Re: [xmca] My ISCAR

>
> The concept of "social mobilization" especially struck me because it
> is a crucial one in political Marxism. An established theory of
> political Marxism (unlike academic Marxism, which is not infrequently
> apolitical) is that the struggles of the oppressed and exploited
> classes and social layers can potentially transform them into the
> leaders and leading forces of a revolutionary movement to establish a
> new society. As many know, political Marxists employ what they call a
> "class analysis" to social struggles, and use this kind of analysis to
> explain how some social mobilizations can be revolutionary, and
> others, reactionary.
>
> So this leads me to some questions. How and with what analytical
> "tools" (apologies to Michael R for perhaps overusing that metaphor!)
> can CHAT analyze "social mobilizations"?

On this, Steve, you should look at Shah-Shuja's book 'Zones of Proletarian
Development' mentioned here a while ago. She tries to do exactly what you
ask. I can see pluses and minuses in the way she does it. As I haven't
finished it yet and we were going to have a proper discussion here, I won't
say any more now except...

Are these analytical tools
> sufficient to distinguish between different kinds of social
> mobilizations? For example, can CHAT clearly distinguish between,
> say, the movement to end apartheid in South Africa that came to
> victory in 1994, and, for example, the social mobilizations associated
> with German fascism in (approx) 1925-1945? This seems like a flippant
> question because clearly, any person involved in CHAT would likely
> have very strong feelings about the obvious differences between a
> fascist movement and a struggle to end apartheid, and would have
> little difficulty pointing them out. But does **CHAT** by itself have
> the tools and methods to make these kinds of distinctions?

Doesn't the nature of the goal in goal-directed activity affect the nature
of the activity?

On a related point, one of the things I find wrong with what I've read so
far of Shah-Shuja is that she concentrates on what happens at the point of
mobilisation (her case studies are of demonstrations) and doesn't really
consider how they contribute to more long term goals. There doesn't seem to
be a concept of strategy. I'm no sure whether that is a fault of hers or of
CHAT. How would one analyse a long term political goal such as revolution in
CHAT terms? Which I suppose brings us back to Steve's original question.

Bruce

Or do
> other theoretical concepts need to be brought in to supplement it? If
> this is so, what kinds of political, economic etc. theories and
> analyses would be - and would not be - compatible with CHAT? And by
> what method(s) could this compatibility be determined?
>
> Best,
> ~ Steve
>
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Mary van der Riet wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>> As suggested by Mike, I attach my ISCAR paper
>> CHAT and HIV/AIDS: An activity system analysis of a lack of
>> behaviour change
>>
>> Feedback is welcomed
>>
>> I presented a second paper at ISCAR which dealt a bit more with the
>> idea of 'interventions' in response to the problem of HIV. This
>> paper is also available on the Moodle site, but I can send it on if
>> anyone is interested.
>>
>> Mary
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Sep 29 15:52 PDT 2008