File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0006, message 150


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005