Subject: Re: HAB: Re: Re: THEORY & PRACTICE
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:46:18 -0700



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Dumain" <rdumain-AT-igc.org>

> I think this is all nonsense.

That being so (or not) Habermas preserves *most* of this in his latter work.
However, instead of emphasizing methodological-epistemological concerns, he
addresses it in terms of language: ie. instead of 'human interests' Habermas
looks to the pragmatics of speaking (an orientation toward the objective,
the social, the subjective) [ie. a technical interest, a practical
interest...].

> "The Concept of Critique in Social Science" by Mihailo Markovic
> http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/markovic.html

I'm assuming you're familiar with Markovic's story? (not that it is relevant
to this essay)

My guess would be that your seeking a more integrated understanding of
theory and practice, one which resists this division of labour. Habermas
doesn't go this route because he refuses the idea that theory can make
recommendations for social engineering (otherwise social theorists or
activists would be vanguards). Maybe that's not why you object. Habermas
emphasizes that all human interests are practical, but that some of these
interests can be thematized theoretically and formulated scientifically (ie.
empirically, hermeneutically). The difference has to do with the object
domain. Now, if one is a social constructionist through and through, the
entire question of objectivating sciences runs awry... but it would seem,
then, that the technological successes of science cannot be accounted for,
which is to say that reality isn't interpretation all the way down: one
wouldn't be able to make a jet that flies, apart from luck, if everything is
'just interpretation.' I don't know if this addresses your concerns... my
guess is that you have a more profound reason to disagree... but I'm
wondering if my summary missed an idea that you find helpful in sorting this
out....

ken



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