Per title. These two are considered western Marxists and I don't know much about them (less about Bauman than Harvey). What are MLs' views on current influential western Marxists and how do we view their approach?
Hello!
I am a PhD student putting together my reading list for comprehensive exams and one of my lists is going to be on risk. My professor recommended scholars such as Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Zygmunt Bauman for the list, but I can't find any specific works on risk by Bauman. Does anyone have any suggestions for me to add to this list?
What do you think of him as a theorist?
In a discussion I was having his topic came up and the interlocutor spoke rather unfavourably of his contributions to philosophy/social theory, in terms of his originality as a thinker, but also, separately, the quality of his writings from sociological/scientific perspective.
Of course, these were passing remarks and I admit to not having read his works, so cannot really opine, but I am very curious what you think. Did you enjoy his works? Find anything in particular insightful? If you have any thoughts, please, do share.
(Disclaimer: I am from a country where his figure is of some controversy, but that's unrelated to the opinion mentioned or my question. I am genuinely interested in reading your thoughts).
Há algum consenso de quais são as melhores versões traduzidas em português? Sugestões?
Excerpt from Zygmunt Bauman's Mortality, Immortality, and Other Life Strategies (1992):
> The price of the specifically modern way of coping with death anxiety -- putting mortality in an institutional and mental confinement and keeping it there -- is a constant demand for the 'dangerous other' as a carrier of contagious and terminal disease. Where there is a demand, an offer will soon follow. The only 'buffer' science could provide against anxiety, writes Sander L. Gilman, "was to create categories that were absolutely self-contained. Thus disease-entities were invented which defined a clearly limited subset of human beings as the group solely at risk." Well, not really 'absolutely self contained', though. The diseased subsets must have not only been at risk, but themselves be a risk for the 'healthy' part of society. They must have been potentially contagious (that is, if precautions were not taken to disempower, isolate or destroy them) -- otherwise their 'discovery' will do little to alleviate the anxiety which made the creation of diseased subsets needed in the first place.
> Among the diseased subsets of the sort scrutinized by Gilman, the groups defined in racial terms were particularly popular (no wonder; after all, race invokes 'suprahuman' factors resilient to cultural manipulation -- akin to, and resonant with, the equally uncontrollable elements of the human condition originally responsible for the paranoiac fever): "tied to the prestige of the nineteenth-century science the idea of racial difference in the twentieth century became the means of manipulating and eventually destroying entire groups ... Racial stereotypes have been linked with images of pathology ... [The Other is] both ill and infectious, both damaged and damaging." With racial discourse tightly interwoven with that of disease and pathology, separation and insulation techniques were driven into the focus of practical concerns. It had become imperative -- literally, a life-and-death matter -- to keep races apart (that is, to keep inferior, death-carrying races apart from the superior, healthy one); indeed, it had turned into the crucial commandment of hygiene.
> Hygiene, as the modern technology of keeping disease (the only, yet scary disguise in which death is allowed to haunt daily life) at bay, boils down in most cases to an activity of separating and maintaining distance. One should steer clear of 'fi
... keep reading on reddit ➡>bądź mną
>lekcja niemieckiego
>nauczycielka każe przeczytać znajomemu zadanie domowe
>mówi że nie może sie rozczytać
>zaczyna pierdolić o tym że jak nie moze sie rozczytac ze swojego pisma tymczasem ja z dysgrafią
>znajomy na głos mówi "a kurwa, i tak mam w dupie ten przedmiot"
>nauczycielka zaczyna gadać jakie to słownictwo i że uwage dostaje >każe mu dać zeszyt
>nie może się z jego zadania domowego rozczytać, ale nagle rozczytuje >z y g m u n t k u b i a k
>KURWA ZYGMUNT KUBIAK, DEBIL POMYLIŁ ZESZYTY Z NIEMCA I POLSKIEGO
>reszte zeszytu normalnie mogła odczytać i on też
>staje się cały czerwony, zaczyna się trząść i płakać
>"o kurwa"
>nauczycielka mówi że będzie z nim i wychowawcą rozmawiała
>przejebane
>na przerwie widzimy jak wychodzi z wychowawcą ze szkoły
>"wtf"
Morał jest taki, żeby nie zapisywać sobie w zeszycie od niemieckego jebanego Zygmunta Kubiaka
Title says most of it. His work on the Holocaust seems to be fairly well known, but I'm unsure about his other theories on modernity - have you encountered much of his work? How is he recieved? Any direct critiques/challenges?
Quem estiver disposto a ajudar, mande-me uma mensagem privada.
Sempre ouvi falar das obras do Bauman nas aulas de redação e filosofia do ensino médio e foi algo que me interessou bastante.
Faço um curso de exatas e estou longe de ser uma conhecedora de filosofia e sociologia. Será que vale a pena comprar o livro?
Dá pra alguém que não está acostumado com esse tipo de livro entender o que ele escreve? Vocês indicariam começar por outro livro dele?
In this podcast (featuring Russell Brand interviewing, Brad Evans and Henry Giroux), Brad Evans mentions Zygmunt Bauman, saying that "as Bauman said, we can not solve 21st century problems with 20th century solutions".
I'm trying to find the exact quote from Bauman, but couldn't yet find.
Does anyone know when/where Zygmunt Bauman said or wrote that (or something to that effect, in case Evans was paraphrasing)?
Anyone taken Computer Networks with Haas before and know if has curved the final grade? Not doing too hot rn, and the future looks grim.
