[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Black Underachievement, etc.

I think the fundamental flaw of this approach, Paul, is that it takes as its fundamental units, entities which are unchanging. Yes, an ideology is by definition, self-sustaining and self-justifying. But, while it is true that history is littered with disasters, and the critical periods of social change are indeed marked by catastrophe, these crtitical phases are prepared and constituted by phases of lytical change and are inseparable from them. This general character of development teaches us that it is a mistake to separate lytical and critical phases of development. I think that in order to grasp social life as essential lysubject to change, development and transformation, one must take as a fundamental unit of analysis something which is inherently a process of development. I use "project", others simply call it "an activity".

*Andy Blunden*

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote:

Unfortunately, I am in agreement with althusser. I cannot think of one historical case to prove the contrary. It is necessary for one historical frame to replace another via catastrophe and revolution. Can we truly say that the middle class represents an alternative to the dominant ideology of the upper-class of owners and high-level executives? I do not think say. Just the same, the argument you raise is tantamount to the hybridity discourse of homi bhabha...and I am in agreement with spivak, hybridity is not an alternative to the discourse of the colonizer...it is using the discourse of the colonizer to convict them of not identifying with their logic, which the colonized accepts and reproduces. This is not liberating, nor does it offer an alternative to the discourse of the colonizer.

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe