FS & Marxism
matthew piscioneri
mpiscioneri at hotmail.com
Sat, 03 May 2003 22:07:24 +0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_2d15_5d3b_634a
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Claus, Jim,
Thanks for both your replies. I appreciate the reading list. You'll have to
excuse my lack of a broader knowledge of the relationship of the FS to
(western)Marxism. Given my focus of research I am adressing these issues
from Habermas's discourse over the viability of C.T post-_DoE_ & _Negative
Dialectics_ especially.
>From this generational distance it is (obviously) difficult to reconstruct
accurately the sense of the milieu in FDR in the late-1960s and 1970s. I
only travelled to the FDR in the early 1980s. Previous to that most my
awareness of the FDR cultural and intellectual scene came via acquaintance
with the artistic post-object avant-garde (Beuys & Fluxus, Documentas etc).
More specifically, my line of inquiry leads towards making sense of the
object domain of Habermas's reconstruction of Critical Theory. Was
Habermas's understanding in the first phase of his reconstructive project
(_Knowledge & Human Interests) that he was simultaneously reconstucting
historical materialism? In other words where was Habermas writing from? It
appears to me that he is writing from within C.T within the tradition of
western Marxism.
This complicates his claims of aporia to a degree though. The broader
tradition of western Marxism did not substantively appear to be interrupted
by H. & A.s critique of instrumental reason. So two and a half options. JH's
claims re-aporetic interruption are mainly rhetorical. JH's claims refer
mainly to C.T, and Habermas contends that the broader tradition of western
Marxism was also vulnerable on a metatheoretical level to H. & A's.
critique.
Partly what this suggests is that JH conceives of late-C.T discourse over
the normative conditions of possibility for a critical theory of society as
a type of metadiscourse concerning critical-emancipatory reason to apply
directly to the broader Marxist tradition. In other words, the focus of H. &
A's discourse was the primordial discourse of enlightenment out of which
Marx's work developed. In this way JH's engagement with late-Critical Theory
is expected to apply to western Marxism. Although the health of western
Marxism post-dialectic of enlightenment stands in substantive contradiction
to Habermas's claims of aporia.
This all makes sense if Habermas's claims in the _TCA_ (Polity Press,
1995,1.386) are mainly directed at the Frankfurt School. That there was an
unwillingness to renew a *critical* theory of society within the Institute.
Or was JH talking to himself? :-).
Regards,
MattP.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------=_NextPart_000_2d15_5d3b_634a
Content-Type: message/rfc822
X-Message-Info: EoYTbT2lH2MsQxQLKd6QGpQxvU17UYmU
Received: from mail.virginia.edu ([128.143.2.9]) by mc5-f38.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600);
Sat, 3 May 2003 07:19:00 -0700
Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa16782;
3 May 2003 10:16 EDT
Received: (from domo@localhost)
by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3p2/8.9.0) id KAA08749
for frankfurt-school-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 2003 10:16:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.Virginia.EDU: domo set sender to owner-frankfurt-school@localhost using -f
Received: from pfepc.post.tele.dk (pfepc.post.tele.dk [193.162.153.4])
by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3p2/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA08745
for <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>; Sat, 3 May 2003 10:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from diamond.tdcspace.dk (0x50a16872.abnxx4.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.161.104.114])
by pfepc.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AA9262A01
for <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>; Sat, 3 May 2003 16:16:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20030503154752.00a39990@pop3.mail.dk>
X-Sender: 120101960059@pop3.mail.dk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 16:16:29 +0200
To: frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
From: Claus Hansen <clausdh@tdcspace.dk>
Subject: Re: FS & Marxism
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-F114bUcOV1EetV0000d84c@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
Return-Path: owner-frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2003 14:19:00.0504 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1198980:01C3117E]
<html>
Hello Matt and others,<br><br>
now I am certainly no expert on this issue but I might as well give me
behalf to this<br>
quite interesting question. I would tend to agree with both Ralph and
James that the<br>
label Western Marxism is quite suspect. In any case I don't believe
Habermas (and<br>
certainly not Adorno & Horkheimer) were ever trying to fit in a
tradition that included<br>
figures like Gramsci, Sartre, Althusser and others. However, Georg
Lukacs, Ernst<br>
Bloch and Karl Korsch have all been influential at least for A &
H.<br><br>
A wild guess on articles etc to read about this would be the
following:<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><i>'The
Topography of Western Marxism'</i> in Martin Jay, <b>Marxism and
Totality<br>
</b><x-tab> </x-tab>in
this introduction he refers to the following books/articles that deal
with<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>the term
Western Marxism: <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab><b>'Considerations
on Western Marxism' </b>by Perry Anderson<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab>reviews
of this book in <i>Socialist Revolution</i> 7, 5 (1977) by J. Herf,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab><i>Monthly
Review 30, 4 </i>(1978) by R. D. Wolff, <i>Telos 30 (1976-77)<br>
</i><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab>&n=
bsp; </x-tab>by
P. Piccone<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> =
</x-tab><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><i>'The
Frankfurt School Revisited: A Critique of Martin Jay's The
Dialectical<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Imagination'<=
/i>
by D. Kellner in New German Critique, no. 4 (1973). Which <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>as far as
I can see gives an elaboration of the early critical theorists at<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>the
Institute (Felix Weil, Pollock, Horkheimer) commitment to
marxism.<br><br>
Now I have only very hastily flicked these articles through so I cannot
guarentee<br>
anything at all but as always please keep posting if anyone know anything
- it is<br>
such a good way to learn some more.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Claus<br><br>
<br>
At 12:49 03-05-03 +0000, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>James,<br><br>
but Western Marxism is already part of the historical discourse of
Critical Theory. So can the present discourse retrospectively decree its
irrelevance? Maybe it's a good thing to dispense with history altogether.
Partly my response to Habermas's essay on post-liberation Iraq is that we
have to live in the moment of history. it's a scarey predicament. But
then it has been a scarey couple of months. life is scarey. As a species
we are so so scared of the present mainly because of its existential
ramifications. This is mainly why past and future orientated delusions
are so powerful, I suppose. Cultural/historical identity construction +
Hire/purchase, mortgages and life in the hereafter loom large as pretty
good delusions in the majority consciousness. damned majorities.
Nietzsche &/or the mediocrity of democracy?<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>I tend to agree with Ralph that th=
e
category "western Marxism" may be too broad to be
meaningful,</blockquote>----------<br>
Yes. I was hoping for further illumination along these lines. All this
for me is to try and make certain/sense of Habermas's claims in the _TCA_
that H. & A's critique of instrumental reason had - in actual terms -
interrupted the tradition of Critical theory<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>but I don't think your particular
questions RE: H and A's Marxism vs. Habermas' Marxism are at all
irrelevant. Many writers I've seen contrast H and A's Marxism with
the Marxism of the Internationals, or with Marxism as defined by other
specific figures. It seems like specifically identifing the configuration
of Marxism that H and A were in dialog with is the route to
take.</blockquote><br>
This is in part an empirical question asked of the list. I am hoping
there are subscribers to this List who may be able to shed light on this
aspect of Critical Theory's history.<br><br>
MattP.<br><br>
<br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to <br>
<a href=3D"http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp</=
a><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<b>_________________________________________________________________________=
___<br>
</b>"Hos mange mennesker er det allerede en uforskammethed, n=E5r de
siger 'jeg'" (T.W. Adorno)</html>
------=_NextPart_000_2d15_5d3b_634a--