I think "globalist apologetics" has a nicer ring to it and also connotes
something of the dogmatic character of the thinking involved. The only hope
is that globalism and the internet will give rise to truly effective
international workers actions!!!
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: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: November history questions
>Paul,
>
>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
>