Habermas, despite viewing narrative as a valid (if preliminary) kind of
objectivation and hence analysis of the lifeworld, apparently sees only a
limited role for narratives that tell the story of the "victims" of social
change. Since this is exactly the kind of narrative I'm writing I'm
struggling with his argument. His prose is typically dense, but his
argument seems to be that describing the way people *experience* "paradox"
doesn't amount to an *understanding* of it. I think this raises (again)
interesting questions of whom one is writing for. One might think that a
"critical" theory, of all kinds of theory, surely is best directed at
increasing the comprehension of those who have become victims of social
change. And directed to raising others' awareness of these victims'
plight.
Habermas has been criticized for moving towards analyses that are directed
towards "people in general" rather than to a specific group or class, to a
general interest rather than specific interests, and for to failing to
identify any "agent of social transformation." One might say, in other
words, for writing in a typical academic genre.
What he writes is this:
"To the extent that the different lines of interpretive sociology proceed
in a generalizing manner at all, they share an interest in illuminating
structures of worldviews and forms of life. The essential part is a theory
of everyday life, which can also be linked up with historical research, as
it is in the work of E. P. Thompson. To the extent that this is done,
modernization processes can be presented from the viewpoint of the
lifeworlds specific to different strata and groups; the everyday life of
the subcultures dragged into these processes are disclosed with the tools
of anthropological research. Occasionally these studies condense to
fragments of history written from the point of view of its victims. Then
modernization appears as the sufferings of those who pay for the
establishment of the new mode of production and the new system of states in
the coin of disintegrating traditions and forms of life. Research of this
type sharpens our perception of historical asynchronicities; they provide a
stimulus to critical recollection in Benjamin's sense. But it has as
little place for the internal systemic dynamics of economic development, of
nation and state building, as it does for the structural logics of
rationalized lifeworlds. As a result, the subcultural mirrorings in which
the sociopathologies of modernity are refracted and reflected retain the
subjective and accidental character of uncomprehended events" (Vol 2. p.
377)
To borrow Eugene's phrase, What do you think?
Martin
================
Martin Packer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh PA 15282
(412) 396-4852
fax: (412) 396-5197
packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer/packer.html