[PEN-L:2629] Re: Dennis re Butler

[Colin Danby <danbyc@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Paul,

> That post-modernism and post-structualism are lumped is a readily
> observable fact, I do not advocated said lumping.

Just so we're clear that the lumping is unwarranted.

> I specifically was not trying to make post-modernism
> look fatuous, though "positive philosophy" or metaphysics is a
different
> matter. The poor track record of this sort of philosophy has been
> a matter of public record at least since William James, if not as far
back
> as David Hume.

Certainly if the question is whether a speculative
enterprise can tell you a lot about the material &
historical world it's not surprising that the record
is poor.

> My point is that though Quine and Baudrillard may make observations
> that converge,

(I didn't mean to suggest convergence)

> Quine is probably much easier to grasp than Baudrillard for
> a variety of reasons: eg, less intellectual baggage ; no ellipictical
writing
> style.

How do you weigh intellectual baggage?   I think we're
seeing in discussion that "easier" is a function of
background and interests.

> Social science does not
> rest on a philosophical system so much as it
> acquiesces to the hegemony of the scientific
> paradigm, and hence its epistemology and ontology
> are some variant of scientific realism,

Here we are just talking about different things.  I'd
agree with some of the above as a description of much
U.S. soc sci and most econ, but some people try to do
it differently.  You will also need to make it clearer
how you use "philosophical system" and why scientific
realism is denied that status.  Moreover once we push
harder into the social sciences and issues like
methodological individualism, it's easy to show phil
roots for key ontological assumption.

I generally agree with you on the problems with
Kristeva's work.  A lot of post-structuralist work does
fall short and the whole Lacanian project, however
entertaining, has been a disappointment not to mention
a therapeutic disaster.

> But are any of the these theorectical traditions so
> unproblematic that one should be optimistic about advancing them
> and merging them?

Your question about how one can draw on various
systems is a big issue and we can easily list cases
where this works badly.  I would point to some really
wonderful examples in recent ethnography (e.g. Clark,
_Onions are My Husband_, Tsing, _In the Realm of the
Diamond Queen_, Steedly, _Hanging Without a Rope_.)
for evidence that work informed by post-structuralism
can produce insights about the social organization of
material life.  (They're also examples of social
science that does not "acquiesce[] to the hegemony of
the scientific paradigm.")

> To make long chains of logical extrapolation
> largely without benefit of any sort of empirical feedback???
> Of course not.

Sure -- or at least one should only do this to generate
ideas.

> In other words, the urgings by people on this list and elsewhere to
just
> try to sympathetically read pomo or post-structuralists really
> would require many folks, even well educated ones, to absorb large
quantities
> of philosophical
> and social theory just to be able to evaluate the consistency of
post-modern
> positions, let alone try to decide if they really do say anything of
value.

Again I'm more interested in the post-structuralist
project than in pomo.  I'm not sure the quantities of
theory needed are too enormous, but sure -- some
background is required.  Given that Freud, Saussure,
Levi-Strauss, Foucault et al. have been so important
for social science in general though (outside of econ
which is relatively retrograde) it is hardly outlandish
to suggest  they're worthwhile.  Pushed far enough,
your argument would imply that U.S. academic culture
is doomed to its current habits because it's too much
work to learn anything else -- path-dependence with a
vengeance.

> Perhaps now it is a little more apparent why such urgings are
resented.

Oh come on.  Urging people to check  out interesting
stuff is part of  intellectual life.  There is a limit
obviously to what any of  us can read & we make choices.
If reading something sends  you back to earlier texts
what is the harm?  If  you lack the time you put it
aside.

Ultimately I suppose it's a question of which
conversations you choose to be part of.  So I'm afraid
it's not "more apparent why such urgings are resented."
Clearly there is some resentment out there, but what
you've described doesn't make it reasonable.

Best, Colin