The AntiKritik Handbook

The Anti-Kritik Handbook by Roger Solt
Copyright © 2004 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

First Edition Printed In The United States Of America

For information on Paradigm Debate Products:


P.O. Box 2095 Denton, Texas 76202 Toll-Free 800-837-9973 Fax 940-380-1129 Web / E-mail

All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is a violation of United States and international copyright laws.



The AntiKritik Handbook

The Anti-Kritik Handbook
- language kritiks - pure philosophical kritiks (metaphysical and epistemological) - practical philosophical kritiks (moral and political) - accompanying theoretical arguments


- characteristic beliefs of the modern world view - characteristic beliefs of postmodernism - historical development of modern and postmodern perspectives


A. B. C. The case for the kritik General tactics General arguments against the kritik - not germane in policy debate - some assumptions necessary - no alternative - conditionality - indictments of postmodernism and deconstruction - answers to the case for the kritik Generic answers to language kritiks Generic answers to metaphysical kritiks Generic answers to epistemological kritiks Generic answers to moral and political kritiks Answers to specific kritiks 1. Reason 2. Causality 3. Foucault 4. Heidegger/posthumanism 5. Normativity 6. Statism 7. Critical legal studies 8. Feminism 9. Anthropocentrism 10. Narrative 11. Non-violence 12. Cultural Relativism 13. Nuclearism 14. Threat Construction 15. Pragmatism 16. Terror Talk Kritiks of Environmentalism and International Relations - Deep Ecology - Social Ecology - Ecofeminism - Heidegger - Kritiks of International Relations Realism and Liberalism - Radical Environmentalism Counter-Kritiks

D. E. F. G. H.





You will also find plenty of evidence indicting the method and assumptions of the kritik itself--criticisms of postmodern philosophy and the process of "deconstruction. but they do seem to go the heart of how the kritik is employed in practice. Though successfully argued in many debates. while they write in English also seem to be employing another language. it will detail some of the real world intellectual background from which the kritik emerged. Kritiks sometimes embody powerful arguments. Simply to gather evidence on every kritik which is relevant to a particular topic and which has actually been run would be a daunting enterprise. the kritik seems extremely disappointing. The result was a new form of debate argument: the "kritik. The key to coping with the kritik. Neutrality about the kritik is rare. and the attempt to introduce a new argument framework into debate has certainly stimulated thought. The evidence included in this handbook performs several functions. The major thinkers from whom the kritik most directly derives--Heidegger. The kritik. So it is no wonder that the kritik has proved disconcerting: it attacks some deeply held but seldom questioned assumptions. Virtually any argument in debate could be presented as a kritik. Many of the issues which the kritik raises are interesting. I have yet to hear what I would consider a good kritik debate.The Anti-Kritik Handbook Countering The Kritik: An Introductory Essay INTRODUCTION The kritik began its controversial career in academic debate at the University of Northern Iowa inter-collegiate debate tournament in September 1991. but even more importantly it attempts to offer a general framework within which to approach kritiks. shock that some assumptions which seem so self-evident are actually being questioned and confusion with regard to what the particular kritik is actually saying. The word "kritik" itself is a German term corresponding to the word "critique" in the English language. and it does so in a language which often seems impenetrable to those outside its inner circle. This said. and there are probably millions of implicit assumptions made within debates which could be kritiked. Furthermore. the kritik has remained tremendously controversial. this introduction hopes to further a process of "demystifying" the kritik. many of the authors quoted in kritik debates. proponents of the kritik sometimes seem literally to speak a different language. and have even disputed the value of engaging in value-laden policy argument at all. but to deal with the kritik on any but the most superficial level requires at least some familiarity with this body of thought. In addition. of course. highly principled objections to the kritik (some more theoretical objections will come later). Moreover. the kritik i . teams from the University of Texas combined what was essentially a critical legal studies critique of rights with a theoretical argument concerning the nature of fiat." Immediately controversial. have indicted a focus on human welfare. At that tournament. I do not believe that the kritik has been an unadulterated evil. To anticipate all potential kritiks is impossible. Foucault and Derrida are difficult and problematic even for professional philosophers. have denied the validity of causal predictions. These are not. and use of the kritik spread rapidly from squad to squad. Most importantly. Many of those who have lost to the kritik have undoubtedly not known what hit them. You will find many cards answering particular kritiks. These arguments are then presented at a rate which makes it difficult to understand even the simplest of arguments. The result is that some extremely cryptic philosophies are selectively reinterpreted (and probably often misinterpreted) by self-interested participants in a competitive activity. the kritik proved even more popular with some segments of the high school circuit than it had been in college. But even more significantly. this introduction will review major arguments both for and against the kritik. perhaps. Finally. an academic jargon derived largely from recent European philosophy. the kritik was also almost immediately successful. such thought must be virtually unintelligible. In terms therefore of its ultimate product. most kritiks embody some characteristic themes and concerns. It will attempt to define and to describe the various kritiks which have been run to date." The goal is to provide evidence and arguments which can be adapted to any kritik and any kind of kritik you may encounter. is understanding. They tend to share a common grounding in what is frequently called "postmodern" thought. Quickly penetrating the high school ranks. This handbook offers numerous arguments against particular kritiks. Fortunately. The use of the German form by kritik proponents is not incidental. Although I find philosophical argument interesting. this kind of difficult philosophical thought does not seem to translate well into the format and conventions of contemporary academic debate. This is because the kritik attacks many of the most deeply held assumptions about both the nature of policy debate and the nature of the contemporary world. it is intended to connote the strangeness and distinctiveness of the argument. then dealing with particular kritiks becomes less daunting and difficult. For those with next to no philosophical background. especially high school debate. Different kritiks (and even kinds of kritiks) proliferated. I continue to believe that the kritik is on balance bad for debate. The kritik has perhaps its main root in a tradition of European philosophy which is not easy to comprehend (nor do I pretend to be an expert on contemporary European thought). From a personal standpoint. Different kritiks have argued for the rejection of reason. But you will also find many cards indicting the general approach which the kritik embodies. Once one understands the intellectual background to the kritik. is an extremely fluid form of argument. I think. They also tend to fit within recognizable categories to which various kinds of generic answers are possible. but often their success rests in important measure on a combination of confusion and shock. after all. and I do not pretend to be neutral on the subject myself.

This is. to put it another way. The kritik is not totally non-comparative. But it now seems clear that to deal with the kritik requires a serious and systematic effort. a kritik which was seen as functioning within the normal policy framework would be dealt with essentially like any other policy argument. it suggests that the kritik is a non-policy argument. Since they see it as properly a highly fluid argument form. This is not invariably true. the main emphasis of the handbook is to make arguments against particular kritiks on their merits and against the philosophical assumptions which they employ. the kritik may represent (when combined with other positions) a kind of waffling between contradictory world views. they see definition as a restraint on its potential evolution. with the reservation that the kritik is an evolving theory. Some kritiks. wish to misrepresent the views of kritik proponents). A "kritik. is often just a way of recasting the old anarchy counterplan--in a way which avoids normal standards of negative competitiveness. it is enough to note that the kritik frequently operates in just such a way." but they are not necessarily "kritiks" in the technical debate sense. And even the stock issues paradigm allowed the negative the option of straight refutation--to simply indict the affirmative case's internal coherence without necessarily supporting an alternative. the kritik is. More broadly. For kritik proponents. but merely needed to persuade the judge that he or she should not endorse the resolution. and indeed there have been some affirmative kritiks. it is profoundly liberating to question such assumptions. the kritik attacks usually unstated assumptions. an alternative theory about some aspect of the world seems to bee enough. in response to a rights advantage. both attacking the affirmative's framework and arguing against the affirmative's plan within that same framework. But. in part at least. Kritik opponents. which it is willing to compare to the affirmative's theory. the negative did not need to defend an alternative (though that usually helped). in at least a broad sense. First. Third. the kritik is usually an argument made by the negative." that is. the free self-determining individual. actually exists. a definition is useful--it helps to pin it down. Or. DEFINING THE KRITIK Proponents of the kritik are reluctant to ascribe to it a formal definition. The kritik of statism. debate has always possessed critiques--every affirmative case is a critique of the status quo and every lNC a critique of the affirmative. Fourth. Whether it is appropriate to both attack a basic philosophical position and then to proceed to make negative arguments within the framework which has been attacked is a question for later discussion. however. So. the kritik might question whether the "autonomous subject. This view of the negative's role. after all. it is only if it challenges that framework that it becomes distinctive or acquires theoretical interest. fiat. merely that it's an idea we can now consider on its merits. and according the advocates of the kritik. the ANTI-kritik handbook. Again. it would seem to be functioning in the normal policy framework. of course. This handbook and this essay are. a conditional argument. And while I continue to believe that there are some compelling arguments for why most kritiks are not germane in conventional policy debate. for example. The affirmative. comparative policy debate. The policy making paradigm. But the fact that the kritik may offer an alternative theory does not mean that it offers an alternative policy. Most resolutions call for an action. For hypothesis testers. fifth. whereas the negative can conceivably negate the resolution merely by justifying a suspended judgment or by negating the affirmative case while not defending a constructive alternative of its own. a related point is that the kritik rarely embraces a policy alternative. the fact that the affirmative assumption has been proven does not mean that its plan is a good idea. for example. I have learned a lot from thinking about and trying to respond to the kritik. Bill Shanahan. attacking a (usually implicit) assumption of an opponent's analysis. It makes no real attempt at a balanced exposition (though I do not. These assumptions in many ways structure our world. attempts to do just that. This is not a statement which all kritik proponents would accept." however seems distinctive precisely because it steps outside the normal policy framework. TYPES OF KRITIKS ii .The Anti-Kritik Handbook has induced me to become more familiar with a body of contemporary thought that I had largely neglected previously. Instead. insists that the kritik can function both within and outside the policy framework. has generally insisted that both sides defend well-articulated constructive alternatives. a critique is a kind of systematic criticism of a position. it generally attempts to move the debate to a higher (or occasionally a lower) level of abstraction. Jon Brody has argued that believers in liberal humanism and scientific rationalism should welcome the opportunity to defend their core assumptions. whether it be about morals or metaphysics. while I will probably continue to make occasional satiric digs against the kritik. Second. this handbook represents in sum an attempt to take the kritik seriously. This corresponds to a distinction found among some non-debate scholars between internal and external critiques. descriptive and definitional purpose. the kritik will question whether there should be borders (or even a state) at all. I propose the following definition: a kritik is an argument operating outside the framework of normal. For the present. is generally held to be responsible for advocating something--ordinarily a plan--and for upholding the resolution. The claim is made that the kritik functions like a topicality argument. So. generally argue that the counter-theories the kritik may raise are irrelevant unless they are shown to support a specific policy alternative. who is probably the leading pro-kritik theoretician. Language kritiks. For the affirmative to justify some basic assumption is said to be a threshold test which must be met before the specifics of affirmative policy analysis become relevant." In common usage. according to this perspective. in particular would seem to be fair game for either side. But for those trying to respond to the kritik. This tends to force the affirmative into a comparative mode. and conditionality. In that sense. Or. however. Arguments within the policy framework may still be "critiques. it necessarily offers some theory. were the kritik countering explicit claims made by the affirmative. it should be added. I wish to highlight several points about this definition. That is it is made with other inconsistent arguments. Whereas the affirmative may have argued for a specific immigration policy. seem to function more like conditional counterplans. Finally. however. The problem here may turn in part on two somewhat distinctive meanings of "critique. is not unique to the kritik. opposing what they propose to the status quo. Each of us lives our lives making numerous unexamined assumptions. of course.

purely metaphysical kritiks are rarely run. A common kritik of a term often found in evidence is the kritik of "Islamic fundamentalism. the following argument is made. One might kritik the existence of an objective. it seems better to simply think about them as theory arguments expounding the impact of the other types of kritik. and that autonomous. One is not the same self today that one was yesterday. and therefore that the external world is cast into doubt. There are three main types of language kritiks. Among these is the kritik of cause. But the negative in a debate need not make this final religious retreat from skepticism. epistemology concerns itself with the nature and possibility of knowledge. Third. Second. using. iii . it structures our world view and thereby our actions. Third. if other minds don't exist. One metaphysical kritik involves questioning the idea of the "subject. that eating alleviates hunger or drinking satisfies thirst. Since we only directly experience our own existence. and that categories in general should be regarded as provisional and can sometimes become too rigid. there are language kritiks (sometimes referred to as kritiks of rhetoric). As a minister. The famous question which Berkeley asked is whether when a tree falls in the forest. there are what I would call "pure philosophical" kritiks. I would suppose) to be a "grammatical abomination. it is even more important than policy. This kritik argues that the integrated self is in fact a myth." but since they generally operate in conjunction with other kritiks. an eighteenth century British philosopher. Going along with the kritik of the subject is a kritik of free will. These are sometimes referred to as kritiks of value or as moral and political kritiks. One of the earliest common kritiks centered around the wording of the 1991-92 college topic concerning development assistance to South Asia. Questions of empiricism. human nature. which frequently forms a part of the kritik of normativity. there seems to be some degree of consensus about the various types of kritiks.) Metaphysical kritiks represent a kind of reductio ad absurdum. the categorization of kritiks is something which kritik proponents sometimes resist. The argument made was basically that the term "development." Since the topic embodies such an abomination. He concluded that we have no basis in our experience for concluding that it does. it therefore should be rejected. The second major type of kritik is what I have called pure philosophical kritiks. the rational foundations of knowledge. Other kritiks have been made referring to the language of race. It is concerned with questions such as the existence of God. This kritik derives from another eighteenth century British philosopher. but no one is there. asserts that freedom is an illusion." The argument is that this phrase embodies a derogatory ethnic stereotype. Berkeley had a way out of this dilemma: the omnipresence of God serves to secure an enduring reality whether humans are around or not. Hume noted that we can never directly observe causation. the judge might well wonder what he or she is doing judging this debate. there are what I will call "practical philosophical" kritiks. it is argued. Another kritik of resolutional language has centered on the term "and/or. Rather than unified wholes. Metaphysics involves the first principles of philosophy. First. Since affirmative analysis arguably rests on belief in just such an autonomous individual. as something like "kritiks of the debate process. its case is fundamentally flawed. Indeed. These could be treated as a separate fourth category. and sexual orientation. that all we directly know are our sense experiences. there are kritiks of the language or rhetoric used by the opposing team members themselves. both among proponents and opponents of the strategy. Why are such language kritiks a voting issue? Basically. Another such kritik is directed at "nuspeak " This argues that rhetoric which trivializes the nuclear threat." We have traditionally thought of the subject or self as a unified ego." as embodied in the resolution was inherently ethnocentric. There are basically two subcategories of this type of kritik. and they are likely to stir the greatest resistance among judges. which is both demeaning to a group of people and an intellectually stultifying stereotype. This argument.The Anti-Kritik Handbook As with definition. David Hume. but they remain necessary analytical instruments. The process of categorization is believed to be part of a process of excessive rationalization which the kritik and its intellectual mentors often attack. A kritik of the existence of other minds would also be possible. or the same self in one setting that one is in another. All of that said. for example. a dehumanizing jargon such as "nuking" another country. makes nuclear war more thinkable and therefore more likely. and the nature of being. free will. It should also be noted that some kritiks fit into more than one category. First. If we don't even know that other selves exist. Other metaphysical kritiks are possible to imagine. we can only infer but never positively prove that other selves exist. kritiks which focus on metaphysical questions and kritiks which focus on epistemological issues. suggests just such a kritik. it makes a sound. there are arguments pertaining to the framework of the kritik. A number of examples should help to clarify these distinctions. it should be added that categorization seems to be a necessary tool of human understanding. Whereas metaphysics asks questions about the ultimate nature of reality. then it might be futile to argue about what potentially unreal public actors should do about some alleged problem. To call one part of the world developed and the other undeveloped implies concepts of superiority and inferiority and therefore should be rejected. that it conjures up images of turban-wielding bomb throwers. (Of course. an integrated and autonomous individual." This has been said (by some overly finicky grammarians. and the logical status of morality are all epistemological issues. At the very least. Second. Finally. and the importance of certain categories will certainly change with time. These are sometimes referred to as kritiks of thought or systems of thought. All we can do is to observed repeated sequences of events. but our linguistic patterns can actually be affected. arguments about the nature of fiat and of the debate process. No policy is actually adopted at the end of the debate. In fact. though various kritiks may contain metaphysical elements. radical empiricism of the type proposed by Bishop George Berkeley. language counts for something and should be a factor in the decision calculus. Language matters. external. Arguably. gender. Categories are fluid. there are kritiks of the language embodied in the resolution. Much more common are various epistemological kritiks. In practice. there are kritiks of language found in opponents' evidence. the philosophy of science. material reality. The pure philosophy kritiks question some core philosophical assumptions of an opponent's analysis. people are an ever shifting composite of disparate elements. self-determination is also mythical.

We do not know. as a matter of logical certainty. we falsify the nature of the whole. affirmative analysis relies on reason. however. Sometimes the kritik of statism has taken on an epistemological flavor. have found even this formulation of certainty to be questionable. there are many. There is not. either in reason or experience. Another. A second. there are a number of readily accessible kritiks of science which may be forthcoming at some later date. As French philosopher Michel Foucault argued. once again the pretensions of reason need to be deflated. Inductive reasoning is based on just such a process of repeated observation. therefore I am. this kritik would argue. more pragmatic. Were we to do this. Among these is the argument that reality is socially constructed. A normative question asks what should be done. just one kritik of reason. thus. has been labeled "posthumanism. These kritiks are obviously closer to policy debate in the way in which it has commonly been practiced. Nonetheless. thus. But if in fact as the negative argues. If they are proven untrue (or least cast into serious doubt). He thought that he had found such a foundation in his own intuitive certainty of his own existence. It has been argued that the affirmative assumes that the state is a rational actor. Feminist and environmentalist kritiks of science are also available. A number of essentially ethical or moral kritiks have proven popular. Finally. Why should these highly abstract philosophical kritiks constitute voting issues in debate? At least two answers seem to be possible. from the perspective of the so-called deep ecologists. also associated with Hume. generated many critics. Nonetheless. assumes that iv . and this is an attitude which. answer is that policy questions rest ultimately on these metaphysical and epistemological assumptions. One of these is the kritik of anthropocentism. the state's behavior is irrational and unpredictable. closely related kritik. A second epistemological kritik takes issue with the idea of reason or rationality. But the idea that reason is purely instrumental has also been subject to critique. from religious conservatives to romantic writers to postmodern philosophers. This view. and outlook. as opposed to the more intuitive and empathetic female ways of knowing. by focusing solely on human welfare preserves the anthropocentric focus. our categories attempt to break apart an indissoluble unity. there are no facts. then there is no basis for concluding that the affirmative plan will make things better rather than worse. we would reject the narrow self-centered concerns of humans and become posthumanists. and empathy. values are merely subjective preferences about which reason ultimately has nothing to say. At its worst." According to this position:. As the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche suggested. the romantic poet Wordsworth noted that "We murder to dissect. Environmentalists tend to disparage the way in which science analyzes the holistic natural world into component parts.The Anti-Kritik Handbook for example. Though I have not yet heard them formally argued in debate. holds that reason is purely instrumental. A third ethical kritik is the popular kritik of normativity. purely instrumental reason undermines imagination. Science is said to be a masculine way of viewing the world. And speech which we define as "not reason". only interpretations. it is said. then there is no basis left for voting affirmative. they still operate at a relatively high level of philosophical abstraction. In intellectual history. Humans are not in fact. The third basic type of kritik is what I have called a practical philosophical kritik. it might be argued these are the most fundamental of issues. in establishing the category of "reason" we create simultaneously the counter-category of unreason or madness. Though certainly not the only rationalistic period in human history. As the kritik of reason goes in debate. Instead of focusing on human being. Most of the world's problems are linked to human self--centeredness. the Enlightenment was definitely an era in which reason was venerated and believed to hold a solution to many if not all social problems. the argument follows that if we cannot logically make causal predictions. It is often said that modern philosophy begins with Rene Descartes in the early 1600s. As applied to debate. "I think. intuition. It is argued that a narrowly focused. his more recent followers might add. But to raise normative questions in a policy context. we then feel free to ignore. however." More recent philosophers." This kritik derives from the work of German philosopher Martin Heidegger. and have opted instead for a doctrine commonly called "antifoundationalism." And. we need to become ecocentric or biocentric. the basis of affirmative analysis has been undermined and there is no reason to vote affirmative. Among the common arguments directed against reason are the following. Rather than dealing with questions of pure reason. Another argument is that reason is impotent when it comes to moral questions. attention should be directed to the nature of Being in general. Heidegger's argument (and his technophobia) in many ways parallels that of the deep ecologists. it may lead to atrocities such as the holocaust in which highly "rational" and efficient techniques are employed in the pursuit of morally barbarous ends. therefore. such as metaphysics and epistemology. Furthermore. these kritiks deal with the questions of practical reasons in particular questions of ethics and politics. In an early nineteenth century critique of the scientific approach to nature. uniquely important. This faith in reason has. the observed sequence of events might just be coincidental and not causally necessary. and their tendency to self-aggrandizement is in fact the root of many of the earth's environmental problems. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are commonly referred to as the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. then there is no reason to believe that the affirmative plan will actually solve the problem to which is it is addressed. there are no certain foundations for knowledge. that the future will repeat the past. and the unexamined life is not worth living. Descartes' philosophical quest was to find some absolutely certain foundation for knowledge. The affirmative. Science is therefore wrong in claiming to reveal an objective external reality. over time. An anthropocentric view is one which centers on humans. The way we view the world is merely a function of social mores. Reason is an instrument of domination and oppression. First. causal relations and inductive reasoning remain logically uncertain. is fundamentally perverse. Rather than being anthropocentric. one whose behavior is predictable. but reason is inherently flawed. it is argued that reason lacks firm foundations. in the process of dissecting. training. that it can not validate its own first principles.

In contrast. Finally. centers around questions of moral rights and wrongs more than it does on the actual consequences of banning abortion. The normativity kritik questions just this assumption. Even more influential was Karl Marx's "kritik" of rights. Finally. politically efficacious beings. Essentially political kritiks are also among the most common. related kritik. are sometimes treated as if they were a species of ethical kritik. CLS authors such as Georgetown's Mark Tushnet argue. Rights claims. therefore every policy which employs the state should be rejected." Historically. it excludes and marginalizes "other" people. there is no real value in doing so. It basically argues that the state never succeeds in what it sets out to accomplish. Its distinctive feature was that it provided a central vantage point from which all v . the appeal to rights is merely an ideological mask for class oppression. Related to statism is a kritik very popular on the high school immigration topic. that is. The idea is that the rule of law. Another popular kritik has been the kritik of statism. is that the ethic of justice is excessively legalistic and rule-bound. I believe that this is a misunderstanding. is far older. for example.The Anti-Kritik Handbook humans are free. but so perhaps would be a state of world government. Another. and sexually hierarchical society. Another kritik which has gained some currency is one which indicts the idea of "the national interest. they need to be rethought. Deontological arguments can function within the realm of policy discourse. And in the process actual human interests and experiences are neglected. Furthermore. Foucault argues that power is diffused throughout society. Sincere historically women have been placed at a tremendous disadvantage. it isn't clear that it is worth taking on the added theoretical baggage to run these arguments as kritiks. To ask what should be done. One problem with this kritik is that it offered no clear alternative to the present system. that is. are inherently indeterminate. The implication of this is that political action may be futile. a kritik of borders. Anarchy would be a world without borders. Power has traditionally been conceived of as hierarchical. And whether or not they are presented as kritiks does not really alter their logical force very much. in fact merely masks the ongoing oppressiveness of an economically racially. Thus. and the workplace (presumably even the family). supposedly neutral legal rules merely lock into place preexisting inequalities. Social control is not produced primarily by the central authority of the state but rather is supported by a type of disciplinary power spread throughout the society. the school. The prison is an example of disciplinary power. the kritik goes. CLS also provides the basis for another common kritik." The argument." This means that rights which are merely empty abstractions. however. one of the rule of law. are treated as if they were actually something real. And if deontology is proven to be the proper moral perspective. has been labelled "the panopticon. The abortion debate. Critical legal studies became popularized in the 1970s and 1980s. conceived of as a neutral and objective arbiter of differences. MacKinnon is especially critical of the idea of neutral rule of law. The argument here is similar to the argument against rights. that its efforts are as likely to be counterproductive as successful. According to Marx. Borders inherently limit free movement of people and generally tend to reinforce inequality. then a deontological argument is almost always by nature absolute. regardless of its consequences. Ostensibly neutral procedures and rights. but it goes even further. In other words. that is. The CLS kritik in many ways parallels the Marxist. The critique of rights. The relational feminism of Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan contrasts the female "ethic of care" with the essentially masculine "ethic of justice. merely masks the reality of our political impotence. the notion that the state is neither a rational nor a predictable actor has been discussed above as an example of an epistemological kritik. so. While one could certainly construct and label a deontological argument as a kritik." especially in contrast to "foreign" interests. also based on Foucault. state action should be rejected. with the state seen as the central focus of power. attacking power in one form merely causes it to shift to another manifestation and locale. The affirmative employs the state. whereas the ethic of care is empathetic and compassionate. In its most common incarnation it seems to be essentially a recasting of the familiar anarchy counterplan. at least in its extreme formulation. claims that something should be done because it is morally right. one rights claim can always be countered by another rights claim in a way which is ultimately irresolvable. Though both CLS and feminist arguments against rights and the rule of law have been made as kritiks. once again. And even within the present nation state system. Feminist perspectives also have provided the basis for a number of kritiks of the political order. the panopticon was a model prison designed by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham. a regime of completely open borders would be possible. it need not be cast into the form of a kritik in order to be a voting issue. there have been a number of kritiks based on Michel Foucault's theories concerning the nature of social power. The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham was a forceful critic of the doctrines of natural rights popular in the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. arguing that people are in fact determined and that political power is really held not by the people but by impersonal bureaucratic forces not subject to democratic control. Another version of the statism kritik focuses on the effectiveness of state action. they have probably been made more often simply as policy arguments either turning or neutralizing affirmative value claims. Probably the earliest kritik was a kritik of rights grounded in a perspective known as critical legal studies. of which University of Michigan law professor Catherine MacKinnon is probably the most prominent advocate. but the state is inherently oppressive and destructive. though of course their impact could be articulated both in kritik and non-kritik terms. The kritik of borders thus seems to have provided a way for the negative to covertly run three radically utopian conditional counterplans in the same round. the asylum. Other kritiks derive from a school of legal thought known as feminist jurisprudence. This argument has taken several forms. the emphasis on rights leads to a process of "reification. Deontological arguments. such as the first amendment and the right to privacy are in effect used to preserve male dominance. but so is the hospital. Given this. therefore. Focus on the national interest (assuming that such a concept is even coherent) tends to be xenophobic.

