File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0202, message 6


Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:48:41 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: on Hegel, Bhaskar, Descartes


Hi Viren,

I think Marx worked pretty well at all levels from highly abstract (as
in the 'primitive' communism/ class society/ communism schema) to the
very concrete (as in The 18th Brumaire). 

> James
>seems to think that a structural transformation that pre-dates capitalist
>society was more important than the one that occurred during the
>transition to capitalism. 

I think this is right, and I would agree with it, and so I think would
Marx. I would rank the following transitions as more momentous than the
ones within master-slave-type society: the dawn of specifically human
consciousness and praxis some 70,000 years ago (Bhaskar's 'first act of
referential detachment'); the transition to master-slave-type society
(Marx's 'pre-history'); and the transition (if there is one) to a post-
slave order (Marx's 'history'). This of course ultimately has its
pedigree in the Judaeo-Christian and neo-Platonic schema positing an
original unity, followed by division and split, followed by
reunification.

>Hence James seems at least as critical of
>modernity as of capitalism.

I'm not sure on what grounds you make a distinction between 'modernity'
and 'capitalism'. Don't what non-marxists call modernity (and
postmodernity) and marxists the bourgeois or capitalist epoch refer to
more or less the same era?

>Wood might agree that Enlightenment universality was formal, but she
>stresses that Marx inherits this tradition and radicalizes it.

By 'this tradition' I take it you mean 'Enlightenment universality'
rather than the (bourgeois) Enlightenment as such, key elements of which
Marx rejected; and that you mean specifically the values of genuine
equality and democracy. That's fine, providing you recall that they
didn't originate, within class society, in the b.E. either, e.g.
communist ideals in Plato or the communism of the early Christian
communities.

> Wood stresses Marx's relation to the
>pre-capitalist Enlightenment.

You mean in pre-capitalist 17th and 18th C France? I think this
designation is too worm's-eye. Certainly, the feudal order is intact and
France hasn't yet had its bourgeois political revolution. But if you
take a bird's-eye view, you see that the old order is pregnant with the
new. No country in Europe was immune to the 17th C crisis and its
attendant scientific and philosophical revolutions. I wouldn't of course
claim that capitalist social relations mechanically caused the new
ideas, rather that the new ideas were 'bound up with' the fissures
produced in the old order by the crisis and the birth of a new mode of
production in England. In this sense they were not 'pre-capitalist' in
France or anywhere else.

>I would have to see the argument showing the relationship
>between "market" and a particular form of ideology;  historically markets
>have entailed various modes of surplus appropriation and have given rise
>to different types of classes.

I think James has made the argument at an abstract level - Sophism is
the philosophy of the deal-maker and the huckster who's main question is
always 'what's in it for me?' (i.e. of the market), and you'll find the
general connection made in all sorts of places, e.g. the novels of
Balzac. Historically markets and trading networks have mediated between
(I wouldn't say 'entailed') all manner of modes of production, but
they've directly given rise to only one class - a merchant or trading
class (leaving aside their servants and workers). Of course the
hypothesis needs to be systematically researched historically and
comparatively - any traces, in spite of the dominance of Bhuddism and
Confucianism, of a Sophist outlook associated with the merchant class in
China?

