AUT: Re: imaginary communities

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

: Thanks for these clarifications,
: Angela, I've been slow in getting back
: to them ...
:
: Steve

Can't imagine that you thought I'd be bothered.
My own attention waxes and wanes, and it's been
waning because of chasing deadlines at the mo, so
barely paying attention as it is.

But I did want to say -- related to this thread,
but also the beginnings of the one on
_Multitudes_ -- that the absence of a direct
engagement in conflict might have something to do
with 'readability.'  In that if the purpose of
language is reduced to communication (in its
marketable sense), then might not direct conflict
(by which I don't mean competition) be ruled out
as an obstacle to such?  (Then again, obscurity or
'subtlety' can often function in much the same
way: as a way to avoid conflicts and enable
circulation by not stating one's position or
shifting it depending on the audience/market.)

Of course, it could just be that N&H didn't want
to write about the particular topics you (or
others) have raised, which is fair enough. But
then, I got the impression (without having read
the book as yet) that _Multitudes_ was intended as
a kind of response and elaboration to criticisms
of _Empire_.   So, I'd be surprised too if there
wasn't any direct engagement.

Angela






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