Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Moral imperialism: a critical anthology

Expand Messages
  • gedavis1 <gedavis1@yahoo.com>
    This book seems to be a great resource in applied critical legal studies as *moral discourse* (based in concerns for human rights across various domains).
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 2, 2003
      This book seems to be a great resource in applied critical legal
      studies as *moral discourse* (based in concerns for human rights
      across various domains).

      Moral Imperialism: a critical anthology
      Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol, ed.
      New York University Press; ; (November 2002)
      US$ 22.50

      Back cover of book

      In the controversy over female genital mutilation, Congress was quick
      to condemn practices throughout Africa and the Middle East and to take
      action criminalizing the practice domestically. Yet at the same time,
      it bluntly dismissed Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch when
      they pointed out human rights violations closer to home in the form of
      the disproportionately high rate of the imposition of capital
      punishment on black men, and the disempowerment of poor women under
      new draconian welfare rules. The irony of the United States'
      international condemnation of types of activities in which it engages
      within its own borders is not lost on Third World critics.

      Moral Imperialism sets out to bring an international human rights
      framework to the analysis of current international and domestic legal,
      political, and cultural crises. It explores the United States' moral
      supremacy during a time of clear domestic shortcomings and asks
      whether insisting that other nations adhere to norms that derive from
      dominant U.S. culture and history may harm societies—both within
      and outside of the U.S.—with radically different cultures and
      histories.

      Contributors include Beverly Greene, Kevin Johnson, M. Patricia
      Fernandez Kelly, Holly Maguigan, Boaventura De Sousa Santos, Saskia
      Sassen, and Eric Yamamoto.

      About the Author

      Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol is the Levin, Mabie and Levin
      Professor of Law at the Levin College of Law and affiliate professor,
      Center for Women's Studies and Gender Research, University of Florida,
      where she teaches International Law and International Human Rights.


      The following U.S. Amazon.com citation is one URL broken into 3 lines:

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
      0814736149/qid=1044256991/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/
      002-6662848-4863226?v=glance&s=books


      .
    • Ali Rizvi
      Thanks Gary, I would like to mention an interesting book as well which I am currently reading. It is entitled, Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science, by
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 3, 2003
        Thanks Gary,

        I would like to mention an interesting book as well
        which I am currently reading. It is entitled,

        Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science, by
        Austin Harrington published by Routledge in 2001.

        It is based on authors Oxford D.Phil and definitely a
        representative of (still maintained) high standards of
        Oxford doctoral theses.

        The author challenges the assumption underlying
        Habermas' and Gadamar's work that non perfromative
        attitude necessarily leads to what Habermas calls
        objectification or objectivism.

        The author problematises this thesis both historically
        and systematically. Historically he challenges
        Habemras' and Gadamers' reading of early and later
        Dilthey and their reading of Weber and Schutz theory
        of intersubjectivity (more specifically the latter's).

        The work is espeically interesting for those working
        on the notions of lifeworld, objectivism and dialogue
        in Habermas.

        I am half way through full reading of the book and
        would like to discuss and share with others who have
        found or may find the book interesting.

