[FRA:] Totalizing critiques

[matthew piscioneri]

Going back to Ricoeur's _Lectures on Ideology and Utopia_, his discussion of Mannheim's paradox about the ideological nature of ideology critique is particularly pertinent. One of the great strengths of the tradition of Critical Theory has been its emphasis on self-critique and a little more of this today wouldn't go astray.
 
Ricoeur's discussion of Weber and Geertz's anthropology is also very good. Ricouer's recognition and discussion of the shift to a sort of critical semiotics is a useful basis from which to undertake a critical self-reflection (within Critical Theory) of this Idealistic tendency...part of what Habermas described as the [critical] linguistic turn. 
 
Of course, due recognition of the efficacy played by superstructural components in the organization of the *material* lifeworld and the sustaining of oppressive dynamics is required. But, again, I strongly suggest the "damage" is in the dualism... a material bio-lifeworld distinct from an "immaterial" cultural sphere, shall we say. The emphasis Critical Theory has placed on developing a critical semiotics that reinstatiates a material/ideal dualism is a big factor in CT's contemporary impotence. To his credit, Habermas sought a compromise between the real and the ideal in his theory of communicative action and his suggestion that the tension between the two is productive in terms of generating social "progress". At least, unlike Foucault, Habermas didn't turn his back on nature!
 
CT's contemporary idealistic leanings I think say more about its practitioners actually. Whilst psychologistic readings of philosophical positions are typically disdained, the persistent Romantic strain in CT needs to be reflected upon. Put simply, with the rise of new class politics in the 70s the movement in CT (obviously mainly in Western contexts) from concern with quantity of life issues to quality of life issues empowered the excesses of a critical semiotics. In other words, I think (and this renews Mannheim's point) ideology critique/CT became narrowly ideological (could it ever be otherwise?). CT has come mainly to serve the narrow ideological interests of a particular social grouping. 
 
Now this isn't necessarily a *bad* thing, but I think it is something that requires discussion in CT circles as the target audience of contemporary CT needs to be clarified. To some degree the 'orrible harrys and harriets remain a *sort of* target CT audience, but one that is more often than not administered to via CT's institutionalization in the public sphere. 
 
Viable spaces for CT remain on at least two fronts...one is certainly the 'quality of life', new class and ideologically narrow frontier (issues of identity n recognition blah blah blah). The other front is a broader front it seems where CT takes both a paternalistic stance *on behalf of* the foolish masses (eg: critique of the media, environmental issues) but this stance also coincides with the ideological interests of the new class; for, like it or lump it, we are ALL on the third rock from the sun.
 
Again, most of this is fine, but "within" CT ( and CT with practical intent) clarifying the empirical conditions of possibility and therefore strategy is always a useful thing. I guess I am wondering whether a little less of the ideal and a little more of the real might not obtain more leverage for CT? To quote Weber (Ricoeur p255):
 
"man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun" 
 
There's more to life than semiotics :-)
 
mattP
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
New music from the Rogue Traders - listen now!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=832&referral=hotmailtaglineOct07&URL=http://music.ninemsn.com.au/roguetraders