Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 07:54:38 -0500 (EST) From: Philip Goldstein <pgold-AT-strauss.udel.edu> Subject: Re: Totality Norman Feltes -- how are you, Norman? -- asks us to discuss the following question: " I want to ask why the Althusserian/Poulantzian mode of analyzing totality -"a decentred structure in dominance," etc. - doesn't work." I gather he means to ask why this "mode of analyzing totality" does not work in theory, since he concedes that it works in practice. First, one could ask whether or not this mode is a mode of "analyzing totality." Totality" is a loaded term, conveying various Hegelian and phenomenological commitments, especially a normative critique in which the totality functions to expose the limits of particular discourses and disciplines and to show us what they conceal or can't see -- the true nature of, say, commodity production. If one says that the Althusserian mode analyzes the whole society, one avoids such commitments,but there are other problems with "whole." In any case, the Althusserian mode claims that a structure is realized in its effects. The importance of various regions -- the economy, the state, religion, education, science -- all that shows the effects of a structure. The structure itself does not show itself. As Althusser said, the last instance never comes. The reason why one might say that this mode of analysis does not work in theory is that it gives one no way to critique the social structure, to show its true workings, its necessary history or future, or even its utopian potential. A structure realized in its effects establishes no norm or hidden universal by which to evaluate the structure. Althusser favors critique of ideology, for this reason, I think. I also think that Althusser is right on this point, but that, at least, is one way to answer the question. Philip Goldstein ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005