What postmodernism asserts. advocates of the kritik have come to recognize at least some of this. while this tentative endorsement may not be of earth-shattering significance. the kritik also has some affinities to hypothesis testing. It became clear fairly quickly. The postmodern. all that happens is the judge makes a tentative endorsement of one side or the other. commonly termed "postmodernism. especially in terms of how it relates to the idea of fiat. His current position is apparently that a vote for the kritik is essentially a decision to "rethink" the idea or assumption in question. neopragmatism. the kritik appears to be an attempt to introduce some of the traditional problems of philosophy into debate. In addition to a specific kritik of one of these three types (or some hybrid thereof). as noted above. "The Praxis of Kritiks.) Rather than embodying a desire for disinterested truth. knowledge is merely the perspective which those with power succeed in imposing on everyone else. But. Another alternative framework for evaluating the kritik has recently been advanced by Bill Shanahan. Over time. these two concepts have been wrongly separated. can only be understood in relationship to the modern. is that the modern age (or modernity) has ended or is coming to an end. indeed. Ryan Goodman. The kritik also has affinities to trends in contemporary politics. Jon Brody. more particularly. which Foucault labels as "the repressive hypothesis. And. Aspects of the round such as the participants' language also help to structure their view of the world. it therefore seems. argued by Jon Brody. the panopticon serves as a symbol of liberal reformism run amok. the Middle Ages. In fact. especially the politics of the university campus. In effect. It is probably most readily grasped as a historical concept. The initial "kritik of fiat" argued that fiat is utopian.) Speaking more broadly. the kritik is part of the Austin sound--it was initially developed by coaches and debaters at the University of Texas. is only the label of the argument. For Foucault. they are not the only thing that matters. Tabula rasa judging is an attempt to minimize judge intervention. (Foucault. Post-structuralism and deconstruction. it basically accepts all claims made in a debate on their face until they have been answered. One result of a tabula rasa (or blank slate) approach is that many arguments tend to be labelled as "voting issues. therefore is the period coming after the modern age. THE KRITIK'S INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND In terms of its immediate genealogy." One aspect of political correctness has been a great increase in sensitivity to language which might be disparaging to some group. since we commonly equate the modern with the contemporary--that is. Affirmative analysis is said to rest on this false distinction between knowledge and power.The Anti-Kritik Handbook of the prisoners could be observed. And because no policy is adopted." (Postmodernism. another University of Texas debater has emerged as one of the kritik's leading theorists and practitioners. and the state are all familiar philosophical concerns. the kritik takes arguments which would not ordinarily be absolute within the traditional policy framework and devises a framework intended to make them into voting issues. and critical legal vi ." published in the 1993 Debater's Research Guide. and in many ways as a reaction against the modern. and the modern age. the kritik brings together a number of intellectual tendencies both within and outside of debate. that the object of the kritik of fiat was something of a strawman. Probably the most influential of the kritik's developers has been Bill Shanahan. According to Foucault. knowledge and power are inextricably tied. We will discuss later on whether or not this approach really disposes of the "no alternative" problem." To reject the repressive hypothesis therefore requires rejecting the affirmative. This. ends up designing more efficient ways to exercise social control. arguments are frequently made pertaining to the framework of the kritik. No one ever really thought that real policies were put into place at the end of the debate. and others appear to have been important as well in the kritik's initial development. In its substance it attacks the time honored distinction between knowledge and power. (The two best articles defending the kritik with which I am familiar are Shanahan's "Kritik of Thinking. both because it sometimes focuses on resolutional rather than specific plan wording and because it possesses an orientation toward academic scholarship rather than practical political concerns. Furthermore. Nor is postmodernism a completely unified set of beliefs." available on Harvex. One approach. Western civilization has passed through three stages: antiquity (the classic Greeks and Romans). Within debate itself the kritik seems mainly to represent an extension of the tabula rasa perspective toward judging. however. however. More recently. The assumption has been that power is always oppressive and knowledge always liberating. many if not most kritiks appear to be grounded in a specific philosophical perspective. the actual effects on the in-round participants are more important than any policy conclusions which might be reached. Postmodernity. of course. This is paradoxical. is that while policy arguments may matter. There is a good deal of intellectual background to be grasped in order to really understand where the kritik is coming from. radical feminism. and therefore should also count in the decision calculus. it has some importance because our political judgments do matter--they constitute forces in process of democratic decision-making and they structure how we respond to our environment. Over the past few years.) "Postmodernism" is on its face a fairly ambiguous term. Similarly. and Brody's essay. In the traditional division. But. Foucault believes that knowledge is merely another form of power. this seems to be an attempt to redefine the kritik as an alternative (such as a plan or a counterplan) which one can vote for at the end of the round. we customarily think of ourselves as living in modern times. to say that something comes after the modern age says nothing particular about what that something is. that no policy is really enacted at the end of the round. and their arguments concerning the nature of fiat have been refined. Bentham a great liberal social reformer. has had a good deal of influence on the politics of political correctness." which would not ordinarily be considered to be so. it definitely departs from the prevailing policy advocacy paradigm. one of the hottest topics of academic controversy has been the idea of "political correctness. in part. however. Most significantly. The kritik may also embody vestiges of the old stock issues approach of straight refutation. in turn. however. though Joel Rollins. uses a composite term "knowledge/power" to indicate this unity. Kritiks of language obviously parallel this political correctness concern. Questions of cause and induction. rationality. For Foucault this seems to demonstrate the limits of liberal reformism--that is always ends up reinforcing the repression it attempts to alleviate.

This empirical orientation arguably begins with Sir Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. The utilitarians. he saw his own philosophy as the capstone of human thought.) A similar dialectical process occurs in terms of human history. so in effect it becomes a new thesis. utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. which attacked the central authority of the Catholic Church. such as Bentham and Mill. so superior understanding is gained if the two ideas can be combined to form a synthesis. One begins with an idea (a thesis). it seems necessary to offer some discussion of the general world view of modernity. beginning with the certainty of his own existence. Not surprisingly. or antithesis. (Hegel himself may not have developed the dialectic in precisely these terms. follow in this empiricist tradition. its progressive enlargement and completion. An important expression of this attitude is the modern emphasis on individual rights. Related especially to empiricism is a fifth characteristically modern idea: science. the eighteenth century poet put it: "The proper study of mankind is man. Hegel's philosophy is perhaps the most systematic expression of this idea. the continental rationalists begins with Descartes in the 1630s and continues through Spinoza and Leibniz. The new synthesis however. This is the idea that values and standards should apply to all people equally (or perhaps even to all rational or sentient beings). In terms of politics. That is. In addition to offering a theory about history. much of subsequent nineteenth philosophy. the terms in which his philosophy has commonly been understood. but modernity has been the period in which it flourished. he saw the early nineteenth century German state as the perfect embodiment of reason. This individualistic emphasis is in part an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation. This antithesis too. and it continued at least into the twentieth century. Still. In terms of intellectual matters. is still likely to leave something out. the end of history had been reached. postmodernism can be understood as a criticism of and alternative to the prevailing philosophy of modernity. the dialectic occurs as follows. it is a somewhat ambivalent one because he believed that as of the early nineteenth century (the period at which he was writing). This belief dominated the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thus. the city or the state) is what is generally said to separate the modern age from antiquity. indeed. Descartes believed that merely through reflection he could establish various intellectually foundational truths. Furthermore. A sixth. Furthermore. another synthesis and so on. a view that not too many would embrace today. from Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard to Marx and Nietzsche represents a militant reaction against Hegel. Kant argues that the fulfillment of the categorical imperative requires that one always treat others as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism seeks to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. He universalizes the principle of respect for each individual. to understand both postmodernism and the kritik. generating a further antithesis. as do such twentieth century analytical philosophers as Bertrand Russell and A. The view that human history is essentially progressive. The seventeenth century was in particular a great period of scientific discovery. A third typical attitude of modernity is a belief in universalism. The first school. If the Middle Ages was the age of faith. asserts that it is morally essential to act as if the principle on the basis of which you are acting would be universalized. the Renaissance and the period which followed it placed far greater emphasis on secular. this view states that the world is rationally knowable through observation and reflection. related idea is progress. but for the utilitarian overall utility is merely the sum of all individual utilities. they are. For the empiricists. the interests of everyone are to count equally. Though Hegel's is obviously a theory of progress. Kant's ethical formula. In another version. in effect. you have to be willing to accept that everyone else would do it too. Later descendants of this view include Kant and Hegel. both express this universalism. To say that there is a single characteristically modern perspective is a vast oversimplification. Nonetheless. Both of the predominant schools of modern philosophy are rationalistic in a broad sense. Obviously not all moderns shared a single philosophy any more (and probably less) than all postmoderns do. but it is one which was especially pronounced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For Hegel. is likely to be onesided. is likely to be incomplete. For the continental rationalists the world was objectively knowable mainly through reflective thought. however. however. If a secular versus a religious focus is what mainly separates the modern from the medieval. Science was not of course invented in the modern era. are all considered to be postmodern philosophies. subsequent philosophers disagreed. if you do something. That idea.The Anti-Kritik Handbook studies. The two major modern moral philosophies. and its inadequacies are likely to generate a counter-idea. the world is knowable through sense experience. In essence. human concerns in this world rather than in an afterlife. not merely as means to some other end. Ayer. the categorical imperative. despite Hegel's vagaries. history is the working out of the idea of rational freedom. A belief in humanism is the first characteristic of the modern world view. however.J. the idea of progress remained extremely influential at vii ." A second trait of the modern world view is an emphasis on individualism. that despite its ups and downs things generally tend to improve. with major figures ranging from Galileo to Newton. Modernity was certainly in full swing by the seventeenth century. Hegel believed that both history and philosophy proceed dialectically. an emphasis on the individual rather than on the group (the community or the polis. The other major school of modern philosophy. there are a set of characteristic beliefs which seem to typify the modern view. As Alexander Pope. This might seem like a rather communitarian approach. In the typically modern view humans are understood first as individuals and only secondly as members of groups. And in making this utilitarian calculation. British empiricism. among others. Science rests on the belief that the world is knowable through repeated observation and controlled experiment. A fourth hallmark of modernity is the belief in rationality. So. It was furthered by Hobbes and Locke in the later seventeenth century and by Berkeley and Hume in the eighteenth century. the final philosophical synthesis. it is precisely these characteristic beliefs which postmodernism tends to attack and the kritik to indict. took a very different approach but still arrived at the conclusion that the world is rationally knowable. Modern times arguably begin in the Renaissance Italy of the fourteenth century. Kant unites universalism with individualism. is an old idea.

and it is certainly one of the most fundamental presuppositions underlying policy debate--an activity which has been traditionally conceived of as an adjunct to democratic decision making. for postmodernists. On one hand. Postmodern thinkers are probably all anti-foundationalists. Group orientation seems to be an important part of "political correctness. postmodernism tends to reject humanism.) The Heideggerian rejection of humanism is associated with a doctrine commonly termed "posthumanism. Again. This is not to say that all kritiks are grounded in postmodernism. the democratic faith appears to be that humans can collectively and rationally solve problems." that is. if no grand theories can withstand scrutiny. As a political doctrine it is associated with the belief that people should possess both personal and political liberty. On the other hand. values develop over time within particular communities and cultures. The English. but the great expansion of democratic institutions has occurred only over the past several centuries. but it has been at the cost of a loss of religious faith. These beliefs. For Heidegger. when the period of the two world wars provided it with something of a setback. This rejection occurs in part on environmental grounds. the tendency to focus on human being encourages the forgetfulness of Being in general. The kritik of statism is based on anarchist thought which is highly rationalistic. the parallel to the kritik in debate seems obvious. One argument is that all "progress" involves costs. Third. Based on the assumptions discussed above. all comprehensive explanations of human reality. (Just what Heidegger means by Being remains an open question. Rather. as was the gradual extension of the franchise throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Similarly. meaning that they believe that there are no certain foundations for human knowledge. If reason is inherently flawed. forces of racism. In contrast to the modern world view. or Freud's inevitably fail. postmodernism also tends to reject progress. Freedom is a term which is used in an incredible variety of ways." the source for a kritik of the same name. Fifth. The twentieth century may have achieved a "higher" standard of living in purely material terms. massively increasing the destructiveness of war and threatening the natural environment. A seventh precept of modernity is the idea of freedom or liberty. as an aspect of power rather than a disinterested instrument of truth. ethnicity. reason is seen in essentially political terms . postmoderns tend to embrace particularism rather than universalism. great systems such as Hegel's. democratic problem solving with pure critique. classism. a belief in progress is undermined by a widespread attitude that non-progressive forces dominate the world. however. More broadly speaking. and anthropocentrism is equated with environmental destruction. The twentieth century American philosopher John Dewey has been among the foremost exponents of this view. postmodernism tends to replace the idea of constructive. technophobia tends to replace the respect for science. In sum. Martin Heidegger. the postmodern perspective seems to reject each of these perspectives in all or in part. Even Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been turned into a kritik. Any system is simply one perspective on the world and therefore is bound to leave something out.) First. The kritiks of reason and the Foucault-based kritiks discussed above are obviously grounded in this outlook. or sexual orientation is what is seen as key. it is merely seen as another. According to the French philosopher Lyotard. one which insists that individuals are socially constructed and that the autonomous individual is a myth. gender. In this regard. and the individual is seen as totally socially constructed. the unique truth value of science is cast into doubt. The twin threats of nuclear war and environmental destruction have also cast a deep shadow over the idea of progress. A fourth attribute of the postmodern view involves radical skepticism towards the use of reason. but two are important for present purposes. what Max Weber. Finally.The Anti-Kritik Handbook least until the early twentieth century. is probably the German philosopher. echoing Friedrich Schiller. and sexism. are associated with the tradition of natural rights and limited government which extends from Locke to Jefferson and Madison to Mill. The Greeks. freedom implies the idea of free will as opposed to determinism. The individual is seen as trapped in a network of vast impersonal forces. outlooks such as cultural relativism and communitarianism appear to be characteristically postmodern. Second. called "the disenchantment of the world. An eighth and final characteristically modern view is the belief in democratic problem solving. Both these perspectives would insist that there are no universal values or standards. the kritik of normativity is grounded in part in this set of ideas." Furthermore. then arguably all that one can do is to debunk or deconstruct the theories that other have futilely attempted to build. postmodernism tends to believe in determinism rather than freedom. Sixth. race. Marx's. American. postmodern perspectives tend to focus on the group rather than the individual. Group identity based on class. They thus are skeptical both towards Cartesian rationalism and scientific empiricism. it is easy to see why this would be the case. science and technology are seen as profoundly destructive forces. The most prominent critic of humanism. based on postmodern anti-foundationalism. and French Revolutions were obviously important in the process of democratization. especially the latter. are commonly credited with having invented democracy. Again." and the rejection of the autonomous individual is an important element of the normativity kritik. what distinguishes the postmodern is its rejection of all "grand narratives. The autonomous self is rejected as a myth. the kritik seems to be associated in general with the characteristic attitudes and assumptions of postmodernism. of course. This attitude tends to be associated with a kind of cultural determinism. no longer "privileged" perspective. Seventh. According to this perspective. the idea of universal human rights would seem especially misguided. From this standpoint. Finally. it seems fair to say that traditional policy debate rests on a set of assumptions closely associated with the modern world view. As a metaphysical concept. Humanism is anthropocentric. (It is of course important to remember that there is no one postmodern world view. and Rand would have embraced all of the characteristic beliefs of modernity as I've described them and none viii . But to be postmodern implies at least a departure from the perspectives of modernity in some important particular.

In contrast the highly mannered and artificial society of the period of Louis XV. The philosophy of the eighteenth century climaxed in the work of the German philosopher. for example. For Kant. Kepler and Galileo were the great figures of the early part of the century. The 1600s were also the century in which the major schools of modern philosophy first distinctively emerged. was seen as the great unveiler of the mysteries of nature. but insisting that it is material. most notably Bentham and Mill. it still seems worthwhile to spend some time discussing how the postmodern perspective emerged. The radical skepticism of Hume. In terms of pure reason. its influence extends from architecture to law to philosophy. The utilitarian philosophers. In some sections of academia it has achieved something of the status of an orthodoxy. Locke and Thomas Hobbes also made important contributions to political philosophy developing early versions of the social contract theory. Certainly outside of academia. reason was literally deified. Kierkegaard rejected reason in favor of religious faith. it would be a mistake to perceive the postmodern perspective as intellectually triumphant. But throughout the nineteenth century. (Indeed. I have borrowed Kant's distinction between pure and practical reason in my own categorization of the various types of kritiks. accepting much of the Hegelian dialectic. and it climaxed in its later years with the development of the Newtonian system. The philosopher were for the most part believers in the kind of social engineering of which liberals are still accused today. The 1600s were a great era of scientific advance. Still. And Marx. And Jean-Jacques Rousseau. though often classed among the philosopher. postmodernism is already obsolete. placed severe limits on the power of reason. He wrote three famous critiques: THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON (concerning metaphysics and epistemology). figures such as Voltaire. The modern period is most commonly said to begin with the Italian Renaissance of the fourteenth century. especially John Locke. The characteristically modern ideas detailed above have been challenged but none has been decisively rejected. postmodernism is a very important and influential contemporary intellectual perspective. and even within academia postmodernism remains an embattled outlook.The Anti-Kritik Handbook of the beliefs of postmodernism. where many of its key ideas originated. Thus. one of the most significant in terms of modern science and philosophy. ix . The French philosophers. Kant popularized the term "kritik" in the world of philosophy. Postmodernism may well prove to be a kind of intellectual fad. and the belief in free will is a necessary assumption of all practical activity. This said. Hegel's belief in the supremacy of reason was attacked in numerous ways. economic forces which drive history not ideas. Its main attackers at this point were Add religious conservatives. Unquestionably. at one point in the French Resolution. At any rate. and his work greatly expanded the prestige of science. Still. despite his critiques. the other leading school of modern philosophy. This distinction is of more than terminological interest. rather like existentialism was in the 1950s and 1960s. Still. Yet even in the seventeenth century. and THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT (mainly about esthetics). characteristically modern attitudes continue to reign supreme. And Hegel stands as one of the most ambitious rationalists in the history of philosophy. Kant remains predominantly a skeptic (even though he purported to be answering Hume's skepticism). that is in terms of what we can ultimately know. the modern view was subject to extensive criticism. Postmodernism enjoys the benefit of relative novelty. Kant was essentially a rationalist. But even at the height of the age of reason. as the proponents of communism eventually discovered. Schopenhauer downplayed the importance of reason and stressed "the will to life" as the main motivation. Montesquieu. it is certainly not my intent to suggest that there is any kind of historical inevitability at play in the displacement of modern ideas by postmodern ones. they believed profoundly in the abilities of the human mind to progressively reshape social realities. a primary technique of at least one branch of postmodern thought. however. of courser is said to have turned Hegel on his head. a period of Enlightenment in which reason was virtually deified. Some authors even claim that in France. followed in the philosophical tradition of British empiricism. if not to decisively displace then certainly to challenge the modern perspective. but novelty wears out. one challenged by many alternative views. an early apostle of the methods of experimental science. pure reason has the ability to outline possibilities and alternatives but is largely powerless to resolves the dilemmas that it creates. it was not until the seventeenth century that the distinctively modern world view seems to have been in full flower. Practical reason. Francis Bacon. for example. Kant is important for our purposes for several reasons. Kant sees the opposition between free will and determinism to be one of the antinomies (oppositions) of pure reason which pure reason itself is powerless to resolve. This distinction between what we can in theory doubt and what we must practically assume in terms of any practical activity such as politics suggests some limits to the skepticism which the kritik embodies. Descartes attempted to establish certain foundations for knowledge through a process of systematic doubt and concluded by establishing a philosophical system based on rationalism and mathematics. and Diderot. to indict without an alternative because in a world of overwhelming uncertainties there really are no compelling alternatives to embrace. were great believers in reason both as a means of combating religious prejudice and hereditary privilege. THE CRITIQUE OF PRACTICAL REASON (having to do with ethics). in which he believed he had established objective and universal standards of morality. The nineteenth century in many ways continued the rationalism of the eighteenth century. was a fervent critic of the modern age. First. The eighteenth century is commonly seen as the age of reason. In fields such as sociology and literary criticism it has been a pervasive presence. there were counter-tendencies. Rousseau defended the natural world and the noble savage. in astronomy and physics especially. in particular. and were active proponents of the use of reason to solve social problems. established British empiricism. To deconstruct is in effect to kritik.) This stereotypical view of the eighteenth century certainly has some degree of validity. Immanuel Kant. especially in his ethical theory. and his followers. Still the idea of kritik itself seems closely related to deconstruction. is concerned with the realm of action. Newton. such as those members of the Inquisition who forced Galileo to recant his defense of the Copernican theory that the earth goes around the sun.

Whether he would have agreed with the more radical conclusion. that all perspectives are equivalent. He believed that he was a "scientific" economist. and to approach Nietzsche through the lens of postmodernism is only one of many ways to understand his work. of course. For Nietzsche. creative artistic power. In his REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. notably by Columbia philosopher Arthur Danto.The Anti-Kritik Handbook In literature. is associated with aristocratic civilizations such as ancient Greece. and the loss of religious belief has brought the modern world to a state of nihilism. whereas the utilitarians believed that pleasure is the ultimate motive. are what make history. part modern. the modern scientific world view continues to reign supreme. slave morality he associates with Christianity. FRANKENSTEIN." Each person views the world from a particular perspective or angle of vision. is more doubtful. (Power is. At an institutional level. the romanticism of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a sustained attack on Enlightenment rationalism. Writing toward the end of the nineteenth century. In sum. No philosophical system can be all-encompassing or ever reveal definitive truth. On one hand it is anti-utilitarian. A second conservative critic of the Enlightenment was the Reverend Thomas Malthus. Nietzsche fellows Hume in seeing the choice among basic moral values as essentially arational. to assimilate him to the tradition of analytical philosophy. Despite his obvious personal preferences. Nietzsche claimed that the ultimate motive is power. Karl Marx stands as a kind of transitional figure. the philosopher is not the discoverer of objective values but rather is a legislator or an artistic creator of values. Nonetheless. Third. His affinities for aristocratic cultures like ancient Greece and his ideal of heroic individualism (expressed in his concept of "the overman") would find few fans among the postmodern or the politically correct. For him. the romantics tended to downplay reason in favor of the powers of creative imagination. He contributed strongly to contemporary doubt about the validity of moral rationalism. William Blake indicted "Urizen" (your reason) as an oppressive tyrant. is commonly seen as the father of modern conservatism. it is also possible to derive from Nietzsche an extremely radical epistemological skepticism. His position in this area is commonly referred to as "perspectivism. Wordsworth followed Rousseau in stressing nature over the artificiality of human society. It is clear that Nietzsche meant his perspectivism to critique philosophical systems such as Hegel's. Edmund Burke. Furthermore. Most centrally. This means at minimum that a claim such as Hegel's to have produced the ultimate synthesis should be treated with extreme skepticism. Moving into the twentieth century. The first of these is the idea of cultural crisis. with its emphasis on blind. For Nietzsche. In his prophetic poems. this is a theory about human motivation. which he obviously prefers. and his wife. He also opposed the predominant emphasis on reason by defending decisions based on the accumulated "prejudices" of a given cultural tradition. According to Nietzsche. What post-modernism has taken from Nietzsche is the sense of cultural crisis. Again. a condition without viable moral standards or beliefs. Mary Shelley. Second. In many ways. Though neo-Malthusianism is considered today to be a philosophy of the left. a multifaceted notion.) The emphasis on power also deemphasizes the idea of knowledge. It can be equated with the sense of vitality in a biological sense. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection also dealt a blow to the power of reason. values which for Nietzsche would presumably be both more aristocratic and more life enhancing. a certain paradox presents itself. and efforts have been made. and all perspectives are partial. and he certainly saw history as involving a progressive movement toward a socialist utopia. not ideas. But it is highly contested just how that turn should be interpreted. Nietzsche is an extremely complex thinker (though unlike Kant. Other thinkers have depicted him as everything from a liberal humanist to a proto-Nazi. As Jon Brody suggests. it is arguable that with Nietzsche there is a decisive turn in modern thought. Malthus' own motives in writing his essay seem clearly conservative--Enlightenment perspectives left too little room for God. he is also an extremely readable one). none better than any other. Malthus' "Essay on Populations was a sustained attempt to show why the perfectibility of human society was impossible (population will always outstrip resources). Nietzsche has been extremely influential because of his moral subjectivism. the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries also saw influential conservative critiques of the intellectual pretentions of the Enlightenment. part anti-modern. Still. wrote the classic anti-scientific masterpiece. his postmodern followers. thought is not undertaken out of any will to disinterested truth but rather is also an expression of the will to power. there are still at least four major themes in Nietzsche which have been very important for postmodern thought. master morality and slave morality. A fourth Nietzschean idea of great importance for postmodern thought is the will to power. Hegel. He can be seen as in part a debunker of the power of rational ideas. while at the same time essentially rejecting his alternative. Master morality. what this situation requires is a new set of values. or Heidegger. the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is the first thinker who is commonly labelled as postmodern. For Nietzsche. He argued that there are essentially two kinds of morality. drawn by some postmodernists. This idea is the primary source of Foucault's conflation of knowledge and power. the British statesman and philosopher. he defended an organic view of society and therefore opposed ideas of mechanistic social engineering. Science and technology have made x . My point in all of this is that one can admire Nietzsche and still not follow him very far down the postmodern path. instinctual forces. Marx saw rights (and all other moral formulations) as rationalizations for class oppression. Marx's emphasis on the interests of the working class and his defense of the dictatorship of the prolitariat constitutes a rejection of the idea that all persons should be treated as ends in themselves. Nietzsche is also widely seen as an early existentialist. Percy Bysshe Shelley argued that the poet is the unacknowledged legislator of mankind. the Nietzschean critique has proven far more influential than the Nietzschean alternative. This period. Nietzsche was not postmodern. power over others in a political sense. Still. economic forces. He also stands as an early critic of universalist moral thinking. God is dead. Marx was in many ways still a modern thinker. however. or even power over oneself. have been far less willing to propose a clear set of alternative values.

