aut-op-sy
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: AUT: Academia....
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C274FD.2134C6D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are two good pieces I know of which deal with Rorty. The first is =
George Caffentzis' article on The End of Work or the Renaissance of =
Slavery, but it is not profoundly concerned with his philosophical =
aspects. Nietsche on Truth and Philosophy by Maudemarie Clark deals =
with Rorty's philosophy extensively on truth, in relation to Nietzsche =
and while quite turgid, it is very thoughtful. See especially the first =
two chapters.
That said, Rorty's writing on high-tech is considered quite radical in a =
lot of the IT world and he has been featured, unusual for philosophers =
or sociologists, in some of the tech journals where otherwise nothing =
philosophical or sociological ever creeps in except through the back =
door of someone's unstated assumptions.
Cliff, on autonomous Marxism, check out the aut-op-sy main page. I will =
also send you something that might prove helpful in finding sources, =
although the best place for articles would be the For Communism - John =
Gray website and Class against Class. I also have a CD with a huge =
number of articles by author.
Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Cliff Staples=20
To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....
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. =20
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.=20
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. =20
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).
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to win"
=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
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 ---
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C274FD.2134C6D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There are two good pieces I know of =
which deal with=20
Rorty. The first is George Caffentzis' article on The End of Work =
or the=20
Renaissance of Slavery, but it is not profoundly concerned with his=20
philosophical aspects. Nietsche on Truth and Philosophy by =
Maudemarie=20
Clark deals with Rorty's philosophy extensively on truth, in relation to =
Nietzsche and while quite turgid, it is very thoughtful. See =
especially=20
the first two chapters.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That said, Rorty's writing on high-tech =
is=20
considered quite radical in a lot of the IT world and he has been =
featured,=20
unusual for philosophers or sociologists, in some of the tech journals =
where=20
otherwise nothing philosophical or sociological ever creeps in except =
through=20
the back door of someone's unstated assumptions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cliff, on autonomous Marxism, check out =
the=20
aut-op-sy main page. I will also send you something that might =
prove=20
helpful in finding sources, although the best place for articles would =
be the=20
For Communism - John Gray website and Class against Class. I also =
have a=20
CD with a huge number of articles by author.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DClifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
href=3D"mailto:Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>Cliff Staples</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Daut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxx=
age.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 16, =
2002 9:24=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: AUT: =
Academia....</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=3D3>Nate:<BR><BR>The more theoretically =
inclined=20
sociologists, or at least some of them, will have read Rorty. =
The rest=20
are too busy fussing with their latest statistical techniques or =
graphics=20
programs.<BR><BR>Rorty is widely read beyond academic philosophy, so =
of course=20
most academic philosophers hate him. He's also been trying to =
put them=20
out of business, which might also have something to do with it. =
All that=20
aside, some surely have serious and considered differences with the =
Pragmatist=20
tradition Rorty represents. I only =
had a=20
minor in Philosophy, and that was 20 years ago, so my knowledge of=20
contemporary academic philosophy is narrow and shallow, but I can tell =
you=20
that Rorty's work is in step with much of contemporary social =
theory. =20
Maybe I'm just a rube, but can't imagine why anyone wouldn't find him=20
insightful and fun to read. <BR><BR>I don't think anyone within =
what has=20
come to be called "The Amherst School of Postmodern Marxism" has =
written=20
anything extensive on Rorty, but I could be wrong. What is clear =
is that=20
at least some of these folks have read Rorty and find him =
