Re: Future of Europe (Tausch vs Derrida-Habermas)

you are RIGHT Al on all scores.  but as your own papers n the matrial/ist
origin of pomo have shown , we have a tremendous handicap, unlikely to
be overcome. you got any suggestios on how to do it?
personalizing and paulo says i always do,  is there amny point in my
stuff under the circumstances, sinc competing with the pomos i am beaten 
before ii start.  i of course notice the overlap wiuth them in the
critical part of what we/I do, and i often make special note of it. if
the materialist addition of an alternative to the received wisdom is
falling on death ears because its not pomo, then why bathere with
it. and then i/we would do better in reaching our audience by  pomoizing 
the critical part where we agree,

so what is to be doone?

g/On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Albert Bergesen
wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:49:54 -0700
> From: Albert Bergesen <albert@email.arizona.edu>
> To: n0705590 <Damian.Popolo@newcastle.ac.uk>,
>      Andre Gunder Frank <franka@fiu.edu>, Gernot Koehler <gktbg1@tiscali.de>
> Cc: wsn <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: Future of Europe (Tausch vs Derrida-Habermas)
> 
> Gunder,
> 
> Pomo as sillyness.  Well, thats the Chomskyan stance:  its all silly,
> non-sensical, non-science, and so forth.  Fine.  But, like it or not, alot
> of progressive sentiment for the last 30 years or so has been ensconced in
> that perspective.  One may not like the idealism of it, or the linguistic
> aspect of the analysis, or its culturalism, but it has been a forum through
> which ideas about the status of women, race, and minorities of all kinds,
> along with postcolonial senses of well being, have been expressed.
> 
> To put it a bit more bluntly:  if the materialist side of the progressive
> camp had a better formulation of the world condition, the past 30 yr. slide
> into idealism/linguistic analysis/etc. might not have been so successful.
> 
> Who failed, they or we?
> 
> I say we.  They, the pomo camp, put forward an analysis -- words hurt,
> discursive formations constrain, hegemonic consciousness rules out choices,
> and so forth.  You may not believe words hurt.  Fine.  Then say that.  But
> don't say the very assertion is silly, unless that is your way of saying
> your disagree.  But even if you do the burden is still upon you/us to come
> up with a materialist analysis that is superior, and not just a re-hash of
> past theories, or else people of good will will continue to look else
> where, whether you like their pomo gaze or not.
> 
> al
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dismissing it as nonsense gets us nowhere.
> 
> al
> 
> At 08:43 AM 6/20/2003 +0100, n0705590 wrote:
> >Derrida is not a pomo.  In fact, I would challenge anyone in this forum to 
> >come up with a coherent definition of Pomo, as a set of parameters that
> would 
> >characterise at least more than  one author.
> >
> >And if you ask me what Postmodernism actually means, I must reply that it 
> >means nothing at all, that the term is so meaningless it cannot be used to 
> >actally 'label' people
> >
> >
> >>===== Original Message From Andre Gunder Frank <franka@fiu.edu> =====
> >> MY PREJUDICES are pro Taush and anti- Habermas & Derrida to begin with,
> >>and would not ordinarily trouble even to read Habermas.  I know him
> >>poersonally and had only the worst experiences with him - as my boss -
> >>and with Tuh only the best poersonally and otherwise. And as for
> >>Derrida, he comes marked by PO-MO. nough said
> >>agfrank
> >>On
> >>Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Gernot Koehler wrote:
> >>
> >>> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:08:42 +0200
> >>> From: Gernot Koehler <gktbg1@tiscali.de>
> >>> To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> >>> Subject: Future of Europe (Tausch vs Derrida-Habermas)
> >>>
> >>> Future of Europe (Tausch vs Derrida-Habermas)
> >>>
> >>> The views on the future of Europe expressed by Tausch, on the one hand,
> and
> >>> Derrida and Habermas, on the other, are not necessarily mutually
> exclusive.
> >>> However, the emphases are markedly different. Tausch, as an empirical
> >>> world-system sociologist, looks at socio-economic trends and finds that
> >>> Europe - rather than becoming a hegemonial leader, is stagnating and on
> the
> >>> path of becoming a banana republic (my expression). In contrast, Derrida 
> >and
> >>> Habermas, as philosophers, dream  (nothing wrong with dreaming per se)
> of a
> >>> virtuous Europe and its potential good influence in the world along
> >>> liberal-pacifist lines. Both Tausch and Derrida-Habermas see dangers and
> >>> difficulties in the intra-European relationship between West (old EU) and
> >>> East (new members of EU), with the old West of Europe being in danger of
> >>> bullying and/or exploiting the East.
> >>>
> >>> HIGHLIGHTS:
> >>>
> >>> (1) Tausch writes:
> >>>
> >>> "Hypothesis 14: . . . Europe, with its huge state sector, its high tariff
> >>> walls against foreign competition, and its large scale penetration by
> >>> foreign capital, its slow process of technological innovation, is destined
> >>> to become the 'Argentina' of the 21st Century. Also its small future
> >>> population base and rigid migration regime do not qualify it for a rapid
> >>> 21st Century economic growth. There is a great risk that the European West
> >>> will treat the newly democratic East as a reservoir of surplus value and
> >>> exploitation."
> >>>
> >>> (2)Derrida and Habermas write [my translation]:
> >>>
> >>> (a) "There must be no separatism within the framework of the future 
> >European
> >>> constitution. Leading does not mean excluding. The vanguard core Europe 
> >must
> >>> not crystallize into a Small-Europe; it must be the locomotive, as many
> >>> times before."
> >>>
> >>> (b) "Europe must use its weight at the international level and within the
> >>> framework of the UN, in order to counterbalance the hegemonial 
> >unilateralism
> >>> of the United States."
> >>>
> >>> (c) for "a cosmopolitan order based on international law"
> >>>
> >>> (d) "The success story of the European Union has reinforced the conviction
> >>> on the part of Europeans that the domestication of the exercise of state
> >>> power requires also the mutual limitation of sovereign spheres of
> action at
> >>> the global level."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> REFERENCES
> >>>
> >>> (1) Tausch, Arno, "The European Union. Global Challenge or Global
> >>> Governance? 14 World Systems Hypotheses and Two Scenarios on the future of
> >>> the Union." In: Gernot Kohler and Emilio Jose Chaves (Editors)
> >>> "Globalization: Critical Perspectives" Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science
> >>> Publishers, 2003. Other contributions: Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein,
> >>> Christopher K. Chase Dunn, Kimmo Kiljunen, Patrick Bond, Petros Haritatos,
> >>> Andre Gunder Frank, Ernesto Gantman, Robert J. S. Ross, Sadik Unay, Hardy
> >>> Hanappi, Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger, Emilio J. Chaves, Gernot Kohler. ISBN
> >>> 1-59033-346-2. See: www.amazon.com
> >>>
> >>> (2) Derrida, Jaques,  and J. Habermas, "After the war: The Rebirth of
> >>>  Europe" in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany)_, 31may03 -
> >>> the url for the German text in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is
> >>> 
> >http://www.faz.net/s/Rub117C535CDF414415BB243B181B8B60AE/Doc~ECBE3F8FCE2D049
> >>> AE808A3C8DBD3B2763~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
> >>>
> >>> Respectfully submitted with a disclaimer
> >>> (this short posting cannot do justice to the complex texts
> >>> by the cited authors, but has the purpose of highlighting their positions)
> >>>
> >>> Gernot Köhler, Ph.D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK
> >>
> >>Senior Fellow                                      Residence
> >>World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
> >>Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
> >>270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
> >>Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
> >>Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
> >>Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@fiu.edu
> >>
> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >Damian Popolo
> >PhD candidate
> >Newcastle University
> >Department of Politics
> >Room 301
> >
> >
> >
> Albert J. Bergesen, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson,
> Arizona, 85721.  Email:  albert@email.arizona.edu.  Telephone:
> 520.621.3303. Fax: 5206219875.
> 
> 
> 




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK

Senior Fellow                                      Residence
World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@fiu.edu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~