Although my recent posts on this blog would seem to indicate
that I am totally absorbed by the primary contests in the Democratic and Republican
parties, in fact my mind has been for the most part lately focused on the two
talks I shall be giving next week at Brown and MIT. As I have thought through the sequence of
things I plan to say, it has occurred to me that two of my on-line writings,
when combined, form an extremely good introduction to the work I have done on
Marx these past forty years or so. If
anyone has an interest in a brief overview of that work, they might read The Study of Society and A Unified Reading of Marx, both
available on box.net via the link at the top of this page. Together, those two essays run roughly 41,000
words, which is to say, about as long as what Professors of Law call “a note.” To that one might add Narrative Time, originally published in Midwest Studies in Philosophy and also available on box.net.
The deeper message of all three essays is that the study of
society is unavoidably ideologically inflected.
Hence my statement that one ought to read great works of social theory
in the original rather than as redacted in textbooks. S. Wallerstein asks which other works,
besides Capital, one should read in
that fashion. I would certainly say Max
Weber’s Economy and Society, Karl
Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia, Thomas
Hobbes’ Leviathan, Erving Goffman’s Presentations of Self in Everyday Life, and
Emile Durkheim’s Suicide. [Also many other works by Marx, but
sufficient unto the day.]
6 comments:
Professor Wolff,
Thanks. One more question.
I see that your list begins with Hobbes' Leviathan, that being written in the context of the English Revolution, at the beginning of the capitalist era. Hobbes's "war of all against all" is an excellent description of the capitalist market and unfortunately, of a crowded subway train in a neoliberal society.
However, would your idea that great works of social theory must be read in the original apply to pre-capitalist works of social theory, say, Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics (without taking into consideration that Plato's Republic at least is great literature and should be read in the original qua literature, like all Plato's dialogues)?
All of Plato's dialogues need to be read as written, not in Cliff Notes versions. Indeed, it is hard to think of a great work of philosophy that does not need to be read as written. this is dramatically obvious about the writings of Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, but then it is even true of Spinoza's ETHICS.
Thanks once again.
Spinoza has a unique style, which is worth experiencing, although I confess to have skimmed some of the demonstrations. In any case, Spinoza is one of those philosophers who I feel good about and personally enriched from having met (which is different than agreeing with the basis of his philosophy).
I'm trying to think of a great work of philosophy that does not need to be read as written, but I can't come up with one. Maybe other readers can.
(There are philosophers who I'll never be able to read as written, say, Hegel or Adorno, but that's my limitation.)
What about Socrates, who didn't write anything?
But we know of Socrates principally through Plato. The Socrates we all remember is a character in Plato's dialogues. Who knows what he would have sounded like in person?
Gilbert Gottfried....
Post a Comment