BHA: what's next

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Phil,

Nobody's suggesting that *Being Human* sheds a lot of light on
*Dialectic*. What I meant by 'window on the soul' is that if the later
Bhaskar's ethico-political trajectory is fundamentally liberal, Archer's
book possibly sheds light on that.

I've always regarded this list as critical realist, not just a bhaskar
list. Archer is the leading CR social theorist. *Being Human* is an
important book. People should read and discuss it, even if mainly to
sort out where they disagree. I don't think it will do to just dismiss
it as undialectical, any more than dialectics itself dispenses with
analytical logic. What do I mean by 'nibble'? - it cites DPF a few times
and actually consciously deploys a dialectical argument at one stage,
and I think the basic view of human nature is fundamentally dialectical
- it stresses that the properties and powers of the human being are
neither pre-given, nor socially appropriated, but rather emergent from
our relations (above all our practical relations) with the natural and
social orders. As such they have relative autonomy from biology and
society alike, and causal powers to modify them both. This is an
important argument for Marxism as well as for certain kinds of
liberalism.


>Mervyn, I suggest a discussion of whether Bhaskar's approach to dialectics
>squares with that of Hegel (in the SCIENCE OF LOGIC) and that of Marx
>(outlined in GRUNDRISSE), and if not why are the dialectics of these great
>thinkers not commensurate? That should get to the nub of things.

It certainly would. But how many people on this list have read all three
books such that we could have an informed discussion?

If we go back to DPF we would certainly broach this topic though. As
previously posted, Alan Norrie's latest book has got a very clear
account of the way in which DPF develops the Hegelian epistemological
dialectic - we could use that among other things, together with DPF's
own assessment of Marx and Hegel.


Mervyn




Phil Walden <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>Caroline, Mervyn,
>
>Caroline, what is the 'key concepts' approach?
>
>Mervyn, I suggest a discussion of whether Bhaskar's approach to dialectics
>squares with that of Hegel (in the SCIENCE OF LOGIC) and that of Marx
>(outlined in GRUNDRISSE), and if not why are the dialectics of these great
>thinkers not commensurate? That should get to the nub of things. It would
>certainly lead to an answer to Ruth's question about the relationship
>between materialism and critical realism.
>
>Am I the only lister who finds the (non)-debate between social
>constructionism and "realism" extremely artificial? It seems to be a way of
>avoiding dialectics altogether. How, Mervyn, is Archer "beginning to nibble
>at dialectics"? If somebody who wants to discuss Archer's book could briefly
>outline how they think it is relevant to an assessment of Bhaskar's
>DIALECTIC, I for one would be grateful.
>
>Phil Walden
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Caroline
>> New
>> Sent: 24 January 2001 11:59
>> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: BHA: Re: what's next
>>
>>
>> Ruth asks for lurkers to come out.  I would like a group reading of 'Being
>> Human', and then go back to DPF, using the 'key concepts' (!) approach.
>> Caroline
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:30 PM
>> Subject: BHA: what's next
>>
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Ruth wrote:
>> > >what in the bejeezis are we going to do about breathing
>> > >some life back into our extremely quiet list?!  A good healthy
>> discussion
>> > >about whether one can be a critical realist but not be a
>> materialist?  A
>> > >return to RTS?  Or DPF?  Something else?  PON?  Any ideas?  Any takers?
>> >
>> > I suggest a reading and discussion of:
>> >
>> > Margaret S. Archer, Being Human: the Problem of Agency. Cambridge
>> > University Press, 2000. 323pp paperback 0 521 79564 8
>> >
>> > The third in a trilogy, this deals with the agential basis of her social
>> > theory. It is a big book in more than one sense, one that any (D)CR
>> > person will need to read no matter what their particular focus. This is
>> > what the blurb says:
>> >
>> > 'Humanity and the very notion of the human subject are under threat from
>> > postmodernist thinking which has declared not only the 'Death of God'
>> > but also the 'Death of Man'. This book is a revindication of the concept
>> > of humanity, rejecting contemporary social theory that seeks to diminish
>> > human properties and powers. Archer argues that being human depends on
>> > an interaction with the real world in which practice takes primacy over
>> > language in the emergence of human self-consciousness, thought,
>> > emotionality and personal identity  - all of which are prior to, and
>> > more basic than, our acquisition of a social identity.'
>> >
>> > *Being Human* strikes some mighty blows against subjective (linguistic)
>> > idealism and social constructionism and would provide a platform for
>> > discussing just about anything within the (D)CR canon. Notwithstanding
>> > its appropriation of some marxist concepts (including 'the primacy of
>> > practice') I think the book is ultimately profoundly liberal in its
>> > worldview and helps to provide a window on the soul of the later
>> > Bhaskar.
>> >
>> > Our DPF reading clearly got somewhat bogged down. I think we should put
>> > it aside for a time - for dipping into now that we've digested a goodly
>> > chunk of it, rather than wading through - and focus on material that
>> > listers find more digestible. All the issues raised by the Bhaskarian
>> > canon could still be brought up. Though I think operating predominantly
>> > within the analytical problematic, Archer is beginning to nibble at
>> > dialectics...
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I don't know the price of the book but it shouldn't be
>> > too much, being a paperback. We'd have to wait a bit for people to get
>> > copies... If listers wanted a more detailed idea of contents before
>> > deciding, I could provide that.
>> >
>> > Mervyn
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---