Bhaskar, immanent criticism, Adorno, etc.

[Giles Peaker]

Michael,

Just a last quick word on formalism before any moving on is done. I was 
unclear yet again, I think. I didn't mean to suggest that you were 
applying an abstract model per se, but rather that the problem was with 
the "within the field of". My concern (no doubt misplaced, but suggested 
by your terminology) was that to see a 'field' of application is to set 
disciplinary boundaries, or criterea of relevance for the directions and 
results of any IC. To presume that it is 'about' law (or art) per se 
means that it will be expected to show us what is wrong 'in' law or in 
art which can be put right by action within those fields. The upshot is 
that IC would become a method of and within the discipline/field. What if 
the direction an IC led in was towards a critique of the terms and 
institutions of the field itself (not, I think, an impossible or even 
unlikely outcome)? The 'field' is already part of the object of IC (Law 
is immanent in any law, Art is immanent in any art practice, etc etc) and 
therefore cannot enclose the critique. I know this is simplified, but the 
point stands, I think.

>From your mention of a critique of phenomenological research into crime 
and the legal process, I could well be wrong again. If so, my apologies. 
But you suggested that this involved a 'more or less unreflexive' use of 
IC. Perhaps the reflexive moment is when one's own work 'in the field' 
becomes problematic? That would be my experience...

>Would it be worth continuing this exchange trying to backtrack from
>considering the criticisms that can be made of IC, to the rationale and
>character of this CT "method" using specific examples? What do you and others
>think? 

Have you any particular examples in mind for discussion? That could 
certainly be interesting.

yours

Giles