He compares Habermas Bourdieu and Foucault in relation to his theory of creative conflict resolution
The third startling discovery is that the way out passes through the Self-Other relation, and the fourth startling discovery that the creation of a new reality accommodating both Self and
http://www.transcend.org/tri/downloads/Bourdieu-Foucault-Habermas.pdf
The third startling discovery is that the way out passes through the Self-Other relation, and the fourth startling discovery that the creation of a new reality accommodating both Self and
Other, maybe with goals adjusted, may make the troubles wither away. And that creation is transcendence.
Some focus on the solution of conflict by transcending the incompatibility as a road to peace, others on the new reality as a road to development, or on both. The first perspective begs the future-oriented question "how to transcend incompatibility", the second perspective to the past-oriented question "of what contradiction is this social fact a transcendence?" Both are daoist rather than marxist perspectives, interspersing between daoism and marxism the Matteo Ricci-Leibniz-Hegel steps.
In both perspectives contradiction comes out as a force motrice, not in a deterministic way but as an opportunity--for instance for peace and development-- wrought with danger, like in the two parts of the Chinese character for contradiction. A piece of wisdom thousands of years old, now slowly arriving in the West.
What we are primarily interested in is how, if at all, these five approaches to conflict, violence and its reduction, and the role of contradictions and their transcendence in general, are reflected in social science today. There is possibly a correlation between Piaget's autism versus reciprocity, a focus on Other only versus a focus on the Self-Other relation, and between a focus on winning, dominance or at most compromise versus a focus on transcendence, in the negative sense of accommodating no goals or the positive sense of accommodating (almost) all goals.
There is no assumption that the above approach is the best or the only one, nor that everybody has to be concerned with problems of peace and development. But contradiction and conflict have to be reflected in the
Some focus on the solution of conflict by transcending the incompatibility as a road to peace, others on the new reality as a road to development, or on both. The first perspective begs the future-oriented question "how to transcend incompatibility", the second perspective to the past-oriented question "of what contradiction is this social fact a transcendence?" Both are daoist rather than marxist perspectives, interspersing between daoism and marxism the Matteo Ricci-Leibniz-Hegel steps.
In both perspectives contradiction comes out as a force motrice, not in a deterministic way but as an opportunity--for instance for peace and development-- wrought with danger, like in the two parts of the Chinese character for contradiction. A piece of wisdom thousands of years old, now slowly arriving in the West.
What we are primarily interested in is how, if at all, these five approaches to conflict, violence and its reduction, and the role of contradictions and their transcendence in general, are reflected in social science today. There is possibly a correlation between Piaget's autism versus reciprocity, a focus on Other only versus a focus on the Self-Other relation, and between a focus on winning, dominance or at most compromise versus a focus on transcendence, in the negative sense of accommodating no goals or the positive sense of accommodating (almost) all goals.
There is no assumption that the above approach is the best or the only one, nor that everybody has to be concerned with problems of peace and development. But contradiction and conflict have to be reflected in the
sciences about social reality; being that basic in social reality. The question is how it is reflected.
Theories or perspectives should also be understood dialectically, in contradiction or harmony with other theories and perspectives. Of those there are many. The West, being Western culturally and structurally focused on the top of its many pyramids, will tend to focus on the leading theorists of the leading intellectual cultures. There seem to be four big cultural powers (like five big veto powers), France, Germany, United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (USA). The rest is seen, also often by the rest itself, as peripheral. They may be studied to understand better that country or region, but not for insight.
But who are the leading intellectuals in the West, relevant to our major field of concern, macro perspectives on social reality? Bourdieu and Foucault from France and Habermas from Germany, of course, social theory giants as they are, to serve as contrasts to our own perspectives and as sources of new insights.
To make our own position, the TRANSCEND perspective, more explicit let us now reformulate it "at a higher level", also highlighting the non-Western elements in the approach. The perspective has fetched inspiration from several and diverse cultural traditions, as indicated above:
- Aristotelian perspectives on causality
- Daoist dialectic yin/yang perspectives
- Hindu perspectives on processes
- Buddhist perspectives on outcomes
- Judaic perspective on dialogues
This being so the effort to realize goal-states, including when they are contradictory, is the force motrice of human-social history
A guide for this process is provided by the Hindu trinity creation-preservation-destruction: creating new reality, preserving what should be preserved, and destroying what should be destroyed.
The Buddhist tetralemma accommodates comfortably the outcomes of struggles between two goal-states, adding to the two either-or the both-and and the neither-nor. In hegelian terms the latter two may be conceived of as positive and negative syntheses.
Steering consciously conflict/contradiction reality becomes a major task so as to minimize violent destruction and maximize creative construction. TRANSCEND stands for that process.
Dialogue is mutual search for a new reality, not debate to win with stronger arguments. In a dialogue propositions are pointers toward a common new reality; not against each other to win a verbal battle, but complementing each other in an effort to accommodate legitimate goals of all parties, inspired by theories and values, and constructive-creative-concrete enough to become a causa finalis.
