Re: [Critical-Realism] Summary of RTS2 Preface

["Brian Dick" <briandick51@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Louis,

As John pointed out, this statement came in the context of our discussion of
how to talk to our colleagues about CR, who either are not familiar with
critical realism or already critical of it (even if they don't completely
understand it).  When mentioning the term 'generative mechanism' it is often
difficult to express its exact meaning (such as the powers and liabiltiies,
the ways of acting, of things) and what it does not refer to (i.e., some
form of mechanical determinism, which others not familiar with CR sometimes
seem to assume that it might).  This becomes an even greater difficulty when
one begins to describe social relationships as generative mechanisms.

As my proposals of 'generative thingamabob' and 'generative thingamajig'
indicate, I was speaking partially with tongue in cheek.  So, sure, one may
be trying to get a colleage to smell a very sweet flower, but they are much
more likely to actually smell the flower if its called a rose, rather than a
fart blossom.

Best,
Brian


How can a mere terminological change address a substantive issue?  It
implies that there was not a substantive issue for you, just that you
did
not care for the lingo.  So you are fine with the concept itself but
feel
that rose would smell sweeter under a different name?

Louis Irwin

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://by102fd.bay102.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&a=5b45f987d3107d163050b67e8e923d62a6f2fa98e3e5297498dc4c505b635a34&mailto=1&to=critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&msg=F789271D-0A6B-4531-905B-63358D3EEBB9&start=0&len=5283&src=&type=x>
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://by102fd.bay102.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=1&msg=F789271D-0A6B-4531-905B-63358D3EEBB9&start=0&len=5283&src=&type=x&to=critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&cc=&bcc=&subject=&body=&curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&a=5b45f987d3107d163050b67e8e923d62a6f2fa98e3e5297498dc4c505b635a34>]
On Behalf Of Brian
Dick
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:59 AM
To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://by102fd.bay102.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&a=5b45f987d3107d163050b67e8e923d62a6f2fa98e3e5297498dc4c505b635a34&mailto=1&to=critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&msg=F789271D-0A6B-4531-905B-63358D3EEBB9&start=0&len=5283&src=&type=x>
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Summary of RTS2 Preface

Hi John,

I've always found the notion of 'generative mechanism' problematic
because
of its (mechanical) connotations.  I think that this becomes an even
bigger
problem when we move on to the analysis of society where social
relations
become central.  That is, mechanisms seem to point to a more substantive
interpretation rather than relational (in Sewell's terminology).  Of
course,
this is not what Bhaskar is arguing, but for others who do not
understand
what is meant by the term it can lead to some confusion.

I'm not completely sure what would be a better alternative.  Here are
some
ideas: 'generative apparatus', 'generative actants' (too Latourian?),
'generative process', 'generative thingamabob' :)  (Oh, and 'generative
thingamajig').

Brian
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism