Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:06:35 EDT Subject: Re: BHA: Response to CCR Conference Hi all, My impressions from the conference in Örebro are really quite mixed. One thought I found myself pondering was what it meant to be some sort of critical realist? It is not entirely clear how one would answer this question, especially at the level of concrete singularity and tranformative agency. Actually I suspect my own convinctions begin to diverge from many critical realist at a more concrete level. The strength of critical realism is at the more abstract levels, for example, at a (transcendentally!) ontological level and critical (especially immanent and explanatory) level. Seemingly if we really have open totalities, we should expect critial realists to view informed practice sometimes differently, maybe radically so ... It seems to me, we cannot expect any critical realist theory or analysis to be able to inform us on any specific action to be taken. I suppose my view that (truthful or good) critical realist theories will be limited in pointing the way forward, perhaps only being able to inform us 'what *not* to do'; while in contrast, to repeat, being rather limited for informing us on 'what to do'. Concrete singularity is simple too complicated, not to mention socially embedded. These convinctions are not necessarily held because of a lack of normative and ethical analysis within critical realism (although certainly a concrete weakness for CR); rather because as the normative, ethical, and political analysis is developed, the radical openness of social reality, should find open possibilities for how any one critical realist believes the future should be transformed. Nonetheless, I was quite encouraged with my visit to Örebro. The heavy, yet critical, presence of critical realism which exists at the university, especially in sociology, was for me quite promising. Maybe such a department can carry-out critical realist research without being constantly put on the defence against hyper-post-moderns, and (implicit) deductivists alike. However, because the situation at Örebro is rather unique, the urgency of practical questions will tend to be under-theorized due to a necessity to develop further the critial level. For example, in economics it is still the critical level that demands urgency. Following the conference there also was a certain discouragement which was manifest in my thinking. How to articulate this discouragement? Well, maybe it is that I sense a particular dogmatic tendency, in the attitude that somehow critical realism (simple) holds the "best" informed scientific theories. Even being over-triumphant in our ability to identify the "best" theories. Further still, that if some critical realist theory can be dubbed the "best" or most turthfully warranted, the license offered at the level of judgemental rationality is actually quite limited (in my view). Maybe at the level of concerte singularity or transformative praxis, it should be expected that it is impossible to identify any particular action taken as being critical realist or otherwise. At the normative level the transcendental is all but left behind! Not in that the world is split in a Kantian sense, acutally quite the contrary. Transcendental knowledge being radically empirically embedded, is contingent, (perhaps) the "best" we currently know, consequently normative and transformative knowledge (even if we can claim it is judgmental rationalist), remains contingent. In this sense we must heed the presence of a type of (Kantian) transencental illusion, and attempt to avoid making it. Something that both Hegelians and Marxians have not taking proper heed. Finally, I would like to say there were many interesting papers and ideas presented. And exciting debates manifest. I would also like to thank all the people at Örebro for a very well-organized and successful conference. And I am looking forward to the next one. Hans D. --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005