Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:30:41 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: WHITHER CRITICAL REALISM?


In agreement with Tobin, many of the commitments of critical realism are 
implicit in everyday living.  And of course, implicit, and sometimes even 
explicit in Marx and Marxian philosophy, along with more modern varieties 
of philosophy of science.  Hence, there is a dialectical moment in CR to 
make explicit, or more clear what the world, or social structure *must* be 
like to make sense of our experiences.

But, i am not sure that this is altogether intuitive, even for a reasonablly 
bright 40-something year-old.  i mean we always face an (Hegelian) 
inverted world, (Feuerbachian and Freudian) false consciousness 
(Nietzschean) power relations, (Marxian) ideology, along with wishful 
thinking, repressions, and structual limitations on how we come to 
understand the world and (especially) society.  Whereby, it takes much 
more then intuition to begin to grasp critical realist commitments.  It 
takes a great amount of work and effort to reach such an understanding; 
which can certainly be understood be a *great* part of Bhaskar's and 
Critical Realist's contributions.

What was lacking in my last post was an adequate critique of the 
direction Marxian thinking has taken since (at least) 1883.  An   
important moment of CR is its attempt to save the humanistic aims and 
the enlightment hopes of Marxism, which had been eclipsed by many 
versions of diamat and strict structualism and of course the fetish-like 
behavior required from all us to survive within capitalist (especially 
post-modern) relations.  

There seems to me to be a CR's attempt to reclaim potentialities, 
possibilites, hopes, wishes, and faith, which can be called "big 
ambitions".  This has become more and more clear to be an aim of Bhaskar 
himself since SHRE.  i mean (further) "emancipation" is certainly no small 
aim.  If these are not direct implication of DCR, then they are certainly 
possibilites which Bhaskar attempts to exploit.

It is in this sense that i understood Ralph, while the more  
(opportunistically) academic possiblities inspired his questions; as to 
what are the reasons one would claim to be [D]CR.

With this i turn the attention a bit ... i would be willing to defend the 
idea that CR has the potential to be more revolutionary then does 
Marxism (given the time, place in history and type of consciousness we 
confront).  This is not because Marx(ism) is or was wrong, but rather the 
(material) conditions have changed, whereby, the point of attack must also 
change.  There is little hope in the emergence of a workers consciousness 
to led to revolutionary work (they all voted for Republician); the 
self-estrangement runs too deep.

Today it is most urgent to explain the skepectism, self-doubt, 
depression, and general hopelessness which is so strong in these 
post-modern days.  Marxism itself must become much more successful in 
reinterpreting and reapplying Marx to our contemporary problems.  And of 
course there is much of Marx which is directly applicable still today. 

i take this to be a pivotal moment in critical realism, analytical 
Marxism, neo-Kantian Marxists (i.e., Habermasians) and post-structualism 
(i.e., neo-Nietzscheans) alike.  Again these are "big ambitions", and the 
specifics tend to be in opposition, whereby, we must choose how we 
believe Marxian (and enlightment) "hopes" can proceed and progress.


hans d.

p.s. although the foundations and aims are quite similar, like 
Doug, i believe CR and Marxism to be quite distinct (especially specific 
versions).





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