Mervyn







viren viven murthy <vvmurthy-AT-midway.uchicago.edu> writes
>Hi Mervyn:
>
>Your post suggests that James and Bhaskar work on a more abstract level
>than does Marx, at least as he his interpreted by Wood and others.  James
>seems to think that a structural transformation that pre-dates capitalist
>society was more important than the one that occurred during the
>transition to capitalism.  Hence James seems at least as critical of
>modernity as of capitalism.  In some sense his work seems to complement
>aspects of the famous <<Dialectic of Enlightenment>>.  However, James sees
>another Enlightenment, one that Adorno and Horkheimer overlooked, which
>resists the Enlightenment in modernity:
>
>> 
>> The dominant form of rationality in modernity has of course been
>> instrumental (including technical) rationality. Does she mean that, or
>> something much deeper and more dialectical (cf e.g. the different levels
>> of rationality distinguished in Plato Etc 147-8)?
>> 
>> The dominant form of universality has been formal rather than
>> substantive - freedom of speech in a context dominated by monopoly
>> media; equality before the law - for those who can pay; etc. Does she
>> mean that?
>
>Wood might agree that Enlightenment universality was formal, but she
>stresses that Marx inherits this tradition and radicalizes it.  So the
>important difference between Daly and Wood is that Daly stresses Marx's
>link to the earlier tradition, while Wood stresses Marx's relation to the
>pre-capitalist Enlightenment.  There is an important similarity, namely
>both claim that Marx develops pre-capitalist forms in his battle against
>capitalism.  However, James seems to want to go further and claim that
>Marx is primarily based in both pre-capitalist and pre-modern
>ideology.  James sets up an opposition between two Enlightenments, one
>modern and one pre-modern.
>
>> 
>
>I found this interesting:
>
> Second, while grasping historical specificity in
>> your more micro sense is important and valid, James can be thought of as
>> attempting it in a more macro sense. Marx's concept of 'class society'
>> or Bhaskar's of 'master-slave-type society' can only have purchase given
>> that all the societies such concepts embrace have important things in
>> common (as well as very important differences). James can be thought of
>> as distilling two tendencies of thought that are present in some degree
>> (I would hypothesise) wherever there is a strong market presence in a
>> class society.
>
>
>This again seems to suggest that James works in a framework more abstract
>than Marx's, since the market appears more significant than
>capitalism.  I would have to see the argument showing the relationship
>between "market" and a particular form of ideology;  historically markets
>have entailed various modes of surplus appropriation and have given rise
>to different types of classes.
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> Mervyn
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> viren viven murthy <vvmurthy-AT-midway.uchicago.edu> writes
>> >Dear James and Mervyn:
>> >
>> >Thanks for the information about the website.  It clears up a number of
>> >issues, but I still wonder about whether your main point obscures the
>> >historical specificity of the Enlightenments.  
>> >
>> >As I told Ruth in an earlier post, I have been reading Ellen Wood, who has
>> >an interesting take on the relationship between the Enlightenment and
>> >Marxism.  She claims that the French Enlightenment is pre-capitalist and
>> >hence poses many ideals that develop ideas related to the absolutist
>> >state.  For example, Rousseau dreams of a holism that both his admirers
>> >and critics link the political forms of absolutism.  Moreover, Wood claims
>> >that many of the ideas that we associate with modernity, such as
>> >rationality and universality have their roots in pre-capitalist France as
>> >opposed to capitalist England.  If this is the case, we may have to
>> >rethink your opening sentence:
>> >
>> >The key to an understanding of ethics and politics is in the conflict
>> >between Socrates and the Sophists,  The division between them polarised
>> >two claims to enlightenment, with mutually exclusive concepts of nature,
>> >human nature, reason, the good, justice, right, law, virtue, happiness and
>> >freedom. 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Here you seem to posit an eternal form of politics and, as a result, lump
>> >all of the "non-dialectical thinkers" with the sophists and then put
>> >Hegel, and Marx on the side of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.  Below you
>> >refer to the Anglo-French Enlightenment and so I was wondering your
>> >theory, or any of your more specific judgements would change if you
>> >separated the French and English Enlightenments.
>> >
>> >By the way, could you send me a copy of your paper "Marx and the two
>> >Enlightenments" by e-mail?  Thanks!
>> >
>> >Best,
>> >
>> >Viren
>> >  
>> >
>> >On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, jamesdaly wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Mervyn, and listers,
>> >> 
>> >> I have not been lurking, but unfortunately had no access to e-mail for the 
>> >past month. I very much regret not having been able to take part in recent 
>> >discussions, and I hope it is not too late to contribute. To help clear up 
>> >misunderstandings, my first chapter can be read on the Internet. To do that, 
>go 
>> >to the publisher's web site
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.greenex.co.uk/grxhome.html
>> >> 
>> >> and click on the title.
>> >> 
>> >> Viren, and Dick, I am not claiming that one Enlightenment persisted
>> >through the centuries. Let me explain my perspective on the subject. I
>> >have been teaching in a department of scholastic philosophy in Belfast for
>> >33 years, having studied philosophy in the Fifties, starting at age 16, in
>> >the scholastic environment of Maynooth College, the national
>> >seminary  for Irish Catholic priests. (I spent three years there). One of
>> >my departmental colleagues Professor James McEvoy, an expert in
