[FRA:] Totalizing critiques

[Ralph Dumain]

Perhaps you could do the honor of translating this gibberish into English.

A few preliminary clarifications:

(1) What do you take contemporary CT to be?  Who are the 
practitioners of its allegedly idealistic leanings?

(2) What do you mean by CT's emphasis on self-critique?  Critical 
theorists criticize others, but where have they ever criticized themselves?

(3) What do you mean by romantic strain?  Marcuse's 
philosophy?  Horkheimer's engagement with Schopenhauer?

(4) What do you mean by CT's contemporary impotence? When was it 
potent?  Do you mean theoretically potent, or politically efficacious?

There's more to life than intellectual narcissism.


At 10:45 PM 1/4/2008, matthew piscioneri wrote:

>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
>