====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Lindvall <daniel.lindv...@filmint.nu> To: alnh...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Terry Eagleton says we’ve forgotten how to read. Does it matter? - The Globe and Mail ====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ====================================================================== So really, where is the objectively forcing argument for preferring a brand of malt whiskey to any other or, for that matter, to any other drink that is neither better or worse for your health? Near-consensus among the expertise? We'd all be economic liberals in that case. Hopefully the book is less crude than the review makes one believe. Website: http://filmint.nu/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FilmInt Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/FilmInt I think Eagleton is saying that taste is a skill, like reading or drinking whiskey; it has to be learned, it is an "acquired taste." A skill has to be taught, which requires a teacher, which means that taste (at least in a literary sense) is a socially acquired skill. If a particular skill, however, is associated with economic and class power then it should not be surprising that teaching that skill is highly controlled by those in power. With very few exceptions only neo-liberal, neo-classical economics is taught in school, esp in the U.S. The appreciation for malt whiskey is either irrelevant or a perfectly permissible bourgeois-approved practice. Economics, class, sex, imperialism, etc. are definitely off limits and can only be taught (and thus denied) by those either approved by the bourgeoisie or by those who are effectively inaudible. Thus, the preference for neo-liberalism is determined by, as you say, a near-consensus of the approved expertise. We may not all be economic liberals, but the dominant economics is liberalism. Taste is, I would say, socially acquired. The taste for economic liberalism is also socially acquired, whereas Marxist economics is strictly socially prohibited, except possibly for the self-taught. 1 jun 2013 kl. 16:34 skrev Louis Proyect: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/a-major-critic-says-weve-forgotten-how-to-read-does-it-matter/article12128764/ > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/daniel.lindvall%40filmint.nu ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/alnhrs2%40yahoo.com ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
