rwolff at minerva.cis.yale.edu
Sat Jan 14 15:12:40 MST 1995
Reply to Marshall Feldman:
It is precisely the nature of our use of the term
"overdetermination" - as in the usages made of this and
closely allied terms by many of the others grouped around
the journal RETHGINKING MARXISM - that it does NOT take
itself as foundational. That is, overdeterminationist
perspectives admit and indeed proclaim themselves to be just
that - perspectives related to overdetermination. Other
perspectives are not "wrong" or "without foundation" because
they do not share "our foundation."
However, to argue that we have some concepts that
serve as means and bases for other concepts, while certainly
the case, does not thereby make us "foundationalist."
Unless you have a very atypical definition of that term.
As Rorty and others attack it, foundationalism is above all
the claim that you have a foundation which is and must be THE
foundation for everyone. That is precisely what overdetermination
rejects - hance its apposition to foundationalism.
Excuse the plug, but the Resnick and Wolff books,
Knowledge and Class and Economics: Marxian vs Neoclassical try
to systematically develop this point partly at the level
the philosophy and methodology of the social sciences and partly
in terms of economic theories and the contemporary battles
More information about the Marxism