From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 13:52:49 EST Subject: Re: Re: Durkheim In a message dated 12/15/98 4:12:46 PM, you wrote: <<does it make sense to say that the > > capitalist socius offers more freedom than the primitive one--more flows, > > more machinic connections, more freedom?>> I kinda got the notion that D&G were being "campy" when they used the "primitive, barbarian, capitalist" rubric ... Frankly, I don't see any basis for subsuming the experiences of noncivilized peoples around the world into any general type of "primitive" .. i don't see an anthropological basis for this ... what was the basis for their anthropology? certainly not Levi- Strauss, I hope, the armchair anthropologist who seemed more interested in generalizations than ethnographic empiricism ... i mean, when we use the word "primitive", do we mean nonState societies : precivilized agricultural, horticultural, pastoral, and hunting-gathering peoples? How the hell are you going to subsume all these people into one framework? And then the Barbarians refer to peasant societies, ie. civilized agriculturalists, along with their interactions with the Imperial Center and the nomadic pastoralists? (and let us not forget there is a huge difference between the nomadism of the pastoralists and the nomadism of hunter-gatherers). i would say it depends upon the particular society in question. i would say that some noncivilized cultures definitely did offer more flows than capitalism ... but again, we're going to have to be more precise to really do accurate schizoanalyses on these questions ...
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005