>> >Grossete ste, stressed the importance of light in the philosophy of
>> >Augustine and many similar philosophers, and directed the department
>> >towards the study of Plato (whose metaphor of the sun is the beginning of
>> >such philosophies) and Neoplatonism, including the Irish philosopher
>> >Eriugena. His  friend Professor Beierwaltes showed the connections
>> >between
>> >mediaeval Neoplatonism and German idealism. In the tradition of that
>> >concept of light the motto of Oxford University Press is Dominus
>> >Illuminatio Mea. I was struck by the fact that any claim to a western
>> >wisdom or spirituality seemed to have been abandoned, while the concept
>> >of enlightenment was used for a very similar spiritual wisdom which was
>> >being sought under that name only in the East -- for example by the
>> >Beatles, or by followers of Zen Buddhism. I realised that this was
>> >connected to the idea of a western Enlightenment which did not lay claim
>> >to wisdom or spirituality, but to which everyone would be terrified of
>> >being thought not to belong. (I was reminded of the remark that if you
>> >said to an Anglican Bishop that he was not Christian he would debate the 
>point, 
>> >but if you said he was not a gentleman he would cease to speak to you. I 
>would 
>> >suppose that he, like all other enlightened people, would regard the word 
>> >"mediaeval" as the last and unanswerable word in debate). However, recently 
>> >there have been academic philosophical criticisms of the modern 
>Enlightenment, 
>> >such as Alasdair MacIntyre's exposure of the failure of the "project of the 
>> >Enlightenment", the attempt to derive traditional morality from the premise 
>of 
>> >natural egoism.
>> >> 
>> >> The  following remarks, slightly altered from an earlier post on the
>> >Bhaskar list in reply to Mervyn, may indicate where Marx came into the 
>equation.
>> >> 
>> >> *******************************************
>> >> 
>> >> To get to perhaps th e most important point Mervyn raises: that my
>> >location of Marx within  the tradition of dialectical enlightenment is
>> >really only half the stor y, and that Marx straddles or sublates both that
>> >tradition of spiritual enli ghtenment and the Anglo-French Enlightenment
>> >in a new synthesis involving  critical realism and parting company with
>> >the bourgeois enlightenment's account of ("mere") nature.
>> >> 
>> >> About this point, which is  an important and difficult one, I would say
>> >first that in a paper "Marx an d the Two Enlightenments" delivered to the
>> >International Congress of Philo sophy, Boston 1998, I ended by saying that
>> >Marx was an inheritor of both en lightenments, and referred approvingly
>> >(as I do in my present book) to M arx's Prometheanism. In the present book
>> >I defined the Anglo-French Enlight enment more narrowly to meet its
>> >characterisation as utilitarianism  by Hegel, which was endorsed by Marx
>> >in The German Ideology. (CJ Arthur edition, Lawrence and Wishart, 1970, 
>p.109).
>> >> 
>> >> In the book I solved the problem s omewhat ad hoc, by referring rather
>> >to Marx's "modernity" (e.g. pages 59  -- 62); firstly, in his adoption of
>> >what he called the bourgeois "standpoi nt of labour" -- that the human
>> >being makes the human world; secondly,  in his retention of "the modern
>> >egalitarianism and ultra-democracy [as j ustice, pace Plato -- JD]
>> >promoted in distorted form by the bourgeo is market, which would require
>> >the abolition of class to bring about genu ine equality, participatory
>> >international economic democracy"-- arguabl y a possible aspiration of an
>> >Anglo-French style enlightenment, but one fo rever prevented by the
>> >unbridled freedom of property called for by i ts possessive theory of
>> >nature. 
>> >> 
>> >> In other words the tapestry becomes more com plex than the opening
>> >flourish of two competing colours suggests. I r egard the question as
>> >opened, not closed.
>> >> 
>> >> ********************************** 
>> >> 
>> >> I would add today that an answer to the questi on of the relationship
>> >between Marx and the two claimants to enlightenme nt would require a
>> >careful, and perhaps surprising, examination of th e concepts of freedom
>> >and equality, and also of the charge of "asceticism".
>> >> 
>> >> By the way, modernist talk of the European middle  ages (the term comes
>> >from the Renaissance, and indicates the period betwe en the revered
>> >classical and its aspiring rival, the modern; it was  Raphael who coined
>> >the contemptuous term Gothic -- unRoman! -- for such t hings as mediaeval
>> >cathedrals) is already an historical evaluation, someth ing like
>> >upper-class talk of the middle classes -- meaning not so  bad, but also
>> >not so good. Talk of the middle ages as the *dark* ages,  however, is a
>> >chillingly graphic illustration of one of the many myths o f the modern
>> >claimant to en*light*enment. There were dark ages after Att ila, but there
>> >was the Carolingian Renaissance around 800, and later renais sances before
>> >the quattrocento. All philosophy was not theology, and no phi losophy was
>> >revealed theology; in philosophy, authority was not an argumen t; there
>> >was good natural philosophy, such as Roger Bacon's, if not Scie nce with a
>> >capital S. Aristotelianism was rejected by Galileo in favour, no t of
>> >empiricism, but of Platonism. Both the popular and the institutio nal
>> >theory of all this history is deeply prejudiced, and we need reedu 
>> >c ation. I have a chip on my shoulder, but as Lucien Goldmann put it, the
>> >wounded organ is a source of the knowledge of something gone wrong. 
>> > > 
>> >>   
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mervyn Hartwig
>> Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
>> 13 Spenser Road
>> Herne Hill
>> London SE24 ONS
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel: 020 7 737 2892
>> Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
>> 
>> Subscription forms: 
>> http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>> 
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>

Subscription forms: 
http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005