Jerry wrote, >If one wants short fairy-tale like answers to complex theoretical and >political questions, then perhaps one should revert to reading "Quotations >from Chairman Mao" and, thereby, substitute vacuous slogans and prose for >analysis. Let's spend some time with this thought. I happen to agree with it 100%. Fairy-tales are not adequate responses to complex theoretical and political issues. And I'm not saying this off the top of my head, narrative policy analysis has been my central research concern for over 10 years. I have written several longer pieces on narrative policy analysis, but I don't think I completely efface the complexity or subtlety of my own analysis when I say, in summary, that public policy decisions _are_ typically made on the basis of "fairy-tale like answers" to complex questions (does "balancing the budget" ring any bells?). Perhaps that is a sad conclusion -- but it's a conclusion that can't be changed by throwing a three-volume theoretical and empirical analysis at it. And it doesn't much matter whether the three volumes are modernist or postmodernist. It's interesting how Jerry has *tactically* come around to my position on this matter. One topic ago -- on the politics of free time -- Jerry quarreled with my statement that: >> 'Thirty for forty' is a slogan, not a politics. Jerry responded: >It was both a slogan and a demand -- primarily of CIO unions. It can be a >demand in collective bargaining or a political demand. Clearly, there are >many instances of slogans which were part of political movements. My objection to the 'thirty for forty' slogan is that it is not backed up by an analysis of the complex theoretical and political issues. I've got nothing against slogans that represent, in a compact form, a more complex analysis. When I look closer at the 'thirty for forty' slogan, however (using a postmodernist approach of narrative policy analysis), what I discover is that the slogan concedes the high ground to opponents of shorter work time. The implicit 'story' behind 'thirty for forty' is a work-a-day world in which the lengthening of work time is perceived as a natural product of market pressures and the limitation of work time is something that must be *imposed* by regulation or collective action. This 'story', it so happens, is out of sync with the historical record (and I rely here on E.P. Thompson's "Time, Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism" for my interpretation of the historical record). The 'thirty for forty' story also reifies the wages for forty hours work, as if some dollar amount could be nailed to the wall as a perpetual standard. In other words, 'thirty for forty' fully accomodates a market-centric view of the world. Opponents of reducing work time have no difficulty repelling such slogans as thirty for forty with the condescending, "it's a nice idea in theory, but as a practical matter..." To put it bluntly, the hard work of narrative policy analysis is developing "short fairy-tale like answers" that are, never-the-less, faithful to the more complex analysis of the issues. Be assured that if those who understand the complexities refuse to provide 'simplifications' because "one can *not* legitimately summarize a complex body of ideas into a short soundbite", others with less understanding (and perhaps less sympathetic motives) will. Regards, Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
