tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6847877.post111816246441202039..comments2024-02-08T04:15:53.399-06:00Comments on Why Not Blog?: Rhet/Comp and the information economyDonnahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200732104876804746noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6847877.post-1118279989725310562005-06-08T20:19:00.000-05:002005-06-08T20:19:00.000-05:00Yeah, Jeff, I thought I remembered you talking abo...Yeah, Jeff, I thought I remembered you talking about the Liu book on your blog and looked around for it a bit, though I didn't look hard enough and ended up not finding it. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the CFP, Mike. I don't know if I'll submit, but I will certainly want to keep an eye out for that issue when it comes out. And when you ask if I'm finding that the literature on management comes from a neoclassical economic perspective, do you mean scholarship done by management scholars themselves? That's certainly neoclassical, with the possible exception of Critical Management Theory, which strains to get beyond the neoclassical, but sometimes doesn't quite get there. It's an interesting project, though. Or do you mean humanities folks who look at the managerial? That sometimes gets more complicated, with a critical vocabulary that sometimes draws from Marxism but that often ultimately folds back into the neoclassical. And I agree with your assessment of rhet/comp and the difficulty in getting beyond the commonplace neoclassical assumptions there. I'll be interested in reading more about your own assessment of the economic in rhet/comp in your diss.Donnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08200732104876804746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6847877.post-1118254508821053542005-06-08T13:15:00.000-05:002005-06-08T13:15:00.000-05:00One other thing: I wonder if, in your scholarship ...One other thing: I wonder if, in your scholarship on the managerial, you're running into the difficulty that much of the literature on management comes from a neoclassical economic perspective, whereas the critique you're performing (it seems to me) comes from a much more solidly Marxist economic perspective. It seems to me that -- aside from Trimbur and Horner -- even the folks in Rhet/Comp who are doing Marx are actually doing Marx bounded by the assumptions of neoclassical economics.Mike @ Vitiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16576143784729253997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6847877.post-1118248337990426702005-06-08T11:32:00.000-05:002005-06-08T11:32:00.000-05:00Have you seen this CFP?Have you seen <A HREF="http://kairosnews.org/node/4311" REL="nofollow">this CFP</A>?Mike @ Vitiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16576143784729253997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6847877.post-1118233584134597052005-06-08T07:26:00.000-05:002005-06-08T07:26:00.000-05:00In that case, you might want to look at Liu's Laws...In that case, you might want to look at Liu's <I>Laws of Cool</I> book. It's a critique of the information economy, while summarizing and explaining some of its features. I disagree with his premise that cool is anti-knowledge work (and I disagree with his understanding of cool), but he is interested in the managerial issues you are as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com