        ali



        --- "gedavis1 <gedavis1@...>"
        <gedavis1@...> wrote:
        >
        > This book seems to be a great resource in applied
        > critical legal
        > studies as *moral discourse* (based in concerns for
        > human rights
        > across various domains).
        >
        > Moral Imperialism: a critical anthology
        > Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol, ed.
        > New York University Press; ; (November 2002)
        > US$ 22.50
        >
        > Back cover of book
        >
        > In the controversy over female genital mutilation,
        > Congress was quick
        > to condemn practices throughout Africa and the
        > Middle East and to take
        > action criminalizing the practice domestically. Yet
        > at the same time,
        > it bluntly dismissed Amnesty International and Human
        > Rights Watch when
        > they pointed out human rights violations closer to
        > home in the form of
        > the disproportionately high rate of the imposition
        > of capital
        > punishment on black men, and the disempowerment of
        > poor women under
        > new draconian welfare rules. The irony of the United
        > States'
        > international condemnation of types of activities in
        > which it engages
        > within its own borders is not lost on Third World
        > critics.
        >
        > Moral Imperialism sets out to bring an international
        > human rights
        > framework to the analysis of current international
        > and domestic legal,
        > political, and cultural crises. It explores the
        > United States' moral
        > supremacy during a time of clear domestic
        > shortcomings and asks
        > whether insisting that other nations adhere to norms
        > that derive from
        > dominant U.S. culture and history may harm
        > societies�both within
        > and outside of the U.S.�with radically different
        > cultures and
        > histories.
        >
        > Contributors include Beverly Greene, Kevin Johnson,
        > M. Patricia
        > Fernandez Kelly, Holly Maguigan, Boaventura De Sousa
        > Santos, Saskia
        > Sassen, and Eric Yamamoto.
        >
        > About the Author
        >
        > Berta Esperanza Hern�ndez-Truyol is the Levin, Mabie
        > and Levin
        > Professor of Law at the Levin College of Law and
        > affiliate professor,
        > Center for Women's Studies and Gender Research,
        > University of Florida,
        > where she teaches International Law and
        > International Human Rights.
        >
        >
        > The following U.S. Amazon.com citation is one URL
        > broken into 3 lines:
        >
        > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
        > 0814736149/qid=1044256991/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/
        > 002-6662848-4863226?v=glance&s=books
        >
        >
        > .
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > habermas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      • Gary E Davis
        Ali, thanks. The book you indicate is VERY interesting to me. I ve seen it, but not looked at it. Now I will. What kind of non performative attitude does the
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 3, 2003
          Ali, thanks. The book you indicate is VERY interesting to
          me. I've seen it, but not looked at it. Now I will.

          What kind of "non performative attitude" does the author
          want to focus on? An attitude prior to action? Perception?

          I'm not aware of an assumption in Habermas that, say,
          perception "necessarily leads to objectification or
          objectivism."

          Do you find Harrington convincing?

          Gary


          --- Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi@...> wrote:
          > Thanks Gary,
          >
          > I would like to mention an interesting book as well
          > which I am currently reading. It is entitled,
          >
          > Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science, by
          > Austin Harrington published by Routledge in 2001.
          >
          > It is based on authors Oxford D.Phil and definitely a
          > representative of (still maintained) high standards of
          > Oxford doctoral theses.
          >
          > The author challenges the assumption underlying
          > Habermas' and Gadamar's work that non perfromative
          > attitude necessarily leads to what Habermas calls
          > objectification or objectivism.
          >
          > The author problematises this thesis both historically
          > and systematically. Historically he challenges
          > Habemras' and Gadamers' reading of early and later
          > Dilthey and their reading of Weber and Schutz theory
          > of intersubjectivity (more specifically the latter's).
          >
          > The work is espeically interesting for those working
          > on the notions of lifeworld, objectivism and dialogue
          > in Habermas.
          >
          > I am half way through full reading of the book and
          > would like to discuss and share with others who have
          > found or may find the book interesting.
          >
          > ali
          >
          >
          >
          > --- "gedavis1 <gedavis1@...>"
          > <gedavis1@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > This book seems to be a great resource in applied
          > > critical legal
          > > studies as *moral discourse* (based in concerns for
          > > human rights
          > > across various domains).
          > >
          > > Moral Imperialism: a critical anthology
          > > Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol, ed.
          > > New York University Press; ; (November 2002)
          > > US$ 22.50
          > >
          > > Back cover of book
          > >
          > > In the controversy over female genital mutilation,
          > > Congress was quick
          > > to condemn practices throughout Africa and the
          > > Middle East and to take
          > > action criminalizing the practice domestically. Yet
          > > at the same time,
          > > it bluntly dismissed Amnesty International and Human
          > > Rights Watch when
          > > they pointed out human rights violations closer to
          > > home in the form of
          > > the disproportionately high rate of the imposition
          > > of capital
          > > punishment on black men, and the disempowerment of
          > > poor women under
          > > new draconian welfare rules. The irony of the United
          > > States'
          > > international condemnation of types of activities in
          > > which it engages
          > > within its own borders is not lost on Third World
          > > critics.
          > >
          > > Moral Imperialism sets out to bring an international
          > > human rights
          > > framework to the analysis of current international
          > > and domestic legal,
          > > political, and cultural crises. It explores the
          > > United States' moral
          > > supremacy during a time of clear domestic
          > > shortcomings and asks
          > > whether insisting that other nations adhere to norms
          > > that derive from
          > > dominant U.S. culture and history may harm
          > > societies�both within
          > > and outside of the U.S.�with radically different
          > > cultures and
          > > histories.
          > >
          > > Contributors include Beverly Greene, Kevin Johnson,
          > > M. Patricia
          > > Fernandez Kelly, Holly Maguigan, Boaventura De Sousa
          > > Santos, Saskia
          > > Sassen, and Eric Yamamoto.
          > >
          > > About the Author
          > >
          > > Berta Esperanza Hern�ndez-Truyol is the Levin, Mabie
          > > and Levin
          > > Professor of Law at the Levin College of Law and
          > > affiliate professor,
          > > Center for Women's Studies and Gender Research,
          > > University of Florida,
          > > where she teaches International Law and
          > > International Human Rights.
          > >
          > >
          > > The following U.S. Amazon.com citation is one URL
          > > broken into 3 lines:
          > >
          > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
          > > 0814736149/qid=1044256991/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/
          > > 002-6662848-4863226?v=glance&s=books
          > >
          > >
          > > .
          > >
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > habermas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
          > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > habermas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Ali Rizvi
          Dear Gary, Since I am only half way through the book and specially I have not yet read the final chapters (which try to develop a systematic critique of
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 3, 2003
            Dear Gary,

            Since I am only half way through the book and
            specially I have not yet read the final chapters
            (which try to develop a systematic critique of
            Habermas' notion of dialogue) my comments below are
            only provisional and even then only partial.

            1)I am bit skeptical about the thesis to begin with.
            Th authors' thesis is that "both (Habemras and
            Gadamer) agree that all understanding of social life
            should take the form of a real or virtual DIALOGUE
            between the interpreters of cultural phenomenon and
            the subjects whose lives, actions and productions they
            interpret" (pp. 1-2, emphasis retained).

            Now I am not sure this is Habermas' position. I think
            there are (at least) three analytically distinct
            positions vis a vis (a possible) phenomenon in
            Habermas, i.e. the first person attitude (performative
            attitude), third person attitude (objectivating (or
            objectifying) attitude) and theoretical attitude. I
            tend to think (although Habermas is not very clear on
            this always) that theoretical attitude is more
            superior than performative and objectivating attitudes
            taken separately because it takes a more comprehensive
            view.

            If I am right in the above view then this is a sort of
            blow to the whole project, as it would be seen to be
            based on a false premises.
            [there is a difference between objectivation and
            objectification in early Habermas which I ignore here]

            2) Second though the author does mention it in
            passing, I personally think that Habermas and Gadamer
            are more different thinkers than Harrington seems to
            concede. However I am not sure whether this is an
            important objection to his thesis as such [most
            probably it is not].

            Apart from that I must confess that I have found the
            chapters I have read to be very well written,
            insightful and tightly argued.

            First chapter is a general discussion of what it is
            meant by "Objectivity, Objectivism and objectifying
            attitude". The author first gives a brief historical
            sketch of the terms with special reference to German
            Sociological tradition and positivism. The second half
            of the chapter concentrates on Habermas and Frankfurt
            School and their conception of these terms. Strangely
            enough Gademer is not discussed separately in this
            context.

