|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