FS & Marxism

[matthew piscioneri]

Dear Claus,

Thanks for your comments. These issues comprise a large part of my thesis so 
I am VERY grateful for engagement of any sort.

>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.

>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.

I don't at all think you are wrong! In fact what you have just written adds 
greatly to my understanding of the socio-historical milieu surrounding 
Habermas's move to the Max Planck Insitute. I have read this in terms of 
Habermas becoming *his own man* as it were free of the 
patronage/responsibilities owed to the FS. Thus his technocracy critiques 
with Claus Offe.

However, is there a later RETURN to C.T???? I think there is and this 
invigorates the second phase of Habermas's reconstructive project starting 
with the _TCA_ & continuing especially with _PDM_. The crisis situation 
moves from the Positivist Dispute, moves from the engagement with 
technocratic theories in the early 1970s to a forthright confrontation with 
post-structuralism and neo-Nietzscheanism in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Mind you these issues have been well charted by Hohendahl and Holub. My 
focus is on evaluating Habermas's reconstruction of C.T with due regard paid 
to these socio-historical and cultural factors specifically in the FDR in 
the 1970s taken into account.

To take up the issue of western Marxism. It is clear that in the _TCA_ 
Habermas sees his theory of communicative action as a replacement for Marx's 
theory of value. In the end Habermas's relationship to marxism defies my 
limited analytical expertise. I don't even know how to frame the questions 
to be honest with you. One thing reasonates, that is for sure, Habermas was 
dedicated to revising certain marxist dogmas re the paradigm of production. 
Surely Habermas's critique here remains worthwhile.

More controversial for the furtherance of the critical-emancipatory project 
is Habermas's critique of holistic or revolutionary aspirations for praxis. 
It is as if we are IN the totally administered society trying to make the 
best of it :-). Yet as Honneth's essay "Communication and Reconciliation" 
(Telos,1979) reveals even Adorno accepted that categories had a lifetime of 
semantic relevance. It hurts to consider that the category of emancipation 
has well and truly reached its use by date. I was thinking about this last 
night. What is overlooked is the affective/nostalgic force of such a 
category. On one level at least these types of Idealistic categories remain 
*useful* (sic) in beating the drums of war.

Best regards,

MattP.



_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp