Hi, everyone. It's me again. Joetta. Wow. Looks like I might have
stirred things up a bit, huh? I'm probably known for doing that, but I
must admit <smile>, now I'm not sure what the explanation might produce.
 
     I suppose the best way to define "working class theory" would be to say
it's action based--occuring mostly among blue-collar workers during the
1900's in the United States, primarily strike and union related. It has
its roots very much based in *radical politics,* which might answer part of
Kevin's question; in fact, it *is* radical politics moved beyond the stages
of theorizing.
 
     So, what I was trying to say, is that I have no objection to radical
politics; I was raised among the very essense of *radical,* blue-collar
politics throughout Ohio. What I do object to is pure theorizing without
action--other than perhaps literary analysis or other forms of analysis,
which is why I'm not sure I want to stick with a group solely
dedicated to theorizing. {Not to mention that I also echo much of what
r. pence said his the response to me--smile.}
 
     Plus, as far as I can tell thus far {and trust me when I say that I'm
scarcely an expert on the matter at this point in my studies}, any theory
or theorizing, so to speak, in working class studies is both written and
spoken in a {how shall I say this so as not to start another whoha?} non-
academic language.
 
      And, yes, Kevin, as I'm sure you already know, this position spawns
directly from Marxian theories; I'm not the least bit bashful about admitting
such a fact. <smile> It simply encompasses one mode of action within the
theory perhaps.
 
      As for the talking about not wanting to "class" ourselves? Hhhmmm...I
find that very interesting, although I must say that I didn't feel I was
designating myself in a negative fashion {one which might cause alarm} by
stating that I considered myself a "working class" scholar. I'm sure I would
be more than peaked by the discussion produced in an intellectualization of
radical politics--just as I have been many times in the past. However, I also
know myself, and I know I am much more committed to speaking radical
politics with those willing to "put their actions where their words fall"
<smile>, which means I believe we can't theorize about how to solve the world's
problems, or even the problems within the United States or within Ohio or
within Oxford, until we *do* something about the problems we're experiencing
ourselves--from within the university. I believe that at some point we must
continue to intellectualize, but we also need to commit ourselves to *doing*
something about overall disparities other than the bandaid relief created by
food pantries, homeless shelters, down-sizing primarily older employees,
high unemployment levels, and people supporting families--or even
themselves--within poverty-ridden, unsure-of-the-future type of standards.
There comes a point when we must say, "We are *not* any different
from the guy standing behind the counter at Taco Bell; we are workers;
we are not higher on the totem pole simply because our book learning
gave us the capacity to intellectualize; and we need to *do* something
about these people lurking above *all* of us."
 
     I don't know if that clarifies what I was attempting to say before on my
post, but there it is, folks. Have a nice one.
 
Joetta Heidorn
[log in to unmask]