Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:00:59 +0000 From: "Caroline New" <c.new-AT-bathspa.ac.uk> Subject: BHA: Thoughts in the gap between sections Dear All, I am slowly reading DPF for the first time (except for odd bits I dipped into in the past), and unlike some of you who are doubly or triply read and convinced of its great value, have been constantly questioning myself about whether, as a sociologist, I needed to or wanted to do this. It is, after all, written for people with a far better grasp of philosophy than I have (although I did a first degree in philosophy in Cambridge we seemed to do mainly Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein and again Wittgenstein). In his recent critique of the Lazy or Sceptical in relation to DRF and DCR, Mervyn seemed to ignore the exigencies of intellectual choice in limited time - from my point of view it might make more sense to study Archer (rather than just read her, as I have done), Layder etc. But it has steadily become clear to me as I work on the concept of oppression, that I can’t do without a better understanding of dialectics, and therefore cannot skip getting a good grasp of DCR, though I can’t yet judge of its enduring value. So I’ll get more thoroughly on board instead of dragging one foot in the wash. But if Roy is underlabouring for the human sciences, it would be nice if his work were accessible to the groups in question, rather than obliging them to read more philosophy in order to understand it. Every time I turn to the Glossary I need another glossary. Does this sound like carping? There’s a serious political point here. Whatever you may say in his defence, Mervyn, Roy is *unnecessarily obscurantist*, as Andrew admits at the end of his review of DPF (reprinted in *Critical Realism* compendium). It amused me to come across RB’s remark ‘Unfortunately Marx never consummated his somewhat whimsical wish - “to make accessible to the ordinary human intelligence, in two or three printers’ sheets, what is *rational* in the method which Hegel discovered and at the same time mystified”’ (DPF: 87) Marx certainly deceived himself re. his capacity to be concise, as was shown by the length of his draft of the CM, and by the feast the German Ideology supplied the mice, but what amused me was Roy’s characterisation of this wish as ‘whimsical’. No, no, a thousand times no! The wish is politically appropriate, however difficult the execution of clarity and simplicity. For heaven’s sake, I am a member of a tiny privileged intellectual elite, and if I can’t understand DPF without enormous struggle (far more than I needed for Marx, Althusser, Habermas etc) who the hell is RB writing for? The twenty of you on the list? No, give me Fichte’s praiseworthy title (haven’t read the book): ‘A Report, Clear as the Sun, for the General Public on the Real Essence of the latest Philosophy: an Attempt to Compel the Reader to Understand’. Howard, and maybe others, have raised the question of the purpose of the list and so on. I do believe there is considerable Theory/practice inconsistency in the CR movement. I enjoyed reading Gary’s piece on unhappy consciousness very much, and his remarks about the Brisbane Althusserians reminded me of my membership of one of the elitist study groups attached to the Althusserian journal ‘Theoretical Practice’ (Ben Brewster, Paul Hirst, Barry Hindess et al.) I don’t want DCR to look as shabby as that does in retrospect. The ethical position of DCR suggests we should reflect on our own status as academics, in the concrete social relations of the countries we live in, and use whatever scope our positions allow to act in ways which bring about social transformation. But I feel the CR movement lurches between grandiosity and indifference to our place in politics. True, CR conferences are much friendlier and less formal than most conferences, but we still need to improve our awareness about gender issues, reject snobbery based on the hierarchy of institutions and positions in higher education, and shed our own cliquish variety of elitism. Secondly, I am concerned about an incipient split between social scientists and philosophers. I heard a well known critical realist the other day publicly distance himself from DCR, saying he was a CR but not a DCR. Others have done so by implication. I suspect this results more from exasperation at the difficulty of dealing with the way the ideas are presented, rather than from real disagreement with the ideas. What can be done? Maybe the London debate about CR and DCR will help, locally. As far as studying DPF goes I think we should focus on it as a political book, asking ourselves at all stages what its political implications are, what the practical implications are of the lines of demarcation drawn between various positions. Within the CR movement, I think we should pay attention to how we organise, the prefigurative aspects, if you like, and prioritise inclusiveness and clear communication. True, as Tobin says, who doesn’t live with t/p inconsistency? But to identify it, to minimise it, to theorise the possibility and means of overcoming it, to take action, all remain possible options. Caroline --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005