            Second chapter is on Habermas' and Gadamer's idea of
            dialogue. Topics discussed are Habermas' and Gadamers
            critique of traditional interpretative methodology,
            their view of conversation and translation, Gadamer
            and fusion of horizons and Habermas's conception of
            the interconnection of the questions of meaning and
            validity. The chapter is a very interesting, compact
            review of (especially) Habermas' views related to the
            thesis, from his early works to the most recent.
            Habermas' and Gadamer's differences are also briefly
            touched upon. Although again I think Gadamer is not
            given his due and Habermas seems to dominate the
            debate.

            Next two chapters are historical critique of Habermas'
            and Gadamers' reading of early and later Dilthy. Since
            I am not a Diltheian expert at any level I cant make
            any comments on them but they seem to me to be pretty
            insightful and important discussions in the context of
            the thesis of the book.

            I must stop here, as I have not read the book beyond
            this point.

            Comments on above are welcome.

            best
            ali

            --- Gary E Davis <gedavis1@...> wrote:
            > Ali, thanks. The book you indicate is VERY
            > interesting to
            > me. I've seen it, but not looked at it. Now I will.
            >
            > What kind of "non performative attitude" does the
            > author
            > want to focus on? An attitude prior to action?
            > Perception?
            >
            > I'm not aware of an assumption in Habermas that,
            > say,
            > perception "necessarily leads to objectification or
            > objectivism."
            >
            > Do you find Harrington convincing?
            >
            > Gary
            >
            >
            > --- Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi@...> wrote:
            > > Thanks Gary,
            > >
            > > I would like to mention an interesting book as
            > well
            > > which I am currently reading. It is entitled,
            > >
            > > Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science, by
            > > Austin Harrington published by Routledge in 2001.
            > >
            > > It is based on authors Oxford D.Phil and
            > definitely a
            > > representative of (still maintained) high
            > standards of
            > > Oxford doctoral theses.
            > >
            > > The author challenges the assumption underlying
            > > Habermas' and Gadamar's work that non perfromative
            > > attitude necessarily leads to what Habermas calls
            > > objectification or objectivism.
            > >
            > > The author problematises this thesis both
            > historically
            > > and systematically. Historically he challenges
            > > Habemras' and Gadamers' reading of early and later
            > > Dilthey and their reading of Weber and Schutz
            > theory
            > > of intersubjectivity (more specifically the
            > latter's).
            > >
            > > The work is espeically interesting for those
            > working
            > > on the notions of lifeworld, objectivism and
            > dialogue
            > > in Habermas.
            > >
            > > I am half way through full reading of the book and
            > > would like to discuss and share with others who
            > have
            > > found or may find the book interesting.
            > >
            > > ali
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- "gedavis1 <gedavis1@...>"
            > > <gedavis1@...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > This book seems to be a great resource in
            > applied
            > > > critical legal
            > > > studies as *moral discourse* (based in concerns
            > for
            > > > human rights
            > > > across various domains).
            > > >
            > > > Moral Imperialism: a critical anthology
            > > > Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol, ed.
            > > > New York University Press; ; (November 2002)
            > > > US$ 22.50
            > > >
            > > > Back cover of book
            > > >
            > > > In the controversy over female genital
            > mutilation,
            > > > Congress was quick
            > > > to condemn practices throughout Africa and the
            > > > Middle East and to take
            > > > action criminalizing the practice domestically.
            > Yet
            > > > at the same time,
            > > > it bluntly dismissed Amnesty International and
            > Human
            > > > Rights Watch when
            > > > they pointed out human rights violations closer
            > to
            > > > home in the form of
            > > > the disproportionately high rate of the
            > imposition
            > > > of capital
            > > > punishment on black men, and the disempowerment
            > of
            > > > poor women under
            > > > new draconian welfare rules. The irony of the
            > United
            > > > States'
            > > > international condemnation of types of
            > activities in
            > > > which it engages
            > > > within its own borders is not lost on Third
            > World
            > > > critics.
            > > >
            > > > Moral Imperialism sets out to bring an
            > international
            > > > human rights
            > > > framework to the analysis of current
            > international
            > > > and domestic legal,
            > > > political, and cultural crises. It explores the
            > > > United States' moral
            > > > supremacy during a time of clear domestic
            > > > shortcomings and asks
            > > > whether insisting that other nations adhere to
            > norms
            > > > that derive from
            > > > dominant U.S. culture and history may harm
            > > > societies�both within
            > > > and outside of the U.S.�with radically different
            > > > cultures and
            > > > histories.
            > > >
            > > > Contributors include Beverly Greene, Kevin
            > Johnson,
            > > > M. Patricia
            > > > Fernandez Kelly, Holly Maguigan, Boaventura De
            > Sousa
            > > > Santos, Saskia
            > > > Sassen, and Eric Yamamoto.
            > > >
            > > > About the Author
            > > >
            > > > Berta Esperanza Hern�ndez-Truyol is the Levin,
            > Mabie
            > > > and Levin
            > > > Professor of Law at the Levin College of Law and
            > > > affiliate professor,
            > > > Center for Women's Studies and Gender Research,
            > > > University of Florida,
            > > > where she teaches International Law and
            > > > International Human Rights.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > The following U.S. Amazon.com citation is one
            > URL
            > > > broken into 3 lines:
            > > >
            > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/
            > > > 0814736149/qid=1044256991/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/
            > > > 002-6662848-4863226?v=glance&s=books
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > .
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
            > to:
            > > > habermas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > __________________________________________________
            > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
            > now.
            > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            > >
            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > habermas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > habermas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          • Gary E Davis
            Ali, Thanks! This is helpful. G
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 3, 2003
              Ali,

