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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005