[FRA:] Totalizing critiques

[Ralph Dumain]

What was the connection of Critical theory to praxis in the past, 
such that the disconnect today is any different?  Marcuse was popular 
in the '60s, but how did that connect to praxis?

The distance between theory and practice was there from the moment 
Horkheimer took charge of the Institute, in Weimar's final 
years.  Adorno's book on Kierkegaard was published just as Hitler 
took power. The target popular audience for a non-reading dumbed-down 
public is certainly problematic.  But there is also a problem of 
audience for the educated public.  The 'two cultures' divide is as 
strong as it ever was, for example.  And CT itself belongs to this 
split.  CT does not know the culture of the hard sciences anymore 
than the science crowd know CT.  The discipline of philosophy itself 
is still split.  The pseudo-category of "continental philosophy" is a 
construct of Anglo-American analytical philosophy, and is selectively 
admitted into philosophical discourse only to create a ghetto for 
irrationalism, and to prevent Marxism from breaking out of its jail cell.

I don't know about the idealized vision of humanity in the past.  The 
past was so unenlightened, that enlightenment was a fresh speculative 
possibility, anticipating a future in which present limits would be 
removed, a future which could only be imagined at best, not grasped 
in its possible concreteness.  I don't know that people are more 
hateful today; I'd say they have less excuse for being so, for we are 
in a position to know better.

I had limited exposure to New Year's Eve.  Some people must have set 
off firecrackers in the alley at midnight.  I ventured out in the wee 
hours briefly.  At the train station near the Capitol there was a 
private party, which seemed to be an exclusively black party.  All 
around the area outdoors in the winter cold there were groups of 
attractive young white women in elegant dresses, without winter 
coats--young and stupid.  At some point I passed a bar where people 
were celebrating, but going past it the other way somewhat later, it 
was closed down.  I wouldn't call this mayhem exactly--I just hope 
nobody caught cold.

As to what was going on in the rest of the city, I don't know.  I was 
told the next day, that in Southeast, which is a large area which is 
basically a black ghetto (with some pockets of prosperity I haven't 
seen), people shoot off their guns to ring in the new year.  I was 
invited for the first time in my life to a party on New Year's DAY, 
when most people are recovering from their drinking binges.  This 
party took me into a section of Southeast hitherto terra incognita to 
me.  It included a Kwanzaa ceremony--which is definitely not my 
bag--but otherwise, I had a great time.  However, I also got to 
contemplate once again the consequences and seeming permanence of 
racial segregation.

So no, there is no chance of bridging the gap between theory and 
practice.  One can only intervene where one can in the limited ways 
that one can.  However, as intellectuals, our problem is a failure of 
imagination and the prostration of intellect before limited 
circumstances.  In this respect, we are not much different from anyone else.

At 01:36 AM 1/1/2008, matthew piscioneri wrote:

>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
>