Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 02:26:58 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: Habermas - The Dialectician?



--part1_16e.9fb969d.29bb1342_boundary

Habermas's work contained aspects of dialectics, particularly the immanently 
critical way he salvages parts of alternative non-dialectical theories, like 
hermeneutics, phenomenological conceptions of the life-world, elements of 
Luhmanns systems theory etc. and yet the substantive results of such 
hybridisiation are not in themselves a dialectical theory of society, and his 
neo-Kantian discourse ethics remains highly vulnerable to a hegelian / 
dialectical criticism as Seyla Benhabid and others have shown.

I think the theme of dialectics in Habermas is a fruitful one but it depends 
partly on differentiating what Habermas says in his theory and what he does 
in doing analysis that leads up his theorising.

Michael S

In a message dated 09/03/02 05:01:33 GMT Standard Time, 
mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com writes:


> Subj:HAB: Habermas - The Dialectician? 
> Date:09/03/02 05:01:33 GMT Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com">mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary,
> 
> Trust it's OK to join in on this reply; I am hesitant to butt in but this 
> sort of exchange is why I subscribe to this List :-)
> 
> I get the feeling you are working with a very technical usage of the term 
> *dialectic[al]*. It is one of the most *abused* terms in the philosophical 
> lexicon, and I admit to often using it to refer simply to a patterned set 
> of 
> social phenomena which fit into an evolving, (cumulative?) reflexive 
> developmental schema which is more sophisticated than a basic mechanical 
> stimuli/response/stimuli pattern. And here I am reminded of Bateson's 
> dictum 
> about communication-as-information signaling being a difference that makes 
> a 
> difference.
> 
> I realise in your reply to Stephen that you are shifting the focus of the 
> earlier posts on 1) the dialectical character of Habermas's own work & 2) 
> his recognition of the dialectical logic basic to the defining *quality* of 
> 
> Modernity; but I don't think that the methodology of a reconstructive 
> science is UNdialectical. Quite the opposite:
> 
> Having said this Gary, I am going to have to digest what to me is fairly 
> *deep* Habermasian analysis:
> 
> >S> I'd like to end by noting, as I have said several times
> >before, that the concept of a dialectical relationship is
> >central to an understanding of Habermas's thought.
> >
> >G: Certainly, because the *emancipatory interest of
> >critique* is central to understanding JH's thought. But his
> >thinking is not basically critical. Rather, it is
> >constructive. The "theory" (really a metatheory) "of
> >communicative action" is a deeply, broadly complex
> >discourse dealing with what a derivative emancipatory /
> >critical interest *serves*. Critique serves "communication
> >and the evolution of society," which JH DOES NOT basically
> >understand dialectically--which was my main point to Matt.
> >
> >S> (He uses the less inflammatory and more specific term
> >"reconstructive science", but the fundamental logical
> >structure is the same.)
> >
> >G: No. Representing reconstructive science as a dialectical
> >relationship is a misunderstanding of JH's sense of
> >reconstructive inquiry. You are reducing the discursive
> >interest in understanding, theory, and practice to the
> >emancipatory interest of critique (not to mention buying
> >into the misconstrual of the emancipatory interest and
> >critique as a dialectic, which KHI goes to great lengths to
> >understand hermeneutically).
> 
> Thanks for keeping this sort of Habermasian analysis available to this 
> List!
> 
> MattP
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> 
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


Professor of Law

Lancashire Law School
University of Central Lancashire
Preston
PR1 2 HE 
UK

Nuremberg/OSS research 
http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_item.cfm?ItemID=4903
www.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawlibrary/Using_the_Library/leghist/ nurnberg.html 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-1439623,00.html
http://ur.rutgers.edu/medrel/viewArticle.phtml?ArticleID=1984
http://annwn.rutgers.edu/~tomryan/churches.pdf
www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg.htm 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24046-2002Jan10.html
intelligence-history.wiso.uni-erlangen.de/meet-1999-digest.htm - 31k 
www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/10.29.98/Nuremberg.html - 9k 
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2002/01/09/front_page/JNAZI09.htm

Nuremberg / Carl Schmitt: http://www.philosophy.ru/library/pdf/201432.pdf or 
www.philosophy.ru/library/ctf.html - 25k 

Immanent critique: 
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/sample/a010359.pdf



--part1_16e.9fb969d.29bb1342_boundary

HTML VERSION: