>>Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that
>>prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk
>>on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian
>sociology.
>Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal)
>from a couple of years ago:
.> . . This line of attack against the Clintonites is being led by Dick
>Gephardt and the business and big labor forces behind him. The
>Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose funding comes from the
>Rockefeller Foundation, C.S. Mott (GM), Russell Sage (Cabot gas and
>banking money), sets forth the line Gephardt has been offering . . .
>http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/jan98/0072.html
>No I don't save this stuff. I remembered since I wrote
>a reply (which he didn't answer), and I thought I would
>see if I could find it quickly with Google. Came up
>instantly. Google rules.
>mbs
Max, I appreciate the information you found in the archives of the list.
however, Steven Rosenthal is not here so I can not make
speculations about him. moreover, I don't know the context of the
discussion between you and him. It does not seem fair to me to interpret
somebody else's citation out of context, also because i don't have time
(seriously!) to go over past posts one by one. What I understand is that
Economic Policy Institute may have a finger in socio-biological research
in a similar way to Human genome project conducted by the Clinton
administration. Liberal position (as well as liberal leftist type) on
socio-biology is very clear. Their liberal leftism does not excuse their
implicit racism. These people think "scientific" exploration
of biological differences can help cure 1)certain diseases, physical and
mental disorders. 2) can help promote an understanding of "individual
differences" for achieving a democratic pluralist society. If I have
a child scored a high degree in IQ test, let's say in humanities, I am
supposed to send her to a liberal arts college.So the argument locates
mental achievement in genetics, rather than looking at the social, class
and gender envioroment of the people. thus, it is class, race and gender
blind. I reject this argument becasue once you "presuppose"
certain biological differences, you are inevitably left with "explaining"
those differences or "attributing a meaning to them", so they will
inevitably be politicized or create a discourse of the "other",
essentialized identities, as Andy rightly said, "different people,
different cultures", irrational people, rational people, bla, bla..
Given that we are not living under ideal circumstances, but in a
society charecterized by all sorts of stratificaitons, politics
always underwrites biology. Just as allocation of resources is a
"political act" which vulgar economism conceals that it is not, production
of scientific knowledge is too a political act. One can not seperate the
two. Let's stick with the original article written by Steven Rosenthal
"How Science is Perverted to Build Fascism: A Marxist Critique of E.O.
Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge."
If you disagree with this article, we can talk about the specifics.
these are my last comments on this issue.I say no kudos to biological
and cultural racism!
thanx..
Mine