Italo Calvino. and an inevitable period of decline and death. Heidegger coins the phrase. This obscurity has led many readers of Heidegger to view Being as a kind of quasi-religious concept. This appears to suggest that human being does not exist xi . Other important literary modernists included James Joyce. Being is Heidegger's central philosophical concept. Clearly one of the most influential thinkers of the century was the Austrian psychologist. by German historian Oswald Spengler. Spender argued that civilizations are essentially organic entities. a time of maturity. and even as human life has become more and more rationalized. it has substituted essentially sociological explanations of human behavior for the primarily biological explanations of the nineteenth century. but it was in the period immediately following the war that modernism may have come into its full ascendancy. it seems that for Heidegger the recovery of Being entails a revival of faith in something beyond the merely human. One aspect of this tradition which Heidegger indicts is the distinction between subject and object (the self-conscious ego versus the external world). and Franz Kafka. Heidegger has been a very influential philosopher. continues in many ways the experimental emphasis of early twentieth century modernism. There is a large literature exclusively devoted to postmodernism in architecture. What remained of the nineteenth century faith in progress received a decisive shock. Sigmund Freud. William Faulkner. Stravinsky. as seen for example in skyscrapers and postmodernism--which tends to be more eclectic and ornate--seems considerably greater. But neither of these formulations is highly illuminating. Weber in particular displays a certain discontent with regard to the modern scientific world view (a view which he nonetheless embraces). Even if we do not literally equate Being with God. Eliot's poem "The Waste Land. Yet Freud considered his own work to be part of the Enlightenment project. Spengler thought that Western civilization was on the downward path. Thomas Pynchon. the distinction between modernism and postmodernism in literature is a much disputed one. at least from Socrates on. technological civilization as shallow and riddled with inauthenticity. In place of the view that history is in the long run progressive. a process which Weber sees as pretty much inevitable. not surprisingly. through bureaucracy. in architecture the difference between modernism---which emphasized a unity of form and function. and Umberto Eco. but it remains an extremely elusive one. The rationalism of modern life has led to "the disenchantment of the world. The sociological thought of the early twentieth century. Heidegger believed that the excessive preoccupation with human being and human problems results in the neglect of Being. Ezra Pound." For Heidegger. Heidegger also uses the term "dasein. Martin Heidegger began his career. Heidegger seems to feel that this dichotomy obscures the degree to which humans are immersed in the world. are seen as the dominant human motives." the title of which serves as an extended metaphor for the modern world. But among intellectuals the sense of cultural crisis has continued to prevail. anthropocentric attitude which makes "man" the measure of all things. (In contrast. Perhaps the definitive work of modernist literature was T. In this usage. The rise of sociology has had another important influence on postmodernism. On one hand. and. and I will only attempt to outline a few of his themes especially those which have intersected with debate. As his title indicated." and it has also led to the ascendancy of impersonal control. He especially sees modern. Given this. For Heidegger. it seems that the debased. Postmodernism is thus closely related to modernism in its artistic sense. more and more of social life has become subject to rationalistic and rationalizing procedures. The major kritik which has been derived from Heidegger has been titled "posthumanism.S. to rationally understand and control human irrationality. Coupled with this indictment of the humanistic perspective is a repudiation of the central thrust of the Western philosophical tradition. the power of reason has been more and more disparaged. at least in part. turned both literature and the other arts in a far more pessimistic direction. Thus. We might think of Being as the totality of what exists. its relationship is to modernity what postmodernism is to postmodernity. living from 1889 to 1976. but he is also a very obscure one. both are highly critical of modern life. in fact. The terms "modernism" is sometimes used as a synonym for the belief system of the modern age. By understanding the irrational forces of the psyche. The war also." which means literally "being there" to refer to the human condition. coupled with what is often a rather bleak view of the modern world and (especially} in literature) an attempt to formulate a new set of myths appropriate to the modern age. "being-in-the world" to connote this sense of being situated in rather than detached from reality. Another important cultural force which would strongly influence postmodernism (as well as the rest of twentieth century) was the development of "modernism" in literature as well as many other art forms. as seen in figures such as Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. of sex and aggression. it provides an important source for the postmodern insistence on the "social construction" of reality.) Literature which is commonly described as postmodern. Heidegger appears to take over from Nietzsche the idea of a cultural crisis based on the death of Cod. or perhaps as that which exists apart from all particular beings. He attempted. fallen state of the modern world is closely associated with the loss of faith which the phrase "death of God" connotes. He also had an extremely long philosophical career. and Frank Lloyd Wright. a summary of his major ideas within this limited a scope seems impossible. to bring them under the control of the rational ego .The Anti-Kritik Handbook unprecedented progress. Perhaps the single work which best captured this new cultural pessimism was a two volume treatise entitled THE DECLINE OF THE WEST. most of the world's problems stem from the narrow. It was in the midst of this climate of cultural pessimism that the second major postmodern philosopher. (Modernists in various other art forms include Picasso. It connotes a style of intense experimentalism. including the novels of John Barth. also displays an ambivalence toward rationality. possessing a period of growth. in sum. But "modernism" also has a technical meaning within literature and the fine arts. Freud thought it was possible. he stresses the idea of the unconscious--the forces of id and superego. This idea of pervasive bureaucratic forces is presumably one source Schlag's kritik of normativity. Freud's ideas have a dual thrust.) Modernism in the arts began well before the first world war. With regard to reason.

For a period of twenty years or so following the Second World War. In setting up the category of reason." Reforming the prison. as an instrument of social control. which is. Marx saw underlying economic structures and Freud saw underlying psychological structures as decisive. and this emphasis on the primacy of language has become a primary theme of postmodern thought. Developed by the German philosopher Edmund Husserl.. volitional being. the autonomous. In a narrower sense. Pierre Schlag's insistence that humans are determined by institutional structures also reveals a strongly structuralist orientation. instrumental attitude toward the world. however.e. This thereby justifies the repression and institutionalization of the "insane. for example. Instead. Saussure stressed the degree to which thought is governed by the basic structures of language. Heidegger believes that philosophy should be more like poetry. "reason" is seen as a method of domination. The central thesis of at least Sartrean existentialism is that there is no pre-set human nature. but much of the rest of Sartre's philosophy has been rejected. Along with his critique of the Western philosophical tradition. His early work developed out of a philosophical approach known as phenomenology. Sartrean existentialism. especially in anthropology. Sartre remains in many ways within the Cartesian framework. is self-avowedly humanistic. not as a means of controlling crime but as a mechanism for branding a certain category of people as "delinquent. This anti-essentialism has been taken over by many postmodern thinkers. Post-structuralism and post modernism are sometimes used interchangeably. Finally. existence precedes essence. Heidegger has been associated with virtually all of the major developments in continental European philosophy in the twentieth century. phenomenology attempts to arrive at an understanding of "the thing itself " through a process of introspective psychological inquiry. (Neo-pragmatism. trans-human reality seers to have pretty much disappeared. power is diffused throughout society in the form of disciplinary controls. a kind of intellectual wandering which waits for truth to "unveil" itself. structuralism is grounded primarily in the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure. however. Sartre's philosophy stresses consciousness and the responsibility of each individual for the choices he or she makes and the self that he or she becomes as a result of those choices. Foucault denies the distinction between knowledge and power. When postmodernism is generically indicted. liberal reformism is generally seen. his method of philosophy tends to be meditative and contemplative. under whom Heidegger studied. Logic and careful reasoning. Post-structuralism seems to be simultaneously an extension of the principles of structuralism and a reaction against some of those principles. from a Foucaultian perspective. The major ideas of Foucault which have had impact in debate have already been discussed for the most part in terms of the specific kritiks which his work has inspired. In a very broad sense. are not central elements of Heidegger's thought. structuralism. views conscious choice as secondary and stresses the degree to which behavior is determined by underlying structures of various types.") This emphasis on the text is one of the hallmarks of postmodern thought. so I will just briefly summarize a few of his major themes here. Whereas philosophy. at its extreme it expresses itself in a tendency to refer to individual people as "texts. Heidegger has been associated with the postmodernism of the past twenty years. In France. and Albert Camus was the most influential philosophy in the world. a formula which means basically that one becomes the person that one is through experience rather than innate characteristics. Heidegger is a critic of the technology which Western scientific rationalism has produced. in a particular situation. Heidegger seeks a fundamental reorientation of philosophy. radical feminism. however. Given these beliefs. and Heidegger emphatically insisted that he was neither a humanist nor an existentialist. Foucault sees the prison. Structuralism exerted a large influence in virtually all of the social sciences. however. self-conscious ego). In contrast to existentialism. especially modern philosophy. post-structuralism. but it should be noted that all of these terms are ambiguous and used in somewhat different ways by different authors. And in Derrida any idea of an objective. a text is something which is written (i. Foucault seems less concerned with describing reality than with discussing "discourses" ostensibly about reality. where the work of Claude Levi-Strauss is central. Second. interpreting. rather than conscious choice. Knowledge isn't objective but rather is an interpretation which gains power over others. a far ranging intellectual orientation which became popular in the 1960s and 1970s.) This said. is seen as merely a means of extending and enhancing social control. has previously attempted to be like science. an attitude which tends to alienate one from Being. it is probably the post-structuralist variant which is being attacked. therefore. and deconstructing of "texts. even though he is commonly categorized as such and certainly shares some existentialist themes." Fourth. it is also probably the case that post-structuralism has been the most influential (and the most radical) of these postmodern theories. appropriately if ambiguously enough. it is not simply the top down influence of a central authority. To be more precise. Heidegger would influence and be associated with the existentialism of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. and critical legal studies have already been mentioned as other examples of postmodern thought. his emphasis is solely on the reading. Rather. xii ." (Among Derrida's most famous statements is the assertion that "there is nothing outside the text. I've introduced these terminological distinctions in order to try to clarify prevailing usage. the intellectual orientation which succeeded structuralism has been called." One point of this rather extravagant metaphor seems to be to further denigrate the idea of the subject (that is. post-structuralism should be understood as one of a number of "postmodern" philosophies. we simultaneously create the category of unreason or madness. Later on. of course. Third. His indictment is basically that technology represents a manipulative. once again. socially constructed) and is there to be read and interpreted. the French existentialism of Sartre. Rather than a self-directing. one could say that Marx and Freud were both structuralists. First. Simone de Beauvoir. Among the things which leading post-structuralists such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida seem to have carried over from structuralism is the emphasis on language.The Anti-Kritik Handbook abstractly or in isolation but that human being is always being there.

Hence. Likewise. that all exclude or marginalize certain considerations. the emphasis on texts and on the unending process of interpretation and reinterpretation. A second key concept for Derrida is the idea of "difference. we can still base our actions on the probabilistic truths of our experience. to some extent postmodern thought beats dead horses. One perspective from which postmodern thought can be fruitfully criticized is pragmatism. it seems that many of the insights of postmodernism can be accounted for within the framework of the modern world view. In what is sometimes referred to as the politics of difference. if there is an objective. pragmatism tends to vindicate the use of science. Third. but he began by doubting everything. deconstruction seems to have a slightly different meaning. but both were writing in the first half of the seventeenth century. Religious conservatives have always been critics of modernity. since science clearly has great predictive powers. Pragmatists. Some of them explicitly attack the postmodern view. deconstruction seems to have come to mean something very similar to what "kritik" means in debate. for the new perspective which thereby emerges is likewise subject to deconstruction. but not necessarily the "correct" interpretation. also tend to defend the viability of democratic decision-making. that is. thus even if knowledge lacks absolutely certain foundations. Postmodernism merely carries the critical. since this discussion has aimed primarily at explaining the emergence of postmodern thought. Bacon and Descartes are favorite targets. The process of deconstruction produces a new interpretation. Freud. Derrida's thought is extremely elusive (even Foucault criticizes him for his obscurity). Fourth and finally. and the idea of difference has proved appealing for groups seeking to formulate a distinctive identity. in contrast. What this seems to imply is that humans exist totally within language. Derrida deconstructs philosophical texts by revealing their internal contradictions. the central theme or point of emphasis is displaced or decentered in favor of what had previously been marginalized or neglected. it is as old as modernity itself. The problem here is that neo-pragmatism is commonly classified as a postmodern philosophy. in the early eighteenth century managed to doubt external reality. reason has limited power to discover "truth. the emphasis on difference involves an attack on the idea of universal standards. Modern thought developed a long way after them. For Derrida. The process of deconstruction thus does not lead to "truth" or even to a superior interpretation. Even more than Heidegger. and even in important areas of social science such as economics its influence seems negligible. that the whole university has been taken over by "tenured radicals" is a definite exaggeration. In particular. Nonetheless. The idea. With roots in the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Second. To put it in a slightly different way. Descartes may have thought that he had found a foundational truth. always marginalizes some group. Postmodern thought is radically skeptical. In social terms. for him. and the romanticism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was essentially opposed to modern scientific rationalism. within this perspective.The Anti-Kritik Handbook The second major thinker whose work has been labelled post-structuralist is Jacques Derrida." and indeed it is "logocentrism" (the emphasis on logic and rationality) which Derrida seeks to displace from the center of philosophy. Pragmatism is useful in this context because it basically accepts the principle of anti-foundationalism (that no knowledge is certain) and argues that that really doesn't matter. Although pragmatism is not a new philosophy. words stand for or represent objects in nature. For Derrida himself. it should be noted that the kritik of modernity is not something new. Berkeley. this post-structuralist/postmodernist species of thought remains highly influential. In addition. The philosopher Richard Rorty of the University of Virginia is probably the leading figure in this neo-pragmatism. In terms of language. gain their meaning from their difference from other words. rather than what unites them with others. so I can only offer a tentative summary of some of Derrida's themes. For the pragmatist. language is essentially self-enclosed. According to the theory of meaning which Derrida attacks. Though Derrida is a philosopher and most of his writing involves the deconstruction of philosophical texts. The leading pragmatist philosopher of the first half of the twentieth century was John Dewey. both Derrida and Foucault have had considerable influence on groups seeking to construct an "oppositional" politics. I wish to briefly draw a few conclusions from this description of the emergence of postmodern thought. I therefore wish to conclude this section by discussing a number of perspectives which can be opposed to postmodernism. Pragmatism is probably the leading indigenous American philosophical tradition. it has tended to exaggerate the importance of these postmodern tendencies. for example. we seem to have no access to it . or at least in the world outside of language. recognized the profound force of irrational motives. Before doing this. indeed. but still attempted to understand and control those forces within a rationalistic framework. It is possible. Words. Derrida sees meaning as based on difference rather than resemblance. Both Foucault and Derrida are concerned with the oppression of marginalized groups. the kritik seems grounded in modernity. It is relatively easy to see why groups such as radical feminists would find post-structuralist thought appealing. Obviously. others represent perspectives which clearly clash with postmodernism. of course." This term (which in the original French includes a pun on the words "differ" and "defer") seems to have both a social and a linguistic significance. it has experienced a recent revival. pragmatism was developed as an explicit philosophy by Charles Pierce and William James in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. external reality. In common usage. but it does serve as a recurrent reminder that all perspectives are partial. The argument would be that the attempt to universalize or totalize always leaves something out. only slightly later was questioning cause. First. especially Dewey. Probably Derrida's most influential idea is the concept of deconstruction. however. popular among many conservatives. Especially in the American university. but so to a substantial degree was modern thought. the emphasis is on what uniquely distinguishes a certain group. Postmodernism has had little if any influence on the natural sciences. to overstate the extent of this influence. it involves the debunking or dismantling of an idea or theory. his main influence has not been in philosophy but rather in fields such as literary criticism. truth is defined in terms of what works. it still provides a perspective from which to attack such xiii . skeptical nature of modern thought one step further. and Hume.

even nuclear war is good. when effectively countered most of these counter-intuitive positions ultimately fail--the xiv . humans are free essentially because they can envision alternative futures. history in terms of the evolution of political structures is at an end. The basic insight of linguistic philosophy is that many of the traditional problems of philosophy are essentially artifacts of language. for example. Habermas likewise rejects eternal. Sartre insists on the freedom and responsibility of each individual. The central theme of logical positivism is that statements are meaningful only if they are objectively verifiable. According to Harvard philosopher John Rawls a diverse society can only function with a shared value of liberal tolerance. believing that the basic framework of Enlightenment thought needs to be refined rather than rejected. Thus." analogous to the high Middle Ages which followed the dark ages of the early medieval period. divorced as it is in Heidegger from any particular attributes. as the former Yugoslavia all too graphically illustrates. The politics of difference can be effectively criticized from the standpoint of liberal egalitarianism. Habermas also defends the project of modernity as an essentially valid one. and what the history of the twentieth century confirms. neo-pragmatism accepts the limits of knowledge. a former State Department analyst who now works for the Rand Corporation. While postmodernism tends towards social and linguistic determinism. humans are also self-creating and therefore have responsibility for the selves which they have produced. Marx. is that liberal democratic institutions are indeed the best form of government. One conclusion which Ayer and others draw from this is that metaphysical statements (such as statements about Being) are incapable of being tested and therefore are literally meaningless. they are able to turn a wide range of affirmative advantages. Giddens argues that we are not. it should illustrate the point that there are many vantage points from which postmodern thought can be critiqued. They see similar tendencies in other thinkers of this period to radicalize Freud and Marx. external reality which is neither linguistically nor socially conditioned. The idea of Being is a linguistic confusion resulting from the grammatical structure of the verb "to be. Among younger French philosophers. Fukuyama argues that Hegel was essentially right about the evolution of political institutions. In THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN.The Anti-Kritik Handbook post-structuralist thinkers as Derrida and Foucault. and her belief in the ethical primacy of the individual. Like post-structuralism.J. in fact. they tend to be popular." The verb "to be" is useful in ascribing attributes to things. Because of this generic utility. Kritiks such as Foucault's gain much of their force from the sense that contemporary society is intolerably oppressive. The appeal of such positions is that they are so generic. But the idea of being. but that the basic social forces which characterized modernity are still in play. Similarly. That is. Sartre's existentialism provides another viewpoint from which to attack postmodernism. and while it may validly criticize perspectives such as the extreme rationalism of the eighteenth century. there must be a universal principle of respect for difference. Ludwig Wittgenstein. According to Giddens. A third critic of postmodernism is the British sociologist Anthony Giddens. but. So. they are not completely the products of their society. and A. A perspective closely related to pragmatism is articulated by the leading German philosopher. the ability to hold these different possibilities in consciousness is what gives humans the power of choice. For difference to function effectively. Linguistic philosophy has been one of the central themes in twentieth century Anglo-American thought in the twentieth century. it is argued by Ayer that Heidegger's idea of "Being" is essentially empty. arguably. The basic point made by Ferry and Renault appears to be that while great thinkers such as Nietzsche. it goes too far if it rejects reason altogether. According to her. what we are now experiencing is the period of "high modernity. Ayn Rand's Objectivism is on almost every point diametrically opposed to postmodernism. entering the postmodern era. Among the other anti-postmodern themes in her thought is the belief that there is an objective. the emphasis on differences tends to pull societies apart. but Hegel also has his contemporary defenders. for example. is nonsensical. Marx has a valid insight in noting the influence of economics on history but goes too far in suggesting that history is solely the product of economic forces. rationality is the one unique tool humans possess which enables them to preserve their lives. Habermas believes that we can arrive at what are for us "good reasons" based on free and equal dialogue. linguistic philosophy offers another perspective from which a good deal of postmodern thought can be criticized. For a good many years. She was a particularly strong defender of the position that the use of reason is key to human survival. debaters often invest a great deal of time and energy into researching such positions. offers one such defense. Thus. and because so much effort has been invested in them. Francis Fukuyama. in the face of uncertainty. While this obviously does not exhaust the list of anti-postmodern perspectives. Without such a universal norm. One form of linguistic philosophy is logical positivism. Thus. What Hegel glimpsed. A perspective such as Fukuyama's both restores a progressive movement to history and denies the essential oppressiveness of contemporary institutions. Nonetheless. death checks are good. But he also believes that functional standards of rationality can be established based on intersubjective agreement. Postmodern thought is characterized by its extremity. For Sartre. for example. external standards of rationality. Freud's emphasis on sex was a useful corrective to the Victorian repression of sexual issues but still probably went too far in the other direction. that they almost always overstate their central themes. Associated with figures such as Bertrand Russell. and Freud invariably have useful insights. They see Foucault as largely a more radical version of Nietzsche and Derrida as a radicalization of Heidegger. the sky is blue. Because human beings possess the authentic possibility of choice.Ayer. Much of postmodern thought is ultimately directed against Hegel. debate has been drawn to counter-intuitive positions--growth is bad. rights are bad. Luc Ferry and Alain Renault have been especially critical of the "60s philosophy" they associate with Foucault and Derrida. it is a grammatical fiction. Jurgen Habermas. it seems far more willing to say that we must still act on the basis of what knowledge we have rather than simply suspending judgment altogether.

rejection of the kritik is said to be a mechanism of exclusion. but once one gets over the initial shock of hearing these intuitive assumptions challenged. First. they can merely stand as a point of reference as we consider the basic arguments against the kritik. Debate remains preoccupied with the narrowly political (i. and democracy are valuable. Such judges expect its theoretical framework to be contested and may even react unfavorably to arguments against the specifics of the kritik if it is not. Second. and intellectual background to the more immediately practical issue of arguments against the kritik. The result of this is the exclusion of innovative arguments and a failure to deal with fundamental issues. there are a limited number of core assumptions which the affirmative needs to be ready to defend. categorization. The ideas and attitudes we form in debate rounds are said to be more important than particular policy conclusions. rights. The argument here is that the kritik is grounded in postmodernism and deconstruction. however. Second." At the highest level of xv . None of these arguments is totally without merit. These ideas are major concerns within the university. correctly I believe. reason. Many kritiks will. such as the late Walter Ulrich. That is. Many judges do accept the kritik's theoretical legitimacy. Thus. at least implicitly. Tabula rasa does clearly emphasize one of debate's primary values--direct clash. as are issues of language. and the kritik is hailed as a central device for introducing "new thinking" into an activity sadly in need of it. and these judges are likely to react unfavorably to what they see as a mindlessly generic list of anti-kritik answers. one should make arguments both against the kritik as an argument form and against the particulars of the specific kritik.e. the more specific anti-kritik arguments will often parallel and reinforce the more general ones. I believe that this will help to illuminate many of the more specific arguments which will be discussed subsequently. Of course. and we will return to them at a later point in this essay. and it frustrates debate's educational mission to ignore such issues. it seems useful to briefly indicate common arguments made in favor of the kritik. This said. At other times it involves a fairly explicit attempt to exclude certain people from the activity. Fourth. it should not be too difficult to muster a defense. the more counter-intuitive they are likely to be.. there are probably good reasons why humanism. eighth. For the moment. Debate does seem to rest in part on standard Millean arguments that truth will win out in the battle of ideas. that free inquiry is a basic assumption of debate. The more basic or fundamental the assumption that they question.) prove stronger." Finally. while policy debate may be valuable. While an increasing number of judges are coming to accept the kritik's theoretical legitimacy. policy questions are not the only ideas worth discussing. it is then argued that it contradicts a basic value of debate to exclude unpopular positions. THE CASE FOR THE KRITIK At this point I wish to turn from the more abstract consideration of definition. universalism. science. attack the idea of reason or the concept of the autonomous individual. Seventh. however. More sophisticated defenders of tabula rasa. individualism. most kritiks should not be that difficult to answer. kritik proponents appeal to what is basically a classic liberal defense of free enquiry. it is also important to attack the actual argument that the kritik is making. The standard arguments in favor of tabula rasa mainly concern fairness. new ideas are good. etc. An excessively narrow version of the policy making paradigm has become the prevailing orthodoxy. It will be helpful to keep some of these ideas in mind in the process of developing anti-kritik arguments. it is asserted that everything should be debatable. also argue for its educational benefits. often the best arguments against particular kritiks occur on what I would call "the middle level. In order to do this effectively. But most kritiks are persuasive enough that if they are allowed to carry their full asserted weight. more general defenses of these concepts will be applicable in responding to many different kritiks. Finally. growth. Given this premise. In some cases it excludes unpopular views. freedom. love it or leave it. the various kritiks which are grounded in postmodernism should not prove too daunting. For someone well prepared to defend the modern. GENERAL TACTICS I wish to begin this discussion of how to answer the kritik with some tactical considerations. Creative thought is said to be a key value of debate. Furthermore. Furthermore. the questioning of all assumptions is either said or implied to be intellectually liberating and empowering Such a process of questioning offers hope of removing the blinders of our social conditioning and to open up a brave new world of free spirited thought. to take the debating out of their hands and to put it in the hands of the judge. scientific world view. Sixth. it is almost always advisable to attack both the theory and substance of the kritik. Arguments of the "so join LD" or "Go join CEDA" variety are taken to be the equivalent of "Policy debate. ANSWERING THE KRITIK Fifth. and it currently has a stranglehold on the debate process. They argue. In the end. Third. I believe that this is also the case in terms of most if not all of the themes of postmodern thought.The Anti-Kritik Handbook arguments in favor of the intuitive (life. This argument essentially restates the basic premise of the tabula rasa judging framework. Judge intervention is said to be unfair to the participants. Basic philosophical and moral issues are also worthy of debate. the option of voting affirmative is unlikely to be very appealing. the kritik is said to be justified because it reflects and translates into debate a controversy with which academia is deeply engaged. the Clinton disadvantage) and with the apocalyptic (contrived scenarios leading to nuclear war or environmental destruction). A first argument in favor of the kritik is that contemporary policy debate is stagnating. many still do not. progress. this is all debatable.

