Subject: Re: BHA: Post-whateverism (was: RM conference)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:43:04 -0500


Colin--

I recognize the Kuhnian sense of "normal" science: my point was that we
should reject that formulation of a particular science's (or a philosophy's)
dominance.  Not only is Foucault right to argue that "normalcy" in social
matters is shaped by power relations, but also, to call post-ism "normal"
cedes far too much ground to it.  And I for one object to having CR cast as
abnormal.  But post-ism's current political and cultural dominance within
university terrains (and perhaps elsewhere) is indeed undeniable.  As for
post-ism's tendency to turn everything and everyone into versions of itself,
perhaps this reflects its actual commonalities with positivism?

I think several of the central poststructuralist thinkers perform complicated
dances between conventionalism and critical realism.  Certainly Foucault (in
ways that shifted during his career), possibly Derrida (according to several
accounts, though I'm still not completely convinced).  Zizek too?  I haven't
read him--I have a violent allergy to Lacanian theory--but now maybe I'll
have to try.  (However, Butler's use and Laclau's valorization of his work
scarcely encourages me.)  In any case, as I've said before, I've sometimes
found very useful ideas in post-ism, especially Foucault; but it's important
to reintegrate those ideas into CR, a process which often alters the
original.

But for the same reason, it's difficult to make a slogan out of CR's defense
of science.  To most people (at least in the arts and humanities) "science"
connotes impersonality, manipulation, and disregard for both the natural and
social environment.  CR redefines science in crucial ways, which (among other
things) helps us to understand that "science" in the previous sense is one
particular account of science born from its ties to capitalism's development
of it.  However, this means that these people have to understand CR before
they can defend science.

On respecting honest anti-realists: supposedly Lenin said somewhere (perhaps
a Leninist among us would know where) that he'd rather talk to an intelligent
idealist than a stupid materialist.  Yup.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gwi.net
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



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