FS & Praxis
MSalter1@aol.com
MSalter1 at aol.com
Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:12:33 EST
--part1_1f1.5c127c1.2bbd8d41_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think this debate could benefit from sone consideration of Neumann and
Kirchheimer, who certainly did attempt to link theory with practice, both
were involved with the American intelligence authorities in combatting Nazism
and preparing for both denazification in Germany and the Nuremberg trials, of
which Neumann was first chief of research. he struggled to give an
anti-capitalist twist to the prosecution esp regarding the economic case
against bankers, industrialists etc but was orhanisationally defeated. If
anyone is interested, I have retraced his difficulties in a joint piece
published on a web based law jn'l with claire hulme,
Michael Salter
In a message dated 03/04/2003 12:04:49 GMT Standard Time,
mpiscioneri@hotmail.com writes:
> Filipe,
>
> I can offer a little information of the following question you raise and
> point you in the right direction for a fuller answer:
>
> >The question I
> >made was about the strenght of FS in terms of given us support for this
> >"more elaborated dynamics" on present times.
>
> The whole praxis issue is of course central to understanding what happened
> to the FS school in the 1960s and early 1970s especially. Now i don't
> pretend to be even a moderate historian of the FS. I have read sections of
> Wiggerhaus's history of the school, very closely followed the first
> generation/second generation transition and in particular done a fair bit
> of
> reading on the relationship between Adorno & Horkheimer & Marcuse and then
> Habermas and what was happening in Germany in the 1960s and 70s (student
> protest/counter-culture/radical politicisation Red Army/Baader-Meinhof.
>
> In fact it would be also fair to say that this relationship more or less
> shapes the direction my thesis on Habermas stakes. Of course my "take" on
> this issue is influenced by my emphasis on Habermas's project.
>
> All this by way of saying to you Filipe (and in VERY simple terms) H.&.A
> were by and large hostile to the radical praxis actions of the students and
>
> other groups ("mindless actionism"), Marcuse far more sympathetic, and
> Habermas late-1960s "left-fascism" type of stuff (although as Matustik
> tells
> in his excellent biography of JH there has been a gradual rapproachment
> between JH and elements of the radical left.
>
> Not very encouraging really for FS support of direct praxis action.
> Afterall
> given Adorno's _Negative Dialectics_ prescriptive critical theoretical
> undertakings let alone direct political ACTION doesn't get support.
>
> So Filipe it depends on how you want the FS school to be understood. Is
> there a third and fourth generation? On Doug Kellner's site there is a body
>
> of "new" FS writing. Is Doug still there? I have read Doug's C.T but not
> focused on the praxis issue in Doug's version of C.T.
>
> if your focus is on the FS of the 1960s (H.,A.,M., JH) there is a fairly
> accessible discussion of this in the literature. I would be interested in
> hearing from more Marcuse-oriented readers on the list where Marcuse stood
> on the issue of praxis.
>
> Thanks
>
> MattP
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
> http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
>
>
--part1_1f1.5c127c1.2bbd8d41_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">I think this debate could benefit from sone considerat=
ion of Neumann and Kirchheimer, who certainly did attempt to link theory wit=
h practice, both were involved with the American intelligence authorities in=
combatting Nazism and preparing for both denazification in Germany and the=20=
Nuremberg trials, of which Neumann was first chief of research. he struggled=
to give an anti-capitalist twist to the prosecution esp regarding the econo=
mic case against bankers, industrialists etc but was orhanisationally defeat=
ed. If anyone is interested, I have retraced his difficulties in a joint pie=
ce published on a web based law jn'l with claire hulme,<BR>
<BR>
Michael Salter<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 03/04/2003 12:04:49 GMT Standard Time, mpiscioneri@hotmai=
l.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Filipe,<BR>
<BR>
I can offer a little information of the following question you raise and <BR=
>
point you in the right direction for a fuller answer:<BR>
<BR>
>The question I<BR>
>made was about the strenght of FS in terms of given us support for this<=
BR>
>"more elaborated dynamics" on present times.<BR>
<BR>
The whole praxis issue is of course central to understanding what happened <=
BR>
to the FS school in the 1960s and early 1970s especially. Now i don't <BR>
pretend to be even a moderate historian of the FS. I have read sections of <=
BR>
Wiggerhaus's history of the school, very closely followed the first <BR>
generation/second generation transition and in particular done a fair bit of=
<BR>
reading on the relationship between Adorno & Horkheimer & Marcuse an=
d then <BR>
Habermas and what was happening in Germany in the 1960s and 70s (student <BR=
>
protest/counter-culture/radical politicisation Red Army/Baader-Meinhof.<BR>
<BR>
In fact it would be also fair to say that this relationship more or less <BR=
>
shapes the direction my thesis on Habermas stakes. Of course my "take" on <B=
R>
this issue is influenced by my emphasis on Habermas's project.<BR>
<BR>
All this by way of saying to you Filipe (and in VERY simple terms) H.&.A=
<BR>
were by and large hostile to the radical praxis actions of the students and=20=
<BR>
other groups ("mindless actionism"), Marcuse far more sympathetic, and <BR>
Habermas late-1960s "left-fascism" type of stuff (although as Matustik tells=
<BR>
in his excellent biography of JH there has been a gradual rapproachment <BR>
between JH and elements of the radical left.<BR>
<BR>
Not very encouraging really for FS support of direct praxis action. Afterall=
<BR>
given Adorno's _Negative Dialectics_ prescriptive critical theoretical <BR>
undertakings let alone direct political ACTION doesn't get support.<BR>
<BR>
So Filipe it depends on how you want the FS school to be understood. Is <BR>
there a third and fourth generation? On Doug Kellner's site there is a body=20=
<BR>
of "new" FS writing. Is Doug still there? I have read Doug's C.T but not <BR=
>
focused on the praxis issue in Doug's version of C.T.<BR>
<BR>
if your focus is on the FS of the 1960s (H.,A.,M., JH) there is a fairly <BR=
>
accessible discussion of this in the literature. I would be interested in <B=
R>
hearing from more Marcuse-oriented readers on the list where Marcuse stood <=
BR>
on the issue of praxis.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
MattP<BR>
<BR>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to <BR>
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_1f1.5c127c1.2bbd8d41_boundary--