>And autonomy and solidarity are important because . . . they are
>traditions in a particular society. So we must support this form of
>rational argument because it supports a way of life (democracy,
>individual autonomy, and so on) that we are used to. I still think
>this stinks of ethnocentrism: concepts like rationality and autonomy,
>created in a specific social nexus, are elevated to necessary
>components of any "inclusive" society--and then we make profound
>philosophical judgments about the moral inferiority of any society
>that does not include these concepts.
>
>Miles
yes and no. the analysis is tied to historical materialism. do marxists make judgments on the way other societies organize their production/consumption? or, do they argue that these are necessarily tied to historical social structural organization of various societies? their is a goal here, right? and it has to do with freedom in our economic life. why do you accept freedom from the arbitrary authority and domination of capital as okay-fine and don't acknowledge it as, likewise, a product of myopic ethnocentrism? perhaps you don't, but given the repeated references to the fact that habermas is, in effect, mirroring marx's moves re: work/the economy but doing so, to put it too crudely, in the realm of culture, i'd think that you'd have at least acknowledged the fact that you need to address it
habermas, is also drawing on the weberian tradition. he is talking about the difference between formal rationality (western capitalist societies) and substantive rationality (ostensibly characteristic of other societies) and he judges us impoverished by the domination of formal rationality of means-ends calculation, etc. H recognizes that we are no less bound by tradition than any other society, as you note. but he wants a way out of that relativism fully recognizing the dangers of which i spoke. i'll get relevant quotes from him on this, if you'd like. i provided you with something i worked on a while back when asked to speak about the Centertown Project. I chose to criticize CSR or, at least, articulate and typify the characteristic objections to it. i think it's a good idea to avoid dreams of deliverance from the battle, myself -- as illustrated by hannah arendt in her discussion of kafka's parable:
he has two antagonists: the first presses him from behind, from the origin. the second blocks the road ahead. he gives battle to both. the first supports him in his fight with the second...the second supports him in his fight with the first.... it is not only the two antagonists who are there, but he himself as well, and who really knows his intentions? his dream, though, is that some time in an unguarded moment--and this would require a night darker than any night has ever been yet--he will jump out of the fighting line and be promoted, on account of his experience in fighting, to the position of umpire over his antagonists in their fight with each other.