jlaari at tukki.jyu.fi
Fri Aug 19 10:55:54 MDT 1994
On Fri, 19 Aug 1994, Doug Henwood wrote:
> I don't understand the point of this. The statistical apparatus issues
> reams and reams of numbers. They can't be consumed raw. You have to know
> how they're collected, what assumptions they involve, what
> interpretations they come with. Of course. But how can we understand
> social reality without them?
How people understood (their) social realities before?
If you say that they didn't, you underestimate them (in a matter of fact
you're insulting earlier generations).
If you say that they understood only partly, then I ask: was that, what
they understood, something non-sensical (kind of naive, 'untruthful
How, then, they succeeded with their (knowledge concerning their)
societies and institutions so well that modern world is the one which
seems to be in a total, chaotic mess (and not, say, medieval societies
whether in Europe or in Asia)?
[I'm not saying, that modern world is a mess, but I guess that for some
people it seems to be - religious fanatics etc?]
And finally, what if they really did understood everything relevant or
essential of their social realities?
More information about the Marxism