[PEN-L:5965] Re: New project for pen-l some good news
Congratulations, Steven! Sid Shniad Dear Michael and pen-lers, I like the idea of setting up a parallel list to receive information requests. For me, PEN-L is often at its best when participants focus on taking political action. Hopefully the parallel list will be a means to continue this tradition. Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. This summer I successfully defended my dissertation, turned it in, and received my Ph.D. in economics. I am now beginning a one-year postdoctoral fellowship funded by the Social Science Research Council, in which I will look at various issues regarding Mexico-U.S. migration.
[PEN-L:5966] Re: Marxist critiques of the USSR
This summer I read Istvan Meszaros' _Beyond Capital_ which contains lots of really good analytical stuff on the ex-USSR. I would commend this work to everyone on Pen-l because he puts forth the provocative thesis that Actually Existing Socialism should be considered part of the system of _capital_ which, he argues, pre-dates and post-dates _capitalism_. Sid Shniad Colleagues- I have a student who is interested in doing a research paper critically evaluating the history, particlarly the recent history, of the Soviet Union and I would like to help her put together a bibliography of sources that have approached this question from a Marxian perspective. I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions yoiu mgiht have that I can pass along to her. Please reply to me privately at: thompson@vassar,edu Thanks for your help! -Sandy _ Alexander M. Thompson III Professor of Economics Dean of Studies Vassar College Box 5 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 tel: (914) 437-5257 fax: (914) 437-7060 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www pages: http://noether.vassar.edu:80/econ/at.html http://faculty.vassar.edu/~dos/DOS.html
[PEN-L:5964] Ban Depleted Uranium- Pentagon's Latest Assault (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 23:03:07 GMT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iraq Action Coalition [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Carrigan[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ban Depleted Uranium- Pentagon's Latest Assault From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DEIRDRE SINNOTT) International Action Center 39W. 14th St. Rm #206, NY,NY 10011 Ph: (212) 633-6646, Fx: (212) 633-2889 The International Action Center is organizing a campaign which will include international meetings, demonstrations, educational information, and the publication of a new book to expose the latest generation of Pentagon weaponry made from Depleted Uranium. This generation of weapons is causing tremendous environmental contamination and health problems. What follows is Former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark's letter and a description of the proposed book and September 12th meeting at the UN Church Center at 6:30pm. Ramsey Clark September, 1996 Dear Friend, Have you heard of DU? Most people haven't. It stands for depleted uranium which may turn out to be one of the great dangers to our environment and health. The gulf war pioneered the use of this toxic, heavy metal, and radioactive poison. In five years time it has become a standard material for so-called conventional weapons which are deployed in bases throughout the U.S. and around the world. I have seen the impact of this new poison when I visited hospital wards for young children in Iraq. Amidst the overwhelming horrors of the bombings and the starvation caused by sanctions, the doctors at first did not notice the huge rise in the numbers of childhood cancers, such as leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and lymphomas. There has also been a significant rise in the rate of congenital diseases and deformities in fetuses: an increase startlingly similar to the increase of these conditions among babies of Gulf War Vets. I have also met with veterans of the Gulf War whose health has been destroyed by a strange combination of afflictions. Today, more than 60,000 veterans suffer from Gulf War Syndrome - These numbers are expected to grow as the long term effects of contamination take their toll. A common denominator of these conditions in the U.S. and in Iraq is depleted uranium. DU is the radioactive by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Its ability to penetrate steel has made it a popular weapon. According to U.S. Army reports, when a DU shell explodes, up to 70% turns into aerosol. These radioactive, and highly toxic uranium particles travel in the wind and can be inhaled and ingested. The United States and Britain used so much DU in weapons during the Gulf War that 350 tons of residue permeate the ground and water, and will contaminate the entire region for generations. Information on this escalating contamination has been gathered by scientists, researchers, veterans and activists. Much of this material will be presented at the forum we are helping to coordinate at the UN Church Center on September 12. Many UN Non-Governmental Organizations will be in New York at that time for UN meetings. We hope that this forum will have an international impact and encourage groups around the world to take up this issue and begin a campaign for a BAN on the use of DU. We must widely publicize this information. We have to end the government cover-ups of the spreading poison. We need your help to produce and distribute a popularly written book that will expose this global contamination. Your support can make a difference. The book, The Pentagon's Magic Bullet, can have a powerful impact. But it will depend on our ability to distribute it to the major media, to veterans
