Re: AUT: Academia....

[Cliff Staples <Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--Boundary_(ID_S5ggAmZkYZhYqLbxrAwLQA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Nate:

The more theoretically inclined sociologists, or at least some of them,
will have read Rorty.  The rest are too busy fussing with their latest
statistical techniques or graphics programs.

Rorty is widely read beyond academic philosophy, so of course most academic
philosophers hate him.  He's also been trying to put them out of business,
which might also have something to do with it.  All that aside, some surely
have serious and considered differences with the Pragmatist tradition Rorty
represents.       I only had a minor in Philosophy, and that was 20 years
ago, so my knowledge of contemporary academic philosophy is narrow and
shallow, but I can tell you that Rorty's work is in step with much of
contemporary social theory.  Maybe I'm just a rube, but can't imagine why
anyone wouldn't find him insightful and fun to read.

I don't think anyone within what has come to be called "The Amherst School
of Postmodern Marxism" has written anything extensive on Rorty, but I could
be wrong.  What is clear is that at least some of these folks have read
Rorty and find him useful.  If one loses interest in a social science that
attempts to represent a free-standing "social," (i.e. modernist social
science) then you need some other way of making your work meaningful.  This
is where Rorty (and others) seems to come in.  First you see "social
theory" not as a mirror of the social, but as constituitive of it-- as
having consequences in the world-- and your  truth is not how closely your
model fits social reality,  but whether or not people find your
interpretations helpful.  This idea isn't particularly new, of course, you
can find it in Marx, and the critical social science tradition more
generally (I'm thinking here of Friere, and work he inspired, such as Ira
Shor's Critical Teaching and Everyday Life.  My favorite philosophical
explication of the tradition is Brian Fay's Critical Social Science:
Liberation and Its Limits) .   I see all these folks (Marx excepted, at
least chronologically) as post-Wittgensteinians.

I probably shouldn't say, but I have no idea what "autonomist Marxism" is,
though from reading the list I gather it has something to do with the work
of Negri, which I have not (yet) read.  On the other hand, if it means you
don't take orders from anyone, I'm all for it.

Later,

Cliff

p.s. I'll look up that Wheeler book, thanks.  It might be instructive and
fun to watch him do a translation, though I'm not sure I need one.