First. the logical force of the kritik is only to neutralize the rights-related portion of the case. Standup 1ARs tend to be highly mechanical speeches. the mistagging and overclaiming of evidence is not unique to kritiks. you can often deny that the indicted assumption is crucial to your analysis. If this is the case. It might be that the judge understood the kritik even if you didn't or that time tradeoffs will be too unfavorable if you don't get a handle on the kritik from the outset. such evidential gaps should be noted. Most debate arguments are supported partly by evidence and partly by a story. The less clear the kritik is the more of a tendency there is to rely on generic anti-kritik arguments. I believe that standup 1ARs are rarely advisable if the negative has made a significant investment in a kritik. If. Sometimes kritiks. then s/he should consider voting on it. But if there is any chance that causality is valid. Again. This is not an indictment of a kritik which is clearly and coherently presented. you may in effect wish to challenge the judge. the specific practice of the negative team may well support the general claim that difficult philosophical issues cannot be debated at two hundred and fifty words per minute. but it may well be a powerful indictment of one that is not. good cross-examination can help here. For example. especially as presented in the 1NC. Two final points about the general issue of the coherence of kritiks are worth noting. Fourth. the affirmative is claiming both a rights-based and a non-rights based advantage and the negative responds with a kritik of rights. simply make no sense. but to do so requires that you understand the kritik from the outset. Often kritiks seem to force assumptions onto opposing teams which they don't really make. If there is no reason given for this conclusion. then new answers are both legitimate and probably necessary. this is an argument that the kritik is not absolute. If the kritik has been effectively pinned down in the lNC. (The negative might argue that the kritik in fact turns the rights advantage. What assumption is being indicted? Why should the affirmative be understood to be making that assumption? Why is it critical to affirmative analysis? And why is it false? This sort of series of questions should help in clarifying initially hazy kritiks--or should serve to demonstrate their complete lack of substance. This increases the likelihood of a gap between the claim being made and the supporting evidential data. Many. they will often make unsupported assertions. for example. after all. then you should say so. Kritiks are. Doing so may help the negative more than it helps you. even if you seek clarification. Seventh. At the lowest level are arguments denying the substantive claim advanced by the particular kritik. you probably should try to have the kritik clarified in cross-ex (or at least carefully read the 1NC shell). Of course. again. If the kritik does radically mutate. (A 2AC argument that the kritik is vague and underdeveloped will help in justifying these new responses.The Anti-Kritik Handbook generality are the arguments that the kritik is illegitimate as an argument form. (Unintelligible presentation especially strengthens the argument that philosophical kritiks can't be effectively accommodated within the conventions of present policy debate. Extending kritik answers usually requires more thought and precision than a standup 1AR is likely to provide. but that if even s/he can't articulate its logic. Also. They work best on issues which are evidence intensive and which the affirmative debaters clearly understand. Second. First. you may wish to deny that you are in fact making the assumption being indicted at all. the real impact of a kritik of causality is to undermine reliable predictions of affirmative solvency. This is understandable. The evidence on which kritiks commonly rely is not produced for or directly related to a policy context. so there is no reason to assume that a generic kritik will link better to a particular affirmative than will a generic disadvantage.) A second way in which the kritik may not be absolute is that its uncertainty makes it less than a voting issue. There are several common incoherences to which many kritiks are prone. And. Fifth. kritiks have a habit of mutating as the debate progresses. it is extremely important to pin down the kritik as early in the debate as possible. While there may be a time and place for this tactic. A second common incoherence is evidence which fails to really support the argument being made. This should help to demonstrate if in fact the kritik has changed its fundamental nature from one speech to the next. even if affirmative evidence or analysis rests partly on such an assumption. but kritiks are sometimes almost all story. be willing to indict kritiks as fundamentally incoherent.) A minimum standard for any argument is coherence. sometimes the evidence read will support one part of the story but not another. Again. be attentive to evolving kritiks. if the kritik has been especially abusive either in terms of underdevelopment or unclear presentation. it may well be possible that there are other independent reasons for voting affirmative. In effect. it is important to point this out. in fact. you may wish not to devote cross-ex time to having it clarified.) As a final related point. In effect. In this case. Often. new answers are probably legitimate. but they may be especially prone to this abuse. Especially if the kritik is obscure in the lNC. Sixth. Or. arguing that if he or she can coherently explain the kritik after the round. then you can hardly be expected to answer it. it is a somewhat dangerous one. it is important to undertake a probing cross-ex. they deny that the kritik is really addressing an essential assumption of affirmative analysis. generics. the turn is unlikely to be unique. Furthermore. This may help to dramatize the fact that this particular kritik really is incoherent. it should be possible to win that the affirmative doesn't make the assumption being indicted at all. if not most. if a piece of evidence doesn't support the accompanying claim or story. Even if the kritik is not fundamentally transformed. you can use the unintelligibility of the 1NC presentation to bolster arguments against the kritik's legitimacy. this tactic will only work if it can be carried out in a non-antagonistic fashion--something difficult for many debaters. for example. If the real import of the kritik only becomes clear in the negative block. that the kritik renders all affirmative analysis and evidence moot. it may be useful to repeat the same basic series of questions in the 2NC cross-ex. but given the ubiquity of rights claims in our culture. Of course. Third. and highly abstract philosophical argument addressing core assumptions should be held to especially high standards of clarity. you need to say so. but it is still a counterproductive reaction. Many kritiks can be answered on their merits even without evidence. it is very likely to be significantly expanded and clarified. then there is likewise a xvi . Mid-level arguments are those which claim that this particular kritik is not a reason to reject the particular affirmative plan. although this should be carefully done.

that the normativity kritik also fails. arguments against postmodernism and deconstruction are probably applicable to quite a few kritiks. kritiks can often be effectively "permuted. a link to the affirmative. epistemology. and I think preferable. different kritik. the main source for the kritik of normativity. it could be argued that if deconstruction is a bankrupt method. and impact are obviously raised. a disadvantage. in the case of kritiks which do not contain implicit policy alternatives. A second. one could issue a kritik of some assumption of your opponents' language or analysis. a defense of rationality would probably be useful against a postmodern kritik. Any claim that something is a voting issue should serve as a red flag commanding your attention. Sometimes the answers to one type of kritik will even feed another. First. a different set of arguments will come to mind. Hopefully. there are good reasons why these assumptions are so commonly taken for granted. it is still possible to employ a kind of conceptual permutation. such as anarchy. Pierre Schlag. or as something else? By thinking about what the kritik's logical weight would be as a policy argument. Tenth. alternative is to attack some underlying assumption of the kritik. Sometimes the negative will argue in response that if a key affirmative assumption is probably false that this in itself justifies voting negative. it may sometimes be advisable to argue counter-kritiks. arguments against highly abstract philosophical kritiks may not apply well to a fairly narrowly tailored. that the judge can embrace the kritik and still have a reason to vote affirmative. most kritiks have policy implications independent of their kritik impacts and it is important to forestall their evolution into a policy argument. you should be prepared to defend those assumptions which you think are likely to be challenged. any chance that they are right would still justify voting affirmative. For example. Thus. But debaters made dubious claims that things should be voting issues long before kritiks emerged. One set of all purpose anti-kritik blocks will therefore prove less useful than will blocks geared to specific types of kritiks. the kritik will raise issues of absoluteness. Similarly. If it can be defeated at one of these three levels. then what the argument is called may not be all that important. in effect suggest alternative policies. you should have blocks answering particular kritiks whenever possible. It might even be suggested that argument labels are really irrelevant. What seems best. Finally. To label something a kritik may be in effect nothing more than a shorthand way of saying. this chance of solvency would seem to be sufficient reason to vote affirmative. Even kritiks with common names. Finally. Although the idea of risk is most dramatically illustrated in terms of large impact scenarios. This would not. In terms of its policy implications does the kritik function as a counterplan. it might be an assumption specific to one particular kritik. the obvious permutation is to abolish all government except for the those portions needed to carry out the plan. "this is a voter. at the present time the risk of general nuclear war is not very high. Second. As a solvency argument. Furthermore." My thirteenth and last tactical suggestion is to combine evidential and analytical arguments against the kritik. and an impact. because it misunderstands what the affirmative needs to do to justify the endorsement of its plan. Many of the arguments against language kritiks. explicitly appeals to deconstruction as one source of his analysis. Depending on the nature of the risks involved. topic-specific kritik. relieve you of the responsibility for answering their kritik but it might help to offset its impact. First. Much of the force of a kritik often stems from its shock value--the argument it makes will seem so implausible that it may be difficult to attack. But even if the affirmative analysis is almost totally wrong. This seems rather obvious advice coming in the introduction to a handbook xvii . and the negative might be able to almost totally undermine that assumption. Eighth. for example. A twelfth suggestion is to try to think about how the kritik would function as a policy argument. some kritiks will prove susceptible to fairly standard policy permutations. In the case of statism." This can be accomplished in at least two ways. a central premise of an affirmative case might well be that the world is a very risky place. If there is an implicit alternative lurking within the kritik. or it might be an assumption specific to one type of kritik. Policies are often designed not to secure the most likely outcome but to preclude (or render less likely) some relatively remote possibility. The classic example of this is nuclear weapons policy. a solvency argument. a little reflective thought and a modicum of common sense can do wonders. even if rationality is rejected. but many judges will be more comfortable in conceptualizing it as such. Nonetheless. metaphysics. you are likely to be better able to think of how to attack it. Assumptions such as the validity of causation or the necessity of the state should not prove impossible to defend. in light of this. In fact. it is important to recognize that kritiks do differ. Eleventh. This argument seems flawed. of course. it would be foolhardy not to do whatever can be done to further reduce that risk (assuming no offsetting disadvantages). but might tend to support an essentially rationalist kritik such as statism. For example. This is because a number of kritiks (such as statism) do. as long as there is no risk associated with that action. it might still be possible to justify an affirmative plan on emotive grounds.The Anti-Kritik Handbook chance that the plan can solve. Recognizing the distinctiveness of each particular kritik is essential. such as the desirability of questioning all assumptions. Like any other argument by the negative. and politics. For example. There are not so many kritiks in the world that this should prove to be an impossible task (and many kritiks have commonalities permitting generic response). including one's most generic anti-kritik arguments and to have another block answering each of the major types of kritiks: language. This might be an assumption generic to all kritiks. apply only to that type of kritik. In instances like this. will differ in terms of their particular development. are still a reason to act. If it functions basically as a disadvantages then questions of link. the same logic applies in less extreme situations. Possible benefits. however. is to have one general anti-kritik block. Ninth. no matter how remote. the kritik involves a claim. then you may well want to make that alternative explicit in order to permute. in effect. uniqueness. So. The negative may of course argue that the kritik should not be construed in policy terms. Given no disadvantage. Counter-kritiks can take at least two forms. If it is implicitly a counterplan. almost all of one team's analysis could be wrong and their policy option could still be justified. such as statism. The argument is. absent disadvantage. ethics. What is most counter-intuitive about many kritiks is the impact claim--that argument X should be a voting issue.

the basic point remains the same: each individual debate has a subject. as well as questions of sensitive language use. At one level. then minimizing resolutional concerns (for example. to embrace the idea of alternative justification--that the affirmative can offer multiple examples of the resolution. Thus. we do not really debate resolutions. in the end. Still. they should win the round. etc. is not whether certain kinds of issues are important (I at . it would seem to be the resolution. an everyday argument against some aspect of the affirmative. whether the resolution or a particular plan. and against new and unanticipated kritiks they may be especially important. if not thousands of possible plans. however. The resolution is. they must actually be examples of the resolution. A first major argument is that to be relevant the kritik must function within the framework of public policy debate. the topic which the debate community has chosen to discuss. postulate implicit counterplans. will argue in response that its kritik is a xviii GENERAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE KRITIK In this section I will consider some arguments which can be made against almost all kritiks. especially since more specific answers are usually more powerful. that is. and to be relevant. Even in debating the theory of the kritik. or at least the resolution. Still. as are its philosophical roots. etc. many judges are likely to call for the cards. impugn solvency. of course. The real issue here. especially at the link level. in most kritik rounds you should probably make at least one of the standard anti-kritik arguments. And. particular affirmative plans. this answer seems. and that subject matter determines in large part what arguments are relevant. but it again brings us back to debating specific plans rather than the resolution as a whole. Each of the four major theoretical assumptions of the kritik is subject to attack. and for that reason analysis in the evidence is more likely to be better understood and given more weight than the analysis of the debaters themselves. that is. the reason most kritiks are presented as such is that they lack some necessary element of a sound policy argument--uniqueness. In effect. Theory debates often degenerate into wars of tag lines. just as in answering a disadvantage. after all. Analytical arguments also help to diversify one's set of 2AC answers. Furthermore.) The standard answer to the counterwarrants objection is that the resolution can be proven true by one example. This is not to say that these arguments should be made in every kritik round. they deny value claims. I suggested at the outset of this essay that the kritik itself rests on a number of assumptions. suggesting hundreds. and that if they win that any one of them is a good idea. Why should "policy debate" be regarded as an exclusively policy forum? Opponents of the kritik stress the importance of public policy issues. resolutional focus does seem to allow more scope for the kritik than plan focus because it allows debate over the resolution's specific wording. but I have never heard a debate in which its issues were relevant. But even if one accepts resolutional focus. that is. of course. but its rationale is worth at least briefly expanding on. are also important. Almost all kritiks do function. not whether there is a valid example of the resolution. this argument may do limited damage to the kritik.) The fact that the negative has come up with an issue which is interesting or worthy of discussion in its own right does not make it relevant to the debate at hand. it was also argued that the kritik relies heavily on the intellectual postulates of postmodernism and that the kritik closely parallels the process of deconstruction. and that the kritik can be run with other. that is. and reading evidence may help to keep such debate on a somehwta higheer intellectual level. Egyptian archeology is an interesting and worthy subject. we debate examples of resolutions. debate has a subject matter. germane to the subject at hand. offer counter-values. First. within the policy framework. What this means in practice is that all negative arguments must be reasons to reject the affirmative plan. impact at the policy level. and the real question becomes what examples of the resolution are valid. carded arguments simply receieve more credibility from ost debate judges. at least to some extent. the attempt to treat the resolution as a kind of general statement entails various theoretical conundrums such as counterwarrants. (As an aside. Obviously when attacking the substance of a kritik. that all assumptions are appropriate to question. As I suggested above. if one is focusing on a particular policy. arguments must be germane to that subject. And. evidence will often be useful and sometimes essential. (Counterwarrants attempt to disprove the resolution by attacking a different example from the one proposed by the affirmative. In practice.) There are a number of reasons why a focus on specific plans rather than the resolution as a general statement seems preferable. policy arguments. at the same time that it rejects counterwarrants.The Anti-Kritik Handbook containing over a thousand anti-kritik cards. however. But. This seems to be a valid point. This brief defense of plan versus resolutional focus may or may not be persuasive. with regard to topicality of counterplans) seems better calculated to help in finding the best policy. apparently inconsistent. But. The negative. it functionally transforms "kritik" into mere "critique"--that is. the kinds of resolution commonly debated tend to be too broad and vague to meaningfully endorse or reject as a general proposition. it denies that the kritik is a unique argument form. evidence can help. one can question whether or not the focus on the resolution really has any significant truth value. the acceptance of alternative justification massively skews debate toward the affirmative. it seems that the literal "truth" of the resolution is almost a foregone conclusion. analytical arguments have a definite place. Rather. The likelihood that none of those numerous alternatives is in fact a good idea seems on face to be incredibly remote. Especially on bidirectional topics. selectiveness is always necessary. In the discussion of the kritik's intellectual background. but kritik proponents can persuasively argue that other basic moral and philosophical issues. Among these are that the policy framework is itself subject to kritik. For better or worse. (Plans must of course also pass tests of germaneness. Finally. least am perfectly willing to concede that they are) but whether they are relevant. an essentially open forum where opinions on any subject whatsoever can be expressed. Second. that the negative need not propose an alternative. Academic debate is not a soapbox or a radio talk show. that is. Most debate topics are very broad. sometimes the strongest arguments against a kritik will challenge its link to the particular affirmative. at another level. rather. the insistence on the policy framework obviously does great damage to the kritik. What is the subject matter of debate? At the simplest level.

then a rationally justified plan should be accepted. with whatever limits are appropriate to policy discourse taken for granted. The argument was made that the topic assumes the existence of an international system of distinct nation states and that not to make this assumption imagines away the real world context and concerns which generated the topic to begin with. Another implication of accepting a basic public policy framework is that not only are most kritiks not absolute. Again. the topicality) of affirmative plans. No one ever really thought that fiat actually put policies into place. To put simply.) If reason has any credibility. so different moral values are often appropriately discussed. absent a disadvantage. All policy argument is grounded in certain moral conceptions. then the affirmative plan should be rejected. Most policy decisions are made in the face of considerable doubts. that specific policy propositions delimit a sphere of appropriate argumentative response. it probably is not. How does one determine what arguments are germane. the affirmative can lose most of the arguments it makes and still win. Problems with this theory of fiat have already been discussed. I have argued that a field context standard is the most appropriate. a somewhat odd standard for a theory of argument based in postmodern thought to defend.) Given this. then it is presumably germane.The same argument can be made in the context of kritiks. to put it another way. debate has to began somewhere. but it extremely rare that a specific policy discussion would ever invoke fundamental metaphysical or epistemological concerns. the topic being debated is a proposition of policy. an argument over the logical status of cause would not be considered relevant. To make no concessions to the contextual limits of argument seems like an odd position for a postmodern theory to take. unless there are equal offsetting risks. however. If a counterplan is proposed in the literature surrounding the topic. or. the kritik is likely to fail. Under certain circumstances. This method of policy analysis can be challenged (for example. but it does parallel a major standard. It simply will not be absolute. The selection of policy topics is not incidental but rather reflects an important part of the activity's self-definition. questions of fundamental ontology (the nature of being) would not be considered germane. is that arguments are relevant if they can be logically related to affirmative analysis. and its existence provides the context within which the particular topic has been raised. In a discussion over where to go to dinner. What the kritik seems to try to do is to in a sense revert to the old stock issues standard that if the negative raises lots of doubt about the affirmative's analysis. This standard has its limits and its ambiguities. made in order to assess desirability. it may not be useful to question whether or not the state system should exist. (Such doubts would equally implicate any disadvantage. Distinct nations exist and will continue to exist.The Anti-Kritik Handbook reason to reject the specific affirmative plan--if the affirmative plan rests on a certain assumption and that assumption is fundamentally flawed.. If fed into a consistent policy framework (even a liberal one which might allow conditionality or radically counter-intuitive value arguments). In a debate in Congress over gun control. this seems to confuse a statement about the relative truth of some component of affirmative analysis with a statement about the relative truth of the affirmative's overall position. doubts about it are not a reason to vote negative. This is. The attempt to displace policy concerns from the center of debate rested initially on the argument that fiat is utopian because nothing really happens at the end of the round. The standard answer to this is that even marginal. and any topic asking what one nation should do in relation to another assumes that such an international arrangement prevails (It does not necessarily assume that it is good. it would be relevant. What does happen at xix . used in determining the germaneness (i. standard assumptions about these philosophical issues would be simply taken for granted. remember. Within any context in which specific policies would be debated.) If there's any chance of constructively altering the network of power relations. field context. The alternative standard. the kritik misunderstands the nature of the policy calculus. they need to show that they would lead to rejecting the plan. To simply cast substantial doubt on even the most basic premise of an affirmative's analysis is not enough in itself to discredit its policy conclusion. The position here is that all arguments occur within a context. A similar standard could be profitably applied to kritiks. comparative advantages justify an overall policy conclusion. after all.e. This is because. though. This is not to say that argument over specific policies never appeals to higher levels of abstraction. Why should we assume that our basic subject matter is policy debate? Several considerations converge to support this judgment. then by definition it seems to be a policy discussion which is being undertaken. Finally. which the defenders of kritiks would presumably propose. and perhaps most importantly. but many kritiks are absolutely not relevant. This basic argument. the point is very similar. otherwise. the chance that a plan might have an advantage is a sufficient reason for endorsing it. at root. then it is worth trying. arguments occur on a certain level of abstraction. And if either a policy plan or a policy proposition is the center of the discussion. they should win. Thus. the question of the existence of other minds would simply never come up. for example. In debating a specific policy or a specific policy proposition. was made some years ago in the context of the so-called "utopian" counterplans such as anarchy and world government. since the kritik of causality is logically related to solvency. it is simply an assumption of action. In a biology class. Second. what determines the appropriate realm of discourse? In the context of counterplans. a defining characteristic of one branch of this activity is policy debate. Postmodernism. (It should not be enough for the negative to suggest alternative modes of decision-making. In terms of policy debate. First. What matters therefore is not so much the certainty of an advantage but the overall direction of risk. Since causality might be true. based on some theory of presumption). absent an alternative decision-making process which is shown to lead to the contrary conclusion. It either begins with the plan or with the resolution. Sometimes general questions of political theory may be relevant. and that context determines what arguments are relevant. It does exist. but to the best of my knowledge no pro-kritik theorist has seriously attempted to do so. indicts absolute standards of rational judgment and defends instead the position that truths are always situational and contextual. but it does correctly assume that it does exist.

