Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:20:52 -0400
Subject: Re: HAB: Re: Re: THEORY & PRACTICE


I have to run, so my response will be very quick.

I've heard that Markovic became a supporter of Milosevic, but I don't know 
anything about it.  I'm concerned with the Markovic that was at the core of 
the Yugoslav praxis school.  It's important here to recognize that M's 
conception of praxis was not anti-materialist or anti-scientific (eastern 
vs. western marxism) or based on artificial dichotomies or conflations.

I'm interested in an integrated view of knowledge.  I don't believe in the 
unity of theory and practice as generally understood by Marxists, nor do I 
believe that this can be legitimated through Marx by quoting the 11th 
thesis on Feuerbach out of context.  That's why I liked the differentiation 
Habermas made in his essay even though I apparently reject his theoretical 
framework.

My objection is that Habermas appears to be even more schizoid than the 
first Frankfurter generation.  Marcuse, Horkheimer, et al never understood 
the first thing about scientific idealization or the nature of the natural 
sciences.  They seem to have adopted this reactionary view of technology 
inherited from lebensphilosophie.  But Habermas is even worse.  He gather 
together fragments from the notions of empirical-analytic, technological 
rationality, pragmatism, Weber, Kant, intersubjectivity, etc.--he takes the 
worst, most conservative aspects of each of these strains of thought and 
amalgamates them into a diversified structure that betrays an excessive 
incorporation of his intellectual being in the alienated structures of 
bourgeois philosophical and social scientific thought.  It's not that I 
believe in the unity of theory and practice--the unity of theory would be 
enough.

Perhaps I can clarify this better later.

At 10:46 AM 06/13/2002 -0700, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

>----- 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 ---



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