Notes

3 Hisrm‘cs

1 F n n c i s Mulhm (ed.), Camtrporary Marrirr Litermy Cdf&n

(London, 1992). p. 22.
2 Theodcx W.Adorno, NcgufiueDi&i5 (London. 1973). p. 320.
3 ‘Instead of dnging the idea of the advent of l i b 4 d m o m c y
a d the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of hismy,
insrcad of celebrating the “end ofideologies” and the m d of the
great cmancipatory discoumq In us never neglect chis obvious
mamwopic fact. made up of innummble singular sites of suffer-
ing: no degree ofpmgrm anom one to ignore t h a never before.
in aholnte terms. never have 50 many men, women and children
been rubjugrtca sawed or enminatcd on the ad’aacqucs
Detida, Spcrtrs $ M m . London. 1994, p. 85). One should add,
however. that if suffering has indeed incrcucd so by and large
has our sensitivity to it. The importance placed by the modern
age on the relief or avoidance of suffering is OM mark of io bf-
ferencc from much in pre-Enlighhnmenr rociciaier.
4 Michael Foucault famously views power 1)enabling. but thir i s
not the same as a m o d judgement that it can be beneficial.
5 Such culmnlism has also marked d c d post-colonial d i r
counc, which has had much of Wac value to say of identity,
representation and the like, but h z ofan enough evaded qner-
tions of economic mploiution. Whatever is cenany a t stake
bcrwecn No& and South. it ir certainly not ‘culnue’.
6 For a discussion of these and related nunen. x e my Idcdogy: An
rnnaluaimt (London. 1991).
7 Ellen Meiksins Wood. ‘Introduction’, Mofubly RNiclv (Idyl
Aug. 1995). p, 4.

4 subjoctr

1 See &rks Taylor, ‘Atomism’. in FW/osop‘~ym d thc Humun

srkrm: PhirOmphicul Pdp., ml. 2 (Cambridge, 1985). pp. 188-
210.
2 Sce R.G . P&er, Mnxinn. Mmulity, and Waf Jnstia (Princeton,
1990). Pact 1.
3 See for example Alasdair Maclmyrr, After Vi&: A Study in

137
 NV&
Mod nKay (London, 1981) and Chatlcs Taylor. Soum o f h
SCJF (Cambridge, 1989). For a lucid account of the quarrel
b e m libcrak and communirariva from the fmer madpoint,
set Will Kymlicka. Libendim, Cdmnunify and C u h (Oxford.
lW),ch. 3.
4 This is not some ethnocentric prejudice that only the well-off
Wcn can go s o c i w just the traditional Mrrxiu insistence that if
you try to conrrmct socialism isohred, unaided and in desperately
btckwprd conditions, then you arc in grave danger of Stalinism.
The &r project can of coulsc be hunched where it is cur-
-
mndy most urgent, in the exploited nee-colonid territories but
not without aid and solidarity h m thoac nations which have a-
&tionally exploited them, which would then require a socitliu
a This is surely the avntial
transformation of those c o ~ m too.
meaning of the claim that socialism mmt findy be intemationa'
or nothing.
5 Raymond Williams. Cdbm md Society 1780-1950 (Ham-
ondrworth, 1985). pp. 304.318.320.
6 For the mhtions k e e n republicu! humanism and mciahn, see
Terry Fagleton. 'Deconstruction and Human Righe'. in B a h
Johnson (ed.). F d o m md lntmptation (New York. 1993).
7 1 have adopad thu point from Kymliclu. Librmlinn, Communiy
md CUILUR. p. 66.

5 Fallaties

1 Charles Taylor, Sovms $the Mf(Cambridge. 1989), p. 28.

2 Garth L. H d h , fimfidism: A Wirgmrcinian Cfifique (New
York, 1991). p. 2. It is, on the whole, a similar kind of strong
nsentialhm which is uxfuny criticizrd by Penelopc Mackie in
'How Things M'ght Haw Bern: A Study in Essential-
ism' (D.Phi1. thesis. Univcnicy of Oxford. 1987). See also
Marrha Nussbaum. 'Hunun Functioning and Social Justice: In
Defence of AriMtelinn Enuncilliun', pdliriddl Tluoy. 20. M). 2
(1 992).
3 See S. MeiWe. EnmtMiim in tkc Wmlr dKrd Mum (London,
1985). and Norman Geru. Manr and Humm NUWR (London,
1983).
4 Dcnys Turner. M s m and CMslicmify (oxford,1983),p. 86.

138