File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0205, message 43


From: "Marshall Feldman" <marsh-AT-uri.edu>
Subject: RE: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 10:42:51 -0400


Dick,

Sorry for the delay responding to this. It's time to grade student papers,
you know.

I don't really want to take issue with what you say here. In fact, I agree
with much of it. The only point I was trying to make is that we're
hypothesizing a connection:

	CR -> spread of idea -> emancipation

While some of the logic here can be thought out without a research program,
it seems to me that CR recommends that we deal with this as a causal
mechanism and subject it to research. What, for instance, are the
contingencies that enhance or impede the spread of ideas? You say they
spread via "agency"? Can we be more specific? In the particular case of
religion, I believe the historical record shows that "agency" most often has
taken the form of fire and sword. To what extent is the mechanism of
"ecumenical discourse" an effective substitute? Under what conditions? What
is the role of history in all this? (BTW, this, I think, is a great weakness
in CR. Logically, CR allows for an understanding of the intransitive
dimension as historical, including concepts and ideas. However, much of the
language of CR -- with its justified naturalism -- alludes to the natural
sciences where history is less important. We pay lots of attention to the
double hermeneutic in social science, but much less attention to the
historical nature of things social, the TMSA not withstanding.) What
emergent properties and things face us today, in an era of instantaneous
global communications, mass media, and manufactured consent? How do they
relate to the validity of any analogies between our current historical
situation and the history of the spread of religious ideas? How does the
embeddedness of preexisting ideas pose obstacles or opportunities for the
spread of CR? What ways do ideas like CR have to be embedded in order for
them to have emancipatory, practical effects?

These are a few of the questions a research program around the issue of CR's
hegemony might address. They apply whether we think of CR's standing in the
academy or its ability to supplant oppressive ideologies in the U.S. or
Mideast.

Back to that pile of papers. (Ugh!)

	Best,

	Marsh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Richard
> Moodey
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: RE: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
>
>
> Hi Marsh,
>
> It might be that we have reached one of those very important "agree to
> disagree" points in a discussion.  I'll try to state my some
> elements of my
> position in as non-orgiastic and non-metaphorical way as possible.
>
> 1.  Ideas do not spread themselves, but are spread only through human
> communication -- "agency".
> 2.  Some of the most powerful ideas have been either religious ideas or
> non-religious ideas that are religiously held.  "True believers" can be
> religious atheists or agnostics.
> 2.  Humans do not "share" meanings, norms, and values directly -- senders
> of messages must express them in symbols (not exclusively verbal) and
> receivers of the messages must interpret the symbols.
> 3.  Both misunderstandings and disagreements are common, and
> commonly confused.
> 4.  In dealing with misunderstandings and disagreements, I prefer what I
> call "ecumenical discourse" to violence, whether symbolic or physical.
> 5.  A condition of ecumenical discourse is a desire to understand the
> other, rather than to convert him or her to my beliefs and values.  (I
> regard this as a loving attitude, but not sexually loving.[I know, "what
> the fuck does love have to do with socialism?")
> 6.  There are times when this condition cannot be met.
> 7.  Sometimes people fight because of real conflicts of material
> interests,
> rather than over differences of belief or values.   We all agree
> (probably)
> any beliefs can be turned into ideological justifications of interests.
> 8.  At other times, true believers really do fight over differences of
> belief or values.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dick
>
> At 10:07 AM 05/02/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >I'm not sure this orgy of sexual and religious metaphors and
> similes is that
> >helpful. What we're talking about is an approach to
> understanding the world
> >that we think is both more valid and more liberating than other, commonly
> >accepted approaches. Perhaps we ought to be looking at the
> Enlightenment or
> >20th century socialist revolutions to understand better how such ideas
> >spread and achieve their purchase. In other words, what are the causal
> >powers of ideas and how do they achieve such powers?
> >
> >         Marsh Feldman
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > > [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Richard
> > > Moodey
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:24 AM
> > > To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > > Subject: Re: BHA: path dependence, critical realism and marxism
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Mervyn,
> > >
> > > To my assertion:
> > >
> > > > >Our discourse should be ecumenical, not
> > > > >evangelical.
> > >
> > > You reply:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Isn't this is a missionary position?
> > >
> > > Only metaphorically.  It is "making love" face-to-face, but
> restricted to
> > > verbal exchanges.  All parties -- because more than two can
> participate,
> > > the analogy to the classic missionary position breaks down badly --
> > > sincerely refrain from trying to convert one another.
> > >
> > > But, I have to admit that in one sense, you've got me.  I would
> > > like to be
> > > able to convert holy warriors of all kinds from spreading their
> > > beliefs by
> > > fire and sword to non-violent practitioners of ecumenical
> discourse.  So,
> > > even though I gave up being a missionary for Roman Catholicism about
> > > thirty-five years ago, when I stopped studying to become a Jesuit
> > > priest in
> > > India and Nepal, I am still trying to convert people to a
> more ecumenical
> > > way of holding their different beliefs.  And I recognize that
> many people
> > > believe that they are called by God or by the forces of history
> > > to wage war
> > > against the unbelievers.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that CR can provide a valuable critique of the various
> > > "manichean" fantasies that history is a great battle of the
> > > forces of good
> > > against the forces of evil.  That is not how I read Bhaskar's
> analysis of
> > > dialectic.  Those who subscribe to a manichean world view
> cannot agree to
> > > engage in ecumenical dialogue with those whom they regard as the
> > > agents of
> > > some kind of Satan.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Dick
> > >
> > > Yes, and no.   It is a way of conversing with those with whom one
> > > disagrees.  It requires respecting the other, and the other's beliefs,
> > > without becoming an "ecumaniac" -- one who thinks everyone
> else's beliefs
> > > are better than his own.  Ecumenical discourse has its limits.
> > > In the most
> > > obvious case, I can't respect the beliefs of the holy warriors
> > > who believe
> > > that I should be killed because I don't believe as they do.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005