Subject: RE: [HAB:] Trilateralism [Ken]
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:34:41 -0500




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of matthew
piscioneri

> I read Habermas's project within the parameters set by the enlightenment
of 
dialectic (sic). This is where Cook is a little misguided. Doesn't *all* 
maintain the ideological veil? Doesn't her more robust desire for the 
generation of an emancipatory consciousness also continue the ideological 
veil?

Exactly what "ideological veil" do you see Cook contributing to? How is
relentless criticism in the service of practical efforts ideological?
Likewise, if relentless criticism is said to undercut its own basis (and to
be sure, negative dialectic isn't aimless - as Habermas sometimes attributes
to Adorno when he remarks the Teddie engaged in critique for the sake of
critique), that would entail establishing that some things are just good.
That which is good/perfect shouldn't be criticised? Of course not... despite
Habermas's rather strenuous remarks I don't at all see how his position, as
a critical theorist, has departed that of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse
all that much. His theory of systematically distorted communication requires
constant critique, a relentless uncovering of power structures and
generalised interests. Now, he hasn't gone on to do this - but nearly all of
Habermas's efforts could be seen as a gigantic research project. It is up to
"Habermasians" to do the empirical research based on his proposals. Much of
the criticism against Habermas might miss the point... Habermas's work is
pitched at the hypothetical level, an introductory proposal for ongoing
study - disagreements with his theory have to do with the projected path of
study... not with the actual research. Perhaps I confused this when I
mentioned the Trilateralism material... which has to do with an empirical
analysis of power rather than a full out disagreement with Habemas's
proposals. Still, his apology for democracy is provocative - and certainly
warrants a response. Is his theory of deliberative democracy too utopian, in
the sense of generating an unrealistic expectation or a wrong-headed
normative basis? or is it just what democracy ordered, strong enough to be
critical and weak enough to be flexible. Does BFN provide a sufficient
justification for using the norms that are outlined within its pages as the
basis for legitimate social criticism and analysis? If so, then let's get on
with it - let's talk about the way in which our democracies are tied to
certain economic interests which aren't at all interested in democracy.

ken



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