At 03:29 PM 10/15/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Cliff-
>First off, let me just say "sociology, bah humbug!" so you don't think the
>list is a complete love-fest. ;)
>
>Second, you mentioned Rorty - one of my favorite philosophers though
>politically rather a fuckhead.
>Is Rorty read much among sociology professors? A lot of my philosophy
>friends go into fits at the mere mention of his name, let alone the
>suggestion that he may be worth taking seriously. I'm curious if you or
>anyone else you know of has done work on Rorty and the
>postmodern/althusserian marxism you're interested in.
>
>I ask because I don't really know how to reconcile my interest in (and the
>stuff I've learned from) Rorty with autonomist marxism and other radical
>stuff that I'm into (other than that Rorty has helped me to stop being
>hung up on problems that now seem a little silly).
>There's a really good book by Simon Wheeler called _Deconstruction as
>Analytic Philosophy_ that's worth reading if you haven't already,
>translates postmodernish or derridean stuff into an analytic vernacular
>that is much clearer, at least to me. (though 'translates' is a rather
>suspect term ...) It also points up a number of interesting parallels
>between figures on both sides of the atlantic.
>
>best wishes,
>Nate
>
>
>>From: Cliff Staples <Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....
>>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:43:48 -0500
>>
>>Okay, I can't resist jumping in here.  I have undergraduate degrees in
>>Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington State
>>University, 1985).  I have been on the faculty here at the University of
>>North Dakota for 15 years.
>>
>>Back in the Dark Ages there once was something called "Political Economy"
>>which, either in its Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made some sense.
>>Now (at least in U.S. universities) "political economy" is long gone
>>(certainly at the undergraduate level), and we now have "Political
>>Science" on the one hand, and "Economics" on the other.  The former act
>>like they can talk about power without talking about money while the
>>latter want to talk about money without talking about power.  They're
>>both nearly useless (a few radical freaks aside) for any critical
>>understanding of society.
>>
>>That task has largely been left to sociologists and philosophers, though
>>even some literary types have gotten into the act.  But, as was
>>mentioned, sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois
>>practioners.   The American Sociological Association is mostly liberal
>>number-crunchers (almost all wonderfully nice people, careerism aside),
>>and if amongst these there are those who have serious doubts about
>>capitalism they tend to keep it to themselves.  There ARE plenty of
>>radicals, however, and you can find a few hundred of them in the Marxist
>>Section, and elsewhere.
>>
>>The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois seems to reflect-- as does
>>much else--  its usefulness to capital, no?   Hence Economics is right up
>>there, as are the political science policy wonks.  In this regard
>>sociologists are not to be trusted-- at least since the rollback of the
>>welfare state in the early 1970s.
>>
>>One more thing.  Most of the time I'll take the postmodernists and
>>post-structuralists over the liberal number crunchers.  The former come
>>bearing radical epistemology, if not always radical left politics, and
>>the empirical work that at least some of them do can be useful to
>>disrupting convention.  Indeed, I consider myself a "postmodern Marxist"
>>after the fashion of the neo-Althusserians associated with the journal
>>Rethinking Marxism.  Michael might be interested to have a look at
>>Resnick and Wolff's Knowledge and Class (Chicago, 1987) as well as their
>>Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical (Johns Hopkins, 1987).  I happen
>>to think that "deconstruction," is a useful way to approach ideology
>>critique (see Brian Fay's Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its
>>Limits), and that we can get along just fine without essentialism (a la Rorty).
>>
>>It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation for responding to this
>>was that it was so nice to hear my discipline mentioned, for a change, in
>>a relatively positive light!
>>
>>best,
>>
>>Cliff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 07:25 AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>>I would certainly think that the social viewpoint has
>>>something to do with the relative lefty-ness of
>>>sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate the
>>>effectiveness of their resistance, as I have known
>>>many sociologists, particularly of the postmodern
>>>mold, who fall into a sort of ivory tower mentality
>>>that seems to declaw any left-wing tendencies that
>>>they might have.
>>>
>>>geo
>>>
>>>--- Michael Handelman <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > This may be overly idealist of me, but do you think
>>> > one of the reason for sociology seems to be to the
>>> > left of Poli Sci and Economics, has something to do
>>> > with the fact that because sociology deals with the
>>> > study of groups and society, it tends to be
>>> > *somewhat*
>>> > innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding the
>>> > individual (Thatcher's "There is no such thing as
>>> > society" seems to be about as pure Bourgeois
>>> > ideology
>>> > as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely
>>> > antithetical to sociology).
>>> >
>>>
>>>=====
>>>"Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to win"
>>>=========================
>>>George J. Ciccariello Maher IV
>>>St. John's College
>>>Cambridge
>>>CB2 1TP
>>>United Kingdom
>>>
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
>>>http://faith.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--Boundary_(ID_S5ggAmZkYZhYqLbxrAwLQA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<html>
<font size=3>Nate:<br><br>
The more theoretically inclined sociologists, or at least some of them,
will have read Rorty.&nbsp; The rest are too busy fussing with their
latest statistical techniques or graphics programs.<br><br>
Rorty is widely read beyond academic philosophy, so of course most
academic philosophers hate him.&nbsp; He's also been trying to put them
out of business, which might also have something to do with it.&nbsp; All
that aside, some surely have serious and considered differences with the
Pragmatist tradition Rorty
represents.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I only had a minor in
Philosophy, and that was 20 years ago, so my knowledge of contemporary
academic philosophy is narrow and shallow, but I can tell you that
Rorty's work is in step with much of contemporary social theory.&nbsp;
Maybe I'm just a rube, but can't imagine why anyone wouldn't find him
insightful and fun to read.&nbsp; <br><br>
I don't think anyone within what has come to be called &quot;The Amherst
School of Postmodern Marxism&quot; has written anything extensive on
Rorty, but I could be wrong.&nbsp; What is clear is that at least some of
these folks have read Rorty and find him useful.&nbsp; If one loses
interest in a social science that attempts to represent a free-standing
&quot;social,&quot; (i.e. modernist social science) then you need some
other way of making your work meaningful.&nbsp; This is where Rorty (and
others) seems to come in.&nbsp; First you see &quot;social theory&quot;
not as a mirror of the social, but as constituitive of it-- as having
consequences in the world-- and your&nbsp; truth is not how closely your
model fits social reality,&nbsp; but whether or not people find your
interpretations helpful.&nbsp; This idea isn't particularly new, of
course, you can find it in Marx, and the critical social science
tradition more generally (I'm thinking here of Friere, and work he
inspired, such as Ira Shor's <i>Critical Teaching and Everyday
Life.&nbsp; </i>My favorite philosophical explication of the tradition is
Brian Fay's <i>Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits</i>)
.&nbsp;&nbsp; I see all these folks (Marx excepted, at least
chronologically) as post-Wittgensteinians.<br><br>
I probably shouldn't say, but I have no idea what &quot;autonomist
Marxism&quot; is, though from reading the list I gather it has something
to do with the work of Negri, which I have not (yet) read.&nbsp; On the
other hand, if it means you don't take orders from anyone, I'm all for
it.<br><br>
Later,<br><br>
Cliff<br><br>
p.s. I'll look up that Wheeler book, thanks.&nbsp; It might be
instructive and fun to watch him do a translation, though I'm not sure I
need one. <br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 03:29 PM 10/15/02 -0400, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Hi Cliff-<br>
First off, let me just say &quot;sociology, bah humbug!&quot; so you
don't think the list is a complete love-fest. ;)<br><br>
Second, you mentioned Rorty - one of my favorite philosophers though
politically rather a fuckhead.<br>
Is Rorty read much among sociology professors? A lot of my philosophy
friends go into fits at the mere mention of his name, let alone the
suggestion that he may be worth taking seriously. I'm curious if you or
anyone else you know of has done work on Rorty and the
postmodern/althusserian marxism you're interested in.<br>
<br>
I ask because I don't really know how to reconcile my interest in (and
the stuff I've learned from) Rorty with autonomist marxism and other
radical stuff that I'm into (other than that Rorty has helped me to stop
being hung up on problems that now seem a little silly).<br>
There's a really good book by Simon Wheeler called _Deconstruction as
Analytic Philosophy_ that's worth reading if you haven't already,
translates postmodernish or derridean stuff into an analytic vernacular
that is much clearer, at least to me. (though 'translates' is a rather
suspect term ...) It also points up a number of interesting parallels
between figures on both sides of the atlantic.<br><br>
best wishes,<br>
Nate<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>From: Cliff Staples
&lt;Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<br>
Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....<br>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:43:48 -0500<br><br>
Okay, I can't resist jumping in here.&nbsp; I have undergraduate degrees
in Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington State
University, 1985).&nbsp; I have been on the faculty here at the
University of North Dakota for 15 years.<br><br>
Back in the Dark Ages there once was something called &quot;Political
Economy&quot; which, either in its Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made
some sense.&nbsp; <br>
Now (at least in U.S. universities) &quot;political economy&quot; is long
gone (certainly at the undergraduate level), and we now have
&quot;Political Science&quot; on the one hand, and &quot;Economics&quot;
on the other.&nbsp; The former act like they can talk about power without
talking about money while the latter want to talk about money without
talking about power.&nbsp; They're both nearly useless (a few radical
freaks aside) for any critical understanding of society.<br><br>
That task has largely been left to sociologists and philosophers, though
even some literary types have gotten into the act.&nbsp; But, as was
mentioned, sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois
practioners.&nbsp;&nbsp; The American Sociological Association is mostly
liberal number-crunchers (almost all wonderfully nice people, careerism
aside), and if amongst these there are those who have serious doubts
about capitalism they tend to keep it to themselves.&nbsp; There ARE
plenty of radicals, however, and you can find a few hundred of them in
the Marxist Section, and elsewhere.<br><br>
The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois seems to reflect-- as does
much else--&nbsp; its usefulness to capital, no?&nbsp;&nbsp; Hence
Economics is right up there, as are the political science policy
wonks.&nbsp; In this regard sociologists are not to be trusted-- at least
since the rollback of the welfare state in the early 1970s.<br><br>
One more thing.&nbsp; Most of the time I'll take the postmodernists and
post-structuralists over the liberal number crunchers.&nbsp; The former
come bearing radical epistemology, if not always radical left politics,
and the empirical work that at least some of them do can be useful to
disrupting convention.&nbsp; Indeed, I consider myself a &quot;postmodern
Marxist&quot; after the fashion of the neo-Althusserians associated with
the journal Rethinking Marxism.&nbsp; Michael might be interested to have
a look at Resnick and Wolff's Knowledge and Class (Chicago, 1987) as well
as their Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical (Johns Hopkins,
1987).&nbsp; I happen to think that &quot;deconstruction,&quot; is a
useful way to approach ideology critique (see Brian Fay's Critical Social
Science: Liberation and Its Limits), and that we can get along just fine
without essentialism (a la Rorty).<br><br>
It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation for responding to this
was that it was so nice to hear my discipline mentioned, for a change, in
a relatively positive light!<br><br>
best,<br><br>
Cliff<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 07:25 AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I would certainly think that the
social viewpoint has<br>
something to do with the relative lefty-ness of<br>
sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate the<br>
effectiveness of their resistance, as I have known<br>
many sociologists, particularly of the postmodern<br>
mold, who fall into a sort of ivory tower mentality<br>
that seems to declaw any left-wing tendencies that<br>
they might have.<br><br>
geo<br><br>
--- Michael Handelman &lt;mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; This may be overly idealist of me, but do you think<br>
&gt; one of the reason for sociology seems to be to the<br>
&gt; left of Poli Sci and Economics, has something to do<br>
&gt; with the fact that because sociology deals with the<br>
&gt; study of groups and society, it tends to be<br>
&gt; *somewhat*<br>
&gt; innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding the<br>
&gt; individual (Thatcher's &quot;There is no such thing as<br>
&gt; society&quot; seems to be about as pure Bourgeois<br>
&gt; ideology<br>
&gt; as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely<br>
&gt; antithetical to sociology).<br>
&gt;<br><br>
=====<br>
&quot;Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to
win&quot;<br>
=========================<br>
George J. Ciccariello Maher IV<br>
St. John's College<br>
Cambridge<br>
CB2 1TP<br>
United Kingdom<br><br>
__________________________________________________<br>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos &amp; More<br>
<a href="http://faith.yahoo.com/"; eudora="autourl">http://faith.yahoo.com</a><br><br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --- from list
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---</blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
<br><br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
<a href="http://messenger.msn.com/"; eudora="autourl">http://messenger.msn.com</a><br><br>
<br><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---<br>
</font></blockquote></html>

--Boundary_(ID_S5ggAmZkYZhYqLbxrAwLQA)--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---