Theories or perspectives should also be understood dialectically, in contradiction or harmony with other theories and perspectives. Of those there are many. The West, being Western culturally and structurally focused on the top of its many pyramids, will tend to focus on the leading theorists of the leading intellectual cultures. There seem to be four big cultural powers (like five big veto powers), France, Germany, United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (USA). The rest is seen, also often by the rest itself, as peripheral. They may be studied to understand better that country or region, but not for insight.
But who are the leading intellectuals in the West, relevant to our major field of concern, macro perspectives on social reality? Bourdieu and Foucault from France and Habermas from Germany, of course, social theory giants as they are, to serve as contrasts to our own perspectives and as sources of new insights.
To make our own position, the TRANSCEND perspective, more explicit let us now reformulate it "at a higher level", also highlighting the non-Western elements in the approach. The perspective has fetched inspiration from several and diverse cultural traditions, as indicated above:
- Aristotelian perspectives on causality
- Daoist dialectic yin/yang perspectives
- Hindu perspectives on processes
- Buddhist perspectives on outcomes
- Judaic perspective on dialogues
SOME BASIC POINTS IN THE TRANSCEND PERSPECTIVE: A SUMMARY
[1] Human and social reality are dialectic in the holistic, dynamic yin/yang Daoist sense, not in the narrow Hegelian-Marxist sense focused on political and economic processes. This is so because of the human spiritual ability to reflect on forces acting upon us individually and collectively and to transcend, go beyond the existing, including existing individual and collective programming.(Essay Ref)
[2] Aristotelian causality, with causes pushing (causa eficiens) and pulling (causa finalis), mediated by matter (causa materialis; deep nature) and form (causa formalis; deep culture and deep structure), is a useful discourse for human and social phenomena.
[3] With goal-states, telos, in the future we need an epistemology that is symmetric between past and future, data and theories/values. Theories that coincide with data deliver truth about past reality, with the data having veto power. Theories coinciding with values deliver truth about new, future realities. As time advances future produces data to check trilateral data-theories-values coincidences.
[4] Goal-states worth pursuing, future-positive, are human and social realities as real as data about past-negative. The latter are a push, a causa eficiens, the latter a pull, a causa finalis.
[5] Contradictions in general, and between goal-states in particular, are not only normal in human and social affairs, but knowing them is indispensable for human and social understanding.
[6] Contradictions (C) have inner, attitudinal (A), and outer, behavioral (B) concomitants for the human beings holding the goal-states. The set {A, B, C} defines a conflict, with C at its root.
[7] A contradiction, unresolved conflict, is dynamic as goal-states translate into goal-directed action, leading to
[2] Aristotelian causality, with causes pushing (causa eficiens) and pulling (causa finalis), mediated by matter (causa materialis; deep nature) and form (causa formalis; deep culture and deep structure), is a useful discourse for human and social phenomena.
[3] With goal-states, telos, in the future we need an epistemology that is symmetric between past and future, data and theories/values. Theories that coincide with data deliver truth about past reality, with the data having veto power. Theories coinciding with values deliver truth about new, future realities. As time advances future produces data to check trilateral data-theories-values coincidences.
[4] Goal-states worth pursuing, future-positive, are human and social realities as real as data about past-negative. The latter are a push, a causa eficiens, the latter a pull, a causa finalis.
[5] Contradictions in general, and between goal-states in particular, are not only normal in human and social affairs, but knowing them is indispensable for human and social understanding.
[6] Contradictions (C) have inner, attitudinal (A), and outer, behavioral (B) concomitants for the human beings holding the goal-states. The set {A, B, C} defines a conflict, with C at its root.
[7] A contradiction, unresolved conflict, is dynamic as goal-states translate into goal-directed action, leading to
conflict dynamics.
This being so the effort to realize goal-states, including when they are contradictory, is the force motrice of human-social history
A guide for this process is provided by the Hindu trinity creation-preservation-destruction: creating new reality, preserving what should be preserved, and destroying what should be destroyed.
The Buddhist tetralemma accommodates comfortably the outcomes of struggles between two goal-states, adding to the two either-or the both-and and the neither-nor. In hegelian terms the latter two may be conceived of as positive and negative syntheses.
Steering consciously conflict/contradiction reality becomes a major task so as to minimize violent destruction and maximize creative construction. TRANSCEND stands for that process.
Dialogue is mutual search for a new reality, not debate to win with stronger arguments. In a dialogue propositions are pointers toward a common new reality; not against each other to win a verbal battle, but complementing each other in an effort to accommodate legitimate goals of all parties, inspired by theories and values, and constructive-creative-concrete enough to become a causa finalis.
http://www.transcend.org/tri/downloads/Bourdieu-Foucault-Habermas.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment