[FRA:] Totalizing critiques

Wed Jan 16 02:48:57 GMT 2008

(Ralph, thanks again for the links.)

Re-reading Vogel's work it's clear he is running a fairly subtle thesis especially in his critique of contemporary eco-critical social theory. Vogel's stimulating approach starts consideration of the following (and I am not suggesting these are explicit subtexts in his work):

(i) the ontological assumptions inherent in any epistemology...you simply cannot dismiss ontology "in favour" of epistemology cos any epistemology to get started has to make a very wide range of ontological commitments; to suggest otherwise is nonsensical.

(ii) reassessing my rant against Idealist CT...developing a critical (social) theory (CST) that suggests a less than rigorous materialism is perhaps justified on normative grounds...a sort of "noble lie" concession. It could be argued that if the persuasive efficacy of the rhetoric of a CST is enhanced by flattering its target audience that somehow they are morally superior to the rest of the natural world (shades again of the old religious marketing ploys) and the "higher instincts" that demarcate us from the horror of the Nature include "compassion", "an aspiration for individual freedom" and/or the capacity for "moral reasoning"  and these noble lies advance the cause of redressing actual conditions of material oppression then who am I to say our Idealist colleagues have deviated from the Shining Path of CT? :-)

My concerns are basically (a) the usual (and destructively retrograde) inversion that has afflicted a vulgar critical materialism also afflicts a vulgar critical idealism (b) I am not altogether sure Idealist noble lies are more efficacious in terms of the rhetorical power of a CST, and this is where it gets interesting because it depends on who your target audience is :-).

As discussed in an earlier post, recent CT and/or CST has tended to become ideologically narrow (maybe Negri and Hardt's _Empire_ one exception)...mainly serving the interests of new class politics, in particular issues of recognition and identity which are often fairly rarefied in focus and are issues which I do think might benefit from Idealist-leaning critical rhetorical tropes. But, things change once the traditional target audience of CST changes.

Now mostly the residual sufferings of the 'orrible Harrys and Harriets in advanced capitalist systems are administered to via an institutionalized CT. However, to some extent, it is their values and norms (consumerism, procreative regime) against which "new class" CT rails. Ironic really. Eco-critical social theory, for eg, represents a barely disguised new form of class warfare between the morally superior, more refined aesthetic sensibilities of a generally *better* educated, better paid and much more in control of society's elite cultural capital {US}, and you know, well,......THEM....the plasma screen loving, tree hating, celebrity worshipping 'orrible Harrys and Harriets (those about whom we don't think much anymore in polite Enlightened company except to hate them and their base, mindless greed to consume as much as they hate us and our pretensions toward a morally superior, Enlightened difference). My guess is that Idealist leaning critical rhetorical tropes that perhaps suit issues of identity/recognition and even quality of life issues miss the mark on the quantity of life issues that served as the focus of much traditional CST. 

Which is all why the renewed mega "critical" social discourse of environmentalism is very interesting, especially the degree to which it appears to have made a cross-social impact and perhaps even blurred a little the demarcation between old class and new class politics, altho' new class eco-ideologues get to point the righteous accusing finger at the fat industrialist producers and the fat materialist consumers all the while living off the fat of what 200 years of industrialism has provided them, all the while trying to deny the same level of material wellbeing to people in newly industrializing countries. 

For the record, I think it is silly to suggest that human activities have contributed more than a squidgin to global warming...global warming is a cyclical phenomenon largely related to solar activity, which isn't to say I prefer concrete jungles to rainforests, sushi to free Orcas. I think for the most part contrasting environmental ideologies are about differing aesthetic sensibilities and notions of what constitutes a life worth living. The current "mainstream" success of eco-CST is due to the linkage (in no particular order) between the rhetoric of apocalypse and people's perceptions that the climate is changing...it seems to be getting hotter. It would appear that the fear of being seared is sheer. Nothing like tapping into a basic instinct to effect some social change.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Habermas polemicized for a revitalized CT to face off the dangers posed to the West German polity by the socio-cultural impacts of H&A's critique of instrumental reason, the resurgent influence of Nietzsche's and Heidegger's work especially expressed through the work of the French School (Bataille, Foucault, Derrida et al) and the pre-modernism being preached by an increasingly influential German political Right/Reich. 

