I couldn't agree with you more, especially about the globalist apologism
(was that a word? if not, it should have been).
Phil
At 22:10 14-11-99 -0800, you wrote:
>Phil,
>
>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
>>
>
>
Phil Graham
p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html