3. [Fwd: Re: Problems of Relativism of Non-Postmodern Varieties]

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Last of 3

Carrol

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Problems of Relativism of Non-Postmodern Varieties
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:35:41 -0400
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <35B6E9D4.65EC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<s5b74ea4.012@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

>Under the conditions that I described just above, many common people resort
>to a kind of commonsense (non-philosophical) relativism: 'I have my
>opinion, you have yours, let's agree to disagree.' It's a way for people to
>manage their personal relations with a minimum of painful conflicts and not
>to engage in further investigation, debates, etc. which might produce
>knowledge and desire for collective political actions. And it is these
>conditions that marxists should attack, if we are in any way interested in
>contesting relativism, as most here claim that they do. You guys, in my
>view, overestimate the influence of postmodern philosophy and underestimate
>the problems of people's 'common sense.'

Boy, isn't that true. Ex-Marxist Alan Wolfe's awful new book, One
Nation,
After All is a study (bad in several ways) of what the American suburban
"middle class" thinks and feels. One theme that recurs is that
"politics"
is a bad word. Wolfe's suburbanites hate explicit conflict. They believe
all kinds of contradictory things, but they never feel the need (nor
does
Wolfe prod them) to explore, much less resolve the contradictions. They
profess to be religious, but a religion the requires nothing from them -
and hate it when religion is "politicized." Ditto multicultural
education
(ok if not "politicized") and "family issues" (to politicize those would
"run against the grain of middle-class sensibility"). Instead of
politics,
everything is framed as a "moral" issue, one of individual right and
wrong,
not collective action.

Doug