[PEN-L:5967] Believe it or not
Edmonton Journal September 5, 1996 ALBERTA PRIVATIZES LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT Canadian Press EDMONTON - Alberta is planning to privatize enforcement of labor standards so workers claiming everything from unjust dismissal to inadequate maternity leave will have to take complaints to store-front operations. Starting early next year, the Conservative government plans to cut most of its labor standards officers and pay private operators up to $200 for each labor complaint they investigate and resolve. There will also be bonuses for agents who wrap up cases quickly. Labor lawyers are balking at the prospect of for-profit shops with names such as Labor Laws Are Us. They say the unprecedented move is akin to privatizing enforcement of human rights. "It will be like human rights in Russia used to be," Sheila Greckol, president of the Canadian Association of Labor Lawyers, said Wednesday. "They had a wonderful code that protected everyone's rights, but nothing ever happened. We would have in Alberta an employment standards code on the record with no effective means of enforcement." The labor lawyers' association is threatening to file a complaint to a labor standards tribunal under the North American Free Trade Agreement. They say privatization will weaken enforcement of labor standards in Alberta and give the province an unfair trade advantage under the trade agreement. "In theory the Americans don't want a little banana republic like Alberta having absolutely no labor standards and giving Alberta that advantage in terms of trade," Greckol said. She said the system of bonuses for fast service could lead to only superficial investigations. "Does that mean they can open the file, fill out a complaint, phone the employer, decide there was no merit to the complaint without doing any meaningful investigation, close the file and submit the bill to the department of labor?" The initiative is designed to cut the province's $2.7 million annual cost for labor standards enforcement, said a Labor Department spokeswoman. "It's consistent with the government's plan to move out into the private sector whenever it makes sense," said Charlotte Moran. Privatization will also improve service because many people find the current system inaccessible and slow, said Joe Miller, spokesman for Labor Minister Murray Smith. Government workers will still audit the shops and maintain the right to override decisions, he said. The Conservative government has privatized everything from liquor stores to motor vehicles registries in the last three years. Greckol supplied a copy of an internal memo from an Edmonton consultant dated July 15, which said the government's labor plan "does not appear to be a realistic concept." The lawyers' association is working with a group of labor lawyers in Washington since a complaint would have to be filed in the United States. "Whichever country lowers its standards, it's the other countries that have cause for complaint," said Jeffrey Sack, head of international affairs for the Canadian Association of Labor Lawyers. He said there have been several labor complaints filed against Mexico, but this would be the first against Canada.
[PEN-L:5968] voter turnout
The key to the whole issue is that only 40-50 percent of the electorate in the U.S. bothers to vote on election day. In the last elections barely 40 percent voted. The pollsters and the party strategeists know that these are the people that count. Most of these are upper middle class people. When the papers say "center" they mean the center of this minority which in the end decides the elections. I couldn't agree more. Voter turnout at elections is worryingly low. In Britain, in the last general election (9 April 1992) about 3 in 4 adults turned out to vote. The Conservative Party was re-elected with 42 percent of the votes compared to Labour's 35 percent. I feel that if the turnout had been higher, say 85-90 percent rather than 75%, then Labour would have had a much better cahnce of defeating the right-wing Conservative government in the election. When voter turnout is low, then I feel this helps the the right-wing. As is quite rightly pointed out in the passage I quoted above, those who bother to vote when the turnout is low are often the richer segments of society. They will then continue to excercise a disproportionate influence in politics because they are far more likely to vote than poorer people. I sometimes feel that to get elected, left-wing politicians needn't "move to the centre". Instead, they should encourage more working-class voters to turn out to vote and so they will be able to win that way. -- Michael
[PEN-L:5969] Re: voter turnout
