FS & Marxism
Claus Hansen
clausdh at tdcspace.dk
Sun, 04 May 2003 13:10:53 +0200
Just a couple of thoughts on this...
At 22:07 03-05-03 +0000, you wrote:
>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.
I think you are on to something here. In my understanding Habermas makes
some kind of break or tension
between Knowledge & Human Interests and the Theory of Communicative Action,
thus he writes the following in TCA:
' I do not conceive of my analysis of the general structures of action
oriented to reaching understanding as
a continuation of my analysis of the theory of knowledge with other means'.
(TCA, xli).
That there in fact is a tension in Habermas' thoughts here is also pointed
out by Honneth in his reconstruction
of critical theory:
' Habermas converts the insights from the theory of communication
underlying his theory of knowledge into
two competing conceptions of the organization of society. Although this
tension is not obvious, the writings
from the late 1960's in which he attempts to transform his epistemological
considerations into a theory of
society contain two tendencies: One the one hand, there is the model of a
two-tiered reproduction of society
within instrumental-rational and communicative spheres of action. This
model arose in connection with his
criticisms of the technocracy thesis. On the other hand, there is the model
of a maintenance of the social
order through institutionally mediated communicative relations between
morally integrated groups, which arose
in connection with his critique of Marx...But Habermas did not pursue
further the basic idea of a social theory
latent in the philosophical-historical idea of a moral 'dialectic of class
conflict'. On the contrary, in the 1970s
his social theory elaborates, in several steps, the approach formulated in
his criticism of the technocracy
thesis. This development culminates in the two-volume work The Theory of
Communicative Action. Along the
path toward it, the traces of an alternative model of society are gradually
lost." (Honneth, The Critique of Power,
pp. 278-9).
Thus I believe it would be possible to claim that Habermas finds it
necessary to drop the idea of reconsructing
historical materialism because the pathologies of modern societies
increasingly are what he terms
class-unspecific - eg. that the reification of modern societies also
reifies the consciousness of the bougeoisie.
In TCA he claims more than once that he is trying to capture the reception
of Marxism which is inspired
by a Weberian reading that is - the Lukacsian/A & H reading of Marx and
Weber combined. And in Towards
a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism he contrasts his own effort to
the structuralist reading of Marx
by Althusser. In other words, I think he was only refering to the part of
Western Marxism that was inspired
by a Weberian reading of Marx.
>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.
Then with that in mind and in connection with some of the thins he also
states - what he thinks has been interrupted was the
critical theory of society first sketched by Horkheimer in 1931 eg. the
interdisciplinary research programme - and it is this
task he sets himself as a goal of reconstruction (hence his final chapter
in TCA of the Tasks of a Critical Theory of Society)
and revitalisation.
>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? :-).
I think one should bear in mind that the institute was increasingly being
financed by external projects for instance
ordered by State institutions and firms. I believe it was for this reason
that Habermas decided to leave behind the
Institute in the late 1960's because the research climate at the Max Planck
Institute was better. It was also this fact
that lead Adorno to refrain from participating as actively in the empirical
research programmes from the end of the
1950's to his death in 1969. This is anyway what I vaguely remember reading
in Wiggershaus history of the Frankfurt
School. Please correct if I'm wrong.
>Regards,
>
>MattP.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.Go to
>http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
>
>
>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"
>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]
>
>Hello Matt and others,
>
>now I am certainly no expert on this issue but I might as well give me
>behalf to this
>quite interesting question. I would tend to agree with both Ralph and
>James that the
>label Western Marxism is quite suspect. In any case I don't believe
>Habermas (and
>certainly not Adorno & Horkheimer) were ever trying to fit in a tradition
>that included
>figures like Gramsci, Sartre, Althusser and others. However, Georg Lukacs,
>Ernst
>Bloch and Karl Korsch have all been influential at least for A & H.
>
>A wild guess on articles etc to read about this would be the following:
>
> 'The Topography of Western Marxism' in Martin Jay, Marxism and
> Totality
> in this introduction he refers to the following books/articles
> that deal with
> the term Western Marxism:
>
> 'Considerations on Western Marxism' by Perry Anderson
> reviews of this book in Socialist Revolution 7, 5 (1977)
> by J. Herf,
> Monthly Review 30, 4 (1978) by R. D. Wolff, Telos 30
> (1976-77)
> by P. Piccone
>
> 'The Frankfurt School Revisited: A Critique of Martin Jay's The
> Dialectical
> Imagination' by D. Kellner in New German Critique, no. 4 (1973).
> Which
> as far as I can see gives an elaboration of the early critical
> theorists at
> the Institute (Felix Weil, Pollock, Horkheimer) commitment to
> marxism.
>
>Now I have only very hastily flicked these articles through so I cannot
>guarentee
>anything at all but as always please keep posting if anyone know anything
>- it is
>such a good way to learn some more.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Claus
>
>
>At 12:49 03-05-03 +0000, you wrote:
>>James,
>>
>>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?
>>
>>>I tend to agree with Ralph that the category "western Marxism" may be
>>>too broad to be meaningful,
>>----------
>>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
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>MattP.
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
>>http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>"Hos mange mennesker er det allerede en uforskammethed, når de siger
>'jeg'" (T.W. Adorno)
____________________________________________________________________________
"Hos mange mennesker er det allerede en uforskammethed, når de siger 'jeg'"
(T.W. Adorno)