[FRA:] Totalizing critiques

[matthew piscioneri]

Ralph,
 
more gibberish I am sorry:
 
>A few preliminary clarifications: >(1) What do you take contemporary CT to be? 
 
Any theory of the world that takes as its object domain of analysis the processes, practices and products of social groups. This analysis of the social world includes the nature of relations within and between social groups with a particular interest in not only the origins, identity and implications of power relations within and between social groups but has the intention of developing practical programmes to redress/ameliorate the oppression that results from imbalanced power relations within and between social groups based on this analysis.
 
I think Horkheimer understood CT, as distinct from traditional (social) theory as being (1) philosophically informed (2) commensurate with inquiry in the natural and physical sciences (3) to be self reflective on its epistemological practices. Typically, CT has undertaken three tasks: (a) a descriptive analysis of the social world (b) judgement of the social world (i.e: something is wrong…oppressive (c) a prescriptive outlook…the development of a programme to redress/ameliorate the deficiency. 
 
Significantly, and to distinguish CT from “fascist” forms of critical social theory, the moral underpinnings of the judgment invariably made by CT reflect the moral aspirations of the revolutionary Enlightenment: liberty, equality, fraternity (for want of a better phrase). In other words, in contrast to rightist critical social theories which seek to promote the domination of elitist, exclusive social interests, in its prescriptive moment, CT typically seeks to establish a set of institutions and norms that are as inclusive of the rights and aspirations of the many as against the few: a moral universalism that also tries to recognize and respect particularity.
 
More or less, thinkers I would see as comprising *contemporary CT* fit, however uncomfortably, into this very broad category. So, alongside Habermas, I’d include Rorty, a little less certainly Taylor, but I’d include Zizek; alongside Baumann some might include Baudrillard. On the basis of several of the criteria listed above, I’d also include Foucault and perhaps even Derrida. On the basis of other criteria, these thinkers would be placed elsewhere. Certainly thinkers such as Chomsky, Benhabib, Butler, Fraser, Honneth and Kellner seems to rest a little more easily inside the category of CT. Is Jay a brilliant historian of CT and/or a practitioner? Martin Matustik appears to me to successfully straddle both identities. It’s a thankless task to try and establish set categories in terms of any form of human inquiry. I trust some of this is helpful.
 
>Who are the practitioners of its allegedly idealistic leanings?
 
Well, if we exclude the first 100 pp of _The German Ideology_ , Engels’ _Dialectic of Nature_ and aspects of Timpanaro’s writing, in the western critical academy just about every CTist of the last 150 years displays idealistic leanings. Any exaggerated emphasis in a critical theorist’s work on the categories of history or culture or language is a sure sign (sic) of a closet Idealist :-).
 
Idealistic leanings in CT mainly take two forms. The first is an explicit type whereby mysterious dynamics (dialectical movement of history), abstract entities (class, Third World) and the attribution of essences to macro-subjects (the proletariat, women) comprise the basis of a critical theorist’s ontology. In more recent CT, this traditional Idealist ontology has been replaced by the “newer” Critical Idealist ontology of language (or discourse) and/or culture, or more generally the realm of signs, symbols and significance -- an equally magical Popperian world where signs float freely and endlessly, utterly unattached in explanation or remedial potential to anything like a biophysical realm of flesh and blood human beings still yoked by the neck in pitiful sweatshop labour or foddered by the cannons of the flesh and blood military-industrial elite. 
 
But you want names, and that’s a fair ask because going on your first request the obvious riposte is that those I more certainly “accuse” of idealistic leanings generally are those who do not fit so comfortably into the category of CT (Baudrillard for example). But, on this one you’ll have to be a little patient until I have a chance to draw up my list of the thus proscribed.
 
Perhaps the dominant form of idealism in contemporary CT occurs via what I will term “omission”. It’s not unlike the skeleton in the closet no one wishes to acknowledge or the bumptious uncle at the Xmas dinner everyone wishes could be crossed off the invite list. Again, to give Habermas his due, he at least ventures to use a critical theoretical lexicon that doesn’t exclude the meaningful use of such elsewhere awkward terms such as “biology” or “species”, for example. Try finding any such direct (denotative) meaningful usage of terms such as this in the vast majority of those who pose as practitioners of contemporary CT. Butler gets close sometimes to opening the closet door. Typically, and credit where credit is due, very, very deftly, a great deal of contemporary CT manages to omit the flesh and the blood from its brilliant, expert ruminations and we might wonder why our expert, brilliant ruminations fail to connect with, well, you know “them”…the ‘orrible Harrys and Harriets. This is idealism by omission and this is one reason why I said previously CT has become excessively ideological. Its contemporary target audience is primarily a rich (but ever so compassionate and caring) and highly educated group of radical subjectivities (the apotheoses of cultural history no less) who have shed their biological bodies (or rather inscribed them as a text of revolutionary discourse). 
 
>(2) What do you mean by CT's emphasis on self-critique? Critical >theorists criticize others, but where have they ever criticized themselves?
 
I think the emphasis CT fundamentally placed on “self reflection” is in Horkheimer’s essay on “Traditional Theory” as a founding principle of what was anticipated to be an innovative discipline. As Wiggerhaus’s history of the FS suggests there was plenty of self-critique within the FS pre-Diaspora and Habermas renews what by then was I think an almost expected dynamic not just in the FS but the broader critical philosophy tradition of “aufhebung” [spelling n apologies] (Hegel à Kant; Marx à Hegel; Adorno à Benjamin; Habermas à H&A; Habermas à Marcuse; Honneth à Habermas ?)
 
 >(3) What do you mean by romantic strain? Marcuse's >philosophy? Horkheimer's engagement with Schopenhauer?
 
Yes, but also H&A’s embrace of Nietzsche in _DoE_ (cf: “Ode to Juliette). But more prosaically (and perhaps polemically), I was more taking aim at what I described above at those contemporary CTists who as the apotheoses of cultural history have shed their biological bodies to romantically become transcendent ‘texts’…sounds suspiciously like Shelley or Byron to me, or perhaps more accurately a bad case of post-60s Stevie Nicks silliness…. >(4) What do you mean by CT's contemporary impotence? When was it >potent? Do you mean theoretically potent, or politically efficacious? 
When was it potent? Certainly in the 1960s, especially in West Germany…again Wiggerhaus gives as good as any account of the relations between H&A (and Habermas) and the revolutionary student movement. Also, who doesn’t know of Marcuse’s influence in the counter-cultural movement of the 60s and 70s?
 
Lastly, I think Habermas’s more technocratic understanding of the way critical social theory (including CT) has been politically influential via its institutionalization in the tertiary sector and the training of social managers, and the stimulation of critical debate within the public sphere shouldn’t be ignored. It’s just another form of praxis.
 
>There's more to life than intellectual narcissism.
 
mattP
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 04:03:11 -0500> To: theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org> From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org> Subject: Re: [FRA:] Totalizing critiques> > 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> >> > > _______________________________________________> 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