              Thanks! This is helpful.

              G
              --- Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi@...> wrote:
              > Dear Gary,
              >
              > Since I am only half way through the book and
              > specially I have not yet read the final chapters
              > (which try to develop a systematic critique of
              > Habermas' notion of dialogue) my comments below are
              > only provisional and even then only partial.
              >
              > 1)I am bit skeptical about the thesis to begin with.
              > Th authors' thesis is that "both (Habemras and
              > Gadamer) agree that all understanding of social life
              > should take the form of a real or virtual DIALOGUE
              > between the interpreters of cultural phenomenon and
              > the subjects whose lives, actions and productions they
              > interpret" (pp. 1-2, emphasis retained).
              >
              > Now I am not sure this is Habermas' position. I think
              > there are (at least) three analytically distinct
              > positions vis a vis (a possible) phenomenon in
              > Habermas, i.e. the first person attitude (performative
              > attitude), third person attitude (objectivating (or
              > objectifying) attitude) and theoretical attitude. I
              > tend to think (although Habermas is not very clear on
              > this always) that theoretical attitude is more
              > superior than performative and objectivating attitudes
              > taken separately because it takes a more comprehensive
              > view.
              >
              > If I am right in the above view then this is a sort of
              > blow to the whole project, as it would be seen to be
              > based on a false premises.
              > [there is a difference between objectivation and
              > objectification in early Habermas which I ignore here]
              >
              > 2) Second though the author does mention it in
              > passing, I personally think that Habermas and Gadamer
              > are more different thinkers than Harrington seems to
              > concede. However I am not sure whether this is an
              > important objection to his thesis as such [most
              > probably it is not].
              >
              > Apart from that I must confess that I have found the
              > chapters I have read to be very well written,
              > insightful and tightly argued.
              >
              > First chapter is a general discussion of what it is
              > meant by "Objectivity, Objectivism and objectifying
              > attitude". The author first gives a brief historical
              > sketch of the terms with special reference to German
              > Sociological tradition and positivism. The second half
              > of the chapter concentrates on Habermas and Frankfurt
              > School and their conception of these terms. Strangely
              > enough Gademer is not discussed separately in this
              > context.
              >
              > Second chapter is on Habermas' and Gadamer's idea of
              > dialogue. Topics discussed are Habermas' and Gadamers
              > critique of traditional interpretative methodology,
              > their view of conversation and translation, Gadamer
              > and fusion of horizons and Habermas's conception of
              > the interconnection of the questions of meaning and
              > validity. The chapter is a very interesting, compact
              > review of (especially) Habermas' views related to the
              > thesis, from his early works to the most recent.
              > Habermas' and Gadamer's differences are also briefly
              > touched upon. Although again I think Gadamer is not
              > given his due and Habermas seems to dominate the
              > debate.
              >
              > Next two chapters are historical critique of Habermas'
              > and Gadamers' reading of early and later Dilthy. Since
              > I am not a Diltheian expert at any level I cant make
              > any comments on them but they seem to me to be pretty
              > insightful and important discussions in the context of
              > the thesis of the book.
              >
              > I must stop here, as I have not read the book beyond
              > this point.
              >
              > Comments on above are welcome.
              >
              > best
              > ali
              >
              > --- Gary E Davis <gedavis1@...> wrote:
              > > Ali, thanks. The book you indicate is VERY
              > > interesting to
              > > me. I've seen it, but not looked at it. Now I will.
              > >
              > > What kind of "non performative attitude" does the
              > > author
              > > want to focus on? An attitude prior to action?
              > > Perception?
              > >
              > > I'm not aware of an assumption in Habermas that,
              > > say,
              > > perception "necessarily leads to objectification or
              > > objectivism."
              > >
              > > Do you find Harrington convincing?
              > >
              > > Gary
              > >
              > >
            • gedavis1 <gedavis1@yahoo.com>
              Ali, I was mistaken in believing that I d seen this book around recently. Maybe I was victim of subliminal traces of often-seen copies of books with similar
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 3, 2003
                Ali,

