This file was generated from about 10 messages concerning the subject of changing the name of the Marxist Section of the ASA. All parties are free to distribute this file electronically as long as its source is acknowledged. ******** PSN: Progressive Sociologists Network ******** From: IN%"PORPORAD@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU" "doug porpora" 29-MAY-1992 Subj: marxist soc sec I just wanted to strongly second Martha Gimenez's defense of the current name of the Marxist Sociology Section. The issue is about more than just words. Discussing it is a way of learning who we are as a section and what the section represents to us. In my own case, I consider myself to be not just a progressive but a progressive who subscribes to a particular theory of the way the social world works. That theory is the one that bears Marx's name. I think that theory's core assumptions are both true and important. Furthermore, I think that the truth and importance of the theory are something to be affirmed and not hidden. My assumption has been that the marxist section is composed of two types of scholars. The first, like myself, are not uncomfortable calling themselves marxists and want either to apply the theory to the explanation of reality or to extend the theory by working out its emprical or conceptual problems. The second type of scholar in the section might not call themselves marxists. Yet, they take the theory seriously enough to keep in touch with it or debate it. That is what I thought this section was about. I did not think it was primarily a political organization out to maximize membership through political compromise. I did not think our primary objective was to put together a coalition. I thought that as scholars our primary objective was to seek truth. If under the pomo influence we now believe truth to be a hopelessly logocentric concept, then what's our problem with the verdict in CA? It's all relative. I say let the strength of the theory speak for itself. If the theory is strong, if it holds up under scholarly debate, then we'll attract scholars of good faith. This doesn't mean that no lobbying should be done, that we shouldn't try to attract others. It just means that truth is not measured by popularity and that the name of the truth we speak should not be disguised. In solidarity, Doug Porpora From: IN%"soc_dept@emunix.emich.edu" 29-MAY-1992 Subj: Marxist Section We are all receiving far too many words through e-mail so I'll be brief. A comment and a promo: Let me endorse and underscore Doug Porpora's essential position regarding the section keeping its name. The name should stay, not only because its as theoretically strong as it ever was but also in this day and age of postmodernism and cultural studies, it's still capable of making sense out of such disparate strands of thought as deconstructionism and biosociology. In short, with or without the Soviet Union, political economy still provides the linchpin that brings everything together. Now then, for an unabashed and unapologetic Marxist analysis of U.S. society, see my GIMME SHELTER: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF HOMELESSNESS IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA (Praeger, 1991 in paper its only 14.95, hard is 39.95). The book has been selected for CHOICE'S List of Outstanding Academic Books for 1991. Gregg Barak From: IN%"ALTEVOGT%UKANVM.BITNET" "John D. Altevogt" 31-MAY-1992 Subj: Name change for section. I have noticed a tendency lately by some Marxist scholars to drop the adjective Marxist and simply refer to themselves as socialists. Many of these folks were in the camp that went a tad overboard in defending some of the excesses of our Soviet friends, and now find themselves in a position not dissimilar to that of many of our check kiting Congressthugs. Then there are others, who now refer to themselves as "post-marxists", a term which seems to me to be quite as silly as referring to oneself as a pre-marxist, as if marxism were somehow like a pregnancy; a simply horrid period of ones life that somehow gives birth to a more innocent and "realistic" future. Call me cynical, but I truly suspect that we could just as easily call many of these self-proclaimed "post" marxists "pre" marxists without any loss of accuracy. Ironically, I find that when I review the texts of Marx and then examine the society around me, I am more inclined to drop adjectives like socialist, radical and progressive and label myself a Marxist. First off, I don't like the term radical. David Duke is radical. Pat Buchanan is radical. Maybe you're radical, but the things I believe in are just plain common sense. There's nothing radical about them. Progressives? After all of the dashed hopes created by yesterday's progress, I think we need to ponder that term a little more critically than we have in the past. And socialist? No, the notion of socialism is too tied to the idea of statism, and I suspect that the folks in Eastern Europe were far more upset with the state as it operated on an everyday basis, than they were over the theoretical tenets of marxism. Indeed, there are quite a few folks in that part of the world who are asking if they can't have their wall back when they are confronted with the real-life tenets of modern day capitalism. I personally think that Marx, and marxism, are going to become