From: "Hans Despain" <DESPAIN-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 11:02:56 GMT-700 Subject: Re: Agency: Porpora, Bhaskar, and Giddens Bwankia, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Bwanika says of agency: "I have not read Porpora but I have studied this issue. All human actions should be left to swing as a free pendelum. Therefere intersubjectivity antials taking society as well individual action into a kind of interplay. That is what to me, I call intersubjectivity. { De- individualising society} It is more than neccessary, since the welfare systems which have granteed the elianation of labour , through capitalistic conformity are giving way. If total capitalistic expoliation comes to a stand still, stoping war, children care, Old care, social conflict will require intersubjective sensebilities and the de- capitalisation of society (de intrumentalisatuion or re-socialisation). This is what I see as ontological in the above analysis, the rediscovery of human society." De-individualizing society does seem important, but does an intersubjective approach constitute an ontology. Actually this is Porpora's critique of Giddens, as I understand it. It may be wrong to suggest that Porpora remains intersubjective, he does attempt to construct an ontology with his notion of *social-based-position agency*. My problem is not that he remains on the level of epistemology but that his ontology itself is relative. This may be a case of the difference betweeen a philosophical ontology, whereby, a relational approach is established, and a scientific ontology, whereby, it is up to science to re-construct a more specific ontology. Are Bwankia and myself saying the same thing? It seems so. Moreover, Bwankia's comments on de-individualizing society, and re- socializing seems a good way to put it. In neo-classical economics individualism and asociality is the orthodox. Also, I am not sure that Giddens structuration remains on the level of epistemology. This must be forced onto Giddens, at least in my interpretation. However, I would agree, that Giddens does not make *as* explicit the commitment to onotology as does Porpora and especially Bhaskar. Hence, leaving open an epistemological interpretation. hans despain University of Utah despain-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005