File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1999/bhaskar.9901, message 41


Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:26:53 +0800
From: Alan Norrie <alan.w.norrie-AT-kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Thoughts in the gap between sections


Dear Caroline,

This might be as well titled 'Thoughts in the Gaps between Exam scripts' as
'between sections' in my case. Whichever, I found your comments thought
provoking and would like to make some responses.

The first point is about the relevance of DPF to a sociologist, to which my
response is that, in my own area, it is actually trying to be a
sociologist, of law, that makes me enthusiastic about DPF.  I find the
emphasis of DPF on dialectics in logic, social history and ethics - and the
synthesis of these three different dialectics - compelling in terms of
trying to understand legal phenomena as social and historical entities.
Perhaps there is something particular about my discipline that makes this
the case, but I am not sure that that is so.  After all, dialectical method
is not confined to one discipline, so I don't think that DPF should be seen
as just for some disciplines, and certainly not just for philosophers.

You mention reading other realist sociologists, which is obviously worth
doing, but I think one would still have to ask what the relationship was
between a critical realist informed social science and one that was also
dialectically informed.  While I too am all too aware of the subjective
issue of time, I don't think the underlying intellectual issue can be
resolved by a pragmatic choice.  In DPF, Bhaskar says that CR is
'unwittingly ... a perfect vehicle for ... social dialectics' but 'despite
this, it must be itself dialecticised' (ch 2.9, p.152).  What does he mean
by this?  Why must CR be dialecticised, and what are the consequences of so
doing?  Presumably he sees this as involving an improvement on (a
'preservative sublation' of?) CR that doesn't leave the earlier theory just
as it was.  I don't have an immediate answer to such questions, but I think
one needs to read DPF to find out.

This gives rise to a third point, which you characterise as the split
between social scientists and philosophers, and you mention a well-known CR
person distancing himself from DCR. You suggest that this is probably the
result of exasperation rather than real disagreement.  However, if CR and
DCR are in some way or ways different, then it is possible that it is
either exasperation or disagreement.  Or, it could be disagreement
presenting itself as exasperation.  Perhaps the question to ask such a
person is whether they see a role for dialectics in their CR work.  If they
do, then the style of DPF may genuinely be the problem; if they do not,
then there is a real disagreement which should be debated.  

Why, finally, such a disagreement should be characterised as between social
scientists and philosophers, I am unsure.  As I see it, the question is
whether as a social scientist or a philosopher you see the need for both CR
and dialectics.  If you do, DPF is the place to go.  If you don't, you may
well find it exasperating.

Alan


Professor Alan Norrie
School of Law
King's College London
Strand 
London WC2R 2LS

tel 0171 873 2919
fax 0171 873 2465

Secretary (Grace Alleyne) 0171 873 2273


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005