Subject: RE: [HAB:] Trilateralism [Ken]
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:04:20 +0000


Ken,

I wanted to return to these issues, because they are what interest me most 
about the whole critical-emancipatory project (theory/praxis & vanguardism).

>Likewise, if relentless criticism is said to undercut its own basis
[snip]
>that would entail establishing that some things are just good.

Disengagement-as-practice (given the dialectic of enlightenment) is what I 
am focused on :-).

>despite Habermas's rather strenuous remarks I don't at all see how his 
>position, as
>a critical theorist, has departed that of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse
>all that much.

Ken, IMO the above is such an innovative statement. Part of the muddle of 
critical social discourse (philosophy in general?) is the persistent 
scholasticism. Habermas (Foucault, Derrida, et al.) all theorize a 
difference that requires correction. It’s the hall mark of philosophical 
inquiry (even phenomenology) that there is some way OTHER of describing what 
is. In the same way Habermas, Foucault and the others are utopian social 
theorists, despite what Habermas may say of himself. For what they envisage 
is an envisaged better.

For example:

 >His theory of systematically distorted communication requires
>constant critique, a relentless uncovering of power structures and
>generalised interests.

Have to disagree with you on this one. There IS a practical moment in 
Habermas’s reconstructed Critical Theory – there has to be – otherwise his 
objective to return to the programmatic intentions of early Critical Theory 
doesn’t go all the way:

>Much of
>the criticism against Habermas might miss the point... Habermas's work is
>pitched at the hypothetical level, an introductory proposal for ongoing
>study - disagreements with his theory have to do with the projected path of
>study... not with the actual research.

Although I agree with the fallibilistic theme you emphasize above.
-----------------------
BFN frustrates me because it swings so wildly between the factual and 
normative (surprise, surprise). It’s one of JH’s tricks (e.g., TCA) to 
mirror the theme of a work in its methodology. Anyway, I consider BFN to 
lean too heavily towards an ideal/utopian representation of deliberative 
politics that can get mixed up with the factual. I think JH deliberately 
fudges the factual and the ideal in BFN because he has balanced on that 
particular knife’s edge throughout his career.

>Still, his apology for democracy is provocative - and certainly
>warrants a response. Is his theory of deliberative democracy too utopian, 
>in
>the sense of generating an unrealistic expectation or a wrong-headed
>normative basis?

Like Cook, I would want JH to throw caution to the wind, so that:

>let's get on
>with it - let's talk about the way in which our democracies are tied to
>certain economic interests which aren't at all interested in democracy.

But I thought this was taken for granted. Who the hell DOESN’T KNOW THIS???

Cheers,

MattP.

_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp



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