even more relevant now that capitalism has achieved its global domination. Where is there a better, more consistent theory of capitalism than that found in Marx? In an era when the state is being perceived as the enemy, what socialist can be pointed to who was more opposed to the state and bureaucracy than Marx? And, as I pointed out in my comments a few days ago, I have yet to find any theorist who more clearly understood the dialectics of change than did Karl Marx. I have never considered myself to be a true believer, and don't now, but this is not the time to sell the farm. There is great freedom to be had in being marginal. Freedom to be theoretically and conceptually bold. It is a time to examine errors and to look for new paths. What do democratic working-class institutions look like? How would they be organized? What do we really mean by "social change" and "progress"? Where are the new roads to freedom? We may not have the answer to these questions yet, but in asking them as marxists will we be any more pathetic than our mainstream colleagues who, like aging whores, continue to ply ever sleazier corners of the authoritarian welfare state, whilst encouraging their declining numbers of majors to engage in safe sociology. From: IN%"MG%UCRVMS.BITNET" 31-MAY-1992 Subj: marxist section I agree with Doug about keeping Marxism in the title. But how about Marxist Sociology and Critical Theory as a possibility????? I really dont want to complicate things, tho. I also agree with Altevogt regarding the persisting relevance of marxism. The present conjuncture is one of "state financed capitalism" with a "social darwinist" civic culture overlaid by postmodernist consumerism. Scratch the hype and we're almost back to the 19th cent., almost, but some very important differences. What are they????? MG From: IN%"dsa@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu" "James Hughes" 31-MAY-1992 Subj: RE: Name change for section. I don't think Marxist economism and class-reductionism is relevant at all, except as another analytical tool that we should add to our ideological/sociological kit, just as important as gender/kinship, ethnicity, and so are important constructs. Take a look at Robin and Hanhnel's Liberating Theory for a lay interpretation of a solid sociological post-Marxist framework that avoids economic reductionism. If you think "radical" is too ambiguous, how about "progressive" or "radical democratic" or "critical" or "left" or just "democratic"? Why do we have to stick with a 19th century theoretical construct that is supposedly scientific, and therefore self-transcendent? J. Hughes University of Chicago and Chicago DSA From: IN%"williams@csf.Colorado.EDU" 1-JUN-1992 Subj: marxist section I am not sure what is meant by a "true believer", but I probably am not one of those with regard to Marxism. HOWEVER (this is a big one), I have found no other adequate theory of social change. All other theoretical perspectives seem to deal with only a "slice of life", static relationships and so-called micro or mid-range theorizing -- totally unsatisfying for a dreamer (theorist) like me. I am into general systems theory fairly heavily. But how do we arrive at our theoretical dynamic systems without a theory of social change. Is there any other than Marxist theory to guide us in our systems modeling? For these reasons, I have no problem keeping the name Marxist Section. It is (history will show) a perfectly respectable theoretical orientation for ANYONE in the social sciences. We need to be very strong in maintaining our distinctions between theoretical foundations and nationalistic or communal applications (praxis) -- and still keeping the connections. Dick Williams From: IN%"LMILLER@umassd.edu" 1-JUN-1992 Subj: The NAME! From: Larry Miller UMassDartmouth "lmiller@umassd.edu" The advantage of the current name and the disadvantage of the current name are related. We have little agreement on what it means. Maybe the problem is with the singular. Should we be the section on Marxisms or marxist sociologies? I might be happier with "historical materialism", but would anyone else? As soon as we start defining ourselves, even to each other, we begin to see how little we have in common. One writer defines marxism as political economy (I thought it was the critique of political economy i.e. a sociology) another derides economism and offers us albert and hahnel: class is just one of those things. What we do share is politics -we are on the left and we think that is relevant to how we think as well as what we do. But many of us don't want to define section politically -e.g. progressive sociologists or radical sociologists. partly I suppose because the political agreement doesn't bear too close looking into either - partly, maybe, because one of the points of the section is professional/intellectual political. Its about the (attempted?) legitimation of marxist sociology within U.S. academia (and without?). So the name is awkward but inevitable -for now. From: IN%"ALTEVOGT%UKANVM.BITNET" "John Altevogt" 2-JUN-1992 Subj: Mark's right. While I cannot accept the position that equates Marx with just another analytical tool or construct, I do think that Mark Gottdiener has hit the nail squarely on the head. If there is to be a name change, Marxism and Critical Theory definitely covers the bases. I don't think