Link to jeanne's Birdie Calendar Received Knowledge and <i>Idees dans L'air</i>

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Jeanne Site

Pass? or Prepared? Rudiger Appel's Figurine and Link to his site.

Alpabetical Listing by Topics
Of Pass? or Prepared?s

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: October 9, 2000
E-Mail jeanne
E-Mail Susan

jeanne's lecture notes on:

Received Knowledge and Idees dans L'air

This Pass or Prepared? is based on developing theoretical perspectives for idees dans l'air, things we "all know." We have generalized understandings, "idees dans l'air," of Durkheim's sacred and profane, of "fragmentation" as it is generally applied to "postmodernism," and of "consensus" as it applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this self-test quiz we are asking you to question what we call "received knowledge" that comes to us, often out of awareness and with little critical reflection.

Answer the following questions:

Click here to return to the self-test quiz.

  1. Read the following quote from Faraganis' discussion of Durkheim in Readings in Social Theory, p. 61.
    "From [Durkheim's] study of the religions of Australian aborignal tribes he concluded that the one thing all religions have in common is a division between the sacred---the realm of the extraordinary, and/or the divine---and the profane---the realm of the everyday, the commonplace, the ordinary. Durkheim claimed that the distinction between the sacred and profane is one that is socially constructed and not one that inheres in the object so designated. Thus tribal people attribute sacred meaning to a bird or an animal, designate it as their totem, and build up rituals surrounding it, and the symbol in turn becomes a source of unity."
    Based on this paragraph from Faraganis' discussion of Durkheim, would you say Faraganis is comfortable with postmodern and critical interpretations of social theory? On what details would you base your response?

    jeanne's perspective:

    My conclusion was that Farganis was pretty comfortable with postmodern and critical interpretations of social theory, since he discusses Durkheim's sacred and profane in terms of social constructionism. That is, he points out that the "signifier" has no obligatory relationship to the "signified." That is, we ourselves construct the meaning of sacred or profane for the signifier we agree upon. An example is the US flag. Many object to the burning of the flag as political protest, for the flag has come to represent the State. But we are the ones who designated that piece of cloth, in red, white, and blue, as a symbol of our country. The cloth itself bears no direct relationship to the country.

    Click here to return to the self-test quiz.

  2. What is the popularized notion of 'fragmentation" associated with postmodernism?

    jeanne's perspective:

    One plausibe interpretation that fits "fragmentation" is that postmordernism's rejections of metanarratives translates to the relativism of local narratives, which suggests that no over-riding rationale exists for choosing any local narrative as "right" or "valid" over any other. This could lead to the confusion of "no right answer," "anything goes."

    Some tentative responses to the charge of fragmentation:

    • There may be no "right" answers.
    • There is a problem with "privileging" when any one perspective assumes a position deemed to be "right." We rarely achieve absolute consensus. What does that mean to those who do not join the consensus?
    • But there is a need to move in a concerted group to achieve some things, such as protection of the ecological system for future inhabitants. Habermas argues for some metanarrative, such as rational argument to judge validity on issues that require concerted action.
    • Throughout long periods of history, those without wealth and power have not been considered in the "consensus" claimed by nation-states.

    Click here to return to the self-test quiz.

  3. In the October 2000 Israeli-Palestinian crisis, how is "consensus" being handled? Whose consensus?

    jeanne's perspective:

    Both Israelis and Palestinians are split between the adversarialist and the mutuality groups. The mutuality choice had prevailed because of internationally presuasive Peace negotiations. To what extent was each group active in promoting an understanding of the operative local narratives and good faith hearing of those who did not subscribe to the peace "consensus"? To what extent do you imagine that this failure to achieve consensus within groups contributes to the present crisis of pending war?

    Since all developed nations claim to be opposed to war, should we call this a war? How do we explain so many local wars when the super powers are opposed to war?

    Click here to return to the self-test quiz.

Copright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata, June 2000. "Fair Use" encouraged.

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control: An Empirical Test of General Theory of Crime

This is a title from the Table of Contents in Deviaant Behavior, Volume 19, Issue 3.