Benhabib, etc.

[kenneth.mackendrick]

 Valerie Scatamburlo wrote:

> While
> Benhabib concerns herself, for the most part, with defending a form of
> communicative ethics, I am more interested in the broader choices which
> APPEAR to be presented to us in social theory--that is the
> neo-Aristotleanism proferred by communitarian thinkers like Alasdair
> MacIntyre (who incidentally places Marxism in the same camp as
> liberalism and Kantianism for that matter), the Enlightenment legacy which
> relies on certain Kantian formulations and appeals to universal
> principles/ideals AND the all-out Nietzscheanism of postmodern prophets.

I generally place the communitarian thinkers, Taylor, Sandel, MacIntyre in the 
hermeneutics camp.  Some strands of hermeneutics have taken a relativist turn - 
which barely makes any sense at all given the universal import of the 
hermeneutics project as outlined by Gadamer.  However is does kinda make sense 
since often it is only values that are relative and not necessarily concepts - like 
history, meaning, etc.  Gadamer makes use of the notions of tradition, authority, 
reason, understanding, and prejudice.  I think many of the communitarians, in their 
republican garb, make use of these ideas - especially Gadamer's idea of the good 
(drawn from the Platonic-Aristotelean tradition).  So I don't think my association is 
in vain.

> In making this very broad distinction, I am in no way suggesting that the
> "categories" as such are mutually exclusive--rather I am trying to outline
> the parameters of the debate. . . Okay, that said I'll move on to the
> dilemma which I currently face with the hope that some kind-hearted, more
> enlightened person might be able to point me in the right direction.
> Recently--in my attempt to grasp the philosophical underpinnings of
> communitarianism and neo-Aristotleanism, I've spent some time reading
> Alasdair MacIntyre (of course, I've read other like-minded communitarians
> but MacIntyre seems to be the one, aside from Charles Taylor, who tries to
> ground his arguments in philosophy)--first "After Virtue" and then "Whose
> Justice? Which Rationality?" among other things.  Frankly, I have a
> number of problems with MacIntyre, but I won't get into those now!!!  My
> question to fellow Frankfurt'ers(??) is this.  In "Whose Justice? Which
> Rationality?" MacIntyre makes it clear that he is not willing to jettison
> altogether the idea of rationality and reason and attempts to develop a theory of
> rationality which lies somewhere between the epistemological
> "foundationalism" of the Enlightenment and the relativism championed by
> the scions of postmodernism. 

Benhabib's book _Democracy and Difference_ has a chapter in it by Habermas 
where Habermas outlines and critiques republicanism (via MacIntyre and crew) and 
liberalism (the Rawls gang).  He posits a model of deliberative democracy in light 
of the incoherent focus upon independence in the liberal model and the common 
good in the republican model.  See also Habermas's _Between Facts and Norms_.

Quite often the notion of reason is not "expanded" beyond instrumentality - 
especially in circles of communitarianism.  There is no unitarian thread that binds 
rationality to anything but sheer calculation.  I don't know if this helps.  For some, 
and I'm not all that familiar with MacIntyre's work, the notions of communicative 
reason or emphatic reason are simply mindless.  The positivists are the most 
obvious example.

ken

ps.  there really should be a gadamer forum...