From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Mar 19 2007 - 03:53:40 EDT
Haven't been able to follow discussion of hermeneutics. But it seems that we have at least two ways to go. 1. We actively look for apparent inconsistencies in the text because their resolution will allow us to deepen our appreciation of the text in its ability to capture the real contradictions of capitalist production. Of course the assumption here is that inconsistencies can be resolved and that there is an underlying unity to the text. Or the assumption may be that while there are some minor inconsistencies they are trivial. Which I think is a very acceptable approach whether it's Fred dismissing the problem of double divergence or Kliman dismissing a passage or two in which Marx' view of what can change prices of production seems overly limited and not consistent with the thrust of his theory. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to argue that these inconsistencies operate at an inappropriately trivial level. I don't agree with them, would argue with them. But I understand the logic of their replies, and it seems to me that no theory could be defended if it could not dismiss at least some inconsistencies as inappropriately trivial. 2. We do not assume that there is an underlying unity to the text. For example Marx both wanted to meet the hegemonic scientific criteria of his time and to devise a new view of science at odds with the hegemonic one. He was torn. Daniel Bensaid and Patrick Murray have interesting things to say here. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT