Re: BHA: Santa, God, kneeling

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael,

I accept everything you say about the difficulty over the descriptor
"exists". However, and notwithstanding these difficulties, I think that
there are fundamental differences between the existence of Santa and that
of society, which can be easily resolved under CR.

For me, beliefs in santa exist (this BTW implies the necessity of the
concept, just in case there is any confusion). These beliefs result in
practices, which also exist. What's less clear is whether there is a white
beared old man who delivers presents to children in one evening (I'm never
sure of the concept here, is it only children who believe who get presents
or all of them?). Anyway, whatever, I don't personally believe that such a
person exists - and if he does can he kindly add me to his list of visits
on December 24th because up to now it is costing me a fortune.

Society, however, at least to me has a totally different ontological
status. I don't think we need to prove the existence of santa to refute the
like of laclau and mouffe or thatcher. Society exists and has material
effects regardless of whether people believe in it or not. This is not the
case with Santa. The same goes for the State, which for positivist
political theorists is simply a theoretical abstraction and for the
postmoderns is simply a "sign without a referent". The difference to me,
certainly in regard to neutrino's, the State and society is that all of
these would have effects whether you believed in them or not. Santa,
however, would seem to have no causal power if no one believed in him. Of
course, I recognise that i am getting into very murky and problematic
territory here, certainly when one considers RB's claim that social
structures are concept dependent. However, although social structures are
concept dependent they are not always dependent upon agents having the
right concept of them, hence Bhaskar's claim that even as we marry for love
we unwittingly reproduce the structures of captialism.


 I think
>that the existence of Santa (and, you'll pardon me, of God)
>might be something like that of society:  a structure that
>is visible only in its effects.

But surely not. The prcatice of leaving out sherry (or milk) is not the
result of some power of santa only visible in its effects. It is the result
of the belief in santa. With society however, some if its causal effects -
e.g. the oppression of women - are not dependent upon the belief in
society. There is a clear ontological difference between the effects of
Santa and the effects of society. Put simply, santa only has a causal power
insofar as someone believes in him. Society has causal powers not derived
from the belief in it.


I agree with everything you say about my attitude to religion BTW and about
my attitude being based on prior beliefs.

Thanks for the hint about the non-barking dog, I too thought it was Althusser.




Thanks,


=============================================


Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Wales
SY23 3DA
Tel: (01970) 621769


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---