Alexa wrote:
that the interpretation of Marx as driving a wedge between theory and practice
>seems to be a
>misinterpretation of Marx - one that maybe most people are guilty of (I
>know I was until I became friends with a die hard marxist)
>First, I am stumbling over the internal logic -- to me this sentence is
>inconsistent becuase the first phrase implies that marx is for changing
>the world thru philosophy. If so, then how does it follow that this move
>"drives a wedge betweentheory and practice"?
No - this is a problem with *inconsistent* interpretations (mine arising
from poststructuralist concerns, having been alienated by die-hard
Marxists) not misinterpretations. Actually the latter word, in its
implication that some interpretations are 'wrong' is in itself a
consequence of dualism!. What I meant was that Marx didn't believe that the
world can be changed through philosophy and he consequently privileged
praxis (I used both 'practice' and 'praxis', which have similar meanings,
because I had visions of some list members' puzzled brows and was trying to
be helpful). The wedge derives from the subsequent allocation of theory to
the cognitive dimension and praxis to what is 'real' i.e. observable,
tangible - the truth is out there! So I'm not clear what kind of
relationship you are implying when you say:
>
>Second, I should say that Marx recognizes the *distinction* between theory and
>practice, in the same way Dewey does. But he wants them in unity, he
>wants praxis.
because 'wanting them in unity' does not seem to be the same as wanting a
'praxis' that privileges 'practice' (since praxis and practice are
equivalent)
>
>Third, I am confused as to why you are equating driving a wedge between
>theory and practice (which IS praxis) with a wedge between ideology and
>praxis. Marx DID want to explicate the difference between ideology and
>praxis, but never ever did he want a separation of theory and
>practice.
It is true that Marx sought to marry the tradition of German idealism,
especially the philosophy of Hegel, with the scientific materialism of the
radical French Enlightenment, but he empathised more with the latter (see
'The Holy Family', 1844). I am suggesting that this empathy (which I call
privileging) drove the wedge, though perhaps inadvertedly, between theory
and practice since the former is commonly located within idealism and the
latter within materialism. From the point of view of disability studies,
I'm not altogether sure that 'emancipatory' disability research paradigms
actually change those locations or lessen the distance between theory and
practice. What they do is replace one kind of praxis with another usually
oppositional praxis based on struggle.
So yes, I feel that at base Marx did mess up by retaining the Cartesian
dualism between mind and body, and I think that the aversion that some
disability scholars have in dealing with language is a symptom of this
within a disability studies heavily influenced by Marxism. That being said,
I like the Marxist interpretation of religion.
>
>I think that Marxism is less guilty of the charge of dualism than is
>capitalism.
>
Here I don't agree. True, Marx felt that capitalist social relations
frustrated collective self-determination but mobilised the fight against
the alienation caused by the failure to realise capitalism's potential - in
other words he saw capitalism *potentially* as a good thing. However,
though he argued against distributive justice, his own view of the justice
of economic transactions as their correspondence to or functionality for
the prevailing mode of production, included the view that the inhuman
exploitation practised by capitalism against the workers is not unjust, and
does not violate workers' rights. I have a fundamental disagreement with
that tenet.
Hope this is clearer.
Best wishes
Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|