[PEN-L:9734] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mumford

["ann li" <annzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I agree with the changing contingency of democracy that Peter cites,
and the need for finding a reasonable frame of references for (in)action
that Frances has listed, I'd like to add Don Ihde's later works to the list,
if only because ( and without (wart(sic)s and all)) the phenomenological
relationship to technology that may be more pivotal for a materialist
analysis when the elites use technologies like cyberspace. This suggests
returning to the essence/appearance problem which as I recall is one feature
of Nussbaum's classical scholarship ( but those memories of graduate school
are fast fading).

Ann (day-trading in her black trenchcoat)

PS, I agree about novels ( I used to teach using Callenbach's Ecotopia
series), but that always gets into that utopia/dystopia thing, doesn't it,
which may promote sterility and make perhaps their cinematic versions by
inference less sterile?

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Dorman <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:25 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:9733] Re: Re: Re: Re: Mumford


> Fair questions all.
>
> Nussbaum's list keeps changing, which is human and understandable, but
> points to the difficulty of anyone saying what the objective conditions
> for human flourishing really are.
>
> Actually, the list is pretty good, as far as it goes.  Any such list,
> however, puts people in the position of objects: we will give you this
> set of conditions and you will have the opportunity to liberate/fulfill
> yourself.  It is this posture that I would regard as sterile.  (There is
> more than a whiff of this in Marxism, too -- which is not surprising,
> since Marx drew significantly on Aristotle.)
>
> I am more in tune with Dewey's notion that the concrete conditions for
> human fulfillment are unknown in any specific historical moment, and
> that only a democratic process of trial and error, along with respectful
> dialogue among equals, can approach them.  This is an activist
> conception, and it avoids the political problems that inevitably arise
> when one group decides what is in the "objective" interests of another.
>
> Peter
>
> ps: One indispensable portion of the democratic group, of course, is
> exactly those professionals (education, public health, environmental
> science, etc.) whose personal and collective commitments are to the
> sorts of substantive goals described by Mumford/Sen/Nussbaum et al.
> Obviously, it is not simply a case of The Democracy of the Masses versus
> The Paternalism of the Experts.  Believe me, I wrestle with this problem
> all the time in my incarnation as a public health economist.
>
> frances bolton wrote:
> >
> > Peter wrote:
> >
> > >  Mumford gives technology
> > >an extraordinarily political reading; he thinks through the
implications
> > >of technical choices for human liberation and healthy lifeways (which
he
> > >sees as linked).
> >
> > Enjoyed your comments on Mumford, Peter. Whenever I start thinking about
> > this stuff, I begin to wonder if "technology" is a meaningful term, or
if
> > we're just talking about material culture, or a particular intersection
of
> > political economy and material culture. I suspect it's the latter. A
rather
> > harsh acquaintance of mine refers to Mumford's work as "handwaving."
> >
> > (SNIP)
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, lurking behind his analysis is an uninterrogated
reliance
> > >on the notion of objective human needs, a sort of human flourishing
> > >perspective.  There is much to be said for this approach (Sen and
> > >Nussbaum have been saying a lot of it), but its great flaw is that it
is
> > >fundamentally paternalistic, and therefore politically sterile.
> > (SNIP)
> >
> > I'm curious as to where you see the paternalism in Nussbaum & Sen. When
I
> > read her development stuff, I get nervous about all the universal
claims,
> > but then I look at that list of things which comprise human
flourishing**
> > for her, and it's hard for me to argue with them. Are they paternalistic
> > simply because Nussbaum is the one who formulated this list of universal
> > goods? I wonder if c. and h. might be enough to protect against the
> > inevitability, if not the possibility, of political sterility. Actually,
> > maybe you could say some more about what you mean by political
sterility.
> >
> > Frances
> >
> > **for those who haven't read her, here's (an edited version) of her
list: a.
> > living a life of normal length, b. avoiding unnecessary and
nonbeneficial
> > pain, c. using the senses, thinking, imagining, reasoning, d. being able
to
> > have attachments to things and persons outside oneself, e. being able to
> > form a conception of the good and to engage in the planning of one's own
> > life, f. being able to show concern for other persons, being able to
laugh
> > and play, g. being able to live one's life and nobody else's, h. being
able
> > to live one's life in one's own context and surroundings, i. being able
to
> > live with concern for and in relation to the world of nature.
>
>