Re: Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Ricardo is implying that if you are born rich in the Third World, you are of necessity forever trapped in the aristocratic ideology of enjoying leisure dependence upon servants, moreover endorsing the social relations that give you many servants who wait upon you, whatever your political commitment (to Marxism, feminism, world systems theory, etc.). At a talk in NYC last year, Spivak said she did not come from a rich family... In 1959 in India--when Gayatri Chakravorty graduated from the University of Calcutta with a First in English--80 percent of Indian women over 15 could not read. Her family was not rich by first-world standards (she went to graduate school at Cornell on borrowed money), and thus it was not super-rich by Indian standards. But it does seem somewhat of a confusion of categories to call her family solid metropolitan middle class... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Like to read her exact words. Know she likes the good life, Columbia's salary, speaking tours, expensive Indian garments, servant baths and all. So should she wear a hair shirt and live on table scraps instead? Doug Columbia faculty get servant baths? Gee. Inequality in Manhattan must be greater than I thought... Brad DeLong
Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Like to read her exact words. Know she likes the good life, Columbia's salary, speaking tours, expensive Indian garments, servant baths and all. So should she wear a hair shirt and live on table scraps instead? Doug Columbia faculty get servant baths? Gee. Inequality in Manhattan must be greater than I thought... Brad DeLong Back in India. Nothing serious, she can enjoy herself Ricardo is implying that if you are born rich in the Third World, you are of necessity forever trapped in the aristocratic ideology of enjoying leisure dependence upon servants, moreover endorsing the social relations that give you many servants who wait upon you, whatever your political commitment (to Marxism, feminism, world systems theory, etc.). On the average, intellectuals in poor nations probably come more often from the classes strata that can hire servants than intellectuals in rich nations do, since in the former education is not as widely provided as in the latter. That's a force of circumstances that say nothing about Spivak as an individual thinker. Yoshie
Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Ricardo is implying that if you are born rich in the Third World, you are of necessity forever trapped in the aristocratic ideology of enjoying leisure dependence upon servants, moreover endorsing the social relations that give you many servants who wait upon you, whatever your political commitment (to Marxism, feminism, world systems theory, etc.). At a talk in NYC last year, Spivak said she did not come from a rich family, and thought that people who said so were trying to undermine her reputation. She hypothesized that it was ok when she was focusing on Third World women, but when she started talking about political economy, she was stepping on the toes of the Big Boys, who resented her for the transgression, and so started spreading rumors. Doug
Re: Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Doug Henwood wrote: Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Ricardo is implying that if you are born rich in the Third World, you are of necessity forever trapped in the aristocratic ideology of enjoying leisure dependence upon servants, moreover endorsing the social relations that give you many servants who wait upon you, whatever your political commitment (to Marxism, feminism, world systems theory, etc.). At a talk in NYC last year, Spivak said she did not come from a rich family, and thought that people who said so were trying to undermine her reputation. She hypothesized that it was ok when she was focusing on Third World women, but when she started talking about political economy, she was stepping on the toes of the Big Boys, who resented her for the transgression, and so started spreading rumors. Doug Doug, I had the chance out here in Hawaii to see Harvey and Spivak speak last month. Harvey, as dry as his speaking style is, was clearly making links between issues of globalization, culture, envronment and political economy. Spivak's talk was very frustrating on the other hand. Aside from a few comments about the 'disgusting' use of neo-liberal ideology being employed as 'teaching materials' in developing countries, she really had nothing to say w/ regard to the political economy of globalization. Everything was on some cultural identity plane. I didn't find her threatening to the big boys in any sense of the phrase. Steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
Stephen E Philion wrote: I had the chance out here in Hawaii to see Harvey and Spivak speak last month. Harvey, as dry as his speaking style is, was clearly making links between issues of globalization, culture, envronment and political economy. Spivak's talk was very frustrating on the other hand. Aside from a few comments about the 'disgusting' use of neo-liberal ideology being employed as 'teaching materials' in developing countries, she really had nothing to say w/ regard to the political economy of globalization. Everything was on some cultural identity plane. I didn't find her threatening to the big boys in any sense of the phrase. The Big Boys she meant were left political economists and such, not the ruling class. But you're right that her comments on political economy aren't any great shakes. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
The Big Boys she meant were left political economists and such, not the ruling class. But you're right that her comments on political economy aren't any great shakes. Doug Spivak isn't a political economist, but she's willing to engage political economy. Her work and informed critique of her work are a useful bridge between studies of culture and economy. I say informed critique because (as I know you would agree Doug) we're seeing glaring examples of the opposite. Best, Colin P.S. Re this see the latest _Rethinking Marxism_
Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
By the standards of world historians - or anyone who disagrees that Europe was uniquely prepared for modern capitalism, or that by the 16th-17th centuries capitalism was fully underway in England, Brenner, Wood, including Anderson, and all the British Marxist historians ARE eurocentric.To the extent that marxists today continue to write about the rise of capitalism without doing comparative world historical research, they ARE eurocentric. But then the claim doesn't mean very much. It just means you're not doing comparative world history--which begs definition, btw. But so what? How does that invalidate any of the claims that Brenner makes in Merchants and Revolution or the Turbulence essay? The stuff you've been posting about Chinese agriculture (to the degree I've kept up) has been fascinating. But it doesn't explain the rise of New World Slavery, the triangle trade, the origins of modern finance, the transition from feudal to capitalist social relations in the Atlantic economies, etc. (Which doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, just that . . .) Eurocentrism, in that context, is basically a way to harness the political claims of wrong to an epistemology which, like all epistemologies, has its limits. If you want to argue on this level--which is basically name-calling--comparative world history is not non-Eurocentric--it's a more ambitious version of Eurocentrism, the way globalization is a more ambitious (and friendly) version of imperialism. But that's a stupid argument. Spivak said somewhere that the problem is not Eurocentrism, but not being Eurocentric enough. Christian P.S. I second Justin's rec of _Hydra_.
Re: Re: Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
with equally serious arguments. It's no wonder Brenner wouldn't care to debate the issues with you, you can't even acknowledge that your opponents are worthy of respect for taking your arguments seriously enough that they give sustained and careful responses to them. Steve Actually, I began debating the issues with Brenner offline but in keeping with a long-standing Proyectist tradition, I insisted on public debate. I believe that the Internet is as important to revolutionary politics today as the printing press was to revolutionary struggles in England during the 17th century. By participating in public debates on lists such as PEN-L, we are upholding a more democratic political culture than the one that prevails in leftwing academic print journals which emerged in the 1950s as an outlet for red professors who couldn't publish in the usual venues. Unfortunately these journals carry with them the baggage of the academy (peer reviews, intense competition, etc.) that ultimately is rooted in the deeply authoritarian world of the 19th century German katheder. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