Date sent: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Lynch) Subject:[PEN-L:5968] voter turnout The key to the whole issue is that only 40-50 percent of the electorate in the U.S. bothers to vote on election day. In the last elections barely 40 percent voted. The pollsters and the party strategeists know that these are the people that count. Most of these are upper middle class people. When the papers say "center" they mean the center of this minority which in the end decides the elections. I couldn't agree more. Voter turnout at elections is worryingly low. In Britain, in the last general election (9 April 1992) about 3 in 4 adults turned out to vote. The Conservative Party was re-elected with 42 percent of the votes compared to Labour's 35 percent. I feel that if the turnout had been higher, say 85-90 percent rather than 75%, then Labour would have had a much better cahnce of defeating the right-wing Conservative government in the election. When voter turnout is low, then I feel this helps the the right-wing. As is quite rightly pointed out in the passage I quoted above, those who bother to vote when the turnout is low are often the richer segments of society. They will then continue to excercise a disproportionate influence in politics because they are far more likely to vote than poorer people. I sometimes feel that to get elected, left-wing politicians needn't "move to the centre". Instead, they should encourage more working-class voters to turn out to vote and so they will be able to win that way. -- Michael Response: And then on the other hand, in addition to those who do not vote out of shere apathy and laziness, there are those who feel that a non-vote is a vote because: a) the option of "none of the above" is not an option that will register except implicitly in some cases by not voting; b) the "lesser of evils" is still evil; c) we do not even have the "lesser of evils" but rather the "evil of lessers"; d) voting only encourages the politicians to believe they have a "mandate" and do even worse crimes; e) voting encourages the spin doctors and manipulators/developers of sophisticated technologies for mind/soul control and manipulation; f) As Plato noted "Those who seek power are invariably the least fit to wield it." and anyone who runs for office automatically indicts himself/herself as a narcissist, megalomaniac, manipulator, liar, control freak, suffering from dellusions of grandeur and a Napoleanic/Messianic complex and/or is a complete fool thinking they can win without being all of the above and/or is a complete fool thinking they can make a difference when surrounded by parasites who possess all of the previously-mentioned traits and impulses; Jim Craven *--* * James Craven *"Concern for man himself must always * * Dept of Economics* constitute the chief objective of* * Clark College* all technological effort, concern* * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * for the big, unsolved problems of* * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * how to organize human work and the * * (360) 992-2283 * distribution of commodities in such * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * a manner as to assure that the * * * results of our scientific thinking * * * may be a blessing to mankind,and not * * * a curse. * * *Never forget this when you are* * * pondering over your diagrams and * * * equations!" * * * (Albert Einstein, Speech at Cal. * * *Inst. Technology Feb, 16, 1931) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:5970] Re: voter turnout
[People have been positing opinions about non-voting] Some people at the school of journalism at Northwestern U. (Ellen Shearer I think was involved) just finished a large and quite interesting national study of the U. S. non voter. I do not have the results in front of me, but I do remember that they lumped non voters into 5 categories and they were quite a diverse group. I cannot speak for the accuracy of the results or the methodology but the reported results were noteworthy. I remember that around a third are well-off, well-educated, younger, well-informed progressive/left/liberal types (you know the type) who love to claim that the non-voter is the poor oppressed slob who does not see any potential for change. About 20% were identified by the study as "irritables" (I interpreted these people to be rightish and leftish), well-off, older folks pissed off at government or the election process. About half chose not to vote and the other half just didn't. About half (not the same half) believe in "government" and the other half were quite distrustful of "government". The study does not contradict the general notion that higher registration and turn out would move elections in a slightly Democratic direction in the U.S. However, nothing in the study indicates that higher turnout would mean any great progressive/left movement as well. I think if one organizes politically around left issues you will find an untapped following, its just not as large as some optimistically project. Jim Westrich University of Illinois at Chicago Institute on Disability and Human Development "Have you seen the Democrats around town? They look like such nice people. They have these nice red, white, and blue badges. But if you bend down you smell the stench of death coming off of them." --Jon Langford during The Mekons Big Band Labor Day Raid
