Surely we need to distinguish between reification and abstraction. To
claim that market forces induce behavior is making an abstraction to be
certain. We do not necessarily make a reification by attributing results
from abstract entities (e.g., The United States Government or General
Motors). Indeed it is impossible to do anything resembling social
analysis without abstraction. Marx attributes results to all sorts of
aggregated and abstract forces. Surely this can be done badly, but not
even the most strident methodological individualist asks us to avoid
abstractions. How would you dispense with abstract categories? What
would it buy you?
PhilSin wrote:
>
> Henk, In a message dated 98-05-14 07:20:09 EDT, you write:
>
> > well that's a great start. but spreading that out to a culture (maybe even
> > a
> > global culture) and we get abstract falsifications that become concrete
> > assumptions on a grand scale. maybe "the market" is one of the
> > best reifications going currently, globally. when these horseshitters
> > constantly tell us that "the market" pressures us to do this that and the
> > other.
> >
> > but further: the reification of "the market" also begins the reification
> > of the "us" bearing all the pressures of "the market" and so forth.
>
> Well how about that! I was beginning to think that I was the only one on
> the list as pissed off about the way things are going as you obviously are as
> well. Care to start a revolution? Count me in.
> Remember me? I'm the psychiatrist who is more than a little pissed off
> about whats happened to my potentially noble profession. Just read a great
> book called _The Selling of DSM, The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry_ by
> Kirk and Hutchins. Good job unmasking "market" and "power" motives in creating
> this bullshit document. I recommend it.
>
> Yours
>
> Phil S.
claim that market forces induce behavior is making an abstraction to be
certain. We do not necessarily make a reification by attributing results
from abstract entities (e.g., The United States Government or General
Motors). Indeed it is impossible to do anything resembling social
analysis without abstraction. Marx attributes results to all sorts of
aggregated and abstract forces. Surely this can be done badly, but not
even the most strident methodological individualist asks us to avoid
abstractions. How would you dispense with abstract categories? What
would it buy you?
PhilSin wrote:
>
> Henk, In a message dated 98-05-14 07:20:09 EDT, you write:
>
> > well that's a great start. but spreading that out to a culture (maybe even
> > a
> > global culture) and we get abstract falsifications that become concrete
> > assumptions on a grand scale. maybe "the market" is one of the
> > best reifications going currently, globally. when these horseshitters
> > constantly tell us that "the market" pressures us to do this that and the
> > other.
> >
> > but further: the reification of "the market" also begins the reification
> > of the "us" bearing all the pressures of "the market" and so forth.
>
> Well how about that! I was beginning to think that I was the only one on
> the list as pissed off about the way things are going as you obviously are as
> well. Care to start a revolution? Count me in.
> Remember me? I'm the psychiatrist who is more than a little pissed off
> about whats happened to my potentially noble profession. Just read a great
> book called _The Selling of DSM, The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry_ by
> Kirk and Hutchins. Good job unmasking "market" and "power" motives in creating
> this bullshit document. I recommend it.
>
> Yours
>
> Phil S.