Hi, Nicole.
As an objectivity groupie myself, I think Baudrillard's a fraud. I don't care if he's
a "real" sociologist, in the sense of having a degree in the field or publishing in
sociology journals. Lots of idiots have and do. B is not an idiot, but he regularly
says foolish and reactionary things without any plausible support.
Maybe the pomos you know like class analysis. I know a few who respect it: Iris Young
and Nancy Fraser come to mind, and Doug Henwood, but I am not sure if Doug counts as a
pomo, since he exhibits none of the symptoms, rather than as just someone who likes
pomo work for reasons I accnot understand. He purports to be inspired by Judith
Butler, and hard as it is believe, I take his word for it.
However, far more of the published pomo work attacks class analysis. The pomo trope of
opposing "grand narratives" or "metanarratives" is targeted at historical materialism:
see, e.g., LaClau and Mouffe. The opposition to essentialism is directed more often
than not at any attempt to appeal to the idea or prospect of objective class
relationships. The pomo attack on the unity of the subject is aimed at the notion that
class consciousness is a desirable goal. The rejection of objectivity is aimed at
materialism, at the idea that there is anything on the other side of ideology.
Although I don't care about labels, and I probably don't qualify as a Marxist myself,
I don't understand how anyone who accepts a large enough subset of this package of
pomo doctrines can be one either--but, as I say, that's not necessarily a failing.
Waht might be a failing is rejection of true views, and I think most of the targets of
the pomo doctrines I listed are true and should not be abandoned.
I find your objection to essentialsim and foundationalsim confused, and not just
because you dot say what you mean by these terms. It's rather because you seem to fall
into a self-reference problem common to those espouse pomo skepticism or relativism.
You say that essentialism and foundationalism, whatever they are, are associated with
men, who are, as the pomos say, privileged in history. Is this supposed to be an
objectively true claim about how men have been advantaged over women? How does that
avoid "foundationalism" and the dream of objectivity?
Moreoever, isn't it essentialist to tie the bad notions of objectivity, essentialism,
and foundationalsim to "men"? What men? Shouldn't a pomo say that there no men, just
black men and white men, etc., and indeed, no black men, but gay Chicagoans three
eights of whose ancestors were imported from Africa in antebellum times, and indeed,
isn't that essentialist--what do you mean "gay" or indeed "Chicagoans," etc.
If I am not understanding, please set me right.
--jks
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:29:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Nicole Seibert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< This question is actually put to everyone --> What are your feelings on
Jean Baudrillard? I heard somewhere in my own department that he is not
even a sociologist!? I found that amazing, but am not sure why a person
would hold such beliefs. I think this is the group to explain to me why
Baudrillard and other working pomos are looked down on so much.
By the way J, the pomos I know of do not look down on class analysis or
science. In fact, they rather like the "coming to terms with its own
unfirmness" science and the fluidity and function of class analysis. Most
pomos I know are actually Marxists. And in case any of you haven't noticed
neither Tilly nor Meyer have a theory per say. Objectivity is a fleeting
dream of scholars who think that they can find the Truth, or any truth for
that matter. The objectivity groupies just want to be held in high regard
like their predecessors --> all those dead white men.
Which brings me back to J original idea: of course pomos don't like
essentialism and foundationalism if for no other reason then at their most
basic level they derive most things to men. Chew on that before you spit it
back out. We study history to learn from our past, but the only active
members in history are men. So, we derive that men are actors, not women.
The economic infastructure was not only manufactured by, but is studied and
predominately maintain by men. So, we derive that men are not only actors,
but influence all of society at its most basic level. Women understand this
at a very basic level: Men buy the homes we live in. Derivative: We (women)
are just here to take care of what they own. I could go on and on, and you
could too!
-Nico
The tend to put meaning(less) parentheses around parts of words, use terms
like "discourse," "privilege," and "theorize" freely, dispise essentialism
and "foundationalism," "valorize 'difference,'" and think ill of class
analysis, science, or objectivity. They are armed, but not dangerous, or
maybe it is the other way around. --jks
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
