Although it might have appeared that I am some kind of Giddens fan, my
questions concerning him come from the recognition that he is attempting to
wrestle with many of the issues that surface in CHAT circles (ranging from
issues of context -- both threaded and embedded -- to the relationship
between social phenomena with different characteristic duration. As such I
was sincerely curious to know how Jay related his proposals to Giddens and
Jay, quite magnanimously, wrote a detailed response which I'm still, as pan
miners on Sierra Nevada mountain stream might say, "washing."
As far as Giddens work with the Blair government and I think you are right
on!! My own critique of Gidden's comes from a different direction, more
directly related to his rejection of dialectics (as in A Contemporary
Critique . . .). The structuralist bias that Jay alluded to is entirely
consonant with a social theory that lends itself to an apologetics for
globalism (capitalism has just taken a lot longer to mature than Marx could
ever have envisioned, hasn't it).
Thanks for your response.
Paul H. Dillon
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Graham <pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: November history questions
>At 07:50 14-11-99 -0800, Paul D wrote:
>>Phil,
>>What exactly provokes your antipathy to G.?
>
>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
>