To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
cc: ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk
Subject: Re: BHA: Bhaskar on Adorno 
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:10:46 +0100
From: <ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk>


I'm not at all clear what's going on in this exchange. I know longer know what
Michaels complaint is against RB. Is it that he gets the subject-object
relationship wrong, or that he wasn't fair to Adorno? The latter is of course,
Ruth's query. I suspect this is also Michael's since he concludes with:

 REPLY : should I be grateful if it turns out that someone who mugged me with
> minor violence had previous convictions for torture and genocide, and
> therefore I got off relatively lightly? Well - yes and no.

Well I suppose that this is now a matter of subjective interpretation. I don't
think RB gives Adorno a hard time at all. For Ruth it comes down to a single
'But'. But surely it has to be granted that what Adorno meant isn't given on a
plate and is itself subject to mamy interpretations, hence the 'but' need 
only signify RB's amendment. Moreover, RB acknowledges many of the terms and
ideas he has nicked from Adorno - non-identity, constellationality - so I still
fail to see the validity of this complaint. But i accept that's my opinion, 
Michael obviously still feels RB 'mugged' Adorno. 

On the more substantive point Michael seems to suggest both that RB was
heavily influenced by Heidegger and that he can learn more from the dialectical
tradition that has dealt with this strain of phenomenological thought. I can 
agree with the latter, although I suspect that RB might argue that since his
dialectic constitutes a significant move beyond the dominant dialectical 
tradition there is little he could gain here. 

On the phenomenolgical metaphysics, RB would surely argue that it is at best
a conceptual or some other form of realism as opposed to a depth realism he
wishes to advocate.

>  
> REPLY: Perhaps the source of my regrets is the debate so far involved any
> point by point textual comparison in which the limits of both writers are
> juxtapositioned. Only Ruth, Ralph and myself have referred to Adorno's actual
> texts: surely a precondition for any sensible comparative discussion,
> particular if realist values of scientific respect for the evidence etc etc
> are at play.

Absolutely, but given that prevailing wisdom (unless I've totally misunderstood)
seems to be that RB's position is similar, if not identical to that of Adorno, 
I see little point in trawling out point by point Adorno's position. Moreover,
I did post in full RB's position on this so I see this charge as more than a
little unjustified. What can we gain by  pouring over Adorno's texts if we all
agree that RB's position is the same as Adorno advocated?

>  
> REPLY Where precisely does RB reject Husserlian/Heideggerian "metaphysics" as
> you put it? 

It is embedded in his depth realism. If RB's commitment to such a form of 
realism isn't a rejection of a phemological metaphysics I don't know what 
would be. Also, have a look at Plato etc, especially where he critiques
Heidegger for claiming being is always mediated by Dasein.

Dialectic contains many references not only to the specifically
> phenomenological dimension, but also to the need for a dialectical approach
> to respect its qualitative differences.

Yes, but Rb clearly thinks it is too one dimensional in respect of its treatment
an external reality.

> 
> REPLY 
> 
> Why must it be one of the other? 

I absolutley agree. This is my question. But it did seem to me that Michael 
was suggesting that it was incoherent for RB not to argue for the giving of
priority to the object. I suppose here we reach a limit point of what we mean
by priority?


> idea that DRC is not in some sense a qualtitiative shift in response to the
> contradictions and limits (and not merely implicit dimensions of earlier
> phases) does seem to fly in the face of the evidence, even that of RB. RB
> even characterises the movement as itself dialectical i.e., a movement via
> contradicitons, so what this mean? 

But I haven't suggested otherwise. The crucial point is what changes does
this entail in critical realism. After all, RB does still call it
Dialectical _Critical Realism_. So now we need a substantive discussion with
textual references as to where they differ. Also, I a little uneasy at the 
implication that only those of us who have read and understood Dialectic are
up to speed with RB. What about the folks who are only beginning on the journey
and getting to grips with RTS. is it being suggested that they shouldn't
bother because this is no longer RB's position?

> constitute a dialectical movement at all in terms that consistent with DRC?
> My earlier postings suggested not a crude reductionism on RBs part at all,
> but a continuing tension between a dialectical moment that is consistently
> anti-reductionism and anti-dualist, combined with a legacy of oppositions
> that still do appear not to be as mediated as they might be and hence still
> reflect certain either/or dichtomies (realism v irrealism, materialism vs
> idealism etc etc). My suggestion is that facing up to this tension (some
> elelent of which is unaovidable in any living tradition) this may form a
> fruitful area of future development.

I don't disagree with any of this.

> assuming that RB's work could only ever be consistent with himself, could
> never be affected by the contradictions/absences he is so sensitive to
> otherwise.

Well, whatever the problems of contradictions and absences, surely a certain
level of consistency is a pre-requiste to any philosophical system? After all
we aren't going to argue that just any old contradiction is ok surely?

> Apologies, if it came over as  rude.

None necessary Michael. I also hope I have not offended you.


>  
> REPLY : should I be grateful if it turns out that someone who mugged me with
> minor violence had previous convictions for torture and genocide, and
> therefore I got off relatively lightly? Well - yes and no.

I was reading a piece by Frank Furedi in the Observer yesterday (or was it the
independent) who argued that every minor confrontational social exchange is 
today charaterised as bullying, and that if everything is bullying then in a
way nothing is. Furedi was concerned that this left the real victims of
bullying in a void, where the suffering of someone who was simply ignored or
excluded is treated in a similar manner that someone badly beaten. I suppose,
this also is what worries me. If RB's treatment of Adorno is considered a 
mugging, what about the real victims of  muggings (academic or otherwise)?
Don't we need to differentiate between RB's cavalier treatment of some writers
and his more reasoanble treatment of others?

  -------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Colin Wight
  Dept of INT/Pol
  UWA.
  
  
   
  

> 


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---