Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:57:21 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: nature of the split in Critical Realism


Hi Phil,

Many thanks for your expression of support. I'm afraid I can only concur
about IACR Council's Statement.

I wouldn't say that social science vs philosophy has as such been much
of an issue, nor instrumentality vs creativity (as in your formulation
to Karl). I think there's creative work going on in all areas of CR.
Rather I would say that, in political terms, the coup represents a shift
towards a liberal, pro status quo, mainstream journal both in philosophy
and social science. Of course, the future is open, and time will tell.
But the shift certainly will happen if the ex officio deputy editor
(Justin Cruickshank) gets his way, as he is on record as wanting this
and as very hostile, as a liberal Popperian critical realist, to both
dialectics and the spiritual turn. He will have the whip hand on any
editorial collective because he comes with the Agreement with NTU, and
so is not democratically accountable - he's a fixture as long as the
Agreement's in place; that's why he was able to exercise an effective
veto over me. (It's important to understand that there is money in
journals - the hosting institution gets important points in the research
assessment exercise, and editing a journal is very good for one's
career; this also helps to explain what happened.) As an indication of
where the deputy stands, he commissioned for the launch issue of the
peer reviewed JCR an article which argues that the 'critical' should be
taken out of 'critical realism'. (This would of course be fine in the
normal course of things, but hardly for the *launch* issue of Journal of
*Critical* Realism. You can read it for yourself when/ if JCR 1:1 comes
out; it's a bit worrying that Council's Statement gives no details re
this....). It may well transpire that the explicit introduction of an
emancipatory theme at the Bradford conference (for which I was mainly
responsible) was an important trigger of the JCR crisis. Certainly, some
IACR figures interpeted this as my seeking to transform IACR and JCR
into a "political platform".

Judging by the tone of IACR Council's Statement, it would seem that the
divorce between IACR and myself qua journal editor is now permanent.
Looking on the positive side, divorces can be constructive solutions
where the parties can't get on, enabling both parties to flourish and do
wonderful work. I think I have a perfect right to found a new CR journal
in such circumstances, as all the hard work I had invested in JCR has in
effect been appropriated by others.

The best way to ensure that the kind of shift you (Phil) are concerned
about doesn't occur at journal level in the CR movement, then, is to
support the new journal, which will continue the editorial policy of the
old JCR where all the various phases of CR were well represented. There
is probably room for only one journal in the market, and I am confident
that the new journal will succeed. It has the full backing of Roy
Bhaskar and will be available both in hard copy and as an e-journal
hosted on the website of The Philsophy Magazine. We hope to finalize a
name and subscription details next week.

Here are two ideas re names. I'd be very grateful for any creative
suggestions.

Philosophy, Research and Emancipation: a journal of critical realist
studies

Critical Realism and Human Emancipation: an interdisciplinary journal

Mervyn


Phil Walden <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Hi Mervyn and listers,
>
>First of all, Mervyn, let me say that I am shocked by the shabby treatment
>you have received, despite the fact that as elected editor of JCR you were
>doing a grand job, and unpaid too.  I have just read the statement by the
>IACR Council with astonishment as it is obviously a complete gloss and
>entirely fails to shed light on the causes of the split that has occurred.
>
>Can I ask you, Mervyn, for some further clarification.  It has been my
>perception, based on my experience of the Critical Realist fraternity over
>the last several years, that the main split within Critical Realism is
>between those who see Critical Realism merely as a tool for their social
>scientific research, on the one hand, and those who are interested in DCR,
>TDCR, or in some way in the philosophical potential of Critical Realism on
>the other. Would I be right in thinking that the treatment you have received
>is a coup perpetrated by the former against the latter?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Phil Walden
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
This e-mail is intended for the named recipient only and may be privileged 
or confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify me 
immediately.

Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>

There is another world, but it is in this one.
Paul Eluard




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