Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
María Pía Lara. Moral Textures Feminist Narratives in The Public Sphere (Meyer, Stephen)

María Pía Lara. Moral Textures Feminist Narratives in The Public Sphere (Meyer, Stephen)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 472|Likes:
Published by Cravan
Published by the philosophical magazine 'A Parte Rei'.
Published by the philosophical magazine 'A Parte Rei'.

More info:

Published by: Cravan on Aug 24, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Maria Pia Lara. Moral Textures. Stephan Meyer 
 A Parte Rei. Revista de Filosofía 13
Maria Pia Lara.Moral Textures: feminist narratives in the public sphere
Polity Cambridge 1998
Stephan Meyer 
Maria Pia Lara’s
Moral Textures: feminist narratives in the public sphere
is along overdue and thus most welcome study which bridges the gap between insightsdrawn largely from Jürgen Habermas’ intersubjectivist theory of rationality andaction in the public sphere to literary and cultural studies which are not fixated onthe isolated text. Noises in that direction have been made before, but Lara’s studyis the most extensive to date. Precursors in this line have been tentative remarksby literary theorists
;or philosophers detecting a lurking interest in the aesthetic in Habermas’ writingin the mid eighties
 and more lately feminist theorists who identify the potential derived from linking thegood and the right, private and public, culture and society.
 Lara’s book is unique though in that itcovers these aspects in their interrelatedness, in greater depth, and with its main empirical referenceanchored in feminism. As the subtitle suggests, she specifically concentrates on women’s life writingand its impact on the public sphere. The main theoretical building blocks in her argument besidesHabermas are Arendt (minus Heidegger), Ricoeur, Wellmer, Nussbaum, and Habermas’ sympatheticfeminist critics, to wit Benhabib and Fraser.The book consists of articles which previously appeared in various publications, with some of themprinted here for the first time in English, and some new chapters written specifically for this occasion.As the articles are however reworked and the arguments cross-referenced, the book is not merely acollage, but unfolds a larger picture. In a two-phase thrust, Lara first traces the shift from the aestheticto the moral, and then from the moral to the political spheres. Thus she draws an extended trajectoryin the life of (auto)biographical narratives, beginning with the writing of a narrative of the self andterminating in changes initiated in political institutions. Tracking the production and reception of feminist narratives she makes halt at the author reflecting on, and organising her experiences, the 
Peter Bürger 
Theorie der Avantgarde
(Frankfurt an Main: Suhrkamp, 1974) and ‘Kunst und Rationalität’ in AxelHonneth et al
Zwischenbetrachtungen in Prozeß der Aufklärung 
(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989);Patrocinio P. Schweickart ‘Reading ourselves: Toward a feminist theory of reading’ in Elaine Showalter (ed.)
Speaking of Gender 
(NY: Routledge, 1989); Terry Eagleton
The ideology of the aesthetic 
(Oxford: Blackwell,1990), p. 39.
David Ingram
Habermas and the dialectic of reason
(Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1993), pp. xvii – xx); Albrecht Wellmer 
The persistence of modernity: essays on aesthetics, ethics, and  postmodernism
(Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT,
For example in the collection edited by Johanna Meehan
Feminists read Habermas
(NY: Routledge, 1995).
Maria Pia Lara. Moral Textures. Stephan Meyer 
 A Parte Rei. Revista de Filosofía 13
http://serbal.pntic.mec.es/~cmunoz11/index.html2text, the reading individual, different reading publics, civil society and the political public, alwayskeeping in mind that these are not discrete entities.While Habermas’ hovering presence in the background is always felt, Lara departs from him at varioussignificant points. The first distinction is in her focus on culture, and the cultural twist she gives to thenotion of illocutionary force as the result of reading Habermas in an Arendtian light (12). She arguesthat this shift to a more cultural understanding of communicative action corrects Habermas’ failure toaccount for the mediation between the good life and justice (170). Whereas traditional speech acttheory takes single sentences as the bearers of illocutionary force, Lara uses the term illocutionaryforce more widely for the impact of whole narratives on the symbolic domain. The second distinction isa result of the first. Lara holds that ‘cultural space’ constitutes ‘an arena where societies can changetheir self-understandings precisely because moral, aesthetic and political issues are intertwined’ (170).Whereas Habermas earlier insisted on a clean cut between the moral and the ethical, and the moralwas excluded from intersubjective rational scrutiny, Lara notes the shift in
Between Facts and Norms
according to which deliberation is possible about the interpretation of needs and desires, and in whichthe law operates as mediating transformer between the two (34). Her own position is however toemphasise the role of social movements and culture in this mediation, and as domains in which notonly notions of justice, but also notions of the good life are intersubjectively challenged. This shift fromsocial action to culture however brings its own problems regarding accounts given of causality andaction as I point out below. Whereas her notion of illocutive force is illuminating in explaining theimpact that narratives have on the symbolic resources at our disposal, unfortunately Lara’s ownneglect of Habermas’ speech act theory leaves a certain potential untapped. This has twoconsequences: firstly, like most critics, who merely follow Habermas in this, she fails to inquire into thevalidity claim intelligibility (
