From: meaghan-AT-utdallas.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:30:14 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: General Question



On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

> 
> > Would any of you consider, or not, Marcuse's _One Dimensional Man_ a 
> > prophetic discourse?  
> > 
> > This question contains two deliberately ambiguous terms : prophetic and 
> > discourse.  GO!
> 
> 	yes and no.  Prophetic, as in revelation from a divine source, is 
> definitely out.  But if one understands prophetic to include revelation from 
> non-divine sources then maybe.  Maybe only in the sense than any critique of 
> society serves a "prophetic role."  Another question that could be asked about this: 
>  Is Marcuse a theologian?  Personally I don't think so.

I was not thinking "divine source" -- in the context of the FSchool that 
strikes me as, well, at least a risky claim.  Your point, Ken, about all 
social critique serving, or perhaps falling after the fact, into a 
"prophetic role" is very important to me, anyway.  The dissertaion I'm 
working on, or will be, is based in a different utopic lineage -- 
Irigaray's and the French Feminists generally.  She's interested in 
resisting the same problems and damages but from another direction.  I'm 
not going to get inot this unless asked. But, My question stems from 
litterally getting the shivers reading Marcuse -- who I don't find obtuse 
(that charge is often leveled by those who refuse to learn the discourse) 
-- becasue here's this analysis of trends in a culture at the time of my 
birth, and I find I've grown up to ihabit very nearly the world he was 
describing and seeking thereby to forstall -- redirect.  

> 	Habermas, in knowledge and human interests, outlined the unique role of 
> emancipatory knowledge.  I think the critics of Habermas are correct though - that 
> reflection cannot be singled out as a special domain of knowledge, as Habermas 
> has since concluded as well.  Your right about the ambiguity of the term prophet 
> though.  It tends to be problematic precisely because of the implication that a 
> prohet has special insight - insight which marcuse, horkheimer, and adorno all 
> rejected.  

Ok, here we are beyond my reading, but still I venture a question: If 
they did not see themselves as having, nor there being a possibility of 
"special insight" then did they understand themselve as "noticing" only?  
Sort of reporting?  Seems to me that's what Marx too himself to be doing, 
but does that attitude continue?  And, then, in what sense did they 
understand "insight"?  Seems to me there are people to are trained to , 
or have a talent for (the time to ?) noticing what others do not. Now 
that practice certainly needn't be divinly driven.


it is a discourse though - and a discourse oriented toward the critique of 
> society with a strong element of utopian gesturing. 

Ok, another question: well, no, skip that one.
 
> 	just a guess though.
> 
> ken mackendrick

Thanks Ken, I appreciate a sincere response to my drivel.

Meaghan
> 
> 
>