Each time I read G, I get the feeling that I'm looking at a seamless piece
of fine cloth that has been randomly cut into pieces and then sewn back
together - roughly - the wrong way. This usually happens at the beginning.
The remainder focuses on the virtues of rough stitching.
Furthermore, I don't think the work can be operationalised, even if it were
desirable to do so.
None of this would make any difference, and normally I ignore such stuff
out of hand, if it were not the case that _Lord_ G (seems he's up for a
prize for writing "The Third Way") is influencing social and economic
policy big time, both as head of the LSE and as advisor and social theorist
to the Blair government. I'm convinced the effects are negative and will
continue to be so (too many reasons/instances to list here).
Thus I am anti-G, although I have no problems with those who find the work
useful and try to use it in whichever way for academic purposes.
I don't really want to get into a long-winded discussion about it at this
stage, so I should probably shut up.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Graham
p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html