There's a lot of 'heuristic' value to thinking of Marx as a structuralist.
Because when you think about how 'deep' structures work behind and around
us -- linguistics, sociology, anthropology are fields that investigatge such
matters -- it's hard not to think back on Marx's brilliant analysis of the
internal dynamics and really systemic flaws in the capitalist system. Also,
the non-self-transparent nature and significance of structures to
participants in the cultures that bear them looks back at Marx's notion of
ideology. See the *Eighteenth Brumaire* for instance where Marx talks about
contending claimants to the French throne being utterly unaware that they
were actually agents of this or that loose federation of capitals. (You can
always pick up a copy of *Eighteenth* at
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/; even more precisely,
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1852-18brum/ for nothing.)
Similarly Geertz sees the cock fight he writes about in that collection of
essays of his and reads what he sees in very different ways from the
participants.
But the above experiment can only be done in abstraction from what Marx,
anyway, was trying to do, which involved an uneasy and, he hoped, creative
tension among scientific analysis, apocalyptic predictions, and millenarian
dreams. It's tough to bring all that together! Give the guy a break!
Thus if you want to understand what Marx was up to -- not by any means the
only valid inquiry -- you have to include his Hegelianism, which gave him an
internally generated dynamic (even Hegel had a 'systemic' side) that would
inexorably lead to a breakthrough and unprecedented liberation of the human
spirit. Heady stuff. I think you had to be there.
-- John
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Smith <dls216@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: Structural Marxism
> for what it's worth...
>
> i'd be extremely limited in my capacity
> to participate, but i'd love to see a discussion
> on this topic(s).
>
> dan s.
>
Because when you think about how 'deep' structures work behind and around
us -- linguistics, sociology, anthropology are fields that investigatge such
matters -- it's hard not to think back on Marx's brilliant analysis of the
internal dynamics and really systemic flaws in the capitalist system. Also,
the non-self-transparent nature and significance of structures to
participants in the cultures that bear them looks back at Marx's notion of
ideology. See the *Eighteenth Brumaire* for instance where Marx talks about
contending claimants to the French throne being utterly unaware that they
were actually agents of this or that loose federation of capitals. (You can
always pick up a copy of *Eighteenth* at
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/; even more precisely,
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1852-18brum/ for nothing.)
Similarly Geertz sees the cock fight he writes about in that collection of
essays of his and reads what he sees in very different ways from the
participants.
But the above experiment can only be done in abstraction from what Marx,
anyway, was trying to do, which involved an uneasy and, he hoped, creative
tension among scientific analysis, apocalyptic predictions, and millenarian
dreams. It's tough to bring all that together! Give the guy a break!
Thus if you want to understand what Marx was up to -- not by any means the
only valid inquiry -- you have to include his Hegelianism, which gave him an
internally generated dynamic (even Hegel had a 'systemic' side) that would
inexorably lead to a breakthrough and unprecedented liberation of the human
spirit. Heady stuff. I think you had to be there.
-- John
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Smith <dls216@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: Structural Marxism
> for what it's worth...
>
> i'd be extremely limited in my capacity
> to participate, but i'd love to see a discussion
> on this topic(s).
>
> dan s.
>