From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Theory and Practice: More Verbiage Ahead! Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 14:35:06 +0000 <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P>Dear Claus,</P> <P>Thank you for YOUR inspiring thoughts! </P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>I think the main problem for me to accept this way of seeing things <DIV></DIV>>is that is misses out on a crucial aspect of how 'theory production' <DIV></DIV>>today is done. Adorno writes in his "Introduction to Sociology" <DIV></DIV>>about this kind of gap - a gap which is one of the aspects <DIV></DIV>>of the theory/practice dichotomy mentioned above. He says that - <DIV></DIV>>being a sociologist in spe - one has to choose between wanting <DIV></DIV>>to 'make sense of the world' and 'doing socially useful labour'. In <DIV></DIV>>other words - it is not possible - in Adornos opinion to reconcile <DIV></DIV> <P>>these two contradictory aims. </P> <P>I guess being someone drawn towards grand theorizing (and even meta-narratives) I "like" to maintain a space for both the 'make sense of the world' theory and 'doing socially useful labour'. In divergence from Adorno I simply do not agree that these tasks are either exclusive of the other nor are they at odds with the other. Given that I trace the "problem" or obstacle preventing maturity and thus autonomy in the Kantian sense to existential factors then I have to say that to make sense of the world is socially useful.</P> <P> <HR> </P> <P>[You wrote]</P> <P>>The real problem about the theory </P> <DIV></DIV>>production today is that it is TOO theoretical - most theories are <DIV></DIV>>not based on careful observation of the social world - but are <DIV></DIV>>'books about books' as Manuel Castells puts it. The theories <DIV></DIV>>(Habermas is a brilliant example) are not second order reflections <DIV></DIV>>of the theories the everyday actor uses in her handling of her daily <DIV></DIV>>life - instead they are third order reflections: discussions of how <DIV></DIV>>other theoreticians have interpreted the world. On the other hand, <DIV></DIV>>the scientists who actually study the world are so narrow minded <DIV></DIV>>that they only see how our reified and ugly world looks like on the <DIV></DIV>>surface - they never penetrate beneath it to reveal the true state <DIV></DIV>>of society because they lack the conceptual tools for doing this. <DIV></DIV>>One of the things which make Marx so admirable is that he actually <DIV></DIV>>studied the world and from these observations tried to draw some <DIV></DIV>>consequences - both theoretically and practically. This practice <DIV></DIV>>practically doesn't exist in the social sciences of today - and this <DIV></DIV>>has the consequence of producing some kind of gap between theory and <DIV></DIV>>practice. Perhaps the only exception is the late Pierre Bourdieu... <DIV></DIV> <P>In a sense, then, are you pointing out not so much a theory/practice distinction here but a *type* of theory/theory or theorist/theorist distinction? Again I would want to make room for Habermas alongside the critical social sciences which employ actual emprical data. For what it is worth I don't think Habermas's reconstructive sciences qualify as empirical social science either. </P> <P>Anyway, as much as I admire Adorno and Horkheimer I think Habermas does have a point when he points out that their totalizing critique of human cognitive processes should render their own critique susceptible as well as the "retreat" to negative dialectics. Quietism seems the only possible outcome of H. & A.'s analysis (This last point is slightly tongue in cheek).</P> <P> <HR> </P> <P>You are making life tough here Claus:</P> <DIV></DIV>>Couldn't one of the problems of the left be that there are no <DIV></DIV>>theories you could be inspired by to make new visions of a better <DIV></DIV>>world? <DIV></DIV>>How about blaming the philosophers and sociologist who have all <DIV></DIV>>lacked the ability to use their imagination to pave the way for such <DIV></DIV> <P>>visions? </P> <P>First, I do strongly buy into Matustik's existential analysis of Habermas's theoretical position on holistic aspirations for social change. Second, utopian visions have historically proved to be fairly disasterous regardless of Habermas's life story. The trouble with taking this position is that I end up sounding like an apologist for the status quo, which I don't want to be. I also don't want to be dismissive of the dangers I think do get posed by radical social movements which proceed unmindful of the dialectic of enlightenment effect. I think Horkheimer, Adorno and Foucault have shown how substantive hopefulness - if you will - is not a straightforward "good" thing. At the risk of triviality, there is the old saying that the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. As much as I support the anti-globalization movement I support it more as "mindful actionism"...mindful of all of the second and even third order theory we have been discussing. </P> <P>Claus, I hope you respond to this last point as it seems to me to be the core of what we are circling.</P> <P>From another angle worrying about this type of thing appears to be third order theory for theorists, but given the basis of the Positivist Dispute I think there is an applied flow on of this sort of discourse in the "real world" as it were. The social sciences do impact in the real world. each year thousands of budding social managers graduate from universities everywhere. Some of them end up in policy making/reviewing positions in institutions etc. Some of what is in their heads is shaped by the sort of third order theorizing we are discussing I would submit.</P> <P> <HR> </P>>In my <DIV></DIV>>humble opinion one has to revive the ideas of Horkheimers original <DIV></DIV>>statement on the task of an Institute of Social Research and which <DIV></DIV>>Habermas tries to carry on. However, one would have to ask the <DIV></DIV>>professor himself (in this case Habermas) to participate in this <DIV></DIV>>program and study the world instead of only letting his research <DIV></DIV> <P>>assistants do it! </P> <P>I guess Habermas might say OUCH!!! to these sentiments.</P> <P> <HR> </P> <DIV></DIV>>Being from a European country (Denmark) I cannot share your <DIV></DIV>>celebrations of resistance against Bush's warmongering. I wonder if <DIV></DIV> <P>>one could actually interpret it as a form of resistance? </P> <P>Maybe I am grasping at straws here Claus and revealing my irrepressible hopefulness even. Just hearing again some of the good old rhetoric of the anti-imperialist Left being exchanged in public discussion in Australia has been wonderful. Still I take your points below.</P> <P>>Bearing in </P> <P>>mind the changes of goverments throughout Europe during the last two </P> <DIV></DIV>>years it seems as if it is time to a new round of neoliberalism in <DIV></DIV>>Europe and while the public is indeed critical towards the <DIV></DIV>>Bush-administration (and with very good reasons for being so) I <DIV></DIV>>can't stop wondering if this is not just another sign of us <DIV></DIV>>Europeans wanting NOT to be involved in the problems of the world <DIV></DIV>>and instead barricading ourselves her which would make Fort Europe <DIV></DIV>>offlimits to anyone not coming from the rich parts of the world. <DIV></DIV>>This is anyway - how I see it - especially when one bears the <DIV></DIV>>current debate on immigrants in mind - both here in Denmark and in <DIV></DIV>>the Netherlands and France... <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am not a good person to talk with this sort of thing about, because, you see, I still lock my door at night :-) Maybe this makes some sense of my earlier assertion that existential factors also need to be assessed. Why do we fear losing what we have? Why do we find so much security in material possessions so much that we can't share a significant degree of our wealth with our poorer sisters and brothers etc.? There you go. We have arrived back at the starting place of both the religious/contemplative tradition and critical social theory. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>mattP.</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENAU/c157??PI=44314'>Click Here</a><br></html>
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005