This whole text by Taylor seems to pivot around the same problems we discussed or rather I posited on the fofblog for three years with the indifference and silence of most.
I get the impression that Foucault and Habermas turn around each other’s truth in a dialectic labyrinth going nowhere because they are both aspects of “reality” but each pretend they hold the key. Perhaps not in as much as Habermas makes a caricature of Foucault while Foucault at least acknowledges Habermas’ premises but to me they are talking about different aspects of the same thing and don’t meet like the blind men describing the elephant without knowing what part they are each touching.
From this shallow reading, Habermas seems to touch more deeply on the issue in his statements on “universalities” while Foucault is equally valid in his statements on staying away from the “norm”
but what is surprising is that they don’t seem to realize that they are both equally valid, just moving in a different wavelength of the same phenomenon. While Habermas’ paradigms (is that the word?) are valid in the social context as much as the individual context, Foucault’s paradigms, I would say, are more related and equally valid and necessary for a dynamic evolution of consciousness, in the individual and society but they are coming from different ends.
but what is surprising is that they don’t seem to realize that they are both equally valid, just moving in a different wavelength of the same phenomenon. While Habermas’ paradigms (is that the word?) are valid in the social context as much as the individual context, Foucault’s paradigms, I would say, are more related and equally valid and necessary for a dynamic evolution of consciousness, in the individual and society but they are coming from different ends.
Habermas’ universalities are not the same as the norms which is what Foucault seems to be misrepresenting and Foucault’s “attitude” towards them is “correct” in relation to the universalities made “norms” but misses the point when he is unable to grasp the “universalities” themselves. Their dialogue would not be possible without all of the ingredients involved!
What Foucault seems to be missing is the concept of identification and at the same time, it’s what Habermas seems to be taking for granted and that is what they are both rejecting about each other “identified” with themselves!.
The “norm” becomes possible when many become “identified” with the status quo that upholds it. The norm becomes normal when it is justified by the belief in the structures that gave birth to it.
In the FOF systematically raping young men who are imported from all corners of the world has become not only the “normal” practice of the congregation but the main practice and aim of the congregation. EVERYTHING is subject to that practice. Everything has turned so upside down and backwards that no matter how many other “ideals” may be used to decorate the practice, the actual reality of what goes on is aimed at the sole achievement of supplying the guru with fresh young men. It does not matter whether members believe they are working on themselves in the deepness of their heart, what matters is what they are actually DOING as members of that congregation and THAT: what they are actually doing, is what determines the NORMS and NORMALIZATION of the practices within the CULT.
I doubt it would be possible to understand the phenomenon if one doesn’t understand both sides of the equation: Habermas’ and Foucault’s. The members FALL like leaves in autumn for the fraud because they are identified with Habermas’ paradigms of universal truths. Had we been more conscious of Foucault’s necessity to “refuse” we would not have “identified” so easily and actively but blindly participated in the scheme. Both Habermas’ and Foucault’s paradigms are valid in the practical reality of life. They just seem to be missing a few screws to connect to each other!
No comments:
Post a Comment