Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:24:28 -0000


I wouldn't say start by posing the analytical question - the question is
abstracted from the line of critique we began with - it is as you suggest
one way of addressing the issue - but is it simply an 'analytical question'
or a key archimedean point in the form of argument? Do issues like
respecting concrete singularity make sense without asking such questions?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR


> Hi Jamie,
>
> You're right, I think we do make these assumptions, and critique
> proceeds more or less as you say. I'm only reminding people that our
> discourse is entangled with the world, power relations etc (Radha's
> point).  It's only ever relatively autonomous, and as you know, when
> you're dealing with an ideological belief no amount of the best
> arguments will get rid of it, only a change in the social relations...
>
> Re the starting point. Surely Radha is right that we can start from a
> position that respects the rich diversity of texts and the emergent
> concrete specificity of each, that compares like with like and refrains
> from subsuming them all under some alleged law of good English (the
> other side of the coin, it seems to me, of the abstract universalism
> that pervades capitalist culture, the philosophical form of which is the
> hegemony of the analytic problematic over dialectics). We don't have to
> moralize about how their authors should or should not have presented
> them, and can instead focus on mining and critiqueing any riches of the
> text, 'giving something back', presenting their ideas in a more popular
> form and so on.
>
> Of course, one *can* start by posing the analytical question you did.
> But to someone who respects the unique concrete singularity of texts
> it's simply not a meaningful question, any more than whether you can
> render, say, a Picasso more accessible without loss of meaning by
> substituting a simpler copy is.
>
> Mervyn
>
>
>
> jamie morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >Hi Mervyn
> >
> >I don't see it as an idealized view of critique its the basic assumption
of
> >scholarship - whatever position one comes from there is the assumptuion
that
> >one is genuinely trying to udnerstand what somebodty said, why they said
it
> >and what they mean - that this is always interpreted through someposition
> >not withstanding - otherwise progress is knowing would be impossible -
any
> >realist project would be impossible - if we did not work in this way.
Isn't
> >knowledge about truth seeking? Isn't that why we argue - surely it isn't
> >simply to impose or dominate or win, whatever that might mean.
Sustainable
> >immanent discourse must ultimately be a better argument - if it is a form
of
> >obfuscation, known deciet etc won't it eventually be uncovered or unravel
or
> >simply be subject to further critique (which itself must assume truth
> >seeking or be nomore than a further discoruse in an infinite chain of
> >unlocated arguments)? As such it is not a liberal assumption or a
toleration
> >it is the framework of dialogue of the possibility of commensuration of
> >arguments. One does not need to be Habermasian to accept this. If it were
> >not the case we could not have this discussion in any meaningful way - it
> >would be like the MOnty Python argument sketch - we would simply be
> >exchanging monosylallbic negations (No it isn't) or trading disparaging
> >comments on alternative positions rather than asking - show me your
> >argument, what are your assumptions, where is your evidence and what is
your
> >authority?
> >
> >I don't understand your comment on beside the point - if the answer is No
> >then one has still asked the question I asked in which case whether it is
> >difficult or not is not beside the point it is the starting point of your
> >argument. And of course I never said he was difficult, though, for the
> >record, I think sometimes he is, though aren't we all (you've edited
enough
> >of my stuff to know I disappear up my own arse). There are definitely
easier
> >ways to present sdome of the arguments on Hegel for example, and RB does
> >that himself in From Science to Emancipation. Perhaps he wouldn;'t have
been
> >able to had he not already writen DPF.
> >
> >Jamie
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:39 AM
> >Subject: BHA: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >
> >
> >> >Whether Bhaskar is difficult to read or not cannot be beside the point
> >>
> >> Yes it can -- if the answer to your question about whether the
> >> philosophical content can be expressed in a much simpler way without
> >> loss is No, as it clearly is. (If it's doable, quick, do it to
DPF--then
> >> we can throw the wretched book away, and there can be burning of books
> >> without loss).
> >>
> >> >that
> >> >they are violated is the basis of censor.
> >>
> >> Yours seems a very idealized model of critique - the mythical liberal
> >> 'community of scholars'.  In the present case, my original point about
> >> John's claim that Bhaskar's prose is extraordinarily verbose was that
it
> >> breeches the rules of fair comment, because (whatever other defects the
> >> style may have) it's the opposite of the truth. With a couple of
> >> exceptions, the breech has been met with a chorus of approval or at any
> >> rate apology rather than of censor.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> jamie morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >> >Interesting, but this seems a rather brutal reading of the broader
> >meaning
> >> >of the term critique - one that seems rather to echoe Frankfurt School
> >> >readings of instrumental discourse rather than the critical process
> >itself -
> >> >the reinvesting of ethics and of lived life as something valuable is
> >itsyelf
> >> >a product of 'critique' by them in Western discourse - there is
therefore
> >in
> >> >your position a danger of hypostatising critique in terms of some kind
of
> >> >occidentalised instrumentalism inalienably tied to markets. Critique
is
> >no
> >> >more necessarily adversial than traditional discourse is harmonious.I
> >would
> >> >prefer the phrase immanent analysis amongst situated but also free
> >thinkers.
> >> >Whether Bhaskar is difficult to read or not cannot be beside the
point -
> >no
> >> >more than it can be beside the point that 'critique' can reveal that
> >> >knowledge is wrong, inadequate, inconsistent, paradoxical etc. I'm not
> >sure
> >> >what you are saying about a non-Western tradition of responsibility to
> >the
> >> >speaker - all analysis in good faith starts by acknowledging the
intent
> >and
> >> >strengths of an argument and by implication the arguer then seeks to
deal
> >> >with it and them within rules of discourse or argument or rhetoric -
> >these
> >> >are not value free (as no discourse can be) and likewise they are not
> >> >without explicit ethics (truth seeking etc.) When they are confounded
or
> >> >violated - which often they are even by great thinkers such as
Newton -
> >that
> >> >they are violated is the basis of censor. The rules themselves are
also a
> >> >subject of analysis - as are cultural forms - whatever their
geographic
> >> >location. It seems that on one level you oppose an East-West dichotomy
> >and
> >> >on the other presume its reality in some traditionalist (good)
modernist
> >> >(bad) split - is this the case?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Radha D'Souza" <rdsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz>
> >> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >> >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:37 AM
> >> >Subject: BHA: RE: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jamie
> >> >You raise several matters in your email. I will leave out the Marxism
> >> >bit, that is a big debate and one that needs to happen.
> >> >You ask:
> >> >I'm not sure what the cultural issues have to do with whether Bhaskar
is
> >> >difficult to read. Surely the central question is:
> >> >Can the philosophical content of Bhaskar's work be expressed in a
> >> >simpler
> >> >way without any loss of nuance or explanatory power?
> >> >"If the answer is yes then it would appear to be reasonable to suggest
> >> >that
> >> >he might want to work on his style because he would be guilty of over
> >> >elaboration or obfuscation. If the answer is yes then it would appear
to
> >> >be reasonable to suggest that he might want to work on his style
because
> >> >he would be guilty of over elaboration or obfuscation. Some might also
> >> >suggest he should work on illustrating and applying his own work since
> >> >thuis would make it less opaque."
> >> >
> >> >To me that question is itself an illustration of the cultural issues I
> >> >raise.
> >> >In many indigenous cultures, when debating, or speaking publicly on
> >> >issues, it is imperative that the speaker begins by acknowledging
their
> >> >lineage/traditions/ancestry etc. It is not about not criticising but
> >> >about taking ownership and responsibility for the furthering of that
> >> >lineage/tradition/ancestry or whatever and locating oneself as part of
> >> >it even when criticising something. An adversarial mode of discourse
> >> >dislocates the speaker/writer from the discourse/tradition by (a)
making
> >> >it an individual difference/disputation as if the individual views
> >> >materialised from nowhere; (b) by separating the moral/ethical
> >> >dimensions from the content/substance (words/text) of the disputation
> >> >and putting them into neat boxes with tidy labels as if the two are
> >> >unrelated matters; and (c) and in a bourgeois world by leaving it to
> >> >market principles i.e. as long as I cite the page number when using a
> >> >quote from Bhaskar or anyone else for that matter, as long as I don't
> >> >plagiarise, or reference the actual texts I use, and I don't steal the
> >> >book, I have no further responsibility towards that author/writer. But
> >> >all these issues have more to do with the publishing industry and
> >> >intellectual property than with the ideas themselves and our relations
> >> >to them. Can I truthfully say that everything I have learnt from
reading
> >> >Marx or Lenin can be contained within such market ethics?
> >> >Viewed in that way, I could ask, is there a social contract of some
sort
> >> >or some other obligation that Bhaskar has towards us, as his readers
> >> >that we should insist that he writes intelligibly and makes things
> >> >easier for us? If we did not take the trouble to pour over some really
> >> >difficult prose, be sure the magic of the market would have made him
> >> >invisible. We read it. Why? And, if we get something out of it, do we
> >> >not need to acknowledge it and give something back, perhaps by making
it
> >> >more intelligible, if that is what we think should be happening? If
> >> >there is someone out there who can rewrite DPF in verse, in the
eastern
> >> >traditions of poet-philosophers - hey, go for it, I would be thrilled
to
> >> >bits.
