I’d hope for a balance between the in-itself and the for-itself
You'd want an objective class not to become fully aware of itself as such? That's an odd sort of "moderation". In-itself and for-itself is not something you "balance"; either a class has consciousness of itself or it doesn't.
I don’t think we should deconstruct the individual to a pure cultural artifact… but the facts are that the minority most protected and supported by “the system” are those with money and power
This seems to suggest that because money promotes agency, the poor cannot also be agents.
Emphasis on the state simply means state regulations should be changed… and of course individuals must do this, and also change, alone and collectively.
It's so hard to change a culture, and yet so easy to change cultures (just get on a plane).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Commoner Whimsy?
Date: 2010-01-23 08:48 pm (UTC)You'd want an objective class not to become fully aware of itself as such? That's an odd sort of "moderation". In-itself and for-itself is not something you "balance"; either a class has consciousness of itself or it doesn't.
I don’t think we should deconstruct the individual to a pure cultural artifact… but the facts are that the minority most protected and supported by “the system” are those with money and power
This seems to suggest that because money promotes agency, the poor cannot also be agents.
Emphasis on the state simply means state regulations should be changed… and of course individuals must do this, and also change, alone and collectively.
It's so hard to change a culture, and yet so easy to change cultures (just get on a plane).