Re: Re: Re: structuralism

[ALI KADRI <akadri_00@xxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree with that, I just wanted to draw a
parallel between structuralism and Marx for the person
who asked the question. If we were caught up in
structure there would not be development, but as Frank
would like to say "the development of
underdevelopment"

--- Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ali wrote: >It is worthwhile to note that Marx
> critique of Feurbach's
> notion of man in the abstract independent of social
> relations and to which
> he rebutted by defining man as the reflection of
> concrete social relations
> tends to meet fully the structuralist emphasis on
> the priority of social
> relations.<
>
> we should also remember Marx's other point, which is
> that people make
> history, though usually not as they please (however,
> sometimes it's
> "revolutionary practice"). People are "made by"
> society (the structuralist
> emphasis) but also make society. Forgive me if I use
> old-fashioned
> language, but it's a dialectic.
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &
> http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/