The second major premise of the kritik is that it is appropriate to question all assumptions. In both cases. And. probably few kritik proponents would argue that policy debate has no value (though this is of course what the kritik of normativity directly asserts). Many debaters do rise to positions of power and influence. of course. Second. the belief in nothing. is this problem academic. of ideas which are completely incommensurate. so do other issues. If there are no ultimate intellectual certainties. but there is no implication that the people making those arguments should quit policy debate--rather. They no more exclude or marginalize the negative than a topicality argument marginalizes the affirmative. even if some ethical infractions might justify a decision. xx . An infelicitous word choice hardly seems to justify calling out the heavy moral artillery. Most of thee arguments against this position will be discussed under the section on answers to kritiks of language. at least. then it seems that arguments about the rhetoric of the resolution. Every answer given to every question can itself be questioned. But this assumption can itself be questioned. both of these suspensions of the consideration of policy alternatives arguably serve as means of safeguarding the policy decision-making process. arguments are dismissed as not relevant to the issues at hand. At least two points can be made in terms of this argument. certain axioms have to be accepted as self-evident. as not a problem that would actually arise in a debate. Citizens in a democracy have at least some influence on public decisions and an accompanying responsibility to be informed. Is it really good to question whether racism or sexism are bad? Hitler's questioning of the basic assumptions of liberal humanism is certainly not a very savory example. evidence. the participants are real. Again. It's hard to know how to resist oppression if public policy issues are being ignored. but to try to weigh them against each other seems completely arbitrary. The judge either endorses the affirmative plan or withholds his or her endorsement. Finally. There is something. they will argue that while policy concerns may have importance. the assumption that death checks are always bad is probably not an appropriate one to make. for example. The argument is also sometimes made that the suspension of policy debate in light of other issues is not unique to the kritik. These arguments need not bee the equivalent to "policy debate. it also occurs in the case of typicality and evidence falsification. Why are our minds structured that way? Well. as Dostoevsky put it. and a real decision is made. however." They are merely arguments about whether the negative position is germane to the affirmative. Instead. How do we know that natural selection is a valid theory? It seems clear that this questioning process could continued infinitely. If an answer like that is unacceptable. the best answer seems to be that this should be determined by the context of the discussion. or analysis would not be very relevant either. to vote negative because the affirmative cannot "prove" that life has value seems to me. and why there is may well be completely moot. everything is permitted. The problem of infinite regressiveness seems especially acute if one accepts. If immediate relevance to our lives were the ultimate standards then kritiks of attire or personal hygiene would seem to come into play. Indeed. One final point should be made about the defense of the policy framework. a real judgment based on the arguments in the round has been made (To this extent. the question still remains of what assumptions we should question and which ones we should accept. Voting against teams who misrepresent evidence is generally seen as necessary to assure the integrity of the policy discussion process. First. Even if this is true. otherwise no provisional judgments are ever possible. A first problem with the questioning of all assumptions is its potential for infinite regression. The second major objection to the questioning of all assumptions is that it leads to nihilism. awareness of public policy issues can be important if only for self--defense. Why should we believe our immediate intuitions? Because that's the way in which our minds are structured. the "other issues should be weighed" standard seems to completely lack any principled method for weighing arguments. where the negative has regressed to the point of questioning whether human life has any value. if nothing is true. from mayhem to mass murder. Precisely because ultimate values are so difficult to justify. Topicality serves to assure that it is a relevant policy which has been proposed. Still. First. either as actual decision makers or as opinion leaders. the things that are most important either to us personally or in the cosmic scheme of things may still not be relevant to the topic which has been selected for debate. How does one weigh the risk of a policy impact against a somewhat prejudicial use of language? It is a classic case of apples and oranges. it seems that these should be significant violations of shared standards. the questioning of all assumptions will by definition lead into an infinite loop.The Anti-Kritik Handbook the end of the round is that a tentative judgment is made concerning the desirability of the affirmative plan. Nor. as postmodernists typically do. incessantly questioning them can really lead to radical skepticism. that is. even for the most apolitical. To ask. There have been debates. then it is hard to know how one would go about validating such a fundamental value question. once again. The infinite regress objection is sometimes dismissed as overly theoretical. they should make arguments within its framework. To revert to the above example. Finally. why is there something rather than nothing? may be simply meaningless. as Heidegger did. At some point. How do we know we exist? Because we have an immediate intuition of our existence. The issues are real. that is. to resist oppression at all (especially in an intelligent way) requires some sensitivity to the nuances of public policy. At that point there really seems to be not much further to go. the validity of anti-foundationalism. One can only act on assumptions which seem most plausible. questions of language. One might reasonably claim that one or the other takes priority. love it or leave it. to be profoundly nihilistic. but for babysitters it is an excellent assumption. At this point. the process of arguing for and making decisions about public policy questions is an important one. the arguments are real. Mill's answer was that things have value because people value them. In the context of a Malthus debate. but a couple of points are worth mentioning at this juncture. If we rule out kritiks like these as not relevant to whether or not the plan is a good idea. ) Furthermore. perhaps because of the pressures of natural selection. arguments that debate is not real world seem misguided.

even the chance that an assumption is true gives the plan a net benefit. for example. and a net benefit (or comparative advantage) is enough. but unless there is some better alternative. Sometimes pure kritik is defended on the grounds that critical thinking is the central skill which debate has to teach. But absent such certainty. So. In the hypothesis testing paradigm. merely to have sufficient doubt to withhold assent. I doubt that rethinking will salvage the kritik from the change of no alternative First. The basic argument against this stance is that policy argument is inherently comparative. it may only serve to render the debate a tie. I might tentatively endorse a plan as a good idea within the humanist framework while still rethinking the general concepts of humanism. tentative endorsement of the plan within one thought system seems justified while that thought system is being rethought. the kritik again displays close affinities to hypothesis testing. The fourth major assumption of the kritik is that kritiks of the xxi . Rethinking. the only absolute judgment which the judge needs to make is for or against the plan. once again. of the issue at hand. rethinking is justified only if the direction of advantage versus disadvantage is in doubt. Few kritiks (or critiques) are so devastating that one would conclude that they are one hundred percent certain. In effect. the option of deferred judgment. even if the kritik were. spent over fifty years trying to rethink the nature of being. The world's real problems require real. The point once again needs to be made that an affirmative's case might be almost totally flawed while still justifying at the margin that its plan is a good idea. The kritik also seems to rest on the flawed assumption that arguments should be judged in black and white terms. after all. no coherent policy decision can really occur. and all possess flaws.) The latest attempt to answer the no alternative objection is a defense of the idea of "rethinking. the rethinking option most closely resembles the study counterplan. (Either that or a convenient coin. and lacking an alternative. Rhetoric and analysis are merely means to the end of justifying the policy. Affirmative assumptions need not all be totally true to accomplish this end. one will customarily continue to make provisional political judgments. determined to be absolute. there is little reason to believe that more thought will resolve issues such as these which have been mulled over for millennia. In fact. if imperfect solutions. If imperfect analysis or an imperfect policy is a basis for voting negative. they should rarely amount to more than partial arguments reducing an affirmative advantage. In its defense of non-comparative argument. one might well raise the question of what level of doubt is needed to justify rethinking. Especially if there is doubt about the kritik.) Another point is that the uncertainty of the rethinking process justifies tentative judgments. it constitutes a provisional judgment rendered in the ongoing process of rethinking. at minimum. While I would not deny the value of critical thought. the alternative of rethinking. (Heidegger. If the logical impact of the kritik is simply to serve as a harm reduction argument. To reject the resolution's truth. On most other issues there is likely to be some doubt at the end of the round (at least if they have been meaningfully contested). Fifth. Voting one way or another doesn't suspend all future thought (the next round may be only ten minutes away). it might be argued that even rethinking cannot proceed effectively if there is no explicit policy alternative to consider. one can question the solvency of the rethinking process. even a flawed proposal is best. Finally. The rethinking process (and the call to rethink) could go on pretty much forever. If rethinking is to be an appealing alternative. Fourth. In this approach to the no alternative problem. then there must be some reason to believe that rethinking a set of issues which has presumably been thought through once in the course of the debate is likely to come to a superior conclusion. Again it seems paradoxical that a debate theory which purports to be based in a philosophy as relativistic about truth claims as postmodernism would insist on the judge making absolute judgments rather than recognizing that choice must be based on inherent uncertainties. The judge's vote at the end of the round represents his or her best thought. it is the worst system of government except for all the rest. it seems justified to make a tentative endorsement while rethinking. At that point. the solvency of rethinking may be undermined by the kritik itself. Does this mean that the judge should always vote to rethink? Presumably not. to justify a policy. rather. but without at least two alternatives to choose from. The argument here is that the judge does have an alternative at the end of the round. the kritik is redefined as an alternative. In the policy framework. Second. Kritiks which challenge the process of rational thought itself or which fail to distinguish knowledge from power can hardly defend further thought as an alternative. if there is no risk of a disadvantage. If the negative is allowed to simply kritik the affirmative proposal they will inevitably find flaws. then there is no point in rethinking in order to determine just how desirable the affirmative policy is. But when then is there enough doubt to justify rethought? Third. and perhaps most important. One can rethink forever. or the nature of power. what the kritik seems to assure is that the focus of the debate is the affirmative's analysis (including its rhetoric) and not the affirmative plan. (For example.) Especially while engaged in the process of rethinking some fundamental philosophical issue.The Anti-Kritik Handbook The third major assumption of the kritik is that the negative need not defend a policy alternative. rather than in terms of probabilities. Despite its roots in these venerable theoretical constructs. all things equal. As Churchill noted about democracy. We never reach certain knowledge. which also advocated suspended action while further study was undertaken. The end of proving its plan desirable can still be sustained even if most affirmative arguments are extremely dubious. Sixth. is a life long process. the debate itself should be regarded as part of the process of rethinking. Especially if what is to be rethought is something like the Western philosophical tradition. based on the debate. the judge evaluated the truth of the resolution. To encourage an attitude which promotes pure criticism without any appeal to a constructive alternative seems fundamentally irresponsible. Nor is the kind of carping criticism which offers no alternative usually very persuasive in most argument situations. learning to think constructively is also important. some theory of presumption is required to serve as a tie-breaker. rethinking seems perfectly consistent with the tentative endorsement of the affirmative plan. All policy alternatives involve costs. Of course. that is. There is almost always some doubt at the end of every round. the idea of humanism. then the negative should always win. through some strange eventuality. it was not considered necessary to have a better alternative.

" But the idea of a fundamental transition from modern to postmodern may itself be a grand theory. at worst. for such a radically new theory. it probably is a rather conservative variant of the policy paradigm which places primary emphasis on advocacy and is militantly anti-conditional. Despite their limits. and argument over debate theory. it undermines respect for reason. Lyotard defined the postmodern in terms of the rejection of "grand theory. it may still be necessary to check the irrational elements of the human makeup. Fourth. it is arguably inconsistent to then proceed to make arguments within the framework being attacked. reason and science can both be defended as necessary tools of human survival. the perspective of the Enlightenment is still defended as fundamentally valid. especially in the modern age.) And even if reason is not a panacea. The argument is even made that we should both act and deconstruct. The kritik introduced a whole new dimension of debate theory argument into the activity. I want to conclude this section on general arguments against the kritik by responding to the arguments made in favor of the kritik which were listed earlier. if the kritik is claimed to have intellectual respectability in part because of its academic pedigree in postmodernism. the denial of rational standards is said to lead to political paralysis. science. it has gained remarkably fast acceptance. Some have been touched on in places. the "stranglehold" of policy conservatives seems like an exaggerated concern. (And of those three the policy framework and the no alternative arguments are probably the most important.) Still. if the kritik offers a radically different view of the world. Others have argued that the idea of postmodernism is self-contradictory. If assumptions are fair game for attack then the assumptions of the kritik likewise seem legitimate to indict. Similar arguments are directed against deconstruction. is said at root to be profoundly reactionary. Fifth. the postmodern "theory of history" is said to be both wrong and self-contradictory. but that if the assumption is flawed. if the kritik is implicitly offering one or more policy alternatives. politically ineffectual and reactionary. Proponents of the kritik explicitly ground their theory in postmodern thought. The first argument was that a narrow version of policy debate has a stranglehold on the activity. then in effect the negative is defending conditional policy alternatives. then the question of policy desirability becomes relevant. postmodernism is often said to produce a paralyzing skepticism. Second. Currently. Third. but it seems useful to address this set of concerns in a more systematic way. arguments against conditionality do seem relevant. Some would deny that we have either entered or are on the verge of entering a postmodern period. While the eighteenth century was certainly somewhat naive about the power of reason to reshape society. this group of judges and coaches tends to be conservative on counterplan theory (an affirmative bias). many of its libertarian and egalitarian ideals have in fact been realized. The negative might easily choose to answer such arguments by claiming that they are just general indictments which don't apply to the particular kritik.) Indeed. First. liberal on topicality (also another affirmative bias). the relative quiet on the theory battlefront which prevailed in the late 1980s allowed substantive policy debate to proceed largely without theoretical distraction. First. then surely that pedigree can itself be subjected to critique. still another affirmative bias). In doubting everything. Second. is ultimately rather trivial. But pet peeves aside. the affirmative might well wish to argue that the kritik rests on these philosophical assumptions and that they are fundamentally flawed. In effect. In addition. and if the negative is also defending the status quo or some other counterplan. the kritik perspective (which I am tempted to relabel as the "critical gaming" paradigm) has rather rapidly created its own counter-orthodoxy. At this point. This kind of inconsistency seem as contrary to common notions of advocacy as is the advancing of two conditional policy alternatives. Still. The argument. If there is a theoretical orthodoxy in debate today. Many of the arguments made against postmodernism as a philosophical perspective are very similar to arguments made against the kritik as a theory in debate. conventional policy arguments. and even truth itself. Not all kritiks rely on explicitly postmodern premises. First. an overarching theory of history no less ambitious than Hegel's or Spengler's. I make this suggestion with a certain reservation. This premise of the kritik is probably less important to challenge than are the three premises discussed above. but there are a number of other points worth making. A true post-humanist wouldn't both militantly indict the legacy of humanism and make arguments based on the humanist framework. Finally. The benefit of orthodoxy is predictability. then its plan is still a bad idea. Though overstated. then the policy debate is moot. while it can be interesting. have suggested that its philosophical roots in postmodernism and deconstruction are also subject to attack. the postmodern kritik of modern democratic liberalism has been associated with the various totalitarianisms of the twentieth century. they make an if/then statement: if the affirmative assumption being challenged is true. is that if the assumption is true. (Not many of us would trade places with a French peasant of the age of Louis XVI. of course. based in part on the analogy of topicality. as well as essentially irrationalist. postmodernism is indicted as nihilistic. though often embraced by persons on the contemporary political left. postmodern thought. What is the import of these arguments for debate? It does seem that many of the indictments of deconstruction and of postmodernism do authentically implicate the theory of the kritik. The argument is made that deconstruction is infinitely regressive. and is often willing to in effect censor substantive policy arguments which they find offensive (generally speaking. At best. And.The Anti-Kritik Handbook policy framework can be made in the same round as other. It is said to be nihilistic. this does embroil the negative in something of a paradox. (Part of this no doubt stems from negative debaters hard up for a strategy. and deconstruction seems to closely parallel the kritik. Thus. indeed. Some of the arguments against these perspectives have already been discussed in the section on the intellectual background to the kritik. I do have some sympathy for this argument. In addition to arguing that the theoretical presuppositions of the kritik are questionable. and that it is intellectually unintelligible. It is probably not coincidental that since this orthodoxy has become solidified. the kritik has hardly been stifled. xxii . even though the process of kritik may do so implicitly. most kritiks are also generic and fail to clash very specifically with affirmative analysis. the case versus Clinton has become pretty much the standard debate. it may be useful on some occasions to attack the "conditional" nature of the kritik. that it fails to offer alternatives.

So now." (Nor would the figures of the Inquisition who kritiked Galileo's radically modern belief that the earth goes around the sun appear to be the embodiment of "new thought. it has been profoundly confusing and alienating for others. Insofar as tabula rasa is used as a basis for defending the kritik. I think. I am willing to accept the proposition that any reasonably developed. Heidegger. and others see postmodernism in America as simply a passing fad. It should be noted that a good deal of postmodern thought can be accommodated within the framework of normal. But it is still worth noting that the values of liberal tolerance which would justify such speech are not shared by many of the thinkers whose thought is being put forward. On a more practical note. (Please note. instead of one orthodoxy we have two. however. it isn't clear that it is something to be sought simply for the sake of intellectual novelty. Postmodern thought is more or less unavoidable today. it does not follow from this that academic policy debate should mindlessly parrot modes of argument and discourse found in academia simply because debate xxiii . Nor has the revival of the anarchy counterplan in the form of the statism kritik brought a breath of fresh air into the activity. have some merit. Since language supposedly structures thought. (In sum. it can be questioned whether in the long run the kritik really will be so intellectually stimulating. definitely undervalues the more intellectually substantive goals of debate. though not all. Even the Foucauldian power kritik could be run as a disadvantage. In addition. if free speech liberals find themselves in a somewhat paradoxical situation in opposing the kritik. policy stagnation would be much less of a problem. This would both alleviate to some extent the narrowness of the policy advocacy paradigm and limit the temptation of kritik as a means to gain some leverage on the negative. who only come together to battle over the strike card. This argument does. new to debate but the appeal to newness seems to be a more rhetorical than substantive one. some of the ideas which the kritik has rejuvenated are not especially new even for debate. of postmodern thought is profoundly illiberal. That. the thinking of even Derrida and Foucault is already out of date in France. Kritiks which are coherently argued should be considered. It also seems a bit odd to characterize ideas that Martin Heidegger formulated in the 1920s and 1930s as "new thinking. and it derived much of its intellectual force from the kind of critique of modernity found in Nietzsche and Heidegger. and Foucault may have been. Neither Malthus. I take this argument seriously enough that I do not believe that the kritik should be dismissed out of hand. this should really revolutionize our thinking. I am emphatically not accusing proponents of the kritik in debate of being Nazis. it is important to have some arguments against it. one which would allow the negative more options.) Obviously not all new ideas are good. I would recommend the replacement. In effect.) Debate should accommodate some postmodern themes. or at least of possessing a profound split in their thought between freedom and structure. the judge should not do this arbitrarily. and it was probably only a matter of time before it penetrated policy debate. The topic does change every year. (This is also another reason why the free speech argument is less compelling. but there is no reason why he or she should not listen to arguments that kritik is not relevant to a policy framework. It would be possible to debate them year after year. and every topic has innumerable elements. Nonetheless. It places a great premium on proliferating cheap shots and. The second main pro-kritik argument is that the kritik represents "new thinking. it accuses kritik opponents of hypocrisy.The Anti-Kritik Handbook debate seems radically polarized between the forces of policy advocacy and tabula rasa kritikers. making the kritik of limited relevance. The third argument for the kritik is more substantive. although doing so would probably help dramatize its weaknesses. Many of these ideas are. it is somewhat peripheral to this discussion. My own view. is clearly another essay." The problem with the tabula rasa approach to judging is that it tends to promote a clerical speed and accuracy attitude toward debate. Much. Nazism was new once too. It involves the appeal to free inquiry as a basic value in debate. In terms of the kritik. defenders of the orthodox policy view have at least one other strong argument to make here. comparative policy debate. the above comment is intended mainly as a dig against Heidegger--more on that later. (It also seems suspiciously grounded in the preeminently modern belief in progress. or at least the supplementation. some of the polemics of this essay notwithstanding. Wordsworth. Again. I believe to be somewhere in the middle." I have already noted that the critique of modernity is probably as old as modernity itself.) The fourth main argument for the kritik is the tabula rasa position that everything should be debatable. substantive position should be considered on its merits. If debaters were as creative in devising policy arguments as they have been of late in devising kritiks. While the focus would remain on policy. If we really wanted to revolutionize debate we could speak totally in German rather than simply adopting one German word. innovation has costs as well as benefits.") According to some scholars. for example. The fifth argument in favor of the kritik which I want to consider is the claim that the kritik is justified by the prominence of postmodern thought in contemporary academia. It is not intellectually intolerant to dismiss arguments about quantum mechanics in a discussion of HAMLET. pro-kritik postmodernists may be in some tension in defending the kritik on liberal free speech grounds. Hume. coherent. they were not liberal democrats. Feminism and CLS. of the policy advocacy paradigm with a paradigm of policy criticism and analysis.) All of this said. Some of them even date from the time of Protagoras (the reputed founder of debate). I would favor a more liberal version of policy debate. this need not imply the necessity of voting on every blip tagged as a "voting issue.) This does not justify excluding their ideas--I am willing the let the Nazis march through debate just as I was willing to let them march through Skokie. But this does not mean that arguments about their germaneness are not relevant. But even if the judge should be open to all well-developed positions. I believe. Paradigm transformation probably always entails a period of intellectual chaos. otherwise. Burke. of course. The kind of philosophical arguments which the kritik tends to raise are ultra-generic. both dogmatic." As suggested above. have provided many non-kritik arguments. (Whatever else Nietzsche. or Rousseau would exactly qualify as "new thinkers. If the kritik has been stimulating for some. most people's objection is to the form not the radical content of these arguments. Also. the perspective from which policy would be viewed would be definitely broadened. nor does Derrida appear to be.

Could it have that effect? Well. trends in deconstructive. The kritik has borrowed a number of things from hypothesis testing. World War I." Probably each of these positions is defensible. Congress wouldn't suspend debate to focus exclusively on the propriety of a phrase such as "Islamic fundamentalism. I think. we wouldn't suspend the process of policy debate over poor word choices. through defenses of the kritik is the idea that the process of kritik is intellectually liberating and empowering. it still seems clear to me that it was in part the sustained critique of modernity current in Germany in the 1920s which paved the way for Hitler. in other argument forums." "human welfare is irrelevant in light of the overwhelming importance of the ecosystem. reader response criticism seem far less germane. this is a mild venture on my part into speculative doom-saying. I doubt that anyone has been drawn into the activity (for more than a tournament) out of a desire to debate kritiks. but this is uncertain at best. Of course. if it is the negative's language which is being kritiked). Policy debate is already difficult to learn. This is a value of debate which probably almost everyone has experienced--both before and since the kritik. Not all alienation is necessarily bad. as I think it does. there are still certain dangers associated with what Jon Brody has called "kritikgeist. but I highly question the desirability of defending them. GENERIC ANSWERS TO LANGUAGE KRITIKS In addition to the general arguments against kritiks. A second danger is alienation. Many critics believe that they are making the university ever more detached from the rest of society. Second. and the Great Depression were critical factors as well." then it is also necessary to consider the real world implications of trying to persuade a judge (and indirectly yourself and the rounds' other participants) of propositions like "the state should be abolished. Is the kritik intended to turn debaters into domestic terrorists? Obviously not. if the central focus of the debate is on policy. It is liberating to encounter new perspectives. then perhaps it should borrow another of hypothesis testing's precepts: debaters should argue for what they actually believe in. Of course." "humanism should be rejected. hopefully not. so they tend to think that they can make some fairly horrific arguments without their own belief systems being strongly implicated. The sixth argument that I want to consider here is that rejecting the kritik constitutes a mechanism of exclusion. but it is navigable. Finally. I hope I don't prove prophetic. s/he wouldn't xxiv . I do not think that the main purpose of debate is to teach students about trends in academic thought. Deconstruction appears to be rather like Marxism and Freudianism in that it offers a complete world view. The point of all this is that the kritik is far more likely to effectively exclude people from the activity than it is to engage them in it. too much skepticism. gets things almost completely backwards. there are no clear standards (even defining or categorizing kritiks is criticized as overly structured). too much doubt too long sustained can also have consequences of a less than savory sort. then this does not seem to be a possibility to dismiss out of hand. then a retreat into the more esoteric confines of academic theorizing seems distinctly counterproductive. The value of a policy focus is that most educated people are interested in public policy issues. I seriously doubt that over time that many people will want to play a game so difficult or so unstructured. The deconstructionists and other postmoderns withdraw into their enclaves and talk to each other in a jargon unintelligible to the rest of society. Policy debate may in some ways be simplistic. this is true of almost any world view--it will repel contrary viewpoints. if it is. at least implicitly. If indeed it takes seriously its own stated position that real world effects on participants are what matter most. But carried too far. But it seems unlikely that Germany would have taken the virulently racist direction it did if the basic framework of Western values had not been cast so severely in doubt. then poorly chosen language isn't a reason to vote negative (or affirmative. to challenge ideas that had always been accepted. First. and everything is up for grabs. it seems likely that too much kritik. it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that the bombers of the Oklahoma City Federal Building may have taken the kritik of statism a bit too seriously. there are values as well as costs in attaining some degree of detachment from one's society. Of course. If academic policy debate best functions.The Anti-Kritik Handbook is an academic activity. Perhaps if the kritik were banished from debate tomorrow." The first danger is one associated with entering a total system of thought. But if kritikgeist becomes the one way to look at things. doubt can become debilitating. and perhaps it is an unfortunate one. This is a tendency we sometimes criticized. then it seems at least as confining as the viewpoints it rejects." And while a policy scholar might dispute the word choice. Proponents of the kritik make the valid point that our language and our discourse. the Treaty of Versailles. an esoteric body of theory. Closer to home. any more than it follows that we should mimic all the procedures of Congress because we are debating a policy proposition. Within these perspectives there is an answer to everything. the trends associated with postmodernism in the academy are far from non-controversial. the kritik encompasses some extremely stimulating ideas. A final theme which seems to run. but if we tear down the screens between our arguments and "the real world. and a difficult technique. a few committed kritikers would leave the activity. Many regard deconstruction and associated phenomena was purely ivory tower efforts to escape the fact that the leftist agenda has failed. In postmodern debate. At the risk of overusing an example. Debaters typically develop a certain callousing in terms of the arguments they make. our ideas and our arguments have consequences. and thought which challenges the perspective tends to be screened out. and besides such an immediate banishment is not going to occur. policy debate will become attractive to fewer and fewer participants. then different topics should certainly be selected. Debate is seen fundamentally as a game. There are far fewer philosophy majors. on the desirability of the plan. It involves a mastery of a broad subject matter. at the intersection of academic policy scholarship and public policy making. and I do not doubt that it produces intellectual experiences of this sort. But if we take seriously the claim of the kritik's supporters that the actual effects of the words and ideas on of those in the round are what matters most." or "human life has no value. This argument. Introduction of the kritik adds the realms of philosophy and modern social theory to the purview of debate and it also introduces a whole new set of theory concerns. a number of arguments can be made specific to language kritiks. that is. But given this. Trends in international relations scholarship are certainly relevant to debating about China or the Mid-east. What I think is far more likely to happen is that if the kritik continues to gain in prominence. But all this admitted.