[PEN-L:5971] overdetermination redux
sorry if you think this irrelevant, but it's easy to erase. It's also short... If I understand him correctly, Steve Cullenberg summarized the main message for research of the Wolf/Resnick overdetermination theory (i.e., that all entities in society determine the character of all other entities, just as the characters of all entities are determined by all other entities) as the methodological principle that "what you see is what you get." (This imples a critique of the efforts of benighted people like myself who want to figure what's really going on. We're mere "essentialists" and should stop.) Okay, I decided to apply the axiom that "what you see is what you get" in practice. So I looked at the world for awhile. As far as I could tell, I didn't see any overdetermination going on. I saw cars hitting telephone poles and cruise missiles hitting Iraq. But I didn't see any overdetermination. I saw the movie "Independence Day" but I didn't see any overdetermination, in or out of the theater, not even at the popcorn stand. I realized that _not_once_ in my entire life had I ever seen overdeter- mination. So based on my empirical investigation, I concluded that since I didn't see any overdetermination, and because "what you see is what you get," it could not exist. The concept of overdetermin- ation should be rejected. But if overdetermination -- the very essence of the Wolf/Resnick theory as presented by Steve -- doesn't exist, then the principle that "what you see is what you get" could not apply. On the other hand, if I go beyond just seeing, to interpret what's going on, to find out what's _really_ going on (as is my usual wont), then I might decide that overdetermination is an aspect of reality, or even the most important aspect of reality, the essence of social reality, as in Wolf/Resnick. But then I would be violating the principle of "what you see is what you get." It seems to me that the methodological principle of "what you see is what you get" embodies a commandment: thou shalt not think rationally. BTW, how does the "what you see is what you get" principle or overdetermination help us answer the question of whether or not the aliens and flying saucers in "Independence Day" are real? and whether or not the missiles hitting Iraq are real? I'm confused. Please help me, Steve. BTW, "Independence Day" was very funny, despite its militaristic and chauvanistic messages. A good complement to popcorn. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Re: [PEN-L:5971] Korea
I apologize for not responding to Jim's points. His being upset is understandable. I am trying to get a paper out for a workshop to be held in another non-secular and undemocratic society (Taiwan in less than a month). No pun intended here. I should have some time off next week, although I have just about sold my house, and getting ready to spend a whole year in another very authoritarian society--Singapore. I don't know if there is something common in all these places but I sure am puzzled about their social organization and governance structures. It is with this in mind that I have an intellectual interest in understanding Korea, particularly wrt capital accumulation and economic development. As for my position, I consider myself a progressive, leftist, though not liberal in the western sense. Many of my refereed articles were condemned as "marxian" (some said antiquated) but they have been published nevertheless. For me social structure, which includes class, is important for any meaningful analysis. But because I am from a society/nation that is highly heterogeneous (multicultural is an inadequate and perhaps useless term) I do not necessarily share some of the convictions of the progressive-left. Class is only one parameter by which people identify themselves hence my reservations of applying concepts, practices out of the western experience to late capitalism. More on this later. Anthony D'Costa U of Washington Liberal Studies Program!
[PEN-L:5972] article in Monthly Review
cheers to our comrade, doug henwood, for his fine article in the sept. issue of "monthly review." not bad for the graduate of, as doug put it, "a piggishly union-busting university in connecticut." in solidarity, michael yates
[PEN-L:5973] Americans want protection from corporations