Today, I think CT needs to undertake some radical and critical self reflection to get it doing what it used to do best IMO, and that was to undertake incisive metacritique of contemporary forms of critical thinking. Why? Mainly because of the dangers posed globally by the renewal of environmentalism as the dominant "critical" social discourse. 

best,

mattP

> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:04:51 -0500> To: theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org> From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org> Subject: Re: [FRA:] Totalizing critiques> > Two more essays, online:> > <http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/vogel3.htm>A > Fresh Look at Lukács: on Steven Vogel's > <http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/vogel3.htm>Against > Nature by Andrew Feenberg (Rethinking Marxism, Winter 1999, pp. 84-92)> > <http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/marhab.html>Marcuse > Or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology by Andrew Feenberg> > > > At 12:11 AM 1/15/2008, Ralph Dumain wrote:> >I'll have to find my notes, since I can't remember what I thought of> >this book, which I read some time ago.> >> >I have not read, and am curious about:> >> >Alford, C. Fred. Science and the Revenge of Nature: Marcuse and> >Habermas. Tampa: University of South Florida Press, 1985.> >> >There is also this article I have yet to read:> >> >Vogel, Steven. 'Marcuse and the "New Science"', in Herbert Marcuse: A> >Critical Reader, edited by John Abromeit and W. Mark Cobb (New York:> >Routledge, 2003), pp. 385-394.> >> >Marcuse's position is definitely the weakest. One must note that> >there were times when Adorno and I think Horkheimer made gestures> >toward the natural sciences while admitting their unpreparedness to> >tackle them.> >> >Their more serious weakness was their failure to distinguish> >positivism as an ideology of natural science from natural science> >itself. But I could be wrong, as I have not been able to consult THE> >POSITIVIST DISPUTE IN GERMAN SOCIOLOGY.> >> >All of this, though, is quite obsolete, as is Lukacs. The problem> >remains the problem of the "two cultures"; you can't claim> >universality when you are only a specialist, and the Frankfurters,> >and even worse, their footnote-whores today, were trapped within just> >one of these cultures. But the Frankfurters at least were pioneers> >in addressing real problems. Whereas today's grad students have> >nothing to say, nothing at all, but to narcissistically regurgitate> >the same old tired shit.> >> >But in fact, there really is work to be done, in light of the> >multifarious obscurantism that rules the contemporary scene, as> >science and the popular consciousness fall to pieces as civilization> >itself teeters on the brink--thanks to the extremely retrograde> >political situation in the USA.> >> >> >At 11:45 PM 1/14/2008, matthew piscioneri wrote:> >> > >An outstanding book on the issue of nature and CT (broadly speaking> > >as Western Marxism) is Steven Vogel's:> > >> > >_Against Nature: The concept of nature in Critical Theory_> > >> > >an online version:> > >> > >http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7 > > l0a0EMzwRQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=vogel+critical+theory&ots=Tmh05xSssF&sig=RTaOIjN7sf7MytHnY2UBqCo2kT0#PPA6,M1> > >> > >> > >I say outstanding cos of the clarity of Vogel's writing and the> > >depth of his analysis even though I "suspect" Vogel of leaning over> > >into the abyss of Idealism albeit via a social constructivist epistemology.> > >> > >It's an interesting (and I think slightly "devious") move to abstain> > >from ontology in favour of epistemology to then make claims that> > >have huge implications for ontology :-).> > >> _______________________________________________> theory-frankfurt-school mailing list> theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school
_________________________________________________________________
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