Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:36:53 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: BHA: Conference, Alethia


Hi Caroline, Karl, Roger, Tobin, everybody

1. Good lively stuff re the Conference. I'll publish a version
(including anything else in the pipeline) in the next Alethia if you
don't mind. Thanks, Tobin, for putting it in train!

2. Caroline wrote:
<I argued that 'Alethia' is too
<elitist a title.  In the UK at least, Greek is mainly studied by men,
<and mainly in the private (misnamed public) school system.  The title
<resonates with class and gender privilege.  I have to say that most
<people disagreed with me, but there are a few who agree.  We will have
<to await a more favourable balance of forces. 

And the best of British luck! As the person who suggested the title but
who remains unconvinced (so far) by Caroline's arguments, I would like
to state a case for retaining it.

I. Of all the concepts of CR/DCR, it perhaps best captures the essence
of what the movement is all about. Within the CR/DCR system of concepts,
it has a clearly articulated meaning, referring to the truth of things,
as distinct from the truth of propositions, i.e. a specific notion of
objective truth. It is central to situating irrealism as _the_ scandal
of philosophy, central to emancipatory critique, and indispensable via
social science to getting the dialectic of desire to freedom going. It
is therefore, as a concept, 'a scandal and abomination' to the present
bourgeoisie and all their classism, sexism, racism, etc. And speaking of
scandals, it is scandalous that CR/DCR is presently the only at any rate
Western philosophical movement to defend an objective notion of truth. 

Unlike Karl, I also think it quite a striking name for our newsletter
and with a melodious sound to it. However, how it grabs you will
admittedly depend to a large extent on where you're coming from, so I
won't try to make much of this.

II. The logic of the (Caroline's) case against it is that it is elitist
(classist and sexist) _in virtue of_ the fact that it is an Ancient
Greek word and Ancient Greek is for the most part studied in those
bastions of class and gender privilege, private schools.

The essence of my response to this position is that it is itself a form
of elitism: inverse elitism (inverse classism - acknowledgements to RB -
and inverse sexism). I have no quarrel with the description of private
schools!

The English language is littered with words deriving from Ancient Greek.
By Caroline's logic we should try to purge them all (why stop with
'alethia'?), starting with 'dialectical' and 'critical'. But then, why
stop with Ancient Greek? A lot of Latin is studied in private schools,
so 'realism' would arguably have to go too! And then, what about all
those Norman words, etc etc? The fact is that the English language, like
any other, has been enriched from above as well as below and is a
resource available in principle for creative use or appropriation by
everybody. Why shoot yourself in the foot and say, 'No, we'll confine
ourselves to an impoverished version of the language, thank you very
much.' The point is to try to transcend elitism and classism
(eventually), not to buy into it.

As for Ancient Greek itself, the privileged elites monopolize its study
and proclaim it to be virtually their private property. 'Help yourself',
says Caroline, 'keep your flamin' Ancient Greek'! A genuinely non-
elitist response would on the contrary say, 'You don't own it, who the
hell do you think you are, it's the heritage of the human species and
albeit originally the language of a male ruling class, one of the
species' greater glories. We'll appropriate it for ouselves, thank you
very much.' (If it's ruling class origins bother you, consider whether
we should dismiss Mozart's music because it was produced for
aristocratic drawing rooms etc or refuse to learn anything from
Heidegger's philosophy because he was a Nazi. On the contrary! We need
to appropriate the very best of everything. Do we ever! The Greek ruling
class got a lot of it from the hoi polloi anyhow.)

The other side of the same coin is that Caroline's position is
patronizing to non-privileged men and women. The implication is that
they're either too stupid to understand or appropriate concepts borrowed
from Ancient Greek or too much in the thrall of slave morality
(Nietzsche) to have anything to do with things pertaining to the ruling
classes, ancient or modern. OK, it is often difficult for 'ordinary' men
and women to appropriate new concepts. But first, precise and carefully
defined concepts are indispenable for rigorous thinking by anybody, they
are among their tools of trade. Second, a concept borrowed from within
existing linguistic and literary traditions is arguably more readily
understandable (not to mention resonant) than one invented at random (I
just came up with 'sedalbo' by striking a few keys at random). Finally,
if the system of concepts is doing its work, if we're using them
successfully to analyse the social world critically, people will
appropriate them as their own when they're ready and use them to try and
change the world. That is what it seems to me they have often done in
the past anyway.

Finally, these remarks are directed at the argments, not - I won't say
'ad hominem', not because it's Latin, but because there is a gender
issue here... Anyhow, you know what I mean.


-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
Editor, 'Alethia'
Newsletter of the International Association for Critical Realism
Flat 7, 23 Grove Park
Camberwell
London SE5 8LH
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0)171 274 2601
Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk


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