Subject: Re: HAB: solidarity [Ralph]
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:33:44 +0000
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Dear Ralph,<BR><BR>I resent being labelled "bewildered":</P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Matthew is an utterly
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>bewildered intellectual eunuch. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>As for being an intellectual eunuch I happen to subscribe to the core of the Socratic mission for philosophy: that its goal is to uncertainize in order to realize the profane illumination of beingness. The outcome of this realization is - in a manner strikingly akin to variants of Buddhism - engagement in the pragmatics of everyday life. This is why I bristle at your charge of bewilderment. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>As far as I can tell the practical political usefulness of Habermas's idealization of communicative reason has beeen left far behind. There is little discernible authenticity in the *overt* dialogue between those (Iraq's leadership and the Westerm allies) engaged in this particular communication. The authenticity (sincerity) of these dialogical partners is admittedly obscured to us observers and embedded in the theatricalities of the suberfuged interplay that is presently going on. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Going by recent Rumsfeld comments about safe havens for Hussein I am guessing that deals are being attempted behind the scenes. In response to Bob's call for solidarity I - like you, I think - don't wish to see Moloch's demands appeased with the blood and guts of the Iraqi people. I would rather see Moloch consigned to the fantasy of Disney Land as some sort of gruesome joke. This is why I am in favour of striking a suitable (financial/immunity from war crimes prosecution ?) deal with Hussein's regime. There does not appear to be a turning back for Bush and Blair. So other than making a ethical point, in the immediate there is only a sort of self-congratulatory value in maintaining a no war stance. Of course war is stupid and immoral, but this is an issue (that it can happen again) needs to be taken up once this current drama is resolved.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I respect your call to make this discussion to Habermas and to the tradition of Critical Theory:</P>
<DIV></DIV>>what good does any of this do for Habermas, including the liberation
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>of what's useful in Habermas from (1) the constraints of a dying
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>liberalism, (2) irrationalist anti-modern intellectual guerilla
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>warfare, (3) institutionalized bourgeois intellectual life? </P>
<P>[snip]</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>While I agree that the impending assault on Iraq is the lowest form
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>of fascist barbarism that the America government has ever conceived,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I don't see much use in debating it here unless some real connection
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>with the purpose of this list can be discerned. The most obvious
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>connection is that the Bush administration, like Hitler's, is the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>utmost antithesis of communicative rationality. It is rule by pure
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>intimidation. The rationale behind it is so hollow nobody really
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>believes in it. It succeeds only because the American people have
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>been so demoralized they are completely numb.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>What do you Habermasians have to say about this? Nothing. You are
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>completely useless.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think you are mistaken here. The questions you raise mirror precisely those raised initially by early Critical Theory, re-assessed metatheoretically by late Critical Theory and appraised by Habermas in his turn to the philosophy of language. OK, why are:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>the American [Australian, British etc.] people have
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>been so demoralized they are completely numb. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Can't you hear Horkheimer and Adorno wondering how European fascism emerged? Sure I am very keen to engage with issues of this sort and leave the polemics and graffiti alone whist still acknowledging that on this List we are a small community who in a sense want and need to speak to each other, which re-affirms the prgmatics of Habermas's positive dialectics.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But to fully appreciate the current situation I think Critical Theory's diagnostic tools need to be widened to take note of Baudrillard, in particular, and probably Zizek. Add Heidegger's critical (in the sense of being revelatory) existentiality - mix in an amended version of Foucault's thoughts on subjection and capitalism which pays sufficient attention to voluntarism - and the question "Why are we numb?" begins to open out.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Maybe, numbness is a given. Tribes have always gone to war over material and existential re-assuring resources (religions etc.). What intrigues me is how this given can be so easily packaged and sold in the "enlightened" present. This returns us to Kant and "What is Enlightenment?". There is a sort of contractual infantilism that pervades human life that allows elites ("parents") to rule the roost here, there, and everywhere. Social order governed by elites appears to be a given of human life. H. & A. weren't wrong: enlightenment reverts to myth. If I was in Baghdad, I would be battening down the hatches. Like it or not the eagle is about to swoop :-).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattP</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMPENAU/2737">MSN 8: </a> smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* </html>
--- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005