>
> On Tue, 28 May 96 10:22 CDT, Theodora Lightfoot wrote:
>
> >I think we are all ( I include my own last message here) getting a little too
> >involved in reading the minds of capitalists, people who perform
> >clitoridectomies, etc. I don't personally know anyone in either group, and
> >became involved in somewhat unproductive second guessing for rhetorical
> >purposes. However, in order to believe that capitalists must necessarily WANT to
> >cause poverty because they DO cause poverty, we must believe in a kind of direct
> >relationship between intend and result which I find somewhat naive. I am also
> >not convinced that Foucault believed in this type of direct and unmediated
> >relationship between intent and result, or the direct and unmediated agancy this
> >implies. This does not, however, leave out all possibilites for a much more
> >limited view of agancy. The idea that bad or repressive results come only out of
> >bad intentions is a comfortable one, and that lets all of us off the hook,
> >because as we know, we do not have bad intentions. It is more pessimistic, but
> >in my opinion, more realistic as well as more in line with Foucault's thought to
> >assume that oppressive or horrific results can come out of what appear to be
> >neutral or benign intents. That is why a careful look at the relationship
> >between language and power is so important.
> >
> > Dory
> >
>
> Your note of caution here is certainly to the point, but I think we should be wary
> just as much of the opposite fallacy, which is to assume that radical scholars
> are the only ones smart enough to see through the actions of capitalists and
> unwind their 'unintended results'. The latter is also a very comfortable idea, intelectually
> if not morally. There are two reasons for doubting it. One is that it reiterates the basic
> motto that 'power is stupid' and its implication of the hetrogeneity between
> power and knowledge. The second is that the discourse of economy, which serves
> many functions in the maintenance of poverty, both in it its Smithian 'invisible hand' form,
> and in its Marxist critique (parts of which have become commonplaces far beyond Marxism),
> is heavily concerned with unintended results and with ways to
> influence, and hence to intend, unintended results. We may think perhaps about second degree
> 'unintended results', i.e. unintended 'unintended results' vs. intended 'unintended results'.
>
>
>
> -------------
> Gabriel Ash
> Notre-Dame
> -------------
>
>
>
Gabriel,
Isn't the search, particularly prevalent among Marxists,
to identify 'intended-unintended results' often an ad hoc attempt to torture
events so they somehow fit into a pre-existing Marxist framework, which
views all, or most, social phenomena, as protecting the interests of capital?
It seems to me, that much of Marxist theorizing is an attempt re-interpret
Marxist theory as social events have shown such theory to be lacking in
explanatory power. Such debates as: state as an arm of the capitalists,
relative autonomy, etc seems quite illustrative in this regard. Am I to
imagine that the delinquency produced in the prison is a rather clever
intended consequence of capitalist actions? This would indeed be the
actions of an unbelievably clever class.
> On Tue, 28 May 96 10:22 CDT, Theodora Lightfoot wrote:
>
> >I think we are all ( I include my own last message here) getting a little too
> >involved in reading the minds of capitalists, people who perform
> >clitoridectomies, etc. I don't personally know anyone in either group, and
> >became involved in somewhat unproductive second guessing for rhetorical
> >purposes. However, in order to believe that capitalists must necessarily WANT to
> >cause poverty because they DO cause poverty, we must believe in a kind of direct
> >relationship between intend and result which I find somewhat naive. I am also
> >not convinced that Foucault believed in this type of direct and unmediated
> >relationship between intent and result, or the direct and unmediated agancy this
> >implies. This does not, however, leave out all possibilites for a much more
> >limited view of agancy. The idea that bad or repressive results come only out of
> >bad intentions is a comfortable one, and that lets all of us off the hook,
> >because as we know, we do not have bad intentions. It is more pessimistic, but
> >in my opinion, more realistic as well as more in line with Foucault's thought to
> >assume that oppressive or horrific results can come out of what appear to be
> >neutral or benign intents. That is why a careful look at the relationship
> >between language and power is so important.
> >
> > Dory
> >
>
> Your note of caution here is certainly to the point, but I think we should be wary
> just as much of the opposite fallacy, which is to assume that radical scholars
> are the only ones smart enough to see through the actions of capitalists and
> unwind their 'unintended results'. The latter is also a very comfortable idea, intelectually
> if not morally. There are two reasons for doubting it. One is that it reiterates the basic
> motto that 'power is stupid' and its implication of the hetrogeneity between
> power and knowledge. The second is that the discourse of economy, which serves
> many functions in the maintenance of poverty, both in it its Smithian 'invisible hand' form,
> and in its Marxist critique (parts of which have become commonplaces far beyond Marxism),
> is heavily concerned with unintended results and with ways to
> influence, and hence to intend, unintended results. We may think perhaps about second degree
> 'unintended results', i.e. unintended 'unintended results' vs. intended 'unintended results'.
>
>
>
> -------------
> Gabriel Ash
> Notre-Dame
> -------------
>
>
>
Gabriel,
Isn't the search, particularly prevalent among Marxists,
to identify 'intended-unintended results' often an ad hoc attempt to torture
events so they somehow fit into a pre-existing Marxist framework, which
views all, or most, social phenomena, as protecting the interests of capital?
It seems to me, that much of Marxist theorizing is an attempt re-interpret
Marxist theory as social events have shown such theory to be lacking in
explanatory power. Such debates as: state as an arm of the capitalists,
relative autonomy, etc seems quite illustrative in this regard. Am I to
imagine that the delinquency produced in the prison is a rather clever
intended consequence of capitalist actions? This would indeed be the
actions of an unbelievably clever class.