) which, so Habermas, deals with the appropriateness of aspeech system to the interpretation of needs.
Secondly, the neglect of Habermas’ speech act theorywith its single sentence bias, means that the gap between illocutive force on the micro level of thesentence and illocutive force on the macro level of narratives remains unclosed, and the transitionfrom illocutive force from sentence to text unexplained.While reproducing in her work the lacuna around the validity claim intelligibility in Habermas’ writing,Lara greatly improves on another silence, namely the expressivistic aspect of communication.Habermas distinguishes between constatives, regulatives, and expressives aligning these withtheoretical-scientific, moral-legal, and aesthetic-practical claims, but focuses his attention on theregulatives at the cost of the constative and the expressive for themselves, and in their connection toeach other. Lara’s aim is to illuminate the major role played by the expressive in the ‘creation,expansion and self-understanding of the identities of social actors in the public sphere’ (50). Arguingwith Wellmer (who is closer to Adorno), against Habermas, she notes that art is not ‘the opposite of the rational’ but ‘a specific form of rationality: expressive rationality’ (53). In the same way as public 
Habermas, ‘Wahrheitstheorien‘ in
Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984, p. 176.
Maria Pia Lara. Moral Textures. Stephan Meyer 
 A Parte Rei. Revista de Filosofía 13
http://serbal.pntic.mec.es/~cmunoz11/index.html3communication and intersubjectivity guarantee the rationality of ethics, it also makes it possible for usto view ‘aesthetics as a form of rationality,’ and to detect a ‘dynamic flow between the moral and theaesthetic dimensions,’ which takes the form of ‘growing subjectivities’ (53). In both art and thereceiving subject there is a ‘simultaneous expansion of boundaries’ (56), or in Wellmer’s words: ‘”thereflexive opening-up of literary forms of representation triggers a playful to and fro betweenidentification and differentiation on the part of the reader, which effectively works toward a genuineexpansion of subjective boundaries”’ (56). There is thus a correlation between the modern notion of the subject as autonomous and authentic and the role of modern art in opening the subject to newexperiences thereby expanding her boundaries (55).Insisting on the integration of the world of art into the life of the recipient, Lara holds that participants indiscourses about the rightness of a work of art have to bring their experience to the evaluation bymobilising it into arguments: ‘In aesthetic discourse, the truth-potential of art and its truth-claims areunderstood only when we appeal to the various dimensions of truth in the experiences of individuals, intheir transformations and in their changing ways of perceiving and interpreting themselves’ (58). Butthis individual reception is not the end of the line. Life narrative understood as performative dialoguestake place ‘simultaneously in the public sphere and in the individual’s reception of literary works, whichare inextricably fused in the cultural domain’ (59). So, once integrated into the context of a life of thereading individual, and into the cultural and public spheres, in which several individuals interactcommunicatively, an interconnection between the aesthetic and the ethical results. This connectionbetween art and life seems to me to call for further clarification, necessitated by, amongst other things,terminological ambiguities which go back to Habermas’ writing. While the expressive validity claim issometimes connected to authentic living, in others, it is connected to artistic authenticity.
 AlthoughLara’s point is that the two are related when integrated in the life of an individual or in the culturaldomain, on the whole makes sense, it seems to me necessary that what threatens to be more than aterminological ambiguity needs to be sorted out in order to avoid conflation rather than correlation. Inthis regard following up Welsch’s revival of Baumgarten’s use of the term aesthetic might be promisingin clarifying these interconnections.
Although Lara departs from Habermas in relating the normative to the aesthetic, she does not mean itas an erasure of the distinction between the aesthetic and the ethical, or as the aestheticisation of themoral sphere. She seeks rather to illuminate the interconnection between them (11), thus avoidingHabermas’ criticism of the avant-garde which fails to distinguish between different logics and criteria of evaluation for art and ethics, as well as for art and life. Because of this, she rejects Taylor’s
mixture of the aesthetic and the moral spheres,’ demanding instead an account of the ‘translation between one validity sphere or another’ (125). What she finds lacking in Taylor’s 
Compare figures 16 and 19 in Habermas
The theory of communicative action
vol. I (Cambridge: Polity, 1986),pp. 328 and 334.
Wolfgang Welsch
 Ästhetisches Denken
(Stuttgart: Reclam, 1990).

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->