Benhabib, etc.

[J.L. Nicholas]

Valerie,
let me see if I understand your questions? The broader question is how do
members of the Frankfurt School differ from communitarians in their
critiques of enlightenment rationality/society.  The more specific question
is how do Horkheimer and Adorno in their use of immanent critique differ
>from MacIntyre in his use of rational inquiry based on tradition and
Rorty's consensus' talk?

        I think that the title of Dialectic of Enlightenemtn might provide
some clue as to how A&H differ from MacIntyre (sorry, I'm not as familiar
with Rorty).  A&H depend on the notion of a dialectical critique.  The
Enlgithenment itself has provided the tools for its own critique by
generating inconsistencies and contraditictions - particular in what it
says from how it is practiced.  Thus, Enlightenment rationality began with
the claim that all "men" are free, but then only realized this in practice
with limited groups of people rather than all people.THe idea is that we
use the ideas already established in the Enlgihtenment philosophy and see
how they have been perverted or colonized or used to dominate others.
        I don't think that MacIntyre would rely on the uise of dialectics
in this sense: that is, in the sense that a thoughts produces its own
opposite or contains its iwn contradiction.  MacIntyre seems to suggest
that through dialogue with other traditions, a particular tradition of
rationality cold raise questions for itself in its own terms and
reformulate itself by taking in ideas which were foreing to its original
conception.  AN example here might be how the Aristotelian tradition was
linked with Christianity in the form of Catholicism in the thought of
Thomas Aquinas.  Aristotelian philosophy had not conceived of (nor could it
according to some) of a God like that conceived in the Judaeo-Christian
tradition - one of absolute being.  But this idea was incorporated into
thought philsoophical system: which necessarily led to some changes but
still remained the essential tradition which Aristotle "founded."

I think a significatn difference which appears here is that FS members
conceived of only two types of rationality: enlightenment and something
else depending on who one is reading.  But MacIntyre suggests that there
are multiple rationalities (probably becaus eof his work in social
science).  The idea of critiques within and between traditions could not
have arisen for H&A, though it can/does for Habermas.  Now why MacIntyre
doesn't take advantage of dialectical critique, I'm unsure.  This is
something Taylor does, I would think.  SO part of the problme lies in the
frmaing of the debate/question.

Also, you mentiuon that MacIntyre wants to hold on to the universal notion
of rationality, but make no mention of H&A's opinion in this regard.  Of
course, if one is just concerned with the DOe, it is hard to tell.  But
Horkeheimer seems to be after the same kind of thing in later writings like
_Eclipse of Reason_.

I also wondered if I could return a question, viz, what do you think of
MacIntyre's placing Marxism in the same camp as liberalism/Kantianism?
Does Hegel stay in the same project as Kant- if so, then doesn't Marx just
reframe the question within the same tradition?

Jeffery