                I was mistaken in believing that I'd seen this book around recently.
                Maybe I was victim of subliminal traces of often-seen copies of books
                with similar titles--- by Hans Herbert, for example: _The Power of
                Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault_ (in my
                library somwhere); or
                Zigmunt Bauman, so many years ago, _Hermeneutics and Social Science_
                (not owned).

                The tea leaves don't look good: Harrington's book hasn't gone into
                paperback,
                after having been in hardback for nearly two years, and the book is
                not held by ANY university library in California! This circumstance is
                usually a sign of a book not well-received.

                Looks like Harrington is deeply involved with the interface of19th
                century German social thought and early phenomenology:

                http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/people/ah.htm

                Anyway, I concur with you that:


                A > > 1)I am bit skeptical about the thesis to begin with.
                > > Th authors' thesis is that "both (Habemras and
                > > Gadamer) agree that all understanding of social life
                > > should take the form of a real or virtual DIALOGUE
                > > between the interpreters of cultural phenomenon and
                > > the subjects whose lives, actions and productions they
                > > interpret" (pp. 1-2, emphasis retained).
                > >
                > > Now I am not sure this is Habermas' position.

                Indeed.

                Dialogue isn't itself a normative thing, such that "social
                life should take the form" of it, though social life usually does.
                Rather, normativity is *one* dimension of our communicative form of
                life, which *includes* dialogue.

                But one could be talking loosely about all this, in which case *of
                course* there should be as much dialogue as desirable between
                interpreters. But interpretation is *based* in understanding; the two
                aren't equivalent. And the basis of understanding involves the holism
                of the lifeworld (or one might say: the lifeworld engages us
                holistically), which is why we *do* (or *should*) enter into new
                venues of understanding---*through dialogue*---with so-called "open
                mindedness," in a disposition toward *discovery* prior to overt
                interpretation (granting that perception itself is interpretive, BUT
                that interpretivity is *cognitive*, in a general sense, irreducible to
                second-stage *linguistic* interpretation).

                Perhaps--and I'm guessing here---Harrington is interested in this kind
                of point (common among phenomenologists)---that the lifeworld is
                already always
                interpretive---with the first opening of one's "eyes" (metaphorical of
                any mode of perceptibility).

                But such a concern isn't contrary to Habermas' interest that, INSOFAR
                AS something is relevant *between* "us" in public, social life, then
                communicativity is axial. Indeed, how could any consideration be
                deserving of recognition as a good reason by someone else, if that
                consideration isn't communicable! But this
                social reality of communicativity for the *reasonability* of life
                isn't the totality of sociality.