It is the negative. It might be argued that the kritik is not a code. A good example of this is the debate over the propriety of the "and/or" expression. to immediately suspend debate because some politically incorrect phrase has been used is anti-intellectual. new words appear and old words are given new senses. Seventh. The offensiveness of language is strongly conditioned by the intent of the speaker. Sixth.and anti-kritik positions seem to be reversing their sides in terms of the value of free speech. chills the free expression of ideas. A person. theories. Perhaps there are some expressions so commonly taken to be offensive that they should be punished with a loss (statements which are commonly understood to be bigoted). has both a denotative and a connotative meaning. the reverse is also true: language reflects and represents non-linguistic reality. if one side makes an argument about the nature of Islamic fundamentalism in good faith and loses that argument. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist. And. language found in evidence also isn't absolute. GENERIC ANSWERS TO METAPHYSICAL KRITIKS Against these kritiks. Also. They are not presumably. why not punish other things? Styles. that they chill free expression. Nor does linguistic change necessarily mean social change. The voting issue impact claimed by the kritik suggests that these offenses are on a comparable moral plane. in most cases it should be possible to defend your language choices. so should unsustained accusations of bigoted language. Furthermore. it is a bona fide argument that extremely conservative versions of Islam are associated with terrorism and anti-Western attitudes. Denotatively. It contains an infinite number of possible statements combining different words. but merely arguing that the kritik is an irrelevant argument in this context. but it can function the same way in terms of chilling speech. punishment with a loss seems grossly excessive when no offense is intended. language changes. chilling potentially valid arguments. To label this as racial stereotyping and to suspend debate is to beg the question. While this is certainly true to some extent. it simply refers to persons who believe in the literal truth of the Islamic religion. eleventh. there are a wide range of anti-political correctness arguments which can be made against language kritiks. Tenth. Generally. Not every racist uses racial epithets. and discouraging frivolous accusations of bigoted language also is a valid goal. proliferating claims that your opponents' language is bigoted hardly figures to promote a friendly and collegial atmosphere in debate. Finally.The Anti-Kritik Handbook abandon the search for the best policy simply because such an expression had been used. that is suggesting that the phrase inherently implies an adverse image. Probably. then one might bring that to his or her attention. while retaining prejudicial attitudes unaffected. may hypocritically change his or her language. it may be useful to challenge the theory of language which insist that our words structure our reality. to sustain this argument. it is necessary to accept the framework of the kritik. And both punish a form of expression rather than debating it on its merits. If one side's language is said to be so offensive. And if we punish word choice. Also. so bigoted or prejudicial. may well be excessive in light of the severity of the offense (or arbitrary in its application). The phrase "Islamic fundamentalism. The affirmative can consistently defend free speech. To do so figures to stifle the free exchange of ideas. language is not a straightjacket. whereas language kritiks can apply to everything from grammatical constructions to ethnic references. Ninth. but a brief apology (or clarification) should be sufficient to compensate for the miscue. Much of the literature in support of these arguments will come from the discussion of university speech codes. codes might be less offensive since they at least provide some notice. This is the standard argument made against excessive preoccupation with topicality." a number of relatively distinctive arguments xxv . argument about the primacy of policy argument undercut its impact. and highlights judge prejudice. and that they are ineffective and counterproductive because they produce backlash and/or drive prejudice underground. The point of the debate is presumably to determine whether fundamentalism is the source of a significant threat and what can be done about it. And many argue that offensive speech is the price of freedom. the affirmative position at least is reconcilable. not the affirmative. It would be unfortunate to see it revived in the moralistic wrapping of a language kritik. Whether the negative can as easily reconcile its apparent contradiction is less clear." for example. the pro. It is commonly argued that such codes are a form of censorship. that they should lose. arguing to punish the negative with a loss for running a kritik. You will probably have noticed that when language kritiks are at issue. though. Of course. This is a common indictment of deconstruction. At most it indicates a possible reason to distrust that source. It obviously distracts from policy issues. Third. Perhaps such usages (especially if applied to one of the participants in the round) do as much to compromise the activity as falsifying evidence. they need not defend the felicity of the topic framers' word choice. just as false (or even unsubstantiated) accusations of evidence falsification are commonly seen as voting issues. even substantive arguments which we dislike would all seem to be fair candidates. the affirmative should not be accountable for resolutional language. In light of this the affirmative may wish to play down some of the normal arguments about debate not being an open forum for any and all viewpoints. punishment seems to be a bad idea. If a speaker's language is inadvertently offensive. Furthermore. Their responsibility is to defend a topical example of the resolution. The affirmative should certainly argue that only the most offensive language expressions should be voting issues. The punishment theory was popularized in the middle 1980s but was rather rapidly discredited. Eighth. too much preoccupation with language can distract from substantive policy analysis. If so. Fifth. then the dramatic sanction of punishment with a loss might be justified. too much focus on words can lead to the ignoring of reality. but this does not mean that there is not a tenable link between Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Social reform is said to depend vitally on free speech and learning to confront prejudice is said to be especially important for minorities. Fourth. language focus can be trivializing. that should not automatically produce a loss. Finally. one branch of the genre of pure philosophical "kritiks of thought. that speech limits snowball that limiting speech undermines the role of the university. under pressure. then this is tantamount to an ethical challenge. The language kritik is probably the one instance where claiming the loss of the kritik as a reverse voting issue is most appropriate. Finally. and not all fundamentalists are terrorists. whether it is a stereotype grounded in some reality is the key issue. Indeed. though.

First. Second. The "kritik of reason" was among the early kritiks. First. while the kritik of reason is rarely run overtly any more. Most xxvi GENERIC ANSWERS TO MORAL AND POLITICAL KRITIKS Moral and political kritiks (or kritiks of value) are closest in nature to normal policy arguments. and Derrida. the kritik of reason is probably not absolute against most affirmatives. no one has ever definitively proven that they don't. A field context standard proves that these kritiks are invalid. high school debate especially is the wrong forum for this type of argument. Second. logical positivism argues strenuously that because they are not verifiable. (Pragmatists. Third. pragmatism can also be used as a perspective from which to attack epistemology. it can be argued that metaphysical (as well as epistemological) questions are outside of our realm of discourse. it is also important to point out where these arguments fail conceptually as policy arguments. and timely issues each year. history. are bad. From a more philosophical standpoint. Cornel West argues that a central theme of pragmatism is its rejection of epistemological questions as inherently sterile. many of its themes and assumptions intersect with numerous other kritiks. Fourth. A major purpose of the topic is to direct discussion to new. Intuitions are sometimes erroneous and often conflict. a number of other theoretical arguments become available. Third. Also. including Nietzsche. define truth as whatever works. Some common means through which reliable knowledge is said to be gained are sense experience. the argument that we should never make normative judgments seems quite dubious. making it unreasonable to expect them to deal with arguments of this sort. Foucault. important. Even Nietzsche and Heidegger (though much of their thought arguably is metaphysical) join in this condemnation. First. So. remember. in most instances many of these will apply. my discussion of particular kritiks will be brief. are commonly said to be irrationalist and anti-scientific. they are not germane. the pure philosophy kritiks are rarely absolute because metaphysics is so inherently uncertain. Thus. A narrowly focused. it will often be useful to be prepared to defend that valid knowledge of the world is indeed available. You don't need to prove that you exist in order to debate about China policy. what are they to do. Fourth. implying that we must always act in the face of doubt. Still. especially on matters of public concern. The topic fails in this purpose if the negative can ignore the topic and debate two thousand year old philosophical quandaries. in pointing out that these are in effect non-texted conditional counterplans.The Anti-Kritik Handbook can be made. Both may have a place in decision making. Especially from an anti-foundationalist perspective. they need to be treated in a somewhat different way from other kritiks. GENERIC ANSWERS TO EPISTEMOLOGICAL KRITIKS Pretty much all of the debate theory derived arguments against metaphysical kritiks also apply to epistemological kritiks. this sort of kritik destroys the discussion directing function of the topic. metaphysical arguments are meaningless. In addition. The basic alternatives to reason are intuition and emotion. ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC KRITIKS Since the carded answers to the specific kritik should be relatively self-explanatory. should be debated basically like counterplans. such as anarchy. reason is a proper part of the thought process. On one hand. If the alternatives to the state. Certainly a central theme (perhaps the central theme) of postmodernism is a critique of reason. Also. so not all of these arguments will apply especially well to each of them.) Second. Utopian thinking is indicted for distracting attention from real solutions. In a few instances. Fifth. When people disagree. For example. Humans might possess free will. but to check our intuitions we need to rationally reflect on them. it may be useful to generically kritik the idea of utopianism. of course. probably because it was provoking too much judge resistance. Arguments of this sort are never raised in the literature surrounding the topic (at least any topic I've encountered). but they are essentially private experiences. the kritik of reason assumes too limited a view of the nature of rationality. REASON. As many argue. they are likely to also fail as kritiks. Evidence defending the importance of reason and science is especially significant because it can apply to many other kritiks. alternative worldview kritiks such as statism. Most high school debaters have never even had an introductory philosophy course. it is important to argue that epistemological doubt doesn't justify policy paralysis. Given this. but most of the relevant analysis will be found in the tags and cards. in contrast. deductive logic. encompassing both means and ends. nothing is certain. Fourth. These questions involve high level abstractions which would almost never be raised in a policy debate. only rational reflection can sort them out. Heidegger. Even if meaningful most contemporary thinkers probably believe that metaphysical questions are inherently unanswerable. purely instrumental. It should be noted that there are many critiques of reason. thus. All thoughts probably begin as intuitions.) A fifth argument might be that if a position is implicitly a counterplan it needs to be presented as such. that the kritik presumes some utopian alternative--or perhaps that the lack of an alternative makes it utopian. there may be some particular feature of one of the evidenced arguments which merits special mention. but it was rapidly abandoned. But. they . it is underspecified in the same way as an affirmative without a plan. Also. Third. need not be. then the state is vindicated by default. have a public quality which makes them more directly comparable. empte or intuit at each other? Reasons. but rationality in a broad sense. Third. there are some especially strong analytical arguments which merit addition. Postmodernism in general and many postmodern thinkers. it is generally desirable to debate them as policy arguments. rationality might be destructive. arguments in this section should have fairly wide applicability against both epistemological and other kritiks. through science. if these arguments are beaten on their merits as policy positions. Both pragmatists and postmodernists unite in their contempt for metaphysics. scholarly sub-disciplines. the alternative to reason is the rule of force. (You would need to win. it also can produce a willingness to commit present atrocities in the name of some far off future. probably have policy implications in the round (or will be claimed to have at a later point). it is a reason giving activity. It is easy to see why this would be the case: if debate is anything. there is no effective alternative to reason. rights kritiks don't really function too well as case turns because they are non-unique. if it isn't. and perhaps most importantly.

Eleventh. the notion that there is no centralized power is silly. causality is invalid. some idea of "good reasons" is essential for making choices. Seventh. It is therefore up to the negative to indict the affirmative's specific reasons. it can be argued that rather than marginalizing. This is a completely unspecified scenario which cannot be meaningfully weighed against a big affirmative impact. the troops went to Kuwait. Certainly the alternative of Burkean "prejudices" seems far less favorable to the marginalized. in an overpopulated world it is likely that it also offers the only solution. Fourth. they give particular reasons designed to reach a particular conclusion. He certainly would never have recommended trying to act on the basis of a rejection of causality. it simply means that we must do the best we can with probabilistic knowledge. Ninth. What the affirmative might well argue is that they don't appeal to any abstract. Sometimes the power kritik is accompanied by an argument suggesting the possibility of consciousness change.The Anti-Kritik Handbook affirmatives employ a process of rational inference. Rejecting all forms of social discipline-in the form of the prison.) Furthermore. Fourth. "Reason" is a huge abstraction. and he believed that humans always act on the basis of their experience. the kritik of causality is really more a demonstration of the limits of logical proof than it is a refutation of the principles of causation. Fifth. there is still no DA. if it is invalid. There are two somewhat distinct kritiks based on Foucault's theories about power. Tenth. with its emphasis on situationalism and contextualism. Third. We can't know as a matter of logical certainty that the future will repeat the past or that one event which always follows another was in fact caused by the preceding event. rather. Foucault to the best of may knowledge never argues that no manifestations of power can ever be affected. Foucault can talk all that he wants about marginalizing the discourses of the mad--but to give equal weight to schizophrenic or paranoid thought seems to be a recipe for disaster. and in his later career as a historian he obviously assumed the validity of cause. Second. any attempt to reform the system will inevitably fail (and is as likely to be counterproductive as it is productive). he was essentially a determinist. not "reason" in general. Third. Fifth. that fact should not cause the judge to vote negative. Even if the rational appeal of a case is dismissed. The affirmative simply attempts to redirect that particular form of disciplinary power. if causation is even possibly valid. hardly implying that they regard it as inherently oppressive. The idea of trying to produce a distinct effect (a win) through the argument that there are no distinct effects seems paradoxical to the point of absurdity. eighteenth century ideal of "right reason". you should also argue that if . it is hard to see how human life could proceed. our daily experience confirms causality. the plan produces an advantage. Even if power is decentralized and disciplinary. and their example should prove cautionary. Hume draws an explicit line between philosophy and practical affairs. when Truman gave the order. Certain acts (absent intervening causes) invariably produce certain effects. the xxvii CAUSALITY. the lack of certain foundations for knowledge is irrelevant. Even if scientific rationalism is the source of many problems. It seems to imply that the disciplines of a democratic society are as oppressive as the manacles of a police state. reason in fact empowers disadvantaged groups. In terms of his psychological theories. but most also make emotive value judgments. No one would eat or drink unless they believed that doing so would cause certain effects. When Bush gave the orders. their ambiguities make them hard to pin down. Again. I cannot recall any affirmative that claimed that power is always bad or that knowledge is always good. Sixth. most affirmatives employ power. nor that any effort to redirect power necessarily produces an equally harmful offsetting counter-effect. it provides a reason to vote affirmative. Furthermore. the school. (At least this is my understanding of these two kritiks. postmodernism. Without a belief in causality. through argument we can come to intersubjective agreement about some things. Hume still believed that inductive and causal reasoning were psychologically compelling. reason. reason produces the best policy results. The second kritik. Disciplines which result from democratic choice and social convention are not self-evidently oppressive. To accept a war or some other disaster because disciplinary power might react by doing something worse carries the risk of the unknown to an absurd point. Eighth. Finally. but this process still requires the comparison of reasons. The "disciplinary power" kritik argues that because power is totally decentralized. which has been labelled the "panopticon" argues that affirmative analysis rests on the repressive hypothesis--the false assumption that knowledge is always good and power always bad. Fifth. it can be argued that social discipline is necessary. Despite this. the bomb fell on Hiroshima. and its subsidiary science. Foucault's theory is said to warrant complete political passivity. It suggests that nothing constructive can be done. are necessary tools of human survival. that power still manifests itself in the form of the affirmative harm. (And who would ever claim this anyway? Knowledge obviously can be harmful--witness the knowledge of bomb making that resulted in the destruction of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. would seem sympathetic to this claim. What he argued is that there is no logical sanction for a belief in the process of inductive reasoning. its emotive force can remain. so one might as well do nothing. In terms of the panopticon. Some affirmatives may try to enhance knowledge but rarely if ever is their claim that knowledge is always beneficial. rejection of reason leads to nihilist and violence The Nazis were probably the leading political irrationalists of the twentieth century. If valid. The kritik of causality is grounded in the philosophy of David Hume. as a kind of reduction to the absurd. Second. Hume as an empiricist. but it is hard to see where this idea is grounded in Foucault's thought. in fact.) A first argument which can be made against these kritiks is that the affirmative doesn't make the assumption that they indict. there is no impact to disciplinary power shifting as a result of the plan. the indictment of "reason" is overbroad. Foucault's theory of power has been widely criticized. so it is important to know exactly what Hume said about it. Thus. FOUCAULT.

The pond ripples most dramatically at the point of contact. and second. insofar as the kritik rests on Foucault's equation of knowledge with power. Victor Farias and Hugo Ott. this kritik. Second. both slaughtered millions. appears to be a super-generic social movements disadvantage. Sixth. Finally. it can be argued that myth is not a good basis for public policy. explicitly assumes the overwhelming oppressiveness of contemporary American society and the "New World Order" with which it is connected. HEIDEGGER/POST-HUMANISM. (Evidence under the CLS kritik makes this later argument. I have already suggested that few if any affirmatives actually make the "repressive hypothesis" on which the kritik seems to rely. Third. The most immediate effects are almost always the most pronounced. incremental changes may be all that is possible. In terms of this question. it is unclear to me exactly how it would play itself out. that is. have argued that his involvement was extensive. His obscurity has been said to mask intellectual confusion. even the family--is tantamount to anarchy. they need to establish that from the post-humanist perspective the plan is a bad idea. (What does it mean to place central emphasis on Being?) Finally. In 1933. but it affects the chin with which it connects the most forcefully. if discipline pervades society then small. sometimes people adopt positions simply because they find them compelling. produce disadvantages (or they might snowball to reinforce the advantage). no matter how beneficial on their face. nor is it clear why the judge's single decision to rethink will make any real difference. (But of course that is another debate. The essence of Heidegger's post-humanism appears to be the idea that primary philosophical emphasis should be placed on "Being" rather than human beings. Defeating this assumption should defeat the kritik. this does not seem to be something that the affirmative needs to deny. This is not really established even if the negative manages to prove that William Spanos disagrees with some aspect of affirmative analysis. to be post-humanist does not mean to be anti-humanist. the kritik itself becomes just one more exercise in power and has no logical claim to possess a truth value. In terms of the argument that post-humanism is superior to humanism. then the kritik loses most of its force. Two major biographers." Exactly what this means is a bit unclear. liberal humanism can be defended as essentially progressive. in effect. Presumably it means that everything is connected and that actions in one part of a system can produce feedbacks in another. Indeed. But it is extremely unclear why one could not believe this and still support any affirmative plan that has ever been run. his thought has been described as intellectually authoritarian. acts of assent and policy judgments are taking place all of the time.) A sixth argument attacks the historical basis of Foucault's theories. Nor does the fact that everything is connected mean that predictable localized effects cannot be produced. This kritik rests once again on the idea that America and its new world order are inherently oppressive. this kritik. the Copernican theory was eventually accepted despite the opposition of the Church. it is difficult to see how this will be accomplished. Sometimes theories gain acceptance even though the powerful oppose them. but it is somewhat short on specifying just what either of these two positions entails. They may have no particular self-interest either way. would be disastrous.) Feedbacks may. First. But it is presumably the burden of the negative to prove just what feedbacks are likely to occur--otherwise this is simply a glorified presumption argument.The Anti-Kritik Handbook business.) Finally. this kritik also seems to rely in part on the idea of an "indissoluble continuum of forces. it becomes paradoxical. In sum. It argues essentially that humanism needs to be rejected in favor of post-humanism. with the barest hint of uniqueness. equating knowledge with power undermines science and rationality which. or the assumption that America is a fundamentally oppressive society denied. His central idea of Being has been criticized as meaninglessly vague." Given their overwhelming power. the two great political movements which rejected liberal humanism in this century. it is argued that Foucault's thought is essentially nihilistic. And Mike Tyson swinging his fist may affect the rest of the universe. Nazism and communism. there is the issue of Heidegger's Nazism. in the hope of obtaining a utopian mindshift of "galactic" significance. This kritik. knowledge isn't just power. it is unclear why this particular decision will be decisive. If the bottom line impact of an affirmative advantage is to prevent some global or national catastrophe (or even to simply benefit a few people). post-humanism is based on Heidegger's philosophy. There is no reason to believe that enough people will refuse "spontaneous consent" to make a difference (this is not after all a unique disadvantage). he has been branded as a pseudo-theologian and a nihilist. is also extremely vague. Second. but this time primarily based on Heidegger. Whatever one believes about Heidegger's own implications in Nazism. This seems far too vague to be compelling. It in effect calls on everyone to reject all policy ideas. The first is the actual degree of Heidegger's involvement with the Nazis. they need to win that humanism should be rejected in favor of post-humanism. if the premise that the new world order is evil can be defeated. also primarily out of Spanos. A considerable body of evidence exists to the effect that he misrepresents historical facts and that his theories are not grounded in evidence. arguably. though. Furthermore. since I have never heard this argument debated. Thus. In terms of the panopticon kritik specifically. it is hard to see why even a post-humanist would reject it. there are really two distinct issues. and his thought has been indicted at numerous levels. after the Nazi xxviii . Again. in which he interprets Heidegger and Foucault. the negative needs to do two things. of course. Fourth. Again. which seems based exclusively on a book by English Professor William Spanos called HEIDEGGER AND CRITICISM. but rather as enlightening myths. Foucault was something of a political activist himself. Or they might interfere with solvency. Foucault may not even have intended for his theories to be taken literally. Fifth. Also. or they might even be compelled by the weight of the evidence to adopt a conclusion they would prefer to reject. implying that he believed in the possibility of incremental change. the kritik also appears to argue that by "rethinking" and the "refusal of spontaneous consent" the repressive forces of the status quo can be "outflanked. that it lacks any consistent moral basis and that it essentially rejects reason. a number of points can be made. the rejection of humanism can be said to lead to barbarism. (Nor is this a vastly original insight--general systems theory has been around for some time. First. Surely neither Heidegger nor Spanos recommend completely rejecting any concern with matters of practical politics. Despite has rather depressing sociology. Third. Seventh. To win this kritik.

The second position. a widely made argument is xxix . Second. but in terms of his central rejection of humanism. The future is open and determined by individual choices. it can be attacked at a number of levels. but Stanley Rosen (in NIHILISM) and Richard Wolin (in THE POLITICS OF BEING) both argue strongly that his philosophy and his Nazism are integrally related. But while the subject-object distinction may result in some intellectually inelegant dualisms (i. but no one directly experiences what another body feels. In fact. or philosophy of being.e. the desire to be self-determining. This is contentious. is writing in the context of normative legal argument. the desire for autonomy. is a common one. The negative may argue that this merely shows how entrenched normativity is--that not even its opponents can escape its terms--but that it still doesn't prove that it is valid. It argues that normative. Individuals are not directly determined by their environment. probably the key question is not Heidegger's own degree of involvement in Nazism." Again. the reality) of being an individual self. value-laden. Whereas most other kritiks can be conceived of as functioning as policy arguments. and individual experience ultimately produce the sense (and indeed. His speeches of this period have a definite pro-Nazi slant. First. Not only does this raise arguments about the meaningless. it is important to note that the key author behind the kritik. the affirmative should be prepared to defend individual autonomy. Nor is it clear that even after his short tenure as rector. The affirmative can counter this argument by claiming that instead what it proves is that human thought is inherently normative. that escape from normative thought is impossible." Fourth. Because this kritik makes such a complex set of assumptions. Heidegger admired and was politically involved with Hitler and Nazism. it may empathize with others.The Anti-Kritik Handbook ascendance. the idea that ruminations about Being have relevance (in a positive sense) for public policy seems remote. indeterminism. argues that determinism and free will are in fact compatible. Consciousness is individual. Even if one accepts that philosophy should be a meditative rather than analytical process. it is hard to see this as unrelated to the Nazi project. the barbarous inhumanity of the political movement with which he at least temporarily aligned himself suggests too striking a parallel to be ignored. choice is still meaningful. The normativity kritik seems to assume a fairly extreme form of hard determinism-that people are directly determined by their immediate environments.) Indeed. the body as determined). Clearly Heidggger accepted the prevailing. and to the end of his life his condemnations of Nazism were relatively faint. but this is a matter of inference. Heidegger was also clearly something of a German nationalist. argues that people are free in an absolute sense. a perspective from which human lives are certainly not of the greatest significance. individual consciousness. In one of them he referred to "the inner truth and greatness of national socialism. and is not the simple product of direct environmental pressure. The individual body. And because each self is unique. he recognizes this "performative contradiction. and therefore rejected the liberal humanism of universal respect for persons. to reject the idea of the individual subject seems to completely violate our experience of the world. but never really seems to solve the problem. In choosing among these theories. it is difficult to conceive what could be more metaphysical than a preoccupation with Being as opposed to beings. The first. The normativity kritik also attacks the idea of the individual subject. of metaphysical questions. even if. that is. but the degree to which his philosophy parallels Nazism. the normativity kritik explicitly challenges that framework. This is among the more common kritiks but also one of the most radical. an appointment heralded in Nazi publications. What produces the individuality of consciousness? Presumably it is based on the fact that individuals exist in separate bodies. there is only one choice which can be arrived at in the end. thought assumes the existence of autonomous freely choosing individuals who have the ability to influence the political institutions around them. there are a wide variety of indictments of Schlag himself." What seems clear is that at least in the middle 1930s. as they interact with innate genetic predispositions. Heidegger accepted the state's appointment as rector of the University of Freiburg. Schlag himself is making a normative argument. my experiences are my own. Every action assumes the power of choice. It simply is the case that we are constantly confronted with choices. that is. the mind as free. the mind is sufficiently private and individual that the existence of other minds is itself a matter of intellectual doubt. so is his ontology. University of Colorado law professor Pierre Schlag.. He was banned from teaching from 1945 to 1951 because of his Nazi ties. NORMATIVITY. indeterminism seems to be in the most accord with our psychological experiences. Finally. determined by a whole set of conscious and unconscious life experiences. I think. From this perspective. including one's sense of identity. free choice is one of the necessary presuppositions of practical reason." and talks his way around it. but compatiblism still maintains that human behavior is highly flexible. it might be argued that whatever one thinks about the essentially metaphysical question of free will versus determinism. it also seems irrelevant to decisions about public policy. He moved on one level to the focus on Being. His rejection of humanism seems to have led him in two directions at once. and on another level he moved in the direction of German nationalism and veneration for the German "volk. Each body experiences its own sensations. compatiblism. he repudiated Nazi beliefs. At least two perspectives are available for countering this argument. and those choices can only be made on the basis of value judgments. This is part of the more general postmodernist attack on the subject-object distinction. individuals are determined by impersonal bureaucratic forces. but rather by the total sum of their life experiences. or at least irresolvability. including their reflections on those life experiences. that we should reject normativity. to reject freedom would seem to result in complete passivity. One law review article develops at length the idea that his thought is warped by his "paranoid intellectual style. the choice dictated by one's preponderant motives. critique of modernity. Still. Instead. not someone else's. Third. Though Heidegger sometimes criticizes metaphysics. the kritik argues. making normative thought and argument futile. (They may resemble other's. He believed in the metaphysical mission of Germany to regenerate the decadent West and saw the German state as the instrument of this mission. mainly Nietzschean. If Heidegger's politics are problematic. He does not argue that no one should ever think about any public policy questions. None of this is to imply that Heidegger has no valuable philosophical insights.

