From: "Colin Wight" <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk> Subject: RE: replying to Hans E. was Re: BHA: Name change Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:40:10 +0100 An attempt to try and take the heat out of the situation. The "Gurism": The citation (Hollis and Smith) that Heikki alludes to does not claim that people wander round following the words of "gurus" without reflection on them, or simply out of unbounded loyalty. On the contrary, it is a need to "Beware of Gurus" because of the manner in which theoretical solutions to certain problems developed by people in one discipline can be incorporated into different disciplines with little or no real engagement with the nuances or the key texts of those thinkers. I support this limited worry. Hollis and Smith were reacting to the manner in which Giddens and Bhaskar's approaches to the agent-structure problem were being incorporated into international relations theory by people who displayed very little understanding of either approach, but were making outlandish claims on behalf of them. We have probably all seen this all the time. However, there are gurus in the social sciences in a more conventional sense of the word (i.e. unchallenged belief), most notably Foucault closely followed by Derrida. As critical realists, with I take it a commitment to truth, we should be wary of both kinds of guruism. I take it nobody wants to argue that if Bhaskar says X then X is true because Bhaskar says it! It is certainly possible to adopt this position based upon some understandings of Foucault and Derrida (although not necessary), but not pre-FEW Bhaskar (whether FEW-Bhaskar can lend support for this view is open to debate). The list: I'm against any changes at present, but certainly against two lists. Like Tobin I would have been happy to have changed the list name before the book came out, but we missed the bus. If we do it now it will be interpreted as a move in reaction to the new book. To my mind it is simply too early to make this judgement given that the vast majority of list members have yet to read it. This list has been, and continues to be one of the most open and interesting lists I have been on (if people really want to see gurism in action spend a week on some of the other lists). It would be a shame to make alterations now. We need to be aware of the symbolism of it all and we can't escape a symbolic effect now that FEW is published. Likewise, just because I find FEW very poor does not mean that there is nothing else to gain from other Bhaskar works. Movements: Are essential. They are political and at the heart of social change. In the academy at present the dominant movement is postmodernism (ironic given that they continue to present themselves as marginalized). We need alternative movements. members of movements do not have to all march to the same tune, or follow the words of the leader (if indeed there is "a" leader, but they do have to have some basic assumptions which they share. I take it one assumption shared by most list members is a commitment to realism in one form or other. If so we are all committed to defending a "realist social science"; hence we are taking part in a movement. By working through it together, going to conferences, asking question, requesting help, airing ideas, we hope to effect change through understanding. If not, what are we doing? Gary: It is certainly possible to read some of the posts as insulting etc. But when you read the book I am sure you will be able to recognise why. There, is I suspect, a deep sense of betrayal and regret to many reactions. Your allusion to Althusser's madness is prescient since off list I have humorously (although with all humour there may be a grain of truth) suggested that many truly great philosophers undergo a period of madness and that I interpret FEW as Bhaskar's. This reading helps me rationalise the book. It may have no substance in truth, but it helps me to come to terms with what is an appalling set of arguments from someone whose work I admire so much. Maybe this rationalisation might be of use to you when you read the book. On the fairies, since I was the one who made the claim, I should defend myself. I didn't say he was "off with the fairies" in the sense of simple minded; I think I said "off with the fairies (quite literally in the new book it seems)". And I mean "quite literally". Page 50: "There is God...and angels...there arise the possibility of spirits at levels beyond embodiment but not manifest, or of, more subtle levels of embodiment, the denizens of the astral and causal worlds, including discarnate souls." =================================Dr. Colin Wight Department of International Politics University of Wales, Aberystwyth Tel: 01970 621769 http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cow ==================================> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005