From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: A Marcuse Renaissance???? Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 11:27:48 +0000 <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P>C'mon Ralph, I think you are still on your August holidays:<BR><BR>>I don't consider name-dropping to be an intellectual argument. Do </P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P>>you think you could translate this verbiage into English? </P>>>In all seriousness, wasn't that "something" the dialectical <DIV></DIV>>>inversion of the liberationary consciousness of the post-war <DIV></DIV> <P>>>period? </P> <P>You asked what happened; I suggested that the dialectic of enlightenment gotcha</P> <P> <HR> </P> <P>As for this brilliant verbiage:</P> <P>>>There is a nexus here I think between Habermas's </P> <DIV></DIV>>>reconstruction of the paradigm of production, Adorno and <DIV></DIV>>>Horkheimer's critique of the culture industry and Foucault and <DIV></DIV> <P>>>Baudrillard (Zizek too?) waiting to be revealed, as it were.</P> <P>All I am saying is that I think each of the above got some of it right. A synthesis of these thinkers would IMO give you the answer to the question you posed earlier.</P> <P> <HR> </P> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>>Positivism and value-free objectivity are now as dead as liberalism and the end-of-ideology. All that stuff and the >rebellion against it belongs to the 60s. We have been living with right-wing ideology for over two decades now. >Technocratic liberalism is as dead as a doornail. Positivism has already been obliterated from the right. You do >realize things have changed since the 70s, don't you? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again - in all philosophical seriousness - as I have suggested in offlist correspondence to you, part of the "issue" lies in our generational ageing. In other words, the issues loom as large for the pink haired body pierced radicals you speak of as they did for you at the same stage of your ontogenesis. </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>In fact, some of you were there during the change and saw things happen that I can only guess about. For example, >at the time I was last in contact with university life in 1977, liberalism still held sway, as did positivism, >Keynesianism, etc., and not all the radicals and hippies had been purged. I disappeared for 2 1/2 years, and started >hanging out again in Jan. 1980 just to attend public lectures. The intellectual climate was totally different. >Something drastic happened while I wasn't paying attention. It is incumbent upon those of you who were in the >ivory tower to tell the rest of us what happened. <BR><BR>>And speaking of responsibilities, understanding what happened in history is more than citing Foucault. There is an >obligation to get very specific about the cultural and ideological changes going on in society beneath the veneer of >the theory industry. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And how are we going to do this without the tools of theory? There is a valid differentiation between micro-theoretical and macrotheoretical analysis. Ideally, the two interpenetrate and inform each other. Foucault does get specific in his analysis of the emergence of bio-power, for example. Habermas, albeit in the context of West Germany, outlines his juridification thesis which details specifics. Anyway, what would the type of analysis you ask for look like? Do you expect names, dates and places? In effect you want supplied the blood and guts details of a change in the zeitgeist. I think that is a BIG ask. Zeitgeist-type explications suit macrotheory construction. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>MattP<BR><BR></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENAU/c144??PS=47575'>Click Here</a><br></html>
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005