                > > I think there are (at least) three analytically distinct
                > > positions vis a vis (a possible) phenomenon in
                > > Habermas, i.e. the first person attitude (performative
                > > attitude), third person attitude (objectivating (or
                > > objectifying) attitude) and theoretical attitude.

                What happened to the second-person attitude of dialogal *engagement*
                (the "illocutionary" mode of communication) WITH the other?

                I think that the so-called "theoretical attitude" is, so to speak,
                "vertical" to the other three (1st, 2nd and 3rd person), as the
                hypothization of interaction for the sake of inquiry and evaluation.
                The theoretical attitude is a special form of cognitive consideration
                *about* lived communicative action (i.e., it is--as communicative
                action--- metacommunicative, relative to given communication under
                consideration---but not to imply that all theory is about
                communication, nor that theory itself is primarily communicative;
                epistemology is a communicative domain, but it's not primarily *about*
                communication, though it can be, e.g., in considering the sociality of
                knowledge, as Alvin Goldman does in his magnificent _Knowledge in a
                Social World_, 1999).

                Not surprisingly, then, one might believe that:

                > > theoretical attitude is more
                > > superior than performative and objectivating attitudes
                > > taken separately because it takes a more comprehensive
                > > view.

                But such superiority is, of course, relative to the value of
                comprehensiveness, which is *preparatory* for its complements:
                appropriateness, practicality, and efficacy. What's superior to
                comprehensiveness, perhaps, is the synergy of comprehensiveness
                (realism), appropriateness (prudence), and efficacy (productivity).
                What's superior is the embodied, exemplified "integration" (via
                individuation) of this kind of *appreciation* in "fact" or
                factically of, say, *strong holism* (associating to Charles Taylor's
                mode of "strong evaluation").

                Anyway ("there he goes again"), I agree with you that:

                >>...that Habermas and Gadamer
                > > are more different thinkers than [I, Gary, suppose from your
                comments that] Harrington seems to
                > > concede. However I am not sure whether this is an
                > > important objection to his thesis as such [most
                > > probably it is not].

                I believe this *is* an important objection: underdifferentiation of
                the thinkers themselves---insufficient discernment of what is
                Gadamerian and what is Habermasian----such that the two had
                such an articulate dispute about the feasibility of dealing with
                fundamental assumptions of communicative life via critical reflection
                (the "Gadamer-Habermas debate"), not to mention their very different
                kinds of career projects (in a phrase: traditionally hermeneutical of
                Western thought vs critically hermeneutical of political sociology).

                > >
                > > Apart from that I must confess that I have found the
                > > chapters I have read to be very well written,
                > > insightful and tightly argued.

                So, too, was logical empiricism (just as a matter of argumentative
                craft).

                ....Well, ending arbitrarily.

                Regards,


                Gary




                .
              • Kenneth MacKendrick
                ... From: Hans Herbert, for example: _The Power of ... Hans Herbert Kogler... glad to be of assistance in this matter (virtual applause)
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 3, 2003
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <gedavis1@...>

                  Hans Herbert, for example: _The Power of
                  > Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault_ (in my
                  > library somwhere) ...

                  Hans Herbert Kogler...

                  glad to be of assistance in this matter
                  (virtual applause)
                  thank you!
                  ken
                • Ali Rizvi
                  Gary, Let me confess that I am not well versed in the politics of publications so cant say much about it. Also the book was not in my university library as
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 4, 2003
                    Gary,

                    Let me confess that I am not well versed in the
                    politics of publications so cant say much about it.
                    Also the book was not in my university library as
                    well. They ordered it on my request. Poor guys!!

                    I guess I had got interested in the book because it
                    touches on issues I am working on. The book still
                    seems to me to be exemplary in many respect. At least
                    an attempt to think differently which is in itself (at
                    least these days) a sign of thinking..!

                    Anyway I am thinking of writing a reveiw so I will try
                    to address the isssues you raise. Let us see how we
                    go.

                    best
                    ali


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.