Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> > 517-881-6319
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319