that any of us can lay claim to being great paragons of marxian orthodoxy anymore. However, I think that those who would have been truly committed to a Marxist Section remain pretty firmly grounded in the kinds of analyses, questions, issues that were addressed by Marx. What has occurred, is that we all tend to focus on Marx PLUS ...... (where ...... = Frankfort School, Structuralist Theory, etc.). But that PLUS ...... tends to remain well within the confines of what we would call Critical Theories of society. Therefore, Marxism and Critical Theory recognizes both our theoretical foundations, as well as our flexibility (whilst not selling the farm). Three cheers for leaving the name alone, but 2 and 7/8 cheers for Marxism and Critical Theory if we have to change it. Peace. JDA From: IN%"GIMENEZ_M@CUBLDR.Colorado.EDU" "Martha E. Gimenez" 8-JUN-1992 Subj: Section Name I think the discussion over the name of the Section is interesting, but I'm concerned that it is omitting many PSNers who are not Section members. It might be useful to the broader group of PSNers for us to have a discussion of how we, as progressive sociologists, identify ourselves. But whether or not that broader discussion materializes, I would like to make my own contribution to the narrower discussion on the Section name. I read with a great deal of interest the various views about the Section name posted in PSN. Going over the main points made by the participants in this exchange, I identify two mayor sources of opposition to keeping the Section name unchanged. 1. One is the spectre of "Marxist economism," "class reductionism," etc., the kind of faulty reasoning that invariably leads to the rejection of any kind of hierarchy of determination and the adoption of ultimately idealist standpoints. Most U.S. intellectuals are still caught within what Lukacs called the antinomies of bourgeois thought; i.e., determinism/voluntarism, materialism/idealism. We neglect Marx's dialectical method and stress one or the other of the polarities as "the" correct reading of Marx or as "the" grounds to critique or reject Marx. But given the nature of the dominant ideologies and the dominant academic "paradignms," most of us would rather die than be called "vulgar materialist" or "class reductionist," and in the process of bending over backwards to avoid that slur we fall into whatever idealism is popular at the time. When I was a graduate student, for example, that entailed allegiance to Sartre and Marcuse - today it is postmodernism, tomorrow there will be something else. 2. The other has to do with the fact that we all come to Marx from different generations and different intellectual/professional skills. Awareness of this diversity could be used to justify the notion that calling the Section "Marxist Sociology and Critical Theory," as Mark suggested, would be appropriate. I disagree. I think that such a name would set up a misleading contrast between an atheoretical sociological Marxism and a theoretical "critical" standpoint presumably richer than Marxist Sociology. I know that this is not how those who proposed the name see it but those are the implications or latent effects I foresee within the current academic and professional context. Furthermore, not only those theories would not be what they are in the absence of Marx's work but many of them contain elements incompatible with a historical materialist analysis of social reality. Most of those working on Marxist sociology do so using Marxist theory, while many who do Critical Theory do work many would not consider Marxist. Anyway, I think the name of the Section has important political and profesional implications and, in the unlikely event the matter becomes an issue within the Section, it will ultimately be decided by the membership. I will end this note just restating what I said in my message in the last newsletter of the Section on Marxist Sociology: As long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production, Marxism will continue to be the main explanatory theory and main source of useful political insights. As long as capitalism remains dominant, a Section on Marxist Sociology within the ASA will be necessary to maintain clearly the differences between the broad gamut of "critical" thinking --- which does not necessarily entail a radical break with conservative and liberal views of social change as gradual, quantitative, and contained within the parameters of capitalism or "market" economies --- and theory firmly grounded upon the main tenets of Marxism. In solidarity, Martha From: IN%"REDC601%HAIFAUVM.BITNET" "Devorah" 9-JUN-1992 Subj: RE: Section Name Dear Martha, I just want to say that I think your analysis of the issue of rena ming the section is very logical. Outside the sociological community there is s o much talk equating the failure of Marxism with the failure of the bureaucrats who found it expedient to act in its name that it seems a pity to give in - W as that English? I think you are right-the term 'critical' can mean anything fr om questioning the syntax of a sentence to a penetrating disclosure of the hidd en ways that capitalism chooses to perpetuate injustice. I hope I am a member o f the section - I send a tremendous sum to the ASA once a year - but whether I am or not, I think a section on Marxist sociology should be on that list. Yours , Devorah