feedback

各位好,

我和江森聊了我們的第一次讀書會,幾個問題給他,他又很有耐心的回答如下,雖然仍是抽出重點,但已夠豐富,希望稍解大家當日的困惑, 光是這些回應,我們可否進一步討論有無整理出來的可能?

此外,我想計畫,我們明年最後一場後,或許請他出席一次回顧會,做個總結及反思。
Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee 宇軒


From: richard.johnson61@btinternet.comTo: blue95_7399@msn.comSubject: Re: Chapters of the book on BlairismDate: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:19:44 +0100

Dear Lee
Thanks for these very interesting questions.It must have been difficult to read the chapter as a freestanding essay. It is from a book about History, Theory and Politics and really needs this larger context.
Replying fully would take a lot of time and perhaps should await my visit, but:

1. Please tell your sociologist that I'm grateful for the appreciative comment. A major reason for writing at the time was an argument about history and theory, in which the two practices were often opposed and the role of abstraction in history-writing was underestimated. Marxism was, in this late 70s/early 80s, debate often the point of reference. For example, many of those writing social history at the time were either ex-communists or influenced by the new left or (like me) influenced by historians like EP Thompson. So it made sense, in this context, to go back to Marx himself - who does have very rich methodological reflections. I wanted show how abstraction and detailed narrative or concrete studies were not opposed practices in Marx's own work, but worked together. Theory was also more than a research question or hypothesis. I have actually found this work useful ever since because it helped me understand about the key continuing issue of theory and the empirical, micro/macro etc. For example, I would criticise some macro-sociologists, certainly Giddens, for failing to bring concrete studies to their theories. His theories are no more than generalised descriptions often inapplicable to particular experiences, places and times. I think Marx would have called them 'thin abstractions'.

2. Please tell your phenomenologist that I am very interested in this comment. Since I wrote this piece, I have become very interested in the work of Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, especially Ricoeur and in the similarities and differences between these phenomenologists and the cultural circuit as I developed it from Stuart Hall; (and ultimately Marx's Grundrisse). A key point of connection is with Ricoeur's idea of mimesis 1,2 and 3 in Narrative and History. And his idea of refiguration. Really interesting questions are raised about structure and visibility which need time to discuss! In general I have a critical but also appreciative relation to structuralism - a bit like Ricoeur's in fact!

3.Your community worker is spot on about EPThompson and the longer debate in the New Left. Narrowly the piece was a reply to his big attack on Althusser - The Poverty of Theory. A lot of our work on history and theory had Edward Thompson as our main discussant. Unfortunately the discussion got very heated and hurtful and we felt he didn't listen to us, but I continue to relate to him in my work and my life in many ways. For example, I think that my current political involvements are, in part, saying to EPT, yes, my work is political (he said it wasn't!). The piece today has some political relevance I think. It could also be seen to be addressed - on the other side of the argument - against dogmatic or over-abstract theories, which pretend to be actual descriptions, whether coming from sociologists or Marxists or neo-liberal economists! It has to be said that Marx himself sometimes made this mistake - hence 'the Best Marx'
4 The piece is certainly materialist - and I still think of myself as a historical materialist and contemporary historian especially interested in culture. I am happy with Raymond Williams' 'cultural materialism'! But what does this mean???
5 Yes, relations between disciplines. We were trying to work out what a cultural studies approach and use of history writing might be, different from cultural history. I have written about this relation directly elsewhere and could give references if it would be useful. One approach was to studying history-writing itself as a cultural practice = the main concern of the book from which the chapter is taken.. Later in different groups we worked out the idea of Popular Memory as another way of looking at history. In general I would insist that it is not only the discipline of history that should work historically! (My own background is as a historian of course).
Hope this helps.
Did you get the documentation? Was it enough?
cheers
Richard


Dear Richard, We had a successful section of reading group on last Saturday.There will be one section every month before your visit in April 2009.In this first section, I found some interesting questions related to this paper (reading for the best Marx) that might be useful for your reference.I list two main questions as follows.

1. Why did you write this articule? Why do you think it is important to find a best version of Marx?

- As one sociologist was impressed by your use of a lot of example to support your argument, he was humbled by this detailed analysis and said that he can only follow your framework in understanding this articule. But he has no clue the reason why you write this articule.

- As the other art-based scholar argues that the circuit you address involves different moments. He draws on phenomenology and shows his suspicion of the articule based on the circuit, which seems to work within a "structure". But, he wants to know that how you deal with those areas which are both visible and invisible at the same time? (I am not sure if I translate in the correct way!)

2. How does the arguement or hypothesis of the articule emerge? What is the political goal of this articule?
- As one community worker posed these two questions, he was puzzled whether your argument has something to do with the conflict between you and EP Thompson. Is it related to the long-term argument within the new left circle? Did it relate to you earlier reflection within the history discipline?

- One education-based scholar posed a question about the materialist foundation in which the articule was written.

- One cultural studies scholar addressed the tension between disciplines, e.g., cultural studies and sociology, history and cultural studies. So, perhaps it also caused the argument over theory/history/politics relationships emerge?!

Kind regards,Yu-Hsuan Lee