Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:24:32 -0500
From: Cliff Staples <Clifford_staples-AT-und.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....



--Boundary_(ID_S5ggAmZkYZhYqLbxrAwLQA)

Nate:

The more theoretically inclined sociologists, or at least some of them, 
will have read Rorty.  The rest are too busy fussing with their latest 
statistical techniques or graphics programs.

Rorty is widely read beyond academic philosophy, so of course most academic 
philosophers hate him.  He's also been trying to put them out of business, 
which might also have something to do with it.  All that aside, some surely 
have serious and considered differences with the Pragmatist tradition Rorty 
represents.       I only had a minor in Philosophy, and that was 20 years 
ago, so my knowledge of contemporary academic philosophy is narrow and 
shallow, but I can tell you that Rorty's work is in step with much of 
contemporary social theory.  Maybe I'm just a rube, but can't imagine why 
anyone wouldn't find him insightful and fun to read.

I don't think anyone within what has come to be called "The Amherst School 
of Postmodern Marxism" has written anything extensive on Rorty, but I could 
be wrong.  What is clear is that at least some of these folks have read 
Rorty and find him useful.  If one loses interest in a social science that 
attempts to represent a free-standing "social," (i.e. modernist social 
science) then you need some other way of making your work meaningful.  This 
is where Rorty (and others) seems to come in.  First you see "social 
theory" not as a mirror of the social, but as constituitive of it-- as 
having consequences in the world-- and your  truth is not how closely your 
model fits social reality,  but whether or not people find your 
interpretations helpful.  This idea isn't particularly new, of course, you 
can find it in Marx, and the critical social science tradition more 
generally (I'm thinking here of Friere, and work he inspired, such as Ira 
Shor's Critical Teaching and Everyday Life.  My favorite philosophical 
explication of the tradition is Brian Fay's Critical Social Science: 
Liberation and Its Limits) .   I see all these folks (Marx excepted, at 
least chronologically) as post-Wittgensteinians.

I probably shouldn't say, but I have no idea what "autonomist Marxism" is, 
though from reading the list I gather it has something to do with the work 
of Negri, which I have not (yet) read.  On the other hand, if it means you 
don't take orders from anyone, I'm all for it.

Later,

Cliff

p.s. I'll look up that Wheeler book, thanks.  It might be instructive and 
fun to watch him do a translation, though I'm not sure I need one.





At 03:29 PM 10/15/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Cliff-
>First off, let me just say "sociology, bah humbug!" so you don't think the 
>list is a complete love-fest. ;)
>
>Second, you mentioned Rorty - one of my favorite philosophers though 
>politically rather a fuckhead.
>Is Rorty read much among sociology professors? A lot of my philosophy 
>friends go into fits at the mere mention of his name, let alone the 
>suggestion that he may be worth taking seriously. I'm curious if you or 
>anyone else you know of has done work on Rorty and the 
>postmodern/althusserian marxism you're interested in.
>
>I ask because I don't really know how to reconcile my interest in (and the 
>stuff I've learned from) Rorty with autonomist marxism and other radical 
>stuff that I'm into (other than that Rorty has helped me to stop being 
>hung up on problems that now seem a little silly).
>There's a really good book by Simon Wheeler called _Deconstruction as 
>Analytic Philosophy_ that's worth reading if you haven't already, 
>translates postmodernish or derridean stuff into an analytic vernacular 
>that is much clearer, at least to me. (though 'translates' is a rather 
>suspect term ...) It also points up a number of interesting parallels 
>between figures on both sides of the atlantic.
>
>best wishes,
>Nate
>
>
>>From: Cliff Staples <Clifford_staples-AT-und.nodak.edu>
>>Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>>To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>>Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....
>>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:43:48 -0500
>>
>>Okay, I can't resist jumping in here.  I have undergraduate degrees in 
>>Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington State 
>>University, 1985).  I have been on the faculty here at the University of 
>>North Dakota for 15 years.
>>
>>Back in the Dark Ages there once was something called "Political Economy" 
>>which, either in its Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made some sense.
>>Now (at least in U.S. universities) "political economy" is long gone 
>>(certainly at the undergraduate level), and we now have "Political 
>>Science" on the one hand, and "Economics" on the other.  The former act 
>>like they can talk about power without talking about money while the 
>>latter want to talk about money without talking about power.  They're 
>>both nearly useless (a few radical freaks aside) for any critical 
>>understanding of society.
>>
>>That task has largely been left to sociologists and philosophers, though 
>>even some literary types have gotten into the act.  But, as was 
>>mentioned, sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois 
>>practioners.   The American Sociological Association is mostly liberal 
>>number-crunchers (almost all wonderfully nice people, careerism aside), 
>>and if amongst these there are those who have serious doubts about 
>>capitalism they tend to keep it to themselves.  There ARE plenty of 
>>radicals, however, and you can find a few hundred of them in the Marxist 
>>Section, and elsewhere.
>>
>>The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois seems to reflect-- as does 
>>much else--  its usefulness to capital, no?   Hence Economics is right up 
>>there, as are the political science policy wonks.  In this regard 
>>sociologists are not to be trusted-- at least since the rollback of the 
>>welfare state in the early 1970s.
>>
>>One more thing.  Most of the time I'll take the postmodernists and 
>>post-structuralists over the liberal number crunchers.  The former come 
>>bearing radical epistemology, if not always radical left politics, and 
>>the empirical work that at least some of them do can be useful to 
>>disrupting convention.  Indeed, I consider myself a "postmodern Marxist" 
>>after the fashion of the neo-Althusserians associated with the journal 
>>Rethinking Marxism.  Michael might be interested to have a look at 
>>Resnick and Wolff's Knowledge and Class (Chicago, 1987) as well as their 
>>Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical (Johns Hopkins, 1987).  I happen 
>>to think that "deconstruction," is a useful way to approach ideology 
>>critique (see Brian Fay's Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its 
>>Limits), and that we can get along just fine without essentialism (a la Rorty).
>>
>>It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation for responding to this 
>>was that it was so nice to hear my discipline mentioned, for a change, in 
>>a relatively positive light!
>>
>>best,
>>
>>Cliff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 07:25 AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>>I would certainly think that the social viewpoint has
>>>something to do with the relative lefty-ness of
>>>sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate the
>>>effectiveness of their resistance, as I have known
>>>many sociologists, particularly of the postmodern
>>>mold, who fall into a sort of ivory tower mentality
>>>that seems to declaw any left-wing tendencies that
>>>they might have.
>>>
>>>geo
>>>
>>>--- Michael Handelman <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > This may be overly idealist of me, but do you think
>>> > one of the reason for sociology seems to be to the
>>> > left of Poli Sci and Economics, has something to do
>>> > with the fact that because sociology deals with the
>>> > study of groups and society, it tends to be
>>> > *somewhat*
>>> > innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding the
>>> > individual (Thatcher's "There is no such thing as
>>> > society" seems to be about as pure Bourgeois
>>> > ideology
>>> > as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely
>>> > antithetical to sociology).
>>> >
>>>
>>>====>>>"Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to win"
>>>========================>>>George J. Ciccariello Maher IV
>>>St. John's College
>>>Cambridge
>>>CB2 1TP
>>>United Kingdom
>>>
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
>>>http://faith.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

--Boundary_(ID_S5ggAmZkYZhYqLbxrAwLQA)

HTML VERSION: