Professor Langman is fitting this post into an otherwise hectic day. He says several things that I want to share in our discussions. I'll add the essay later today. Meanwhile, here's the post, which you'll find on PSN.
Some of the things that intrigue me are:
- Prof. Langman's use of the usually pejorative "pomo."
- Prof. Langman's rejection of the "postcolonials."
- His support of the "dialectic of Englightenment."
- His description of "the linguistic turn."
All these are terms and arguments that should make instant sense to you in advanced undergraduate theory. More soon . . . jeanne
On February 22, 2002, Lauren Langman posted to PSN:
Subject: Habermas neither pomo nor passionate
To all
As a critical theorist, would love to enter this discussion, esp since Manjur
and I have this debate when we get together. As one who much appreciates the
Dialectic of the Enlightment, as an emancipatory agenda that would enjoin
freedom and Reason to promote democracy, community and self realization, the
Enlightenment was also an instrument of colonial oppression as colonizers
like England colonized Manjur's neck of the woods (and like the post
colonials he likes, I deplore), he has good reasons to reject, or at least
critique its hegemonic function.
I celebrate Habermas for defending emancipatory reason from both the
imperative of the system, as well as the now dissapted and disbanded
pygmies of postmodernism. But that said, I find the when he made the
linguistic turn, he turned the wrong way, and forgot about the embodied
worker who suffered on his/her job, the embodied citizen who might die in
combat for the sake of capitalist nationalist elites. Otherwise said, my
Freudian side is appalled at Habermas' notion of disembodied talking head
subject and with the loss of the body, feelings, indeed the bodily feelings
that come with sex, hot, sweaty passionate sex, the groany moany kind- what
people have before they have children and 16/hr work days. :).
Anyhow, I really have too much work to get into these issues but would hope
many of you might find that psn is our virtual public sphere, where
undistorted communication comes through dialogue.
Lauren, going back to his 14th hour, 2 more hours left tonite.
On Friday, February 22, 2002, George Snedek replied to Lauren's "talking head."
after criticizing Habermas for his "talking heads" theory of reason,
Lauren remarks: "many of you might find that psn is our virtual public sphere, where
undistorted communication comes through dialogue." is Lauren being ironic here or is he just promoting psn? do email lists tend to create "talking heads?" what ever happened to the body. it has been kidnapped by postmodernists.
And on Friday, February 22, 2002, buckfast swallier replied:
from one perspective, i would hazard a guess that what Vunch was sensitising, is that the thing about the difference found within 'resistance in pragmatic interaction' and 'problems in interpretation' is an unanalysed relation between the patient (consumer) and the therapist (provider :)). the impact on subjectivity of social background remains a methodological assumption.
interpretation (finding meaning) is taken as a given. what is not looked at is the the relations between the groups (researched and researcher) and the chance that meaning might be political, which, invariably it often is. from my own experience, much (how much) of the time meaning only becomes meaning when it is distinguished in relation to an alternative.
the finding of pragmatic resistance, ie, 'your talking pish', is probably more to do with different relations to 'reality', that when looked at, might reveal more of the 'reality' of the social world than an analysis of particular perspectives on there own. heh, this is positive knowledge.
on the other hand, can, 'your talking pish' be used as an indication of a political vaccuum, or an evacuation of politically effective language related to political economy? for example, in an ethnography, if nobody talks of class, gender, race, nobody talks of 'violence' and that ethnography is concerned with violence. on what 'grounds' is it valid to abstract to language and concepts that the people being researched do not see as valid in their own lives?
i suppose in one sense (and this is me thinking aloud :)) the linguistic turn is unavoidable. concieving of freud as an example of the linguistic turn leaves the issue of how his point of view was politically and sociologically possible, unanalaysed. i think half the time the proof is in the pudding, but as we as researchers know, it is easier to get access to some people's puddings than others. this is probably why it is even more important that we attend to difference in interpretation as a source of knowldege rather than negation.
bs
On Saturday, February 23, 2002, Vunch wrote:
interpretation (finding meaning) is taken as a given. what is not looked at
is the the relations between the groups (researched and researcher) and the
chance that meaning might be political, which, invariably it often is. from
my own experience, much (how much) of the time meaning only becomes meaning
when it is distinguished in relation to an alternative.
your understanding of meaning seems to partly refer to what everyone can agree on, and I agree with this aspect of it; otoh, when you claim that what is not looked at are the demographic factors, brute facts which no one can really change, the political differences really do fall back into our competency to interpret our reality in terms that others will understand, this is the problem with interpretation in psychoanalysis: if the client does not agree, and resists, then no change! So, the stumbling block of our given characteristics, which usually serve as obstacles to relationships with others can only be overcome by reaching agreements with others as to what is truly meaningful and about why our meaningless experiences are so. Something is meaningful when we can understand why it happens, and something is meaningless when we cannot understand why it happens; the issue in the therapeutic dialogue is to give and get the relevant meanings!
Vunch
On Saturday, February 23, Paul H. Dillon posted to PSN:
I have often thought, like Lauren, that the virtual spaces of chat rooms ,
listservs , etc. are about as close to Habermas' ideal speech situation as
one can get. And this is simply evidence that Habermas, unlike Bourdieu for
example, completely lost sight of the embodiedness of subjects. Everyone
stops answering email after a while and eats something :)
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: George Snedeker
To: psn
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: on Habermas
On Sunday, February 24, 2002, George Snedeker posted:
Subject: Fw: on Habermas
Freud's turn to language differs from Habermas because the problems addressed by psychoanalysis remain centered on the body and bodily suffering. habermas has tried to articulate an intersubjective ethical theory of communications. even his early use of psychoanalysis lacked Freud's concerns with the problems of existence. yes, he lacked passion. when he articulated an ideal speech situation, the problem got worse. the goal of psychoanalysis is the situation of less distorted communication, not undistorted. this brings us back to Kant, or Habermas's reworking of Kantian ethics. and what ever happened to capitalism? it went the way of the body. bodies are very central to capitalism.Lauren implied this in his original post. however, he forgot to mention Habermas's substitution of modernity for capitalism. perhaps because he has made the same substitution.
----- Original Message -----
From: Vunch@aol.com
Subject: Re: on Habermas
And this is simply evidence that Habermas, unlike Bourdieu for
example, completely lost sight of the embodiedness of subjects
The ideal speech situation is really a theoretical device to establish that the reason why a person might object to another's speech act is because it does not meet the validity requirements as found in the ideal speech situation. It is a counterfactual device. A person would object to another's speech act if it was incomprehensible,
untruthful, deceptive, or dishonest. How do we know if any of these conditions arise, because we know what an ideal speech situation is and the reflex of comparison gives us the knowledge. A tricky aspect to this 'calculation' arises when perlocutions are spoken which refer to speech acts the consequences of which are unknown to the hearer but known and not revealed by the speaker, which improve the interests of the speaker. By interests I am referring to increases in money or power and by power I am referring to making the person stronger than the hearer!
In Bourdieu's, the description and cultural comparison of "respect" markers during interaction seems to include our bodies, since in many cultures violence results when disrespect is perceived!
Fwelfare
A Justice Site
jeannecurran@habermas.org
Habermas Neither Pomo nor Passionate