Date: 	Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:44:55 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time


On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:55:46 -0500  Dag Helge Moldenhagen 
wrote:

> > But Habermas's anthropology is prescriptive and his 
analysis  is not objective rather it is evaluative (following 
Horkheimer and Adorno I think it is possible to demonstrate 
that  impartiality is a specific kind of partiality). 
 
> Where do I find some prescriptions about the relationship 
between  Habermas and Adorno. This is important because I 
believe Adorna has  some essentialist thought of the human 
being. I am thinking of his  concept of "first nature" and his 
idea of nature's revenge in "The  Dialectic of Enlightment" .  I 
beleive this  idea is veru difficult to observe in  Habermas' 
works. Habermas seem to assert that  our original  nature is 
something that we have to overcome (following an essential 
idea in the  enlightenment project ? ) I am very keen about 
response to this idea. 

First of all I think Habermas's prescriptive understanding of 
human nature and communication is best found in 
_Communication and the Evolution of Society_.  Furthermore 
the kind of critique I am proposing stems from my reading of 
Benhabib, Heller, Wellmer, J Bernstein, Whitebook, Cooke, 
Joas, Hewitt, Mills, Fleming, Castoriadis, Adorno, Horkheimer, 
and Marcuse.

Adorno's conception of the subject is also a problem (see 
Jessica Benjamin, Marsha Hewitt, Patricia Mills, and Cornell 
and Thurschwell) - there is no doubt about it but his approach, 
the idea of negative dialectics, usefully informs a critique of 
Habermas.

Do you have the reference for Ronald Green?
>> Maybe we should describe it as "omnipartialitity" (Ronald 
M.  Green193) <<

>It is a specific form because this kind of impartiality 
demands empathic response and an informed mind where the 
voice of all  parts must be taken into consideration. It recalls 
the christian idea  that rationalirty must be informed by love.

This is an interesting charge - although I would argue that 
Habermas already smuggles in a Christian idea of 
reconciliation which would have some resonance with a 
Christian undestanding of love.  I think Helmut Peukert, David 
Tracy, Charles Davis, and Rudolf Siebert develop this idea a 
bit (I can't be sure though since I'm not all that familiar with 
these folks).  Many theologians writings on Habermas attempt 
to make Habermas's work a bit more "loving" in this regard 
(through various criticisms).  I susupect, however, that this 
idea is already built-into Habermas's program in an idealist 
kind of way - although I would be a pains to explain this 
more.... 
 
>  What if I don't want to be a vulcan?  Agnes Heller has 
> > done one of the best jobs looking at this.  I'll pull out the 
> > critique of both the perform contra and Hab's anthropology 
if  you or Dag what to pursue the issue further.

> You are touching a reseach project which have been "going 
on in my mind" for a long time. I wopuld be glad for references 
and to pursue  the issue further.

Agnes Heller has written a great deal of material about this.  
Much of it does not discuss Habermas but I would recommend 
_A Theory of Feelings_, _Beyond Justice_, _An Ethics of 
Personality_ and her essays in _Universalism vs. 
Communitarianism_ and _Habermas: Critical Debates_.

Axel Honneth and Hans Joas have written a bit about Heller's 
anthropoligicalism (I'm not sure that's even a word) in _Social 
Action and Human Nature_.  Heller is usually identified as a 
decisionist (see Jean Cohen "Heller, Habermas, and Justice" 
in Praxis International 8, no. 4 (Jan. 1989) but I think her 
writing is much deeper than that (esp. Ethics of Personality).  
Heller's relentless focus on human needs does a real service 
in bringing theoretical excess back to reality....  and I believe 
that the work of Castoriadis, who is getting more and more 
attention these days (See Honneth, Habermas, Whitebook, 
and J Bernstein) who also has a lot to contribute to this 
debate.

For what it is worth I think Castoriadis and Heller are two 
theoretical giants who just don't get enough attention (it is 
very nice to see Castoriadis's _The Imaginary Institution of 
Society_ being re-issued in soft cover by MIT Press in March, 
hey - that's this month!, of 1998).

ken

PS.  Michael - any explanation why the depart. of phil at Essex 
seems to be focused on Habermas and Adorno (Dews, 
Bernstein, Rose (who died in 1995).... something which, in my 
opinion, is REALLY important these days....




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