an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|

image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
(Linares 2002, 1-0)


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.



Abortion and coercion
Hey look, metablogging!
Low hanging Google fruit
Scary stuff, continued
All the right moves
This just in
Practical intersubjectivity for the sophisticated ...


error log

January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label

Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

Rule 33
This Week in Chess
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Thursday, July 22, 2004


Thinking revolution

John Dewey developed a theory of mind according to which the content of thought is largely determined by categories of experience, categories which are themselves a function of the activities which one engages in or finds useful. In the article Interpretation of the Savage Mind he writes that, "If we search in any social group for the special functions to which mind is thus relative, occupations at once suggest themselves." Dewey then turns his attention to the mind of the Australian aborigine, and proposes that the aboriginal mind is formed by the occupation of hunting.

It's very difficult for me, reading Dewey one hundred years later, not to bristle at his categorization of aborigines as savage but the problem I see in his analysis doesn't lie in that rhetorical point, though it may be related.

No, the problem is that aboriginal society is complex and to say that it is organized around hunting is to oversimplify. What's more, to focus on hunting is to privilege a particular perspective in that society in a way that is both predictable and unfortunate, since hunters are likely to be high status males. To privilege their occupation and to say that it is the source of the categories relevant to an understanding of the aboriginal mind is to adopt a perspective which renders invisible the minds of other groups in aboriginal society, particularly the minds of aboriginal women.

It's not clear to me to what extent this critique undermines Dewey's analysis of the aboriginal mind, but it does seem to me that it points to an underlying barrier to the project of analyzing the habits of thought of any society. The problem illustrated by the critique is the difficulty of picking out a defining occupation given the complexity of any human society.

And yet, there does seem to be something to the idea that each society has a particular way of seeing things, and that this way of seeing things is linked to regularities in the way that members of the society interact with the world. Nor was Dewey the only person who held this view in the early years of the twentieth century. Notably, revolutionary Marxists shared much of Dewey's outlook.

The Marxist term for what Dewey called habits of thought is ideology and the Marxist would say that ideology is closely linked to, and necessary for, the society's means of production. The Marxist will also say that the ideology is a tool of the ruling class and exists for their benefit.

It is this last point which marks disagreement with Dewey, for he would say that the habits of thought of the ruling class must also be a product of material conditions.*

Note that this difference makes it easier for the Marxist to answer our difficult question, since the Marxist can say that one only needs to work backwards from the interests of the ruling class.

Finding easy answers to difficult questions, though, doesn't make the Marxist account superior.

One of the glaring facts about the legacy of communism is that the revolutions didn't happen where they were supposed to. Marx said that industrial capitalism suffered from internal contradictions, and that it was these contradictions that would bring about the revolution. This implied that the revolution would take root in the most highly industrialized states, Britain or Germany, and then spread throughout the industrialized world.

Instead, the first successful revolution was in relatively backward Russia. Since then, the most fertile ground for communist insurgencies has been the developing world. The most successful communist state is China, but though it has made strides towards industrialization, its industrial centers are the regions where support for communist ideology is at its lowest ebb. By contrast, support for the party remains quite strong in the agrarian countryside.

What this history suggests to me is that the revolutionary critique of industrial capitalism has more traction in pre-capitalist agrarian societies** than in societies with a developed economies. This is an embarrassment to Marx, but it is quite consistent with the general thesis shared by Marx and Dewey, the thesis that habits of thought are strongly linked to material conditions.

The Marxist error, I think, is strikingly similar to the mistake Dewey makes in his analysis of the savage mind. Namely, the Marxist attempts to simplify something that is irreducibly complex.

None of this, of course, contributes to solving the difficult question, and I don't have much to add that doesn't amount to the platitude that each society is what it is and not something else.

*--or maybe not. Dewey thought that once we understood the origin of our habits of thought we could utilize intelligence to modify the categories in ways that are useful to us. This modification, though, is going to be constrained by our actual interactions with the world, so this point is unclear.

**--though it should be noted that, with the exception of Russia, all of the pre-industrial agrarian societies that went for communism were, to some extent, colonies of European powers. Clearly the legacy of colonialism is relevant to their critique of capitalism since, for them, communism and nationalism are closely tied together. But this is also a point where an embarrassment for Marx is perfectly consistent with the more general thesis.

+ - + - + main + - + - +