> >> >The question is not about whether or not Bhaskar is difficult to read,
> >> >that is not even the point. This distancing of ourselves, is, I admit
so
> >> >embedded in the public-private divide that is foundational in the
> >> >structure of western thinking that it often surfaces unintentionally,
> >> >unconsciously and permeates so much of our thinking that we are not
even
> >> >aware of it.
> >> >Then, it takes a long spew like this, after which it becomes a huge
and
> >> >potentially divisive issue. We simply have to find different ways of
> >> >doing and saying things. Having said that I am not sure if I have
> >> >adopted an adversarial approach, myself.
> >> >Radha
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: jamie morgan [mailto:jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk]
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:36 p.m.
> >> >To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> >> >Subject: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >> >
> >> >Hi Radha,
> >> >
> >> >Marxism was an attempt to describe reality in order to transform it -
it
> >> >was
> >> >a description of an industrialised society at a particular time and
> >> >place -
> >> >are you surprised that it did not fit the two thirds world for which
it
> >> >was
> >> >simply not designed, or is this itself a rhetorical device?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure what the cultural issues have to do with whether Bhaskar
is
> >> >difficult to read. Surely the central question is:
> >> >
> >> >Can the philosophical content of Bhaskar's work be expressed in a
> >> >simpler
> >> >way without any loss of nuance or explanatory power?
> >> >
> >> >If the answer is yes then it would appear to be reasonable to suggest
> >> >that
> >> >he might want to work on his style because he would be guilty of over
> >> >elaboration or obfuscation.
> >> >
> >> >Some might also suggest he should work on illustrating and applying
his
> >> >own
> >> >work since thuis would make it less opaque.
> >> >
> >> >Then again, criticising someone for their style of thought and mode of
> >> >expression which whilst not necessarily the most transparent is their
> >> >mode
> >> >of working and got them to the insights (such that they are) that
others
> >> >are
> >> >interested in, may be a little on the ironic side. I'm not sure, I
> >> >certainly
> >> >find him difficult to folow sometimes but then I find lots of
> >> >philosophers
> >> >difficutl to follow. Hegel not the least.
> >> >
> >> >Jamie
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "r.dsouza" <r.dsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz>
> >> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >> >Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:16 AM
> >> >Subject: BHA: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Mervyn
> >> >> My spontaneous reaction to your mail was "why am I not surprised"
> >> >followed
> >> >> by "but why is Mervyn (the writer of the new age, new left article)
> >> >> surprised?" and are you surprised Mervyn? I don't mean this as a
> >> >rhetorical
> >> >> question in any sense. Surely, CR is not exempt from a sociology of
> >> >its
> >> >own
> >> >> and from its historical, cultural and political contexts that we
talk
> >> >about.
> >> >> As someone from the so called "Third World" (which in my view, is
the
> >> >> two-thirds world) it interests me that with so many radical "schools
> >> >of
> >> >> thought" in the so called "West", from scientific theories to
Marxism,
> >> >> socialism et al, the problem for the two-thirds world is not so much
> >> >with
> >> >> the philosophy or theory per se (the text) but with the sociological
> >> >and
> >> >> cultural assumptions (the context) that makes the theory/philosophy
> >> >> problematic. There appears to be threshold beyond which the
> >> >> theory/philosophy is constrained by its own cultural and historical
> >> >context.
> >> >> It certainly happened with Marxism in the "West" and the
ramifications
> >> >it
> >> >> had for the "Third World".
> >> >> Is it surprising at all that the so called "spiritual turn" should
> >> >have
> >> >> invited the kind of response it did, or, for that matter the
reactions
> >> >on
> >> >> this list to the ad for a publicist recently (I don't recall how the
> >> >> position was described exactly now). And, do we not lapse quickly
and
> >> >> comfortably into bourgeois norms of discourse or social practices
for
> >> >that
> >> >> matter, even when critiquing those norms in the issues we talk and
> >> >write
> >> >> about?
> >> >> Calling it "tall poppy syndrome" is putting it too simplistically,
it
> >> >is
> >> >> much deeper than that. I am reminded of Rumi's famous story of the
> >> >parrot
> >> >> and the merchant, (I don't know if you are familiar with it).
Indeed,
> >> >like
> >> >> the parrot in the story, one has to give up things (die) to be free
> >> >and
> >> >> enlightened, and to "gain" new things. I am not sure the adversarial
> >> >and
> >> >> individualistic intellectual traditions in Western academic
> >> >institutions
> >> >> ably guided by the "invisible hand of the market" are the most
> >> >conducive
> >> >> places for an introspective approach that helps to locates oneself
in
> >> >the
> >> >> wider search for answers to the questions of our times.
> >> >> I am tempted to look into my crystal ball now to see what CR will
look
> >> >like
> >> >> 25 years from now, but I think I will leave it for another time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Radha
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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