I finished reading the book critical and historical José Manuel Romero delves into a few lines which are also outlined in this blog, from a related intellectual concern. In a perspective that suggests a return to the approach of the first generation of the Frankfurt School in efforts to achieve a critical theory to develop the necessary immanent transcendence we have sought to question what happened without idealism, Romero argues with Habermas (second generation) and Honneth (third generation) this possibility. His conclusion is that both the first and the second suffers from a consecration of the given (Western European history) as a source of universal norms that are intended. The problem is that their approach (modern differentiation of different areas of regulation and autonomous rationality Habermas, with the inevitable colonization of the lifeworld by the capitalist economy and the law, but ends up accepting as progress ) And the regulations from the recognition in Honneth (which prioritizes and dynamic forces that puts the economy and class divisions and interest groups) not properly underpin the possibility of a critique that transcends the social model given (capitalist society). Both support a story of the normativity that can derive support in the criticism of certain deviations or social decline, but do not include an opening that is conducive to structural change of the given, which is maintained implicitly as eternal in its current configuration. Thus, these authors go on to develop models of critical theory dynamic enough to address injustice rooted in the structure, in shaping the current capitalist societies. In this sense it is, if we follow the reasons for Romero, a conservatism that can be attributed to the generations after the first of the Frankfurt School. As we know, Adorno and Horkheimer were deeply dissatisfied with the settings that had acquired the world capitalist societies that identify as sites of domination and control disease and dehumanizing. Habermas sought to question their teachers, as we saw here , diagnosing an unsurpassed modern subject that led to the perplexities and final impotence of Critical Theory. Habermas's solution has been, as we also saw the replacement modern subject of inter-subjective paradigm of Theory of Communicative Action . However, Romero is, I think quite rightly, that other elements Habermas seduced by the theories of Parsons and Luhman systems dehistoricized just the present and the future in an all-embracing formalism consecration of a rationality linked to the law and the capitalist economy are not all bad and that we must endure as a lesser evil that tend to encroach on the world of life where there is communicative action. This objectifying process we have criticized in this blog as I do not understand the disease process and progress should be lived, but on the contrary, as being full Hazard is expressed as a highly effective kind of domination in the service of the capitalist model of economy and society. It would, therefore, to rethink the proposal from the first generation of the Frankfurt School and complete or compare it with other approaches that try to transcend this difficult given from the given, ie, the transcendence immanent critique. The key would be on the stand in place and suitable for this epistemological perspective (the victims, the poor majority, the third world). In this attempt we discussed how Romero and Hector Samour identified the enormous potential of Ellacuría thought that Romero characterized as a critical theory from Latin America to be understood not in local terms, but as made from where comes the universal critical (that of the disadvantaged through the history of Western domination.) Is this project for me as essential and will continue the thread of our readings seeking for development in this blog have to look at, as we have done lately, to the university as an institution must choose which master to serve . Should science and choose a model university triumphant consecration of the given and, although critical, has to be that of Habermas? Or should be more broadly responsive to cries not always present in the speeches and official science but give us the key to progress is based on the given transcend from the immanence of that same die?
0 comments:
Post a Comment