the kritik is not really competitive. so why question the state as a framework for evaluating policy? Fourth. arguments attacking these perspectives are most directly relevant here. One variant of the normativity kritik also needs to be mentioned. to reject normativity would seem to entail complete political passivity. and most people strive extremely hard to defend their lives. Though the idea that basic values can be justified in an ultimate sense is probably wrong. (Similarly. Sixth. to name only a few. Fifth. such as efficiency. The state might be bad on balance. It might be argued that social consensus validates the value of life. Eighth. bureaucracy is not an impervious. but rather means to enhance other values. this apparent paradox is probably still worth noting. Judges of course are influenced by previously established convictions. As noted in the section describing the types of kritiks.) Some values. the anti-war movement. While I would not challenge your opponents to commit suicide (because I at least value life). But even if it is. you should argue first that you do not assume that the state is necessarily on balance good. Finally. the kritik of normativity seems paradoxical and self-defeating. the argument can also be made here that this kritik is too generic. STATISM. another set reversed the prevailing bureaucratic momentum and led to withdrawal. The kritik obviously rests on the idea that people should have power but that power is denied them by repressive institutions. seven judges decided that abortion was a fundamental right of women. It might be argued that the will to live. Marxism. which seems to be pretty much what the acceptance of this kritik would ensure in terms of finding political solutions to actual problems. Further. history belies the idea of institutional determinism. It would ensure tyranny by leading individuals to completely refrain from even thinking about policy issues. Rather than directly arguing that normativity is meaningless. therefore. Arguably. he argues. the statism kritik can be indicted as utopian. they are based on emotion and decision. the normativity kritik rests explicitly on postmodern and deconstructive premises. but to have more control of one's life and more ability to express one's individuality still remains a valid goal. including the civil rights movement. however. Thus. To believe that political action has no effect is to deny the obvious reality that many grassroots movements have been incredibly influential over the past thirty years. life is. which believed in historical inevitability. say. it seems fairly clear that the rise of Soviet communism was not inevitable. the affirmative should also argue that some degree of freedom clearly exists in the political sphere. If one doesn't know which way to go. not primarily on objective fact. the will to survive is a basic biological value. rather it resulted in substantial part anyway from the persuasive power of Marx's ideas on talented leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky. and the gay liberation movement. Also. Third. that is they are not ends in themselves. it might be argued that life is a prerequisite to the pursuit of any values at all. nor does any deterministic force preclude its reversal. Second. this condition would not even be noteworthy. this would solve for the real abuses of statism (such as excessive militarism) while still gaining the affirmative advantage. so that if anything is of value. In 1973. With hindsight. Also. the plan would be an improvement. Suicide is relatively rare. At a certain point in his argument. An argument that instrumental values must be justified in terms of an ultimate value is coherent. Since it can be run on any topic. it violates the topic's xxx . the statism kritik takes several forms. The state is not going to be abolished. although the negative sometimes waffles between anarchy and world government as both being preferable to the nation state system. This leads on occasion to an argument that the affirmative cannot prove that life itself has value. Seventh. If it were not for normative thought. life. by wandering aimlessly there is at least a chance that one will find his or her way out. but in a world of states the plan might still be a good idea. the fall of Soviet communism hardly seems to have been dictated by bureaucratic imperatives (the bureaucracy would have wanted to perpetuate itself through the retention of communism). Not going in any direction ensures that one will remain lost. One can deny certainly that being lost in the forest is an apt metaphor for our condition when it comes to making normative decisions. the unwillingness to accept on face that life has value seems to be a prototypical illustration of the kind of nihilism which the kritik can engender.The Anti-Kritik Handbook No one of course is completely self-determining. Values are subjective (at least many would argue). the affirmative can permute. Schlag employs the analogy of being lost in the forest. since the normativity kritik argues for the rejection of public policy debate. The case merely argues that in a statist world. but the argument that one must "justify" ultimate values is probably not. The implicit alternative which this kritik suggests is anarchy. Value statements and judgments simply cannot be proven true in the same way as a factual statement. Similarly. it holds that the affirmative to win must still justify its values. all of the arguments defending the public policy framework apply well here. Ironically enough. there is no point in wandering aimlessly. One set of arguments led to involvement in Vietnam. This version of the normativity kritik also contains a performative contradiction of sorts since the person questioning the value of life is living and has presumably found reasons to continue to do so. The basic problem with this argument is that it seems to confuse the realms of fact and value. arguing that the best option would be a state system scaled back to that minimum needed to carry out the plan. the press to "justify your values" becomes a classic illustration of the problem of infinite regression. built in to our genetic structures. but they still evaluate arguments and articulate reasons for choices that are in no clear and direct way dictated by outside forces. The sense of oppression itself rests on a normative idea. The one I will be mainly concerned about here argues that the nation state system is fundamentally flawed. that it is oppressive and militaristic. there are still some arguments which can be made in terms of defending the value of. the women's movement. but rather was the result of the rejection of the idea of communism in favor of the idea of liberal democracy. In answering this kritik. It might be argued that people empirically value life. the pro-life movement. Arguments do matter. Of all the major kritiks. monolithic block. let alone attempting to influence policy. things have value because people value them. may provide the best example of the power of ideas. Thus. are clearly instrumental. No bureaucratic imperative mandated that decision. Based on this perspective.

of course. Vietnam. and perhaps the merits of open borders all in the same round.that the present US political and economic system is intolerably oppressive. have been discussed in some depth in THE HANDBOOKS OF MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY (a 6-volume set also available from Paradigm). but that they have been corrupted by evil institutions.O. If they indicate multiple alternatives. so I will limit my comments here mainly to these latter two kritiks. xxxi . it can be argued the state is needed to check the war of all against all. nasty. Law may be imperfect. You should try to pin the negative down as early as possible as to what alternative they envision to the state. This is reinforced by the lack of a literature advocating anarchy in the context of the specific topic. the Cold War. The major political theorists of the modern age. Presumably most of them favor some form of democratic socialism. brutish. Given this argument. The most important. I think." Biologists such as E. and again. if the state were abolished. all conclude that some sort of state. including World War I. Feminist perspectives have served as the basis for kritiks of rights and kritiks of the rule of law. and potentially torture and death. Hobbes argued that we need the state for self-defense. at least in terms of the goals being sought.Wilson and Konrad Lorenz argue that humans are innately aggressive. some arguments are that it is absurdly utopian (the tendency of the present international system is toward devolution. which is distinctly rationalist. at least at present. including Hobbes. it seems to be better than nothing.) FENIMINISM. is necessary to public order. Second. Analogously. Rawls. CLS arguments are probably made less often as kritiks than as case arguments against the value of rights or of the rule of law. In terms of critical legal studies positions in general. thus. so I will not repeat the discussion of rights found in that source. the affirmative may well wish to defend contrary arguments by modernist and postmodernist thinkers such as Nietzsche and Freud who stress the importance of unreason and aggressiveness in the human makeup. It is important to prevent the negative from shifting to a defense of world government as an alternative to either the state or anarchy. Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick has argued that at least the minimal state is not necessarily unjust because it could naturally emerge out of a desire for self-defense in a way in which no one's rights would be violated. (Even debaters have pretty much given up on running socialism as a disadvantage. and short. individuals would be subject to arbitrary arrest. rule of law also protects minorities. Critical legal studies was discussed in some detail in the Introduction to Volume II of THE HANDBOOK OF MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Stronger groups would come to dominate weaker ones and a legal hierarchy would reemerge in order to maintain social control. the anarchism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The statism kritik is somewhat anomalous because it grows out of an intellectual tradition. there is no reason to believe that it would not be immediately reinvented. The later point is confirmed by basic economic theory which insists that pollution is an economic externality (a cost imposed upon others) which businesses would never check without regulation. the merits of anarchy. Arbitrary rule is especially likely to fall on minorities. Kant. generally said to be based on an at least implicit social contract. Fifth. Most government efforts have their defenders. several points can be made. the best option is probably to try to find as many examples of effective government action as you can. (America's major foreign policy initiatives in this century. that an effective world government would be intolerably oppressive. Feminism could also be used as the basis for a kritik of objective reason as an essentially male way of looking at the world. and that world government probably couldn't sustain itself. and potential examples range from anti-poverty efforts to environmental protection to foreign policy. Most thought from Darwin tends to deny the optimistic views of the early anarchists. that the state is needed to prevent the exploitation of the weak by the strong (slavery would arguably reemerge if there was no central authority to suppress its practice) and that the state is needed to protect the environment. In terms of world government itself. Plato and Aristotle believed that humans are inherently political animals. seems to have concluded that some form of liberal democracy with a mixed economic system is optimal. but disparities in wealth can be defended as a just reflection of differences in effort and talent. and prosperity are all also linked to the rule of law. World War II. both in their numbers and influence. you should argue that this is an unacceptable degree of conditionality. indeed. In response to the rule of law kritik. is to deny the central premise of CLS -. there are many arguments which can and should be made against anarchy. Its assumption is that people are basically good and rational. Most of the rest of the world. Feminism generally. Rousseau. First. are far more oppressive than those where rule of law is at least imperfectly upheld. was a failure. People would inevitably band together for self-defense. Others argue that the state is needed to protect rights which would be trampled on in the state of nature. but in a world without rule of law. It can be argued that America has made major progress in terms of racial and sexual equality. that it is impossible to debate the merits of the plan. not concentration). Though anarchy has its defenders t they remain a miniscule minority. The CLS authors are certainly indicted for lacking an alternative. In terms of the version of the kritik that insists that government can never be effective. and the Gulf War did all end in success. CLS is the source of policy arguments as well as kritiks. indefinite detention. but it was only a battle in the Cold War. democracy. the merits of world government.The Anti-Kritik Handbook discussion directing function. several points can be made. A final point about anarchy as an option is that it is a viewpoint rejected by probably every major figure in the history of Western philosophy. such as the People's Republic of China. and Nozick. Despite democracy's discontent. but there is no noticable movement in that direction in contemporary America. any more than the Soviet Union was able to sustain its empire. while the equal protection of law is imperfect.) CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES. that life in the state of nature would be "poor. It seems relatively clear that states where the rule of law is not respected. I think it is a persuasive argument that there is no better system available. Liberty. Locke. America is obviously not the most economically egalitarian of societies. rule of law is essential to check government tyranny. and feminist rights theories in particular.

I will only make a few brief comments on this kritik. then arguably such laws would no longer be necessary. First. both socially and economically. Narratives are also said to more effectively give voice to the distinctive perspectives of women and minorities. if every species mainly seeks to maximize its own advantage. It also is commonly made as a environmental ethic. there are a number of problems with the use of narrative unique to debate. A fundamental issue in terms of all of the feminist kritiks in the current status of women. or even untruthful. two conditions would need to hold. it would have to apply legal neutrality in a way unfavorable to women. NARRATIVE. Thus. And second. What feminists such as MacKinnon object to is neutral rule of law which entrenches gender inequality. the panopticon. or deep ecology disadvantage. an ecocentric or biocentric perspective does not necessarily mean that human interests become irrelevant. it's next to impossible to choose between them. This is difficult. rationalist framework. The story can be fictional or true. If helping humans doesn't hurt other species. the narratives offered to date haven't included a plan. and nuclear war might be the ultimate environmental tragedy. The danger is that the story may be overly simplistic. etc. much of the force of these kritiks is mitigated. In addition. they are also part of nature. most of the answers to the CLS rule of law kritik should also apply here. arguing that a central focus on human beings is environmentally destructive. of course. The appeal to personal experience is unlikely to be persuasive unless the audience has similar experiences on which they can draw. As long as women are in a disadvantaged position. narratives have been criticized on a number of grounds. it seems fair xxxii ANTHROPOCENTRISM. Thus. This kritik. Rejecting reason may make power the only norm. A narrative is essentially a story. And if women were strong enough politically to pass laws biased in favor of women. First. This section includes evidence for example on the difficulty of paradigm change which might apply to post-humanism. The first narratives in debate. Third. seem useful to make against all of these kritiks. and the link between the narratives and the resolution (that criminal procedure should be changed or security assistance increased) was left as a matter of inference rather than explicitly articulated. then rejecting anthropocentrism might. The most prominent use of critical race theory in debate to date has been as the primary source for the narrative. Only sentient life can have ultimate value because only sentient life can experience value. neutral principles such as nondiscrimination should work in their favor. Most of these problems with narrative in law carry over to narrative in debate. one involving the return by time travel of a black woman to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the other concerning a proposal by extra-terrestrials to provide earth with utopian technologies in exchange for the enslavement of blacks. it is important to realize that even radical feminists don't reject all law. constitute an effort to place humans uniquely above nature. but it is intended to support a conclusion or make a didactic point. And since neither is true. drew on the critical race literature. It is arguable that rejecting neutral rules would in fact be bad for women. run by the University of Texas on the Middle East topic. one of the oldest forms of persuasion. This means that narrative can be effective for consciousness raising within a group but is unlikely to be effective when it comes to persuading those outside the group. Humans are also part of the biosphere. Second. Stories like this may be designed to make a point. and one more such standard won't make any real difference. Human consciousness may also give people a unique capacity to experience value. and some stories clearly are persuasive. that is. Some of the evidence in the anthropocentrism section will apply to . and all animals have a natural tendency to seek to advance their own interests. analytic argument. narratives are indicted as counterproductive. other kritiks. Since the cards in this section seem especially self-explanatory. but they have both practical and theoretical affinities to the kritik and therefore warrant some attention here. Women's advance to date has depended heavily on liberal rationalist appeals. atypical. run by Weber State on the college criminal procedure topic. for their kritik to be applicable. The Nazi story about the international Jewish conspiracy was even more pernicious in its results. It also seems doubtful that rejecting reason would benefit women. First. Mark Tushnet makes this indictment of stories about "political correctness." Ronald Reagan's simplistic stories about the "evil empire" and the nuclear shield provided ostensibly by ballistic missile defense may have distorted public policy and wasted billions of dollars. few if any of them are anarchists. One indictment is that narratives are ineffective. Fourth. paradoxically. but a counter-story making the opposite potent could just as easily be constructed. Second. which would be counterproductive from the feminist standpoint. If women are making bona fide advances within the current liberal. In neither case was a plan presented. The answer to this indictment might be that this just means that we need to critically assess stories to determine their validity. then once again. arguments that women are advancing rapidly. Another narrative. In this sense. many affirmative advantages will also help other species and the environment at large. It should be noted finally that "rule of law bad" arguments cannot really function as disadvantages because they are so non-unique. anthropocentrism is defensible. The Weber 1AC was simply two extended stories. Telling stories is. Neutral legal standards are pervasive. there is no reason not to help them. argued that the voices of the Palestinians have been largely ignored in American policy toward the mid-east and concluded with a personal narrative by a Palestinian woman. The point of all these examples is that narratives can undermine sound argument at least as easily as they can enhance it. however. In legal scholarship. War is bad for living things other than humans. Narratives are said to dramatize the actual realities of a situation more effectively than more coldly rational. especially where fictional stories are concerned. the plan would have to deal with a women's issue. Second.The Anti-Kritik Handbook In terms of the feminist kritik of the rule of law. in some ways parallels the Heideggerian/post-humanist kritik. They would favor a rule of law which benefited women. then even from a ecocentric or "deep ecological" framework. Narratives are not necessarily kritiks (though they have sometimes been described as post-kritiks).

an absolute commitment to the idea of cultural relativism requires one to defend the moral xxxiii NON-VIOLENCE. Plans. non-violence is not clearly justified. Further. Second. then the inferential impact of the affirmative stories should be undercut. there are several powerful arguments against narrative as an exclusive form of argument in a debate. Another basic problem with the narrative. but against an adversary like the Nazis. Cultural relativism argues that there are no moral values which transcend particular cultures. and even threatens human survival). Also. In consequentialist terms. there is little reason to believe that non-violence would have succeeded. the lack of a plan makes the debate too intangible. it becomes a version of anarchy. as well as immoral. In some versions of relativism it is argued that it is essential to recognize difference in order to respect "the other" as a person or group of equal dignity. instead. the negative need not rely solely on narrative to deny the resolution. The narratives about time travel and space aliens at most seem to suggest that there is racism in American society. Values. In Kantian terms. Jr. a defensible position. then to criticize one culture in terms of the standards of another is seen as ethnocentric and oppressive. Non-violent methods.The Anti-Kritik Handbook to say that they have functioned as kritiks of the status quo but have failed to propose an alternative. No one has interrupted the affirmative speeches. discussion of "the other" figured in kritiks associated with the China topic. indeed. If. (Jewish resistance to the Nazis was largely non-violent. this kritik has additional problems applied to the question of domestic law enforcement.) The standard affirmative answer to the topicality indictment is to accuse the negative of trying silence the affirmative and the perspectives it is seeking to advance. Whines about being silenced don't obviate the affirmative need to be topical. If the negative can prove with non-narrative evidence the resolution is untrue. I am treating it here. CULTURAL RELATIVISM. the negative should try to argue that the stories offered fail to support the resolution. it is argued that non-violence inevitably involves sacrificing some lives in the short term. Themes associated with cultural relativism have appeared in a number of debate arguments. and because it could conceivably be applied to the juvenile crime topic. The narratives are simply offered and allowed to stand on their own. non-violence is carried even to the extent of prohibiting state coercion against criminals. then it seems acceptable to use violence if greater violence is thereby avoided. clearly tell stories in every round. The idea of non-violent resistance blurs fairly readily into the idea of pacifism or total opposition to war. an approach which would seem to violate the Kantian prohibition against using others solely as means. In sum. The narrative in a sense is irrefutable simply because it never makes an explicit claim. Grounded in part in Thoreau's theories of civil disobedience. in this view. mainly on international topics. it effectively rejects all civil authority. This is especially so because the narratives offered often fail to clearly even support the resolution. Narrative can be a tool of persuasion. And since it also fails to offer a policy. (It may prove the opposite--that Israel's security assistance should be cut. thus. an outcome which would probably destroy debate as we know it. Cultural relativism can be a persuasive argument. The Orientalism kritik. at least as it has so far appeared in debate. They figure prominently in arguments indicting universal standards of human rights. If this is the case. provide the specificity needed for intelligent discussion. since there is no plan. is best understood as a process of making competing claims. it argues that violence is . inevitably takes innocent lives. First. Gandhian non-violence was effective against the British because they shared many of Gandhi's values. It is also argued that non-violence can succeed only under limited circumstances. even if the affirmative argues for the resolution exclusively by means of narrative. If avoiding violence is the primary goal. but it also poses a number of problems. Many pacifists probably believe that while war is always wrong (that it is too destructive. in the United States. and there is nothing wrong with stories in debate. Finally. Because of this. at least a limited use of violence seems consistent with the categorical imperative. that is. Beyond the broader question of pacifism. In both its international and its domestic forms. But even approached deontologically. I would argue. especially on broad topics. emerge out of the particular history and traditions of a group of people. The notion that military force never succeeds is denied by every successful war ever fought in history. is that it fails to advocate anything.) When the Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1968. Debate. letting the audience draw its own conclusions. the negative has simply argued that what the affirmative has said is irrelevant to the subject of the debate. First. The problem is that to be meaningfully evaluated those stories need to fit into a broader argumentative framework. but simply standing alone narrative should not persuade very much. they offer no direct reason to believe that criminal procedure should be changed. Even King didn't advocate disbanding the police. on the other hand. Also. Non-violence is a kritik which has been run for several years. non-violent resistance proved of no avail. offer the best hope for peace and progress. and the forty-five year history of the cold war seems to prove that military preparedness can sometimes prevent war. And to say that Americans need to be more attentive to Palestinian voices hardly proves that security assistance should be increased. by this logic. popular on the Middle East topic. Some defenses of non-violence are grounded in deontological considerations of absolute morel right and wrong. it provides nothing tangible to either endorse or attack. Stories are clearly a part of persuasion. This is. but it goes far beyond the debate over non-violence as it normally occurs. made the relativist claim that Asian cultures cannot be effectively understood from the standpoint of Western values. Non-violence has been conceived both as a doctrine of systematic opposition to war and as a method of social reform. To me this is unpersuasive. it has been applied most successfully in this century by Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King. always counterproductive. of course. Third. state coercion against criminals is acceptable. The doctrine of pacifism has been indicted at a number of levels. it would be possible to universalize the principle that violence should be used only in self-defense. the case for absolute non-violence is even more problematic. the affirmative should never lose for being non-topical. Debaters. it is difficult if not impossible to conclude that the affirmative is topical.

for example. And there is some plausibility to the claim that devising elaborate scenarios for nuclear war fighting (as defense planners do) tends to desensitize by glossing over the true horrors of a nuclear exchange. you should remember the definition of "nuclearism": veneration or worship of nuclear weapons. cannibalism. subjective threat perception doesn't change the number of tanks. as they certainly are currently. First. Thus. thoughtful strategy than one adopted by indifference or default. then the appeal to cultural values becomes a good deal less viable. including Lifton himself) insists that the nuclear threat can be checked only by constant vigilance and unceasing inquiry. it is arguable that nuclear weapons have kept the general peace for over fifty years. First is the question of uniqueness (which seems relevant here since this form of the kritik is basically a policy argument). then it is also a fact of life that there is going to be some nuclear strategy--and better a sound. lived under the nuclear sword. but it may be that the best answer is "none of the above. as the "peacekeeper. is said to be particularly salutary in THREAT CONSTRUCTION. then this implies that there are universals which apply across cultures. then it seems reasonable to believe that their are a plurality of perspectives within a given culture. but the central war in Europe which seemed so threatening in the 1940s and 1950s has been avoided. threats are constructed in the minds of those who feel threatened. Considerable evidence (much of it from members of the peace movement. Where millions of lives and potential human extinction are at stake even remote scenarios should be considered. Thus. but if it is not a universal standard. there are several actual and potential "nuclearism" kritiks. If respecting difference is a universal norm. The threat construction kritik was developed and popularized in 1995-96 on the college Middle East debate topic. There is. if the affirmative wins its case. THE FATE OF THE EARTH. under some circumstances. Consciousness concerning the risk of nuclear war is a general kind of thing. and devising new strategies. speaks for Chinese culture--the communist party or the demonstrators in Tianamen Square? Who better spoke for American culture in the 1950s--pro-segregation Southern whites or Martin Luther King? Arguments could be made for either side in terms of either of these examples. Rather than objectively existing in the natural world. Even reliance on nuclear deterrence may not be "nuclearism. leading to potential salvation. without any ethical priority attached to it. which is after all a weapon of mass destruction. an author who has written extensively about the potential physical and psychological effects of a nuclear war. cultures are not unitary. many think. The language and assumptions of such an affirmative may well be nuclearist in Lifton's terms. thus. to claim nuclear war as an impact is hardly to worship nuclear weapons--it labels them as the ultimate threat. (As is often argued. Who. by claiming it as a case or disadvantage impact) is self-fulfilling. The term "nuclearism" was apparently coined by the psychologist. It has not been a particularly comfortable peace. for example. Third. human sacrifice. An example would be to refer to a nuclear missile. Raising consciousness about one risk thus might well heighten consciousness about others. I think. Nuclear strategists consider all kinds of nuclear risks--and properly so. it has sometimes been argued that to focus on smaller nuclear risks leads to the neglect of more substantial ones. developing some new form of nuclear weapon or nuclear strategy. This is not to deny that an objective. Based on this definition. How should one respond? First. the nuclear genie. If this is the case. at least almost universal lip service paid to the idea of democracy. Of course. Second. once let loose. Alternatively. the number of affirmatives who call for expanding nuclear forces is quite limited. According to one author. Second. can plausibly deny that they are nuclearist. Robert Jay Lifton. But even here there are a number of potential responses. to the point of veneration or worship of. and nuclear warheads in various countries' xxxiv . it is easily possible to exaggerate cultural differences.The Anti-Kritik Handbook acceptability. Sometimes it has been argued that even referring to the threat of nuclear war (for example. that is. this process can create a "rupture" in nuclear discourse. Certainly. Finally. Second." This kind of language is said to obscure the true dangers of nuclear war and therefore to increase the risk of the ultimate cataclysm. editor of a 1995 book titled." If there are a plurality of cultures within the world. physical world exists. planes. There are various ways in which the critique of nuclearism has been and can be translated into policy debate. the idea that we should simply ignore the risks of nuclear war seems untenable. NUCLEARISM. such as that conducted by Jonathan Schell in his book. For there to be a unique "turn" impact. the link seems suspect. The critique of nuclearism often takes the form of an indictment of the language or discourse of nuclear weapons. In the modern world. teams wanting to run the nuclearism kritik have looked for more generic links. cultures have become much more similar in many of their values. most teams. and infanticide. The clearest link would seem to be to affirmatives which expand the nuclear arsenal. faced with the conditions of industrial and post-industrial society. A contemplation of the possibility of human extinction." Deterrence can be regarded as a tragic necessity but one which is unavoidable. they may express an overconfident reliance on nuclear weapons as a savior. What this kritik argues is that military threats are subjective rather than objective entities. because of nuclear deterrence. ON SECURITY. it is necessary to show that we are now addressing the greater nuclear risk which the smaller risk is said to distract from. developing new technologies. the idea of respecting all cultures is in effect an appeal to ad universal standard--tolerance--not found in most cultures. by this logic. nuclear weapons. then it is just another culture specific convention. And there is a good likelihood that the detailed specifics of affirmative analysis will be more compelling than the highly generic (and largely non-unique) indictment provided by the nuclearism kritik. One main source of this kritik is political scientist Ronnie Lipschutz. largely. of slavery. can never again be bottled up. Third.) The argument that focusing on small risks leads to neglect of larger ones has several problems. then it wins that the approach it employs is likely to enhance peace. if nuclear weapons are a fact of life. this regard. they are concerned with the whole gamut of risks. not to mention numerous forms of racism and sexism. Third. Second. it might be that focus on smaller risks can in fact heighten concern about the greater ones. we shouldn't even discuss the nuclear threat. The kritik has its most valid application against teams who really do increase reliance on nuclear weapons by expanding their use. By "nuclearism" Lifton means an excessive reliance upon. Nuclear activists tend not to be worried about only one kind of nuclear threat.

