File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2000/habermas.0005, message 17


Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: HAB: re: reflexive theory




--- Eduardo Mendieta <mendietae-AT-usfca.edu> wrote:

> ...I think that Habermas' work is hardly comparable.

I disagree, based on your quote from Bourdieu and commentary. I've
not read Bourdieu, but the quotation and commentary by no means show
that Bourdier is incomparable with Habermas-after-1973 (though
perhaps incomparable with Habermas-of-early-1960s).  

> Put
> differently, while Habermas' work is about reflexivity, it can
> hardly be
> claimed that it is reflexive in this material, or quasi-Marxist way
> that
> Bourdieu suggests. 

Good! Because a material, quasi-Marxist sense of reflexivity is
regressive, relative to an approach to social evolution and science
through a discursive theory of communicative action. You would
disagree?

Though...

>The closest [Habermas] comes to doing something like
> this, is
> when he wrote his habilitation on the __Structural Transformation
> of the
> Public Sphere__,....

this would be because Habermas has developed so-called reflexivity
far beyond a neo-Marxist sense of its historicist dependence on the
public sphere. 

I would like to comment on the Bourdieu quote, but don't have time at
this moment. So, I'm hoping you might have some time to elaborate on
your sense of incomparability, relative to Habermas's sense of
science after 1970, where reflexivity has the kind of character that
I outlined earlier.  Thanks. 

Gary



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005