Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA24384 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 24 May 2000 11:52:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1D7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival" Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 11:49:46 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Let me quote you Foucault on what he saw himself as doing-
'I am neither an adversary nor a partisan of Marxism; I question it about
what it has to say about experiences that ask questions of it.' (in Rabinow,
1984: 385).
Chomsky isn't a literal Marxist, but his concepts of the propaganda model
and manufacturing of consent fit into the marxist/ neo-marxist critique of
media systems.
Very interesting that you demonstrate through your mention of an author who
would examine the economic situation of a country, not in that aim itself,
which no Marxist would disagree with, but in how they would do this. The
very point most marxist media scholars (and chomksy has written along these
lines) is that finding out about the economic realities of a society is
problematized by that society structuring the availability and flow of
information sources, and, moreover, the environments in which people learn
the skills to conduct such investigations. Althussser called them
Ideological State Apparatuses, of which the media was one, and Gramsci gave
us the concept of hegemony to offer an explanation of how it operates.
I find your ability to dismiss not only individual authors but entire
traditions of critical enquiry that have been highly significant in the last
100 years or so very worrying. Disagreeing with is one thing, dismissal is
another.
(The point about seppuku, was that this is a ritual behaviour that has
persisted for many generations explicitly involving suicide- how do you
explain it?)
Vincent
> ----------
> From: chuck
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:34 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
>
>
>
> Vincent Campbell wrote:
>
> > 'There's no way I could know everything happening in Europe.'
> >
> > How generous of you to be so humble!:-)
> >
> > Indeed, media sociology utilises Marxist analysis in much more
> > sophisticated ways than 'profit is everything'. You could, indeed
> should,
> > look at Adorno, Althusser, Gramsci, Marcuse,
>
> If you consider Marcuse as one such example, I will stick to my position.
> I read
> him extensively and found absolutely nothing beyond simplistic glosses of
> capitalist economy. As for Chomsky, he is simply not a Marxist -- and has
> said
> so openly both in private conversations with me and in public.
>
> There is a Brit author who has just come out with a book that is being
> publisized here - heard him on public radio the other day - talking about
> how
> Marx was indeed right on a lot of things and that modern day Marxists for
> the
> most part use his name, not his ideas. Someone asked him how he would
> study any
> society, and he said he would do exactly what Marx did at first -- dig
> into all
> the information, including business publications, that gives information
> on how
> the economy works. I don't recall ever meeting a Marxist who comes even
> close to
> this ideal. The author - whose name escapes me at the moment - is, after
> all,
> correct.
>
> The question "Who owns the media" is barely the beginning of a question.
> That in
> itself tells very little. I have seen this kind of analysis, and it tells
> us
> almost noithing about how the media operates as a sliver of particular
> interests
> within the capitalist class. In fact, one could just as easily find the
> same
> kind of analysis put forward by populist type authors.
>
> > In an information-based society what are the
> > most important products- media products.
> >
> > Why isn't Foucault a Marxist?
>
> For reasons I have listed above. He says nothing significant about the
> economy.
> He is as Marxist as Levi-Strauss who looks at societies more like a
> Hegelian
> than a Marxist.
>
> >
> > By the way, what are your views on seppuku, ritual suicide in
> Japan
> > (often incorrectly referred to as hari kari)?
>
> None. Don't know a thing about it.
>
> Chuck
>
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: chuck
> > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:02 am
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
> > >
> > > Vincent Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Very interesting that you should included Wilson alongside Weber,
> > > Durkheim
> > > > and Marx.
> > >
> > > Modern sociobiology was founded in the mid 1970s, but it only broke
> > > through the
> > > enormous prejudices against it in the early 1990s, in part, I think,
> to
> > > the mass
> > > publication of MRIs thinking brains which put an end forever to the
> notion
> > > that
> > > thoughts are merely spiritual entities floating around in a grey
> cloud. He
> > > took
> > > all the heat in the meantime because he was willing to put himself on
> the
> > > line
> > > with his considerable intellectual integrity. I think he has to take
> major
> > > credit for being the front man.
> > >
> > > > I doubt anyone but other sociobiologists would put Wilson on a
> > > > line of important theoreticians of the last 100 years or so.
> > >
> > > I don't think that's any longer true in the US anyway. He has, after
> all,
> > > been
> > > prophetic. (I'm not claiming he is always right - which would be
> > > miraculous -
> > > but the general direction of his thought has been accepted.) And SB
> has
> > > arrived
> > > sufficiently strongly here that the inevitable bastardized references
> to
> > > it in
> > > common parlance are almost obligatory. So people beyond
> sociobiologists
> > > *do*
> > > look to Wilson as at least a force to be reckoned with.
> > >
> > > I should add that the tension between the hard sciences and the all
> other
> > > fields
> > > has increased markedly since about the early eighties. The amazing
> > > excesses of
> > > the humanities in my view comes mostly from the fact that private
> money to
> > > fund
> > > the sciences has poured onto the campuses, leaving the humanities in a
> > > defensive
> > > position. They have spent the last 20 years trying to prove that the
> hard
> > > sciences are entirely arbitrary in an effort to recover their
> position.
> > > That was
> > > the basis of a lot of vitriol against Wilson and SB.
> > >
> > > > Incidentally, I don't know where you get the idea from that many
> aspects
> > > of
> > > > the social sciences are ignorant of the importance of Marx.
> > >
> > > Yes, Europe finds the **name** of Marx more important. But when all
> sorts
> > > of
> > > academics claim to be Marxists who clearly aren't - like Foucault - I
> > > think you
> > > have to wonder how much Marx's actual theory and methodology has
> actually
> > > survived. And, yes, you are right, academics in the US have been quite
> > > literally
> > > scared out of mentioning any debt to Marx with the result that many
> have
> > > no idea
> > > how much of their ideas comes from Marx. Then again, there are lots of
> > > "Marxists" in the US who owe about as much to Marx as Foucault does.
> > >
> > > > It certainly
> > > > doesn't apply to social science in Europe- perhaps in America
> > > McCarthyism's
> > > > long shadow keeps it hidden in the USA. In fact, amongst our less
> aware
> > > > students, we get complaints about the amount of Marxism that has to
> be
> > > dealt
> > > > with when exploring media sociology, with comments like 'the Soviet
> > > Union
> > > > doesn't exist anymore so why are we studying Marx?'.
> > >
> > > I have to wonder what version of Marx is taught in media studies. If
> it is
> > > simply his notions of class lifted out of his broader method and
> theory, I
> > > would
> > > have to wonder if it is more ideology than science that is being
> taught.
> > > (I'm
> > > not saying that class doesn't play an important role). For example, a
> > > Marxist
> > > approach to the media would involve a thoroughgoing understanding of
> how
> > > the
> > > capitalist economy works and where the media fits in. A simplistic
> > > profit-motivates-everything will not do. Any of the so-called Marxist
> > > sociology
> > > coming out of Europe that I have seen doesn't even begin to understand
> the
> > > necessity of this approach. So - I'm skeptical, but open to
> correction.
> > > There's
> > > no way I could know everything happening in Europe.
> > >
> > > Whatever the actual status of Wilson and sociobiology, though, the
> fact
> > > remains
> > > that the notion of the means of production providing the essential
> context
> > > for
> > > society is one of the most important theoretical trusses of
> sociobiology.
> > > After
> > > all, the means of production is determined, if you will, by the
> ecology of
> > > a
> > > society, and ecology is a crucial concept in SB.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vincent
> > > >
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > From: chuck
> > > > > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 8:18 am
> > > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin Faichney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 22 May 2000, chuck wrote:
> > > > > >In short, the industrial revolution did not happen because
> > > people
> > > > > were suddenly
> > > > > >infected with some virus as some memists might claim. It
> was a
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > >response to a changing ecology. The competitive game is a
> > > constant
> > > > > in across all
> > > > > >human societies - that's how change is ultimately
> accomplished.
> > > But
> > > > > it's not the
> > > > > >competition itself, but the ecology that drives it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Unfortunately to give this a reality, it is necessary to
> have a
> > > > > good grasp of a
> > > > > >lot of historical data pertaining to economics, politics,
> > > > > psychology, population
> > > > > >studies, and history. There are simply no easy shortcuts on
> > > this
> > > > > one. But the
> > > > > >principle is still ecological, not simply a game of
> cultural
> > > > > catchup -- even
> > > > > >though people may conceptualize it that way in their daily
> > > lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems wildly implausible to me, and I'm afraid I'm not
> > > willing
> > > > > to accept it
> > > > > on your say-so, even though you might be much better read in
> the
> > > > > relevant areas.
> > > > > I take is, as you're not giving any references, this is all
> your
> > > own
> > > > > work?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a huge body of work out there on this theme, but it is
> > > scattered
> > > > > across many fields. I suggest that anyone interested in pursuing
> this
> > > > > start by reading the basic classical works of the last 100 years
> -
> > > > > Weber, Durkheim, Marx, and the sociobiologists like Edward Wilson
> and
> > > > > Pinker. Stripped of the ideological stuff, Marx is enormously
> useful
> > > > > because he is the first to fully understand the role of the means
> of
> > > > > production in human behavior. That has proved to be so useful that
> it
> > > is a
> > > > > standard conceptual tool in huge areas of the social sciences even
> > > though
> > > > > many are unaware of the source. Sociobiology builds on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, if you already find what I say "wildly implausible," it's
> > > quite
> > > > > possible you are already too wedded to parsing the world into
> > > fragmented
> > > > > pieces to seriously consider a broader context. Many people,
> > > professionals
> > > > > included, don't find a broader view based on what is essentially
> > > > > historical ecology so implausible. That includes Edward Wilson
> (you
> > > might
> > > > > try reading his latest book, Consilience, which explores exactly
> what
> > > I am
> > > > > talking about).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> Transmission
> > > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > >
> > >
> > > ===============================================================
> > > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> > >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 24 2000 - 11:52:33 BST