Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 08:46:43 -0600
From: lennymo-AT-casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lenny Moss)
Subject: HAB: Re:Goldstein


What do you mean by absolute?  Habermas seeks to draw upon the norms which
are implicit in discourse itself.  That doesn't place any contraints upon
the substantive content of discourse so long as it remains discourse.  This
would not appear to be a normative grounds for theory that would prevent
theory from meeting the demands of the times.  Do you see more of a problem
here or a compelling alternative?

Lenny Moss



 Norma Romm poses the differences between Marxism and Habermas as
>a matter of dogmatic economic authority vs broad discussion: she
>says, "But he argues that the specific shift in
>economic structures as posited by Marxists, itself may become authoritarian
>- unless its own vision is  subjected to (heated)
>debate." I don't think that contemporary Marxists, especially those
>committed to Gramscian notions of hegemony, would disagree with this need
>for debate. The real issue is the normative status of theory. In The
>Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Habermas complains that Marxists
>cannot resist totalitarian practices because Marxists allow theory no
>normative grounds. Marxist materialists clearly won't grant that theory,
>whose discourse changes with historical changes, has some absolute
>grounds for its critique; Habermas dismisses them as mere engineers.
>
>Philip Goldstein