useful. If one=20
loses interest in a social science that attempts to represent a =
free-standing=20
"social," (i.e. modernist social science) then you need some other way =
of=20
making your work meaningful. This is where Rorty (and others) =
seems to=20
come in. First you see "social theory" not as a mirror of the =
social,=20
but as constituitive of it-- as having consequences in the world-- and =
your truth is not how closely your model fits social =
reality, but=20
whether or not people find your interpretations helpful. This =
idea isn't=20
particularly new, of course, you can find it in Marx, and the critical =
social=20
science tradition more generally (I'm thinking here of Friere, and =
work he=20
inspired, such as Ira Shor's <I>Critical Teaching and Everyday =
Life. =20
</I>My favorite philosophical explication of the tradition is Brian =
Fay's=20
<I>Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits</I>) =
. I see=20
all these folks (Marx excepted, at least chronologically) as=20
post-Wittgensteinians.<BR><BR>I probably shouldn't say, but I have no =
idea=20
what "autonomist Marxism" is, though from reading the list I gather it =
has=20
something to do with the work of Negri, which I have not (yet) =
read. On=20
the other hand, if it means you don't take orders from anyone, I'm all =
for=20
it.<BR><BR>Later,<BR><BR>Cliff<BR><BR>p.s. I'll look up that Wheeler =
book,=20
thanks. It might be instructive and fun to watch him do a =
translation,=20
though I'm not sure I need one. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>At 03:29 PM =
10/15/02=20
-0400, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">Hi Cliff-<BR>First =
off, let me=20
just say "sociology, bah humbug!" so you don't think the list is a =
complete=20
love-fest. ;)<BR><BR>Second, you mentioned Rorty - one of my =
favorite=20
philosophers though politically rather a fuckhead.<BR>Is Rorty read =
much=20
among sociology professors? A lot of my philosophy friends go into =
fits at=20
the mere mention of his name, let alone the suggestion that he may =
be worth=20
taking seriously. I'm curious if you or anyone else you know of has =
done=20
work on Rorty and the postmodern/althusserian marxism you're =
interested=20
in.<BR><BR>I ask because I don't really know how to reconcile my =
interest in=20
(and the stuff I've learned from) Rorty with autonomist marxism and =
other=20
radical stuff that I'm into (other than that Rorty has helped me to =
stop=20
being hung up on problems that now seem a little silly).<BR>There's =
a really=20
good book by Simon Wheeler called _Deconstruction as Analytic =
Philosophy_=20
that's worth reading if you haven't already, translates =
postmodernish or=20
derridean stuff into an analytic vernacular that is much clearer, at =
least=20
to me. (though 'translates' is a rather suspect term ...) It also =
points up=20
a number of interesting parallels between figures on both sides of =
the=20
atlantic.<BR><BR>best wishes,<BR>Nate<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">From: Cliff Staples =
<Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Reply-To:=20
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>To:=20
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: AUT:=20
Academia....<BR>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:43:48 -0500<BR><BR>Okay, =
I can't=20
resist jumping in here. I have undergraduate degrees in =
Sociology=20
and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington State =
University,=20
1985). I have been on the faculty here at the University of =
North=20
Dakota for 15 years.<BR><BR>Back in the Dark Ages there once was =
something=20
called "Political Economy" which, either in its Marxist or =
non-Marxist=20
variation, made some sense. <BR>Now (at least in U.S. =
universities)=20
"political economy" is long gone (certainly at the undergraduate =
level),=20
and we now have "Political Science" on the one hand, and =
"Economics" on=20
the other. The former act like they can talk about power =
without=20
talking about money while the latter want to talk about money =
without=20
talking about power. They're both nearly useless (a few =
radical=20
freaks aside) for any critical understanding of =
society.<BR><BR>That task=20
has largely been left to sociologists and philosophers, though =
even some=20
literary types have gotten into the act. But, as was =
mentioned,=20
sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois =
practioners. The=20
American Sociological Association is mostly liberal =
number-crunchers=20
(almost all wonderfully nice people, careerism aside), and if =
amongst=20
these there are those who have serious doubts about capitalism =
they tend=20
to keep it to themselves. There ARE plenty of radicals, =
however, and=20