7 AMERICANS ARE ANGRY AT CORPORATE EXCESS AND WANT THEIR GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN Focus groups and an opinion poll, conducted in May- June, 1996, show Americans are so frightened by their economic vulnerability they are willing to take a chance on government intervention. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Anger and anxiety over layoffs, wage stagnation, declining benefits and the movement of jobs overseas has left the American public with a starkly negative view of the actions and motivations of corporate America. Ire at large corporations crosses race, class and political lines and is not waning despite the upbeat economic news of the last several months. It's so intense that, for the majority of citizens, it now rivals or exceeds anger at government. Most significant and most surprising, anger at corporate America has begun to translate into broad public support for government action to make corporations act more responsibly - and has the potential to change the nation's political landscape. These are central findings of a public opinion survey commissioned by the Preamble Center for Public Policy in order to better understand public anger at corporations and how it relates to issues of public policy and to American politics. The study, and a corresponding series of focus groups with middle and working class Americans, reveal that the American people have become firm in their belief that corporations are good investments but bad citizens. For example, when asked to assign corporate America letter grades for its performance in various areas, 78% of respondents give companies good grades (an A or a B) for making profits. "When it comes to keeping jobs in the US" and "being loyal to employees," however, seven in ten people say companies are not getting the job done (giving companies a C, D or F in these areas). Between 70% and 80% of the public recognize "serious problems" in the way corporations put the interests of their executives and shareholders ahead of their employees and society, and identify greed "as the motivation behind new waves of corporate layoffs and downsizing," rejecting the corporate argument that such actions are necessitated by competitive pressures. These attitudes are held across the economic and political spectrum, and are especially evident among the core middle class workforce hard-hit by corporate layoffs and downsizing. This attitude has remained intense and shows no sign of abating - even as media coverage of downsizing has dwindled, and despite the recent stream of positive economic news. The public now realizes that corporate profitability does not guarantee worker well being (even though much economic policy making in recent years has been based on exactly that assumption). The study also demonstrates that public anger at corporations has significant political and policy implications as it begins to translate into popular support for more aggressive efforts to alter corporate behavior. While anger at government remains high, people are so fed up with corporate behavior and so frightened by their economic vulnerability that they are willing to take a chance on government intervention. Consequently, seven in ten people (69%) favor government action to promote more responsible corporate behavior and to penalize bad corporate citizenship. Large majorities favor a host of specific policy approaches, many of which are already part of the political debate - from "living wage" laws, to proposed New Jersey legislation designed to penalize corporate downsizers, to Minnesota's law requiring corporations that get tax breaks for job creation, but do not create new jobs, to pay back the money. The survey results also indicate that issues of corporate accountability and economic fairness may well have increasing salience in the electoral debate. This opinion climate creates the potential for a new kind of political dialogue - the public is increasingly eager to hear what their leaders have to say about the problems created by big business. Those who present a strong critique of corporate behavior and show how proactive government action can be a remedy will be striking a responsive chord. Americans are much more likely to support leaders who favor such policies as setting standards for responsible corporate behavior and rewarding companies that meet the standards, denying tax deductions for CEO raises granted at the same time layoffs are occurring, and requiring large companies to provide basic benefits to all employees. And when the public faces a choice between a politician focusing on the problem of corporate greed and one attacking big, bad government, public sentiment will increasingly be with the former. In 1994, simply being the more antigovernment candidate was often enough; in the future, it won't be that simple. Progressive leaders focusing on corporate misbehavior as a central cause of economic problems for working families can more than hold their own in the battle for the public's
[PEN-L:5974] Re: overdetermination redux: come on, Jim, at least hit the
This is a response to Jim Devine's message, copied below. I frankly did not understood what Steve meant by his off-the-cuff, tongue-in-cheek (?) comment about "what you see is what you get." I didn't think it helped explain anything, and I don't think your snide (so it seems to me) response below is helpful either. Your whole post below appears to be a critique of empiricism, which anyone even vaguely familiar with the work of the Amherst School would have to acknowledge misses the target entirely. In this sense your post *is* irrelevant. Herb Gintis once said something which struck me as valid (gasp! :) ): it's easy, he noted, to criticize something by attacking its weakest points. A strong critique first builds the strongest case for its target and then attacks that strongest target. Jim, I really get the impression from you that you are not interested in understanding overdetermination, or what people in the Amherst School are doing, but rather simply in defending a more "traditional" (admittedly intelligent and sophisticated) variant of Marxism. If you really are interested, instead of spending your time attacking poor metaphors/analogies/tongue-in-cheek characterizations, why not *read* the works of people in the school. For one thing, your continued reference to "Wolff/Resnick overdetermination" is disrespectful of the many people who have contributed to the Amherst School's work, going beyond and in many cases against Wolff and Resnick's original thinking. Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio, Bruce Norton, J.K. Gibson-Graham (a.k.a. Julie Gibson and Katherine Graham), Jonathan Diskin, Antonio Callari, John Roche, Carole Biewener, Steve Cullenberg, Ric McIntyre, Jenny Cameron, Ulla Grapard, Andriana Vlachou, Claire Sproul, are just a few of the many people who have developed and applied the insights that spring from overdetermination in interesting and productive ways on a wide range of topics, from gender to race to ecology to culture to economics, as well as, of course, specifically class. (These names are just those that spring to mind immediately and I apologize for omitting other productive members of the Amherst School.) If anyone is interested in finding out for themselves what people around the Amherst School are doing, I suggest you visit their web site at http://www.nd.edu/~plofmarx/RM.html. (This is actually the web page for the journal RETHINKING MARXISM, which contains links to an extensive bibliography of Amherst School members' work, to books by AS folks, and to the upcoming international gala conference to be held this December, "The Politics and Language of Marxism." Regards, Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim Devine wrote, sorry if you think this irrelevant, but it's easy to erase. It's also short... If I understand him correctly, Steve Cullenberg summarized the main message for research of the Wolf/Resnick overdetermination theory (i.e., that all entities in society determine the character of all other entities, just as the characters of all entities are determined by all other entities) as the methodological principle that "what you see is what you get." (This imples a critique of the efforts of benighted people like myself who want to figure what's really going on. We're mere "essentialists" and should stop.) Okay, I decided to apply the axiom that "what you see is what you get" in practice. So I looked at the world for awhile. As far as I could tell, I didn't see any overdetermination going on. I saw cars hitting telephone poles and cruise missiles hitting Iraq. But I didn't see any overdetermination. I saw the movie "Independence Day" but I didn't see any overdetermination, in or out of the theater, not even at the popcorn stand. I realized that _not_once_ in my entire life had I ever seen overdeter- mination. So based on my empirical investigation, I concluded that since I didn't see any overdetermination, and because "what you see is what you get," it could not exist. The concept of overdetermin- ation should be rejected. But if overdetermination -- the very essence of the Wolf/Resnick theory as presented by Steve -- doesn't exist, then the principle that "what you see is what you get" could not apply. On the other hand, if I go beyond just seeing, to interpret what's going on, to find out what's _really_ going on (as is my usual wont), then I might decide that overdetermination is an aspect of reality, or even the most important aspect of reality, the essence of social reality, as in Wolf/Resnick. But then I would be violating the principle of "what you see is what you get." It seems to me that the methodological principle of "what you see is what you get" embodies a commandment: thou shalt not think rationally. BTW, how does the "what you see is what you get" principle or overdetermination help us answer the question of whether or not the aliens and flying saucers in "Independence Day" are real? and whether or not the missiles hitting Iraq are real? I'm confused.
[PEN-L:5976] Fwd: Re: New project for pen-l some good news
Steve; Congrats! I just graduate in May so I know how hard you worked!!! maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. I taught two classes today for the first time. Did I ever feel like an old bat in front of all those college freshkids! - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D Shniad) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-09-05 20:40:24 EDT Congratulations, Steven! Sid Shniad Dear Michael and pen-lers, I like the idea of setting up a parallel list to receive information requests. For me, PEN-L is often at its best when participants focus on taking political action. Hopefully the parallel list will be a means to continue this tradition. Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. This summer I successfully defended my dissertation, turned it in, and received my Ph.D. in economics. I am now beginning a one-year postdoctoral fellowship funded by the Social Science Research Council, in which I will look at various issues regarding Mexico-U.S. migration.
