I'm trying to be convinced.
I wrote my master's thesis on Political Economics, in particular
Social Movements in the context of World Systems Theory -- more of
the Andre Gunder Frank sort (capital accumulation has been going on
largely unchanged for about 5000 years) than the "catholic" view that
the formal rise of capitalism marks the beginning of the contempory
world system.
My exposure to Post-Modernism during that work dealt with a brand of
post-modernism that posited that the foundations of world systems
theory had no basis, that it was just another discourse among many,
and that there was not ground to give preferential treatment to it.
That is, the post-modern stances I've encountered in the past have
had little to say about post-modernism being a periodizing concept,
and a lot to say about the philosphical aspect.
My trouble with the periodizing nature of post-modernism discussed
here is that it appears that "contemporary world" = "the post-modern
age". Given the choice, I'd choose "contemporary world" as the
phrase that is less ambiguous.
--- "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Several have commented on the discussion of postmodernism to the
> effect that
> their minds were not changed. I found that really depressing--but
> revealing.
>
> Since we are having an ostensibly self-aware discussion in this
> forum, it is
> perhaps worthwhile to take this chance to reflect a bit. Namely:
>
> Does participating in these discussions change our views--or just
> confirm
> the ones we have?
>
> Does listening to these discussions change our views?
>
> If no to both, then is this really the venue for such discussions?
> Or is
> this kind of forum better for exchanging information?
>
> Sincerely,
> Edward O'Neill
> Bryn Mawr College
=====
Nathan Wolfson
[log in to unmask]
http://www.geocities.com/nathan_wolfson
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
|