Would you say that Kuhn is a critical theorist dialoguing with the "oppressed" community of traditional (normal) scientists?
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
good metaphor, lily. although, i have my reservations about the whole "false consciousness" formula - there seems to be no place for agency of the oppressed, i.e. the possibility that the oppressed posses active understanding of the nature of their "oppression." is action the only proof there is understanding? and, in relation to that, can understanding be achieved only through a critical theorist explaining to the oppressed what is going on in their lives? to my mind, the answer to both these questions is no.
Is it that critical theory necessitates false consciousness or that false consciousness necessitates critical theory… or neither in terms of necessity? I too have some issues with Fay’s autocratic style of presenting critical theory (after all, he is a man of the old style, despite a newer vision), but in the end I think his positioning of critical theory allows for some agency of the oppressed, as he talks about “self-understanding” and “newly found self-understanding,” which in my mind does not assume imposition (or liberation) on part of the critical theorist. Even more so in Lather’s methodological consideration of critical theory, according to which (quoting Gramsci, of course) “every teacher is always a student and every pupil a teacher” and the “theorist/researcher” and the “oppressed” build critical theory together. I don’t know if action is the only way to showcase understanding of the oppression… or is the lack of action a (symbolic) action in itself… But I do think, however, that both Fay and Lather imply that a mindful consideration of the social order and its crises are necessary in critical theory. In this sense, isn’t it possible for the “oppressed” to be (or become, or be in the becoming of (to stretch Hegel)) their own critical theorists? In that sense, perhaps crises empower agency and “revolution” (which is what I think Marx implied and Kuhn certainly suggested)…
2 comments:
good metaphor, lily. although, i have my reservations about the whole "false consciousness" formula - there seems to be no place for agency of the oppressed, i.e. the possibility that the oppressed posses active understanding of the nature of their "oppression." is action the only proof there is understanding? and, in relation to that, can understanding be achieved only through a critical theorist explaining to the oppressed what is going on in their lives? to my mind, the answer to both these questions is no.
Is it that critical theory necessitates false consciousness or that false consciousness necessitates critical theory… or neither in terms of necessity? I too have some issues with Fay’s autocratic style of presenting critical theory (after all, he is a man of the old style, despite a newer vision), but in the end I think his positioning of critical theory allows for some agency of the oppressed, as he talks about “self-understanding” and “newly found self-understanding,” which in my mind does not assume imposition (or liberation) on part of the critical theorist. Even more so in Lather’s methodological consideration of critical theory, according to which (quoting Gramsci, of course) “every teacher is always a student and every pupil a teacher” and the “theorist/researcher” and the “oppressed” build critical theory together. I don’t know if action is the only way to showcase understanding of the oppression… or is the lack of action a (symbolic) action in itself… But I do think, however, that both Fay and Lather imply that a mindful consideration of the social order and its crises are necessary in critical theory. In this sense, isn’t it possible for the “oppressed” to be (or become, or be in the becoming of (to stretch Hegel)) their own critical theorists? In that sense, perhaps crises empower agency and “revolution” (which is what I think Marx implied and Kuhn certainly suggested)…
Post a Comment