[PEN-L:5977] Re: overdetermination redux
Jim Devine recently wrote: If I understand him correctly, Steve Cullenberg summarized the main message for research of the Wolf/Resnick overdetermination theory (i.e., that all entities in society determine the character of all other entities, just as the characters of all entities are determined by all other entities) as the methodological principle that "what you see is what you get." (This imples a critique of the efforts of benighted people like myself who want to figure what's really going on. We're mere "essentialists" and should stop.) Actually, Jim, my use of the the phrase "what you see is what you get" was not an appeal to a straighforward empiricism, but tied to a critique of what have come to be called "depth models" of explanation in contrast, yes, to reductionist and essentialist forms of argument. The paragraph that my quote was stripped from (you sure you're not a journalist? :)) was as follows: "Another way of thinking about it is that overdetermination is a critique of "depth models" of social explanation, a critique of essentialism if you want, where one level of analysis is explained by a different level, somehow thought to be prior to and independent from the first. Classic Hegelian causality of essence and appearance is an example, neoclassical utility analysis grounded in uncaused preferences is another, or simply the urge to find out "what really is going on", is a third. Maybe a very colloquial way to describe overdetermination is to say "what you see is what you get."" You don't have to be a postmodernist to see what I mean, I think. I actaully think Lewontin and Levins (no pomos, they) are very good on this idea. In their _Not in Our Genes_, pp. 277-292, in a section where they talk about "Levels of Organization and Explanation". There they sum up much of their critique of reductionist and holistic essentialist arguments. What they argue there is that there are different levels of explanation of phsical or social events, and which is appropriate is contingent on the purpose of the explanation at hand. For example, they argue that a living organism is not first an assemblage of subatomic particles, and _then_ an assemblage of atoms, and _then_ of molecules, and _then_ tissues and organs, and _then_ a social being, and (presumably then a society). Rather, they insist that an organism (or society) is all of these things at the same time. They write on p. 278, that "This is what is meant by saying that the atoms, etc., are not ontologically prior to the larger whole that they compose." They go on to argue that a problem of science is not explanation at one level, like physics with atoms, or chemistry with molecules, or biology with organisms (or I would add, social science with society), but the "translation" from one level to another. Again, as they put it on p. 278, "This is because as one moves up a level the properties of each larger whole are given not merely by the units of which it is composed but of the organizing relations between them." They then go through a wonderful example of how one explains something so simple a thing as a frog twitching its legs (I won't reproduce it here). For them, there is no one correct explanation that can be found, but many, depending on the level of analysis in question. Near the end of this section they write: "All human phenomena are simultaneously social and biological, just as they simultaneously chemical and physical. Holistic and reductionist accounts of phenomena are not 'causes' of those phenomena but merely 'descriptions' of them in particular levels, in particular scientific languages." As they argue, we can choose then appropriate level of analysis depending on the purpose at hand. But the true explanation of why the frog twitches its leg is not to be found at the subatomic level, any more than it is to be found at the cellular level. And, as they want to make clear in their book, the truth of social behavior is not found in the end "in the genes", pace sociobiology, nor however, is it found "in culture". Society is both culture and biology, nature and nuture, individuals and structures, you see the pattern... So, my point, at least the point I wanted to make, in the context of what in part overdetermination implies (viewed as causality), was that we should be careful about translating social explanations from one level to another, from phenomenon to essence, from whole to part, from society to individual, and do, as you say "rational" (I prefer reasoned, which can certainly include overdetermined) analysis at whatever level we are working at. As with Lewontin and Levins, there is no "hierarchy of explanatory levels," no matter how much we dig. Steve Cullenberg *** Stephen Cullenberg office: (909) 787-5037, ext. 1573 Department of Economics fax: (909) 787-5685 University of California[EMAIL
[PEN-L:5978] Big Brother
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 03:44:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Government database correlations According to a sidenote on the minimum-wage bill recently passed, starting FY 98 (?) the federal government will maintain a list of _all_ court ordered child support payments and _all_ newly employed individuals, and then cross-correlate them. Needless to say, there appears to be no consideration of the inevitable problems with misidentification, security/privacy, etc. Undoubtedly, "if you don't have children out of wedlock and aren't divorced you have nothing to worry about." I picked this up from comp.risks. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5979] Re: article in Monthly Review
At 4:13 PM 9/5/96, Michael D Yates wrote: cheers to our comrade, doug henwood, for his fine article in the sept. issue of "monthly review." not bad for the graduate of, as doug put it, "a piggishly union-busting university in connecticut." Thanks. Speaking of union-busting universities, I'd like to do a piece in LBO, maybe several, on university-as-business: patent portfolio, endowment capital, etc. Yale, for example, has a spectacular investment record, outperforming all averages for the last 1, 5, 10, and 20 years. One suspects, but can never prove, that alums throw the university sweet private placements and choice bits of info. Its physical plant needs some serious work, but Yale plans to pay for this by cuts in the operating budget - which is why it wants to cut pay of dining-hall workers from $23,000 to $10,000 - while continuing to "grow the endowment." Its management is indistinguishable from that of a large corporation. Any thoughts/reports anyone has along these lines - very broadly defined - would be welcome. And why *has* tuition gone up so much? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
