Parsons was a functionalist (neo if you like) where structures are
determined by (social) functions. It does not give room to agency (which
is also a problem for many marxian analysis). Dorrine's work (pomo) gives
far more agency to people, institutions, etc. So what's the difference
between functionalist (structuralist) and agency? One is too rigid to
explain much change, the other emphasizes relativism to an extreme.
cheers, a
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax : (253) 692-5718
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
On 11/6/06, Anthony D'Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug's definition does not do justice to the label, although he is right.
I don't like pomo. Basically pomo is what we call post structuralism.
Social realities do not come in neat categories as in say the
modernization process (traditional versus modern structures) but rather
increasingly there is a recognition that compartmentalization of social
realities (at least intellectually speaking) give way to a fluidity based
on flows of (fill in the blanks). There is a greater degree of
open-endedness, relativeness, and thus "overdetermination."
David Harvey suggests that post-modernism (as a particular school of
philosophy and a label for cultural conditions) is a reflection of
post-Fordist social reality. Distance in space has become compressed
(due to cheaper fuels and advance in transportation), production is
more decentralized, the informal sector (where working people's
identities are often neither quite wage workers' nor petty producers')
has grown, job security has increased (compelling people to re-invent
themselves again and again), etc.
On 11/6/06, Anthony D'Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the best pomo books I have read is by Dorrine Kondo, a cultural
anthropologist (Crafting Selves) on Japanese workplace identity, where
it's concrete and perhaps more useful in its application.
In the context of workplace identity, though, how is Dorinne Kondo's
application of post-structuralist theory different from, say, another
anthropologist's application of Talcott Parson's theory?
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
