| This question <547|572> overall <561-6|563> Desoto: <558-6|566>. graded A |
| Question 836: Critical Books and Movies and their Relation to Marxism |
| [562] Desoto: Critical Realism. Critical Realism What is it and why it matters? |
| Critical realism is a philosophy attributed to Roy Bhaskar, although he did not coin the term critical realism itself. Bhaskar's philosophy, like Marxism itself, should be one of interest to more people because of its far-reaching effects. Marxism has been written and re-written, expounded upon, critiqued, formulated, etc. In short, so much has been written about Marxism from so many different angles that many mistakes have been made and it has been frequently misinterpreted and confused. |
| Marx himself could be described as a dialectical depth realist. He used Hegel's dialectical logic but at the same time criticized it, in part because Hegel was an idealist. However, Marx found Hegel's philosophical foundations useful, especially in the first chapter of Capital. If you have read Marx's Capital, then you will know that the first chapter contains many of the most in depth and difficult to grasp concepts. If you are aware of Marx's view on having a scientific approach to knowledge then you may ask, “why philosphy?” In Andrew Collier's book “Critical Realism, An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy,” he points out that philosophy should be regarded as the “midwife” to science in the birthing process of new thought. He also notes that science will not just “be alone,” and that the question is not whether to “have” philosophy or no philosphy. Rather, accompanying science there will either be “good philosphy” or “bad philosophy.” In other words, it is science that “tells us something,” but it is philosophy that tells us what that thing “says about the world” or “says to or for society.” It is the philosophy which will aid in determining whether or not it is beneficial and ultimately emancipating or not. |
| One important thing to note is that Marx was sure to avoid a common pitfall in modern thought. This could be the underlying basis for where we can call Marx a depth realist. Bhaskar's Critical Realism usurps common thought processes by removing the idols, obstacles, and/or ideologies that block new knowledge. Such obstacles rightfully could be accepted thought or thinkers including Marx himself (or others such as Locke, Bacon, et al) as fallible. This is not that the theories of “great philosophers” should be disregarded. Depth realism regards all theories as fallible, or in other words transformable or “worked through” into something “better.” If you have read much of Marx's works, then you will know that Marx was not shy of criticism, even of himself (or his previous statements). Bhaskar put it this way, paraphrasing Kant, that the “function of philosophy” is to analyze concepts “already given but confused.” |
| Collier points out four key concepts to critical realism. 1) Objectivity. This could be the most difficult to grasp, but it is important. Basically, this means that what is known is and would be real even if it were not known (you might be thinking of the philosophical question about “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around...”) or that real things don't necessarily even appear on the surface. 2) Fallibility. This refers to the need for thought to be open to correction and debate. 3) Transphenomenality. This refers to looking beneath the surface structure to the underlying structures. Marx made reference to DNA as an example in Chapter 1 of Capital. 4) Counter-phenomenality. This takes the previous step quite a bit further. It is that the underlying structure is not merely beneath, but will often contradict the surface. Collier points out that it is quite well understood that Marx made this distinction in explaining the whole need for science itself. If what was below the surface merely reflected more detail of exactly what we see on the surface, then science would largely be redundant and pointless. Often, what we discover below is counter-intuitive to what we have previously come to observe and understand. |
| Marx's works were laced with depth realism before it existed as a philosophy all its own. He repeatedly emphasized the need to look beyond the surface structure and the core or underlying structure of society, for one example, among other things. Collier points out some of the main points about depth realism that make it both useful and also what Marx “was looking for” or you could say, actually used in his theories. First of all, it is counter-phenomenal or in other words it does (or can) go counter to what appears on the surface. It is because of this that depth realism can lead to an emancipation from misleading appearances. It also uses objective criteria rather than subjective. In this way it is able to transform rather than rationalize. Marx referred to science as a force for human emancipation. |
| There are obvious reasons why looking below the surface is important. This is not the only point of Critical Realism, but it is a key one. The comparison to DNA in the first chapter of the Annotations is an excellent one. It is easy for any one of us to know that we can gain far greater and more useful knowledge from one's DNA than simply looking at its outward manifestation in the appearance of that person. Furthermore, Bhaskar, and Marx for that matter, regard what is beneath the surface not merely as static manifestations, but as evolving mechanisms. One illustration, which may not seem to make this point, and probably doesn't refer to all instances, is found in Collier's introduction to Critical Realism. He states, “The strong individual is certainly not always exercising his or her strength, nor is human desire existing only in its satisfaction.” This applies to individuals and societies as well as to its various institutions. Basically, you can't know that an individual is strong simply by observation. First of all, he or she is likely to be clothed based on societal standards, making it difficult to observe strength from the outward appearance. Furthermore, you could perform countless observations of said person and not once witness a perfomance of his or her strength (as in heavy lifting). The same is true for the economy or other aspects of society. |
| Collier refers to the above-mentioned unexercised powers and concludes that they are not mysterious, but can be observed using Bhaskar's methods. He notes that much of the confusion lies in equating power with “to be able to.” In fact, in some languages, such as Spanish, the noun for power and the verb “to be able to” are one and the same, “poder.” He points out that can does not necessarily equal does, yet it is important to know what a particular individual or institution is capable of and not just what the surface has manifested in the past. I have found the latest points here in my writing quite difficult to explain. Perhaps, Hans can give some critique of where I've gone astray. This is a more difficult subject than I had imagined it would be and Collier's introduction is probably not the best analysis, although he does a very good job of simplifying the concepts, I wonder if he's not always right “on the money” in his descriptions of Bhaskar (at least as much as some other works I have glanced at). Perhaps, also my penultimate point will offer some clarification. The philosophy does matter. Bhaskar mainly refers to the natural sciences in his examples, but he believes it could be applied to other areas, such as social sciences. In the realm of political philosophy, for example, if one believes that all that exists is the surface and history is simply just one event after another, then the only thing left to do is, in Colliers words “damn well better than before” (p. 10). However, if society exists on a deeper level, made up of institutions of inner structures which both put forth and limit power, then change, or transformation to these inner structures can actually emancipate. |
| Economic theory, as well as other social thought needs more of this approach. Realism holds that meanings come from contrast. A color is a specific color not just because of what it is, but because of how it contrasts to other colors. A word is not just a simple concept that describes an object, but refers to that object which has certain parts, but is also a part of another structure which is part of another and so on to make up the world we live in (and beyond). Too much modern theory takes concepts based on assumptions and holds them to be absolute. This is where Marx's, and Bhaskar's ideas of regarding the historical context and relevance based on dynamic underlying structures, give clarity to confusion. The most prominent example, in Marx, might be that on the surface, the labor market appears to be fair, yet the deeper structure, upon analysis as given by Marx, is exploitive. |
| Hans: Very good. I don't see any great misunderstandings. |
| Regarding your second paragraph, where you write “the question is not whether to ‘have’ philosophy or no philosphy”: Bhaskar says that every scientist has a philosophy, and if he or she is not aware of it, then it is much easier to have a philosophy which is not very good, (for instance which is in some ways irrealist). |
| I did not understand the following passage: |
| Bhaskar's Critical Realism usurps common thought processes by removing the idols, obstacles, and/or ideologies that block new knowledge. Such obstacles rightfully could be accepted thought or thinkers including Marx himself (or others such as Locke, Bacon, et al) as fallible. |
| Did you mean “usurp”? I changed the word “infallible” into “fallible” because I thought it might be a typo, and I still can't quite make sense of it. |
|
|
|||||