you can find a few hundred of them in the Marxist Section, and=20
elsewhere.<BR><BR>The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois =
seems to=20
reflect-- as does much else-- its usefulness to capital,=20
no? Hence Economics is right up there, as are the =
political=20
science policy wonks. In this regard sociologists are not to =
be=20
trusted-- at least since the rollback of the welfare state in the =
early=20
1970s.<BR><BR>One more thing. Most of the time I'll take the =
postmodernists and post-structuralists over the liberal number=20
crunchers. The former come bearing radical epistemology, if =
not=20
always radical left politics, and the empirical work that at least =
some of=20
them do can be useful to disrupting convention. Indeed, I =
consider=20
myself a "postmodern Marxist" after the fashion of the =
neo-Althusserians=20
associated with the journal Rethinking Marxism. Michael =
might be=20
interested to have a look at Resnick and Wolff's Knowledge and =
Class=20
(Chicago, 1987) as well as their Economics: Marxian Versus =
Neoclassical=20
(Johns Hopkins, 1987). I happen to think that =
"deconstruction," is a=20
useful way to approach ideology critique (see Brian Fay's Critical =
Social=20
Science: Liberation and Its Limits), and that we can get along =
just fine=20
without essentialism (a la Rorty).<BR><BR>It occurs to me that =
maybe my=20
primary motivation for responding to this was that it was so nice =
to hear=20
my discipline mentioned, for a change, in a relatively positive=20
light!<BR><BR>best,<BR><BR>Cliff<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>At =
07:25=20
AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">I would certainly =
think that=20
the social viewpoint has<BR>something to do with the relative =
lefty-ness=20
of<BR>sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate=20
the<BR>effectiveness of their resistance, as I have =
known<BR>many=20
sociologists, particularly of the postmodern<BR>mold, who fall =
into a=20
sort of ivory tower mentality<BR>that seems to declaw any =
left-wing=20
tendencies that<BR>they might have.<BR><BR>geo<BR><BR>--- =
Michael=20
Handelman <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:<BR>> This may =
be=20
overly idealist of me, but do you think<BR>> one of the =
reason for=20
sociology seems to be to the<BR>> left of Poli Sci and =
Economics, has=20
something to do<BR>> with the fact that because sociology =
deals with=20
the<BR>> study of groups and society, it tends to be<BR>>=20
*somewhat*<BR>> innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding=20
the<BR>> individual (Thatcher's "There is no such thing =
as<BR>>=20
society" seems to be about as pure Bourgeois<BR>> =
ideology<BR>> as=20
one can get, and this ideology seems extremely<BR>> =
antithetical to=20
sociology).<BR>><BR><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>"Look for me in =
the whirlwind - dare=20
to struggle, dare to =
win"<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D<BR>George J.=20
Ciccariello Maher IV<BR>St. John's College<BR>Cambridge<BR>CB2=20
1TP<BR>United=20
=
Kingdom<BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do=20
you Yahoo!?<BR>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & =
More<BR><A href=3D"http://faith.yahoo.com/"=20
=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://faith.yahoo.com</A><BR><BR><BR> &nbs=
p; =20
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
---</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________=
_____________________________________<BR>Chat=20
with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <A =
href=3D"http://messenger.msn.com/"=20
=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://messenger.msn.com</A><BR><BR><BR><BR> &nbs=
p; =20
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
---<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C274FD.2134C6D0--
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
- Thread context:
- Re: AUT: Academia...., (continued)
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Cliff Staples Sun 13 Oct 2002, 17:43 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Nate Holdren Tue 15 Oct 2002, 19:29 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
John Norem Tue 15 Oct 2002, 20:05 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Cliff Staples Wed 16 Oct 2002, 14:24 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
cwright Wed 16 Oct 2002, 15:16 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
cwright Wed 16 Oct 2002, 15:43 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Tahir Wood Thu 17 Oct 2002, 09:24 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Cliff Staples Thu 17 Oct 2002, 15:05 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Michael_E_Jackson Thu 17 Oct 2002, 15:48 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]