File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1999/bhaskar.9901, message 35


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005