[FRA:] Totalizing critiques

[matthew piscioneri]

Ralph,
 
the original post was in search of clarity, some of which you've provided.> perfection of intellectual alienation, creating ever more > products of artificial intellectual pseudo-labor as the prospects for > social improvement recede into oblivion. 
 
You're right in saying that a great deal of what we deem "contemporary" critical theory is really a bibliographical exercise. However, I think the notion of praxis is very problematic today, especially in terms of the target audience of any critical theory of society with practical intent. 
 
I am wondering what NY's eve in D.C was like? I went out and "revelled" in the drunken, obscene, grotesque and violent mayhem that passes for NY's eve celebrations in this neck of the woods. Not much worth trying to liberate or improve there I thought to myself. In fact, I started to wonder again exactly what had been gained from 300 years of the critical-emancipatory project? The level of social hatred remains is intense and as we both know social hatred isn't generated by "capitalism" or the "patriarchy"...if anything, it's the other way around.
 
The great critical-emancipatory thinkers must have set their hopeful sights on some sort of idealized vision of "Humanity" or "the Good" or "Justice" and not the horrible hateful Harrys and Harriets who make up the vast majority of the populace. The parallels with religion's quandary are clear. 
 
Anyway thanks again for the discussion, you've reminded me that I must try again and read Lukacs.
 
mattP
 
 
 
 
Academic feminism is none > of the greatest culprits, though certainly not alone in its malfeasance.> > Some of your statements lack clarity, however. What does totalistic > vision mean? Deducing reality in a self-enclosed world of > metaphysical concepts inevitably elides and distorts empirical > reality. This is certainly true of Dialectic of Enlightenment. The > best critiques I've seen are those of Stephen Eric Bronner. I'm not > sure what you are referring to in Marcuse, though you could be > right. As for the "classic marxist theory of class relations and the > sanctity of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject of history" > you need to be specific because this is empty verbiage to me. If you > are referring to Lukacs, for example, he is a metaphysical thinker, > so your ascription of totality might be apropos, but he at least--if > I am not misremembering--highlighted the notion of "concrete > totality", which could be opposed to the mystical holism of objective > idealism. Even Althusser, as bankrupt as he was, criticized the > notion of "expressive totality".> > But you must be more precise about the nature of theoretical > abstractions and their relation to concrete reality before you lump > all different kinds of thinkers together.> > > At 09:36 PM 12/30/2007, matthew piscioneri wrote:> > >one of the criticisms Habermas levels against H&A's critique of > >instrumental reason is that it rests on a "totalistic" vision of an > >entirely administered society. A sense of totality is present in > >Marcuse (altho to a lesser extent) and Foucault (altho otherways > >understood), as well in classic marxist theory of class relations > >and the sanctity of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject of history.> >> >A similar sense of dare i say *silly* totality still persists in > >much feminist theory's (vulgar or otherwise) hysteria (sic) about > >the big, bad, hegemonic and very total patriarchy. The trouble with > >critical totalities (and this is what I would like to discuss with > >the List) is that unless you adopt a very pessimistic position > >(H&A), appeal to the liberatory potentials of Eros (Marcuse), invoke > >the inevitable dialectical logic of history's movement (M&E), > >radically reunderstand power's total hegemony (Foucault) you appear > >to be in a bit of a mess especially when advocating *resistance* to > >one or other hegemonic totality.> >> >To illustrate this through the example of much feminist totality > >thinking, if the patriarchy really is so hegemonic:> >> >1) how could the patriarchy ever be recognized as "unnatural" in the > >first place> >> >2) surely resistance is entirely futile> >> >If anyone could direct me to more specific discussion of issues such > >as these (not just in relation to feminism, but critical "totality" > >thinking) I'd much appreciate it.> >> >mattP> _______________________________________________> theory-frankfurt-school mailing list> theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school
_________________________________________________________________
Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r=OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT