Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:13:41 +0100 (BST)
From: Karl <kam13-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Conference



Just adding some thoughts to Caroline's discussion of the conf.


I cannot comment on the first day as I had to miss it by being ill (a
great shame as I'd been looking forward to many of the papers).

On the second plenary:
The discussion of the relations between critical realist philosophy and
empirical research was very interesting.  Rachel Sharp argued that the
survival of CR depended on CR empirical research; whilst Tony Lawson
responded from the floor that this was not the case, that CR could analyse
successful social science which was not necessarily explicitly CR or CR in
intention.  

I was particularly interested in Margaret Archer's clear discussion of the
relations between one's social ontology, explanatory methodology and
practical social research.  (It made me resolve to read Realist Social
Theory upon my return).  

regarding the left wing nature of CR - this also came up in a paper on
explanatory critique.  I'm fairly new to CR, so I won't say much more than
I'm unconvinced as yet.  This is not saying anything about my political
beliefs, but merely being agnostic on the question of whether something
like CR is inherently 'left wing'.  

> The final plenary was a tripartite debate between Rom Harre, Charles
> Varela and Roy Bhaskar.  Charles argued in a very lively manner against
> Freudian theory on the grounds of reification, Rom argued for an
> ontology of social practices in which, inconsistently to my mind, only
> human beings (not social practices) were powerful particulars, and Roy
> characteristically took issue with Rom - unfortunately, for structural
> reasons, Charles' arguments did not receive the attention they
> deserved.  I always like listening to Rom, however much I disagree with
> him and wonder at the motivation for his reductionism.  I would have
> liked to hear more from Roy at the conference.  While I support a clear
> distinction between CR and RB, that doesn't mean I don't want to hear
> RB!

I utterly concur with all the above.  I was a bit confused by Rom Harre's
argument, as it seemed strange to me.  And I would have liked to have
heard more Bhaskar.  It was, however, the first time I've heard such a
strong and heated exchange without feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed.

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.  

I missed the IACR meetings - when were they?  And when was the ballot?  

I can understand the reasoning behind the notion that the title is
elitist, but I disagree.  I would agree, though, that the title isn't very
catchy or grabbing.  It is a bit ethereal.

> We decided to ask the Swedish participants if they would be willing to
> put it on.  And looked forward to the day when such conferences will be
> held, as Roy said 'simultaneously', in several countries of the world
> every year. 

One problem with holding confs elsewhere is the cost for students.  The CR
conferences have thus far been excellent in enabling students to afford to
come.  Fees are low, and accommodation affordable.  But travel to another
country would be impossible for many PhD students in today's funding
environment.  I know this cuts both ways for students elsewhere, but from
a discussion on a Bourdieu list, it seems CR is centred in the Anglohone
world at present.

Karl Maton



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