webshells.com/nwuco Forum
webshells.com/nwuco Forum
| Author | Nicole Seibert |
| Date | 00/09/01/10:45 |
| Hit Count | 825 |
| This question is actually put to everyone --> What are your feelings on Jean Baudrillard? I heard somewhere in my own department that he is not even a sociologist!? I found that amazing, but am not sure why a person would hold such beliefs. I think this is the group to explain to me why Baudrillard and other working pomos are looked down on so much. By the way J, the pomos I know of do not look down on class analysis or science. In fact, they rather like the "coming to terms with its own unfirmness" science and the fluidity and function of class analysis. Most pomos I know are actually Marxists. And in case any of you haven't noticed neither Tilly nor Meyer have a theory per say. Objectivity is a fleeting dream of scholars who think that they can find the Truth, or any truth for that matter. The objectivity groupies just want to be held in high regard like their predecessors --> all those dead white men. Which brings me back to J original idea: of course pomos don't like essentialism and foundationalism if for no other reason then at their most basic level they derive most things to men. Chew on that before you spit it back out. We study history to learn from our past, but the only active members in history are men. So, we derive that men are actors, not women. The economic infastructure was not only manufactured by, but is studied and predominately maintain by men. So, we derive that men are not only actors, but influence all of society at its most basic level. Women understand this at a very basic level: Men buy the homes we live in. Derivative: We (women) are just here to take care of what they own. I could go on and on, and you could too! -Nico |