[Marxism] Re: Marxism Digest, Vol 1, Issue 33

["OpenSentence Type Foundry" <typefoundry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:55:05 +0100
> From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] reply to Rubard
> To: "Marxmail List" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <001101c3b6ed$5bdd4cc0$d48ce3d5@jurriaan>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I don't want to continue this discussion, because it associates me with all
> the wrong things.
>
> J.
Certainly.  But the question is, will this be effective -- will we be able
to dissociate you from all these things, to "disambiguate" your comments
such that misleading ascriptions of belief to you (for example, ones which
fail the Freudian constraint of being in-principle assimilable to your
self-understanding) do not occur?  The answer labeling theory in all its
forms suggests is "No, or only partially": but more sophisticated versions
invoke a little bit of machinery to make a persuasive case for this.  The
UvA people have "invented" *a lot* of similar machinery for no particular
reason, which can be "implemented" in sociological analyses which save what
is of value in labeling theory (realism approaching reality as it is
understood by most people) while leaving the oft-discussed "normative"
dimension of discourse intact.  Can this be an effective tool for
understanding and practicing social struggle?  Yes, pending a continually
revised mapping of the "social bodies" (!) which underpin the pragmatic
force of certain tendencies in argument.  Not the only point worth making in
life, but a point worth making nonetheless.

Jeff Rubard