Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 13:10:48 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> Subject: Re: Relativism Perhaps Wolff is right that this discussion has reached the point of diminishing returns. Certainly we (he and I) seem not to be engaging each other's concerns. Still, I thought I would say for one last time (unless Wolff wants to go one) why it seems to me that Wolff's responses seem to me to be nonresponsive. > > Brief reply to Schwartz: > > Critiques are different, too, in the ways that people understand > what they are and do. Absolutists (that which lies beyond the boundary > enclosing the various positions which I see as different but which Schwartz > wants to lump together as "relativism") seek some "ground" (valid across > theoretical frameworks/positions/perspectives) for critiques to be "valid" > by which they mean "valid across frameworks, absolutely, not merely > relative to this or that framework. I have been pressing the question about how critique is possible without a notion of truth to back it up. What is a critique if not a claim that some claim or theory is wrong or some practice or institutions unsustainable or unworthy of being sustained? Wolff replies here that critiques are different in what they are what they do. But Wolff does not say what these different notions of critique are nor does he try to answer my question about how a Wahrheitsfrei notion of critique is coherent. As to the different things people might understand critiques to do, or one might add, the different motives people might have in making them, this is not to the point if we cannot have critiques at all without making claims about truth. The issue is what they are and what they presuppose, not what they might do or why we might make them. Wolff seems here to reject the term "relativism" as a description of his views, but it was he and not I who started by insisting on the relativity of what he called judgments to "frameworks." By relativism I understand the view that the validity of all judgments or claims is entirely relative to framework or standpoint. Isn't this what Wolff thinks? As to "absolutism," a term I am uncomfortable with because I am not sure I understand it, I have argued that it's important to distinguish between epistemology and semantics, which I think Wolff runs together. The semantic question concerns the truth-value of claims we might make, and I certainly do want to say that t-value is framework and standpoint independent. Whether capitalism is exploitative or whether the death squads murdered Archbishop Romero, to take, respectively a theoretical and and particular claim, doesn't depend on what standpoint we take or what framework we adopt but on the facts of the matter. The epistemological question, the issue of how we can be warranted in accepting such theoretical or particular claims, is, by contrast, framework or standpoint dependent, but this doesn't mean that what we are warranted (or not) in accepting is thus dependent. Nor does the fact that warrant is standpoint relative mean that there is no possibility of finding considerations that apply across standpoints, or which someone occupying one standpoint can adduce in an ad hominem way against someone occupying another. > > That is not, from my perspective, possible. Critiques - arguments > that differ from and oppose other arguments - may be launched within > conceptual frameworks (by one adherent thereto against another) or across > frameworks. OK, although I am not sure how Wolff can say that cross-standpoint critique is possible, unless he wants to adopt my view that the validity of a position is not dependent on the standpoint of the one making the critique. Changes of mind - overdetermined by an infinity of influences > - are never "the result" of any argument and hence provide no "test." We > make and purvey arguments for many reasons - convincing others sometimes > being among them. I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. I certainly did not propose successful mind-changing as a test of the validity of a critique. As Marxists we are all aware that people will maintain ideological views even when evidence and argument are overwhelmingly against them. Thus I do not think, for example, that whether Black people are genetically stupid, as Murray and Herrnstein maintain, depends on whether Murray can be persuaded of his errors, or that the acceptability of that vicious lie is so dependent. We can explain perfectly well why Murray will stick to his guns and still hold that racist psychometry is both false and ill-grounded. Moreover, our holding this is not just a matter of our disagreeing with Murray and vice versa, but of our thinking that he has not offered proper support, even on his own terms, for the claim, i.e., adequate reason to think it is true. The reasons we offer arguments, our motives in doing so, are also not to the point, as with our reasons for making critiques. They are varied, as Wolff says--we might try to persuade others (and Wolff still has not said what that might mean if not to convince others of the truth of some claim) or to assure ourselves that our own beliefs are not arbitrary or just to learn the truth about some matter or lots of other things. But why this is supposed to show anything about the standpoint relativity of the validity of our judgments I do not understand. > Schwartz is quite right that antifoundationalism does not > determine tolerance; to have argued that way would directly contradict > overdetermination. Since I like overdetermination and see it as a marked > advance over absolutism (in epistmeology) and economic, political, > and cultural determinisms (in social theory), I cannot and would not > argue that antifoundationalism determines tolerance. Tolerance is > overdetermined....which means an infinite variety of configurations of > social forces might produce it. Well, then, what's the point of the claim that we have learned that absolutism (Wolff's term) determines (ditto) intolerance? > > Lastly - in a discussion whose repetitions seems to denote the > approach of diminshing returns - let me try to be clear about one thing. > People have made critiques like they have made scientific discoveries, > moral arguments, and political speeches: their aim to influence others' > thinking being among their complex purposes, they have thought it necessary > (and often believed it themselves) to somehow link their > critique/argument/speech to an asbolutely grounded foundation, some Truth > (in the absolute singular, of course), some "fact" (valid for everyone), etc. I think Wolff is again running together the epistemological question of foundations for knowledge with the semantic questions about the truth of propositions. I also find the disparagement of "singular" truth or "valid for everyone" facts a bit puzzling. Take a concrete case: was Archbishop Romero murdered by the death squads? What "plurality" of possible answers could there be? How could the right answer ("Yes") be invalid for anyone? (I don't mean, how could someone fail to be warranted in believing, which is obvious.) > They did this in the thought that if they contextualized their > argument/speech/assertion/critique, if they made it relative to their own > dimply grasped conceptual framework, others would be less likely to > believe them, to be influenced by them, to be close to them. So they > deepened absolutism by presuming it. Well, some people may have rejected contextualization (which I do not, properly constrained) because they thought that it would make their views less credible to others, but others of us reject Wolffian relativism because we do not understand how it could be coherent, how we can accept it and deploy notions we want to use, such as critique, warrant, acceptance, etc. I myself do not regard the acceptance of truth as a rhetorical strategy, one I would, say, trade in for the use of drugs (as in my last post) if drugs were more effective at inducing others to believe or be influenced by me. > My point is that Marxism stands more to gain from moving to > question absolutisms - in epistemology and in social theory - than > continuing a failed tradition of wallowing in it. Hence the interest in > "overdeterminatiopn" as one flawed but indispensable means to move in > that direction. Hence the interest in postmodernism as a wide, broad, > popular movement in thought - to parts of which Marxism has much to say > and from parts of which anti-asbolutist Marxism has much to learn - > rather than dismissing it as some undifferentiated unity that is > uniformly hostile to Marxism and its future. I haven't said anything about postmodernism--that for another time. Rick, I have a couple of papers, one published, one in draft, treating these matters. You won't agree but you might be interested. If you think you would, I'll send them to you. --Justin Schwartz ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005