but the result has been a history of hatred and warfare which is not "deconstructed" simply by recognizing its origins. and hard as Chamberlain tried to "construct" Hitler as a peace-lover. then the threats which we have constructed in the past are now real threats which need to be countered. an epistemological dimension to this kritik which makes it more complicated. There is. the weapons themselves. First. "realist" foreign policy experts as George F. designed to secure some policy objective. Rather. recalcitrant reality which seems independent of our wishes. the classic case in point.) The end result is that constructed threats become real. Such mainstream. our view of the international scene is. it is a mental construct. the threat construction kritik has both strengths and weaknesses. Countries which perceive threats are likely to be deterred. It isn't just "a failure to communicate. Since it is offset. threats are construals or constructions of the significance of those weapons. subjective. but the wounded bear was deemed capable of striking back. The world has a hard. then. Instead. this argument took the form of the claim that the United States needed to avoid "encircling" the Soviet Union.e. anti-appeasement side seems strong. In some sense. Hitler and Saddam. it seems important to insist that motives and intentions do actually exist in the minds of other people. This isn't the place for a detailed discussion of social constructivism. A third argument is that if constructed threats become real. Kennan and Hans Morgenthau discuss this as a major problem in foreign policy assessment. that attempted construction didn't change the reality of Nazi racism and aggression. Much of the history of the Cold War is an illustration of these perils. concerning the creation of enemies through a process of misperception. because the threat he posed was ignored or at least under-valued.The Anti-Kritik Handbook arsenals. then the pro-deterrence. And again. a real danger. In perceiving some nation as a threat. There are a number of problems with this "perspective. And treated as a foreign policy argument. of course. The second world war is. is a common one in foreign policy literature. it is often argued. in some sense. based on a certain reading of opposing intentions. There is a hard and a soft version of social constructivism. according to this argument. influenced by how they perceive others. in the abstract. If one nation perceives a threat. that "reality" is socially constructed. (This is the essential process of an arms race. Those motives and intentions are. Which of these concerns should be greater? Clearly a case can be made for either side. if wars are mainly offensive. then we seem to have done a relatively bad job of constructing it. The Soviets were said to be essentially defensive. To say that there are no real threats (until we construct them) seems patently false." "Reality" is simply our interpretation of reality--and there are many equally valid interpretations.") Taken. It seems. a "construct. Hard constructivism seems to claim that reality is nothing but our interpretations -. The kritik is often defended in terms of a particular postmodern epistemological perspective commonly referred to as "social constructivism.. The weakness is that this hardly seems to be an absolute argument. led in the Cold War to the policy of containment. Yes. those which don't see threats are more likely to become expansionist and actually threaten peace. But they also have an objective dimension. that there are two dangers which foreign policy must avoid: "constructing" unreal threats and ignoring real ones." If reality is just a construction. as a relatively straightforward foreign "policy" argument. and the answer will hinge on what one thinks generally motivates nations to go to war. The invasion of Kuwait in 1991 is offered as a classic example of this process. it makes the less radical claim that social reality is socially constructed. the relative weight to be given to the kritik can only be resolved on a case by case basis--which means by actually debating the case (or disadvantage) scenario. this statement is unexceptionable. Saddam really was a threat to Kuwait. The soft version admits that we do have to interpret the world but insists that there is still an objective world which we are interpreting-so it's important for us to get it right. The person falling from a fifty story building can't xxxv . This can lead to an escalatory process of action and reaction. then faulty threat construction seems less of a problem. not only their military hardware. (This. out of fear." This argues.that those interpretations are. But military hardware. But there are also dangers associated with under-assessing threats. constitutive of reality. but I do want to make a few comments concerning how this idea functions in terms of this particular kritik. (During the Cold War. the kritik claims to avoid "radical relativism" because it doesn't question the existence of actual physical objects (i. Hitler really was a threat to the jews. This argument. it is likely to become threatening in response. a state of mind is created which leads to certain potentially belligerent responses. it is necessary to decide the question of what really is a threat on a case by case basis. then the threat construction side seems to have a compelling case." arms races. such aggressor nations have almost always underestimated the strength (either the military capabilities or the will to fight) of their opponents. of course.) From the anti-kritik side. Many aspects of the world (including the intentions of foreign leaders) are relatively opaque and do have to be interpreted. And "objective" reality includes the doctrines and intentions of potential adversaries. (Of course. however. in part. unneeded interventions. Unfortunately. there also seem to be real conflicts of interest here--who controls what lands." But what an epistemological and metaphysical realist would insist is that it can be a better or worse construct--one which is closer to or further from reality. and nuclear brinkmanship. the issue here seems relatively straightforward. in essence. but the threat exists only in the mind. If this theory of war initiation is true. the subjective construction of threats can be self-fulfilling. one strong argument is that most wars in this century have been started by aggressor or "imperialistic" nations who wish to restructure the international status quo. there are dangers associated with exaggerating threats--doing so can lead to mythical "missile gaps. military hardware). It might be that initially the Arabs and Israelis constructed each other as threats. But that mental construct either corresponds or fails to correspond to reality. If wars mainly start reactively. by the danger of failing to sufficiently appreciate a threat.) But. Stalin and the Kaiser had real aims. There is no "objective" reality "out there. of course. is not what constitutes a threat. The perception of threats is. Hitler developed into a major world menace. Its strength is that mainstream foreign policy experts recognize that the false construction of threats is a real problem. The arms exist "out there" in the world. as I have so far. in effect. And. But the pain in the belly of a starving person doesn't seem to be just an interpretation. Another argument which can be made against this kritik is that since both under-valuing and over-valuing threats is a danger. Thus.

while this kritik works reasonably well against teams who focus on particular threatening agents in the international environment (i. attempts to focus its attention on the practical. In contrast. who flourished during the middle decades of the nineteenth century. pragmatism equates "truth" with whatever works. rather than radical redirection. Pragmatists see abstract philosophizing as disabling rather than liberating. social ecology. First. It has argumentative force under certain circumstances (where specific threats are isolated). Pragmatism is generally said to be grounded in the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. A pragmatic approach to foreign policy implies at least two things. including Heidegger. but rather than leading to inevitable conflict. No one will fear us and arm against us because we think prosperity is important for peace.) But whereas the leading European philosophers who are associated with postmoderism. this simply means that we are forced to act on the basis of our admittedly incomplete.S. the threat construction kritik should not be seen as an all-purpose response to all war impacts. The value of pragmatism in terms of answering kritiks is that the pragmatists accept many of the premises of the (primarily . for example. The most influential figure in the pragmatist tradition was probably John Dewey. Rather than searching for epistemological foundations. Pragmatism is considered to be the major philosophical tradition to originate in the United States. But lacking certainty. the peace through prosperity argument is a reading of history. rather than the purely theoretical. Pragmatism also provided the basis for indicting many of the leading philosophers associated with postmodernism and the kritik. (In fact. relative. a philosopher who teaches at the University of Virginia. but to doing the best we can with our limited means. adaptive. In fact. Foucault. Finally. pragmatism is a counterperspective which can be quite useful in answering kritiks. neopragmatism is sometimes itself classified as a postmodern philosophy. tend to derive from their anti-foundationalism extremely radical ethical and political positions.. scientific and technological progress are all vindicated. Two final comments. in fact. pragmatism is critical of many of the practices associated with kritiks: an ideological or paradigmatic focus. The pragmatic view would seem to be that we need not be exclusively wedded to any of these perspectives. we need to be strong to counter "rogue" nations like Iran and Iraq). To say. First. Pierce and William James. developed in order for us to function in the world. and Spanos. it suggests skepticism toward "grand strategies" such as the containment policy of the cold war years. it is not clear to me that Lipschutz himself embraces anything like hard (or even semi-hard) constructivism. Lyotard. The pragmatist would agree that we can never establish things with complete certainty. In the pragmatist perspective. it tends to reject most of the traditional problems of philosophy (especially those of a metaphysical or epistemological nature) as pseudoproblems. Among contemporary "neopragmatists. It implies an extreme dualism. problems of mankind. Thus. as its name suggests. it works some of the time). an emphasis on language or discourse. social reform and political problem solving. that is.The Anti-Kritik Handbook simply reinterpret the pavement into something softer. Rather than constructing an enemy. Especially noteworthy is the pragmatist theory of truth. the pragmatists argue. it is not one which we can escape attempting to read. but no theory is likely to work all the time. Rorty. Our senses and understanding. pragmatism sees anti-foundationalism as compatible with the tenets of liberal morality and politics. and eclectic. Thus. pragmatism questions the usefulness of radical critique (especially critique located at the highly abstract levels of ontology or epistemology). he seems to suggest that there are some real threats or at least that the evaluation of threats is unavoidable. Like the postmodernists. that depression could lead to another world war doesn't seem to construct a threat (at least in any pernicious way). but it is not a universal indictment against teams who try to promote peace. The pragmatic perspective can also be applied in a number of specific areas. step by step reform. it suggests that humans are somehow separate from actual physical nature rather than a part of it. In a number of places. the best foreign policy is likely to be flexible. Though not a counter-kritik per se. not to discover pure truth. the distinction between a "real" physical world and an interpreted social world is also problematic. "Environmental pragmatism" is a very useful perspective from which to indict kritiks such as deep ecology. and Foucault. Thus. the failure to offer alternatives. it works far less well against impacts which focus on more systemic causes of war. the final round of the 1998 National Debate Tournament was won by a team from Northwestern University who defended a pragmatist perspective in opposition to the Heidegger/Spanos kritik run (quite successfully) by Emory University. from the basis of science to the value of life. The fact that there are no certainties shouldn't lead to paralysis." probably the most noteworthy is Richard Rorty. They may draw xxxvi PRAGMATISM. Derrida. and so on. Each probably captures part of the truth (that is. postmodern) authors from whom kritiks generally derive. and even if history is an ambiguous text. liberalism. truth becomes a functional rather than an absolute concept. Second. Thus. and ecofeminism. and ultimately foundationless knowledge. What foreign policy pragmatists suggest is that in the post-cold war world there are simply too many uncertainties to make reliable long range predictions and to make dependable long range plans. this means that teams defending pragmatism may well wish to answer the paradigmatic foreign policy kritiks by suggesting that they endorse no single foreign policy framework. Pragmatism. a philosopher whose work profoundly affected progressive education.e. foreign policy pragmatism implies that we should be cautious with regard to general foreign policy paradigms such as realism. as either meaningless or moot. pragmatists see humans as socially constructed. cautious. or constructivism. such mainstream values as humanism and human welfare. but as a formal philosophy. pragmatism sees this as the basis for democratic social cooperation. such as Nietzsche. argues that the American political left has been undermined by the postmodern "cultural" left. What foreign policy pragmatism suggests is support for the logic of incrementalism. In doing so. pragmatism was first articulated around the turn of the century in the writings of authors such as C. In terms of kritiks. Many kritiks stress our inherent inability to establish certain things. Second. that is. Pragmatism is also defended in the foreign policy field. Heidegger.

In fact. Only economic growth (which deep ecology militantly opposes) can free them from their poverty. Ecofeminism sees environmental problems as grounded in sexism. however. TERROR TALK. Shallow environmentalism remains anthropocentric. of course. but there's no way to stop media coverage of terrorism. with what he called "shallow" environmentalism. which inherently violate just war principles regarding attacks on noncombatants. and it is again described as one of the defining features of shallow environmentalism. Naess contrasted the position of deep ecology. if gradual. The worst case predictions of the impact of terrorism may not have proven correct. but it can be defined clearly enough to be a useful term. The misanthropy charge is often linked to the claim that deep ecology is eco-fascist. terrorism may threaten democracy and the constitutional order. one man's terrorist maybe another man's freedom fighter. perfect definition is unnecessary. The idea that some objects in nature are "resources" for human consumption is clearly anthropocentric. you should be able to defend that it can be adequately defined. but the equation of terrorists with freedom fighters is unfounded. the threat of terrorism is significantly exaggerated. It will definitely be run on the weapons of mass destruction topic. Also. Also. is another defining trait of shallow environmentalism. Scholarly and policy talk. anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric. The reliance on reformist strategies is another link to most affirmatives. between deep and shallow.The Anti-Kritik Handbook on elements of each in arguing for a particular policy conclusion. The term "deep ecology" was coined in the early 1970s by the Norwegian philosopher. Another common criticism of deep ecology is that it is misanthropic. and probably all deep ecologists would like to see a significant. and incidents of terrorism have declined over time. Terror talk is the discourse surrounding the issue of terrorism. terror talk may justify limits on civil liberties in order to ensure "security. That is. so talk about terrorism tends to fuel its occurrence. by entrenching capitalism or patriarchy. Arne Naess. Protecting the environment in order to benefit humans is the hallmark of anthropocentrism and shallow ecology. Perhaps the most obvious and straightforward link is the appeal by the affirmative to human interests. Some deep ecologists have flirted with Malthusian population policies. such as Murray Bookchin. Though definitions do vary. There are. There has never been an all out nuclear war either. Critics note affinities between the veneration of nature associated with deep ecology and similar appeals to nature made by the Nazis. it does so mainly to make things better for human beings. Like all radical environmental views. The kritik argues that the language/discourse of terrorism is fundamentally misguided. The danger of exaggerating terrorism is that it may be self-fulfilling. decline in human numbers. terrorism may not be subject to absolutely unambiguous definition. that it hates humans. At any rate. as opposed to radical consciousness shift. the root cause of the environmental crisis is "anthropocentrism" (human-centeredness). believe that it has its roots in social hierarchies like those embedded in capitalism and the state. Left unchecked. lightening kills more each year than do terrorists. Terrorism as a term is used inconsistently. our friends. exponents of these rival positions believe that deep ecology fails both practically and analytically because it misidentifies the true cause of the problem. and such discussions are necessary to devise strategies to contain terrorism. is not what terrorists aim at. a true solution to the environmental crisis requires a shift away from anthropocentrism and a move to an ecocentric (eco-system centered) or biocentric (life-centered) ethic. Deep ecology is the most prominent of current radical environmental philosophies. but the problem is the means they are employing. provide the basis for most links to the kritik. deep ecology may even make things worse. It exists in order to communicate a political message. it is willing to engage in extreme acts of coercion (or even extermination) in order to achieve its ends. Thus. it begins with the perception that there is an environmental crisis and that the survival of humanity (and many other species) is threatened. is the focus on natural resources. some deep ecologists argue that only through crisis can the necessary paradigm shift to deep ecology be accomplished. our enemies are terrorists. especially relevant to the oceans topic. many other possible links. Both of these perspectives agree that anthropocentrism is NOT the root cause of the environmental crisis. from "nature' and therefore feel justified in exploiting and degrading it. This is a kritik which has been in existence for some time. the fact that a disastrous occurrence has not a occurred is not a reason not to be concerned. once again. with its rejection of anthropocentrism and its commitment to radical social and individual life style reform. almost all definitions would agree that certain core acts involving the indiscriminate killing of innocent people in order to make a political statement and/or to secure political ends are terroristic. The term terrorist may be used somewhat inconsistently." In answering the terror talk kritik. would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that the impact of terrorism is mainly discursive. According to deep ecologists. do really kill people. KRITIKS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEEP ECOLOGY. Like most general terms. Thus. Another common criticism is that deep ecology would abandon the poor of the world to their destitution. that is. These distinctions. indeed. Media attention may further terrorist aims. who remains among the most prominent of deep ecological thinkers. however defined. are freedom fighters. Piecemeal reform. Deep ecology has been subject to widespread criticism. The preoccupation with things human leads to the devaluation and neglect of the non-human. This deep ecology is said to uniquely offer. Also. and though it seeks environmental improvement. most fiercely perhaps from proponents of the rival environmental philosophies of social ecology and ecofeminism. Terrorists. for example. but there may also be a new breed of terrorist more willing to inflict mass casualties. Humans view themselves as distinct xxxvii . and in fact is likely to appear on any topic in which terrorism is an impact. And. Terrorists may be pursuing freedom (though in most cases this is doubtful). without any clear definition. "Terrorism" is an amorphous idea. A fourth link. It confuses means and ends. The citizens of Oklahoma City. Terrorism is uniquely a discursive issue. these are only the most generic. Social ecologists. Avoiding an environmental crisis is another link.

As a libertarian socialism. just how to get there. and its impacts are also strong. making for a good debate. assuming social ecological communities are desirable. male rationality is seen as transcending nature.The Anti-Kritik Handbook Deep ecologists. SOCIAL ECOLOGY. And capitalism and the state are too powerful. This characterization suggests some other obvious lines of affirmative attack. ecofeminism stresses patriarchy in particular. socialism. In contrast. along with deep ecology and ecofeminism. All of these factors mean that this kritik is likely to be one of the most popular ones on the oceans topic. The second issue concerns. ecologically benign technologies should be able to provide a humane standard of living for all. the ultimate source of the problem. instinct as opposed to reason. What ecofeminists object to most is the relative neglect of gender in social ecological analyses. The literature on deep ecology is a mature one. Instead of nation-states. Hierarchy takes a variety of forms. Decentralization might even involve greater environmental impacts. racism. This seems to be antithetical to the eco-anarchist desire for radically decentralized decision-making. Its focus on social problems means that it neglects ecological problems at the deepest. One of the most generic is reformism. reformism may be the most generic link to the kritik. the material basis for environmental protection. Ecofeminism. Social ecology. Within such communities. social ecologists maintain that their ideal avoids the negative features of previous forms of anarchy. but while social ecology points to hierarchy in general as the root cause. Deep ecology argues that ultimately environmental destruction is linked to anthropocentrism -. Critics argue that they would be too small scale to deal with global environmental problems (such as oceans). while offering their inhabitants true freedom and community. with the body as opposed to the mind. in contrasts. Unless such hierarchies are dismantled. and it may not be able to sustain acceptable standards of living. In response to charges of this sort. Ecofeminism is one of the three major environmental philosophies. too entrenched. In particular. the environmental crisis threatens human survival. It is argued that social ecology is simply too radical. focuses on androcentrism -. and communitarianism. All three of these perspectives share a common belief in the reality of an environmental crisis. environmental degradation. To overcome hierarchy. social ecology argues that the true cause of environmental degradation is social hierarchy.human-centeredness.male-centeredness -. Ecofeminism. it argues. More dispersed populations might absorb more hitherto unoccupied parts of nature. There are two major issues which arise concerning the viability of the social ecological alternative. Communitarianism can be attacked as intolerant and oppressive of individual differences. social ecology's failure to focus on feminist concerns dooms it to ineffectiveness. is likely to fail because it focuses too much on just this one form of hierarchy. Policies which protect the oceans and ocean resources may also tend to protect capitalism. anarcho-socialism. It is this ideology of domination which justifies the human domination of nature. society should be organized into ecocommunities. widespread and relatively accessible. which it is therefore licensed to dominate. existing in harmony with local bioregions. Whereas deep ecology argues that it is anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) that is at the root of the environmental crisis. most fundamental level. There are many links to this kritik. First is the question of whether such communities could be effective. Defenders of capitalism argue that by promoting prosperity it ultimately serves the interests of the poor and provides ECOFEMINISM. Reformist environmentalism ultimately fails because it xxxviii . of course. to effectively protect the environment. for grassroots environmental movements to overcome. Social ecology is another of the three major environmental philosophies. Ecofeminism believes that all forms of domination are linked. Whether such distinctions are viable makes for a good debate. too at odds with prevailing cultural norms to be effective. These communities would be characterized by direct democracy and lives of voluntary simplicity. Deep ecologists argue that social ecology remains anthropocentric. Social ecology can be characterized as a form of communitarian. social ecology calls for the radical decentralization of society. as well as inclined towards inter-group conflict and war. People living in advanced consumer cultures simply don't want to adopt lives of voluntary simplicity. the leading social ecological thinker) point especially to capitalism and the state as forms of hierarchy which must be transcended in order for environmental problems to be adequately addressed. it hopes to avoid the abuses of both state socialism and coercive community. social ecologists maintain that it is not all humans who despoil the environment but rather those wealthy and powerful persons at the top of the social hierarchy. they respond that patriarchy is a form of hierarchy that needs to be dismantled. Socialism also has a poor empirical track record with regard to the environment. but each has a unique slant on just what root cause underlies this condition. not pure anarchy. defends radically decentralized direct democracy. Anarchy is widely indicted as unable to provide for personal and collective security. and it points to a principle of domination underlying sexism. Social ecologists (including most notably Murray Bookchin. and it may also be impossible. Another set of criticisms is leveled against social ecology from the standpoint of the rival positions of deep ecology and ecofeminism. The result of this kind of dualistic thinking is the system of domination which ecofeminism indicts. the other two being deep ecology and social ecology. it is said. absent the protective apparatus of the state. and so forth. all affirmative plans employ the nation-state and may even call for forms of global governance. militarism. Here there are also a number of indictments of Bookchin and his colleagues. To the ecofeminists. Since ecofeminists see patriarchy as the root cause of environmental crisis. but it is not the only such form. In response to the deep ecological indictment. Reform policies may buy off the radical reform truly needed to dismantle hierarchy. Finally. Social ecology is similar to ecofeminism in tracing environmental problems to social causes. Its links to most environmental policies are relatively clear. The kritik "alternative" is relatively well defined. Western culture tends to associate women with nature. contest all of these claims. Hierarchical social relations involve the domination of one group by another.

he was no friend of liberal democracy. Certainly." An instrumental approach to protecting nature (including the oceans) is one which does so for the benefits this accrues to human beings as opposed to protecting the environment because of its intrinsic worth." that is. or what have you? Its emphasis on patriarchy may make ecofeminism less truly ecological than deep ecology. Affluent women are not notably less consumer-oriented than affluent men. Martin Heidegger was a German philosopher who lived from 1889 to 1976. with its emphasis on releasement and the rejection of willful striving and manipulation which many environmentalists embrace. Finally. manipulative. global trade and economic development. eco-socialism. The result of this is that we no longer experience the world as it is. Conversely. were Jewish. A starting point for many answers to the kritik is Heidegger's membership in the Nazi Party. such as the Chinese. a "fallen" and fundamentally dehumanized condition. and it is the latter work. The "natural resources" wording in the topic is probably the clearest link to this kritik. One measure of his philosophical stature is the influence he has exerted over virtually every major movement in continental philosophy from the 1920s to the present. It also means to let nature and natural beings unfold according to their own nature. Focus on natural resources is part of the mindset of management and manipulation of nature. and it is the environmental implications of his philosophy which are central to this kritik. on the way that things fundamentally ARE. Heidegger's thought is notoriously difficult. The technological worldview leads us to regard nature as a "standing reserve. This may simply reverse the traditional male sexist stereotype. a non-ecological feminism fails because it doesn't see how patriarchy is linked to the domination of nature. and postmodernism.) Nor does one need to be a Nazi to embrace Heidegger's criticism of the modern. First. eco-queer theory. His defenders argue that though it was a profound political misjudgment.while relatively neglecting other forms of hierarchy such as capitalism and the state. technological world. lending further credence to charges that radical environmentalism could become ecofascist. which includes of course the welfare of women. Similarly. including Hanna Arendt and Herbert Marcuse. Likewise. the Nazis were quite pro-environmental (at least in their rhetoric). There has been an ongoing (and very heated) debate in the Heidegger literature concerning the significance of this biographical fact. technological worldview. But saving the environment may require activism. ontological issues may be ultimately irresolvable. Science and technology also are important parts of this mindset. The focus on marine "natural resources" grounds this instrumentalist logic in the wording of the oceans resolution. These include phenomenology. Treating nature as an object inevitably leads to its degradation and neglect. One answer to the charge of Nazism is that the later Heidegger withdrew from active political engagement. For social ecologists. Some cultures. To let things be means to allow them to manifest themselves as bona fide beings. justice and rights. through secondary sources. it does not fundamentally impugn his thought. It may be that most if not all of these ideas and institutions are vital for human welfare. poses problems. His critics charge that an authoritarian and even totalitarian bent is inherent in his thought. seem to be pro-environmental without being feminist.patriarchy -. one can argue that ecofeminism rejects vital parts of the Western tradition. science and technology. that is. Humanity has real hope of survival only if it can recover this process of non-manipulative appreciation. On the other hand. and they therefore provide additional links. Heidegger has also had an important influence on recent environmental thought. why ecofeminism as opposed to eco-antiracism. we can easily imagine a pro-feminist culture which still exploited nature. In one of their aspects. (A number of his most famous students. This leads to an alienated and inauthentic . According to one view. The basic nature of existence is something that has been debated for thousands of years without being resolved. The basic ecofeminist argument that all forms of domination are linked is attacked in a variety of ways. This too. existence. His environmentalist interpreters tend to emphasize his criticism of the modern. Some ecofeminists seem to essentialize women -. Another generic link is "instrumentalism. If people prefer more materialistic and manipulative lives.The Anti-Kritik Handbook doesn't address the underlying gender-related causes of ecological destruction. This ontological focus is said to be essential for humans to transcend their debased modern lives and to recover an authentic existence. Various ecofeminists. rather than simply "letting things be. as an object (or natural resource) to be manipulated for human ends. its true being is hidden from us. Second. Likewise. he does not personally appear to have been anti-Semitic. If all forms of domination are linked. hermeneutics. a gender-neutral culture could still place humans in a position of dominance over nature. It may also threaten our survival. existentialism. objectivity and rationality. But there are several problems with this stance. we might question why we should embrace Heidegger's view of authenticity. Because of this. Heidegger's work underwent a fundamental turn or transition. not just as objects of manipulation. its emphasis on ecology may make it less than truly feminist. at least initially. Nazi Germany displayed pro-environmental attitudes without rejecting other forms of domination. There are good reasons to believe that Heidegger did not embrace the entire Nazi worldview. Heidegger's radical antagonism towards the modern world may well have disposed him to favor the Nazis. however. As deep ecologists observe. why are they wrong and xxxix HEIDEGGER. Only a feminist ecology can truly succeed because only it properly discerns the systematic logic of domination." Heidegger's philosophy focuses on the ontological. indict view them as pro-environmental because they truly are closer to nature. and he is probably best approached. ecofeminists error in giving so much weight to one form of domination -. Political activism and political reform may be still further ways in which humans willfully attempt to control their environments rather than allowing the process of releasement (or "letting be") to take place. as opposed to reshaping them for human ends. for example. many critics argue that ecofeminism actually reinforces sexism.

RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM. rather than through interdependence. realism is said to be outdated. If. you may wish to counter that you are actually liberal and that liberalism is good. however. liberalism tends to be highly internationalist. including aid. They generally believe that national security is best achieved by means of deterrence or military strength. As a general theory of international politics and the international system. it exaggerates conflict. realism takes a number of forms: the classical realism of Morgenthau and Kennan. many liberals lean toward deontological ethical positions. a number of authors (especially of a constructivist bent) explicitly the language or discourse of realism as evil (conflict-enhancing) in itself. KRITIKS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS REALISM AND LIBERALISM. defensive realism. Sixth. neoclassical realism. liberalism remains one of the two major paradigms of international relations. to no longer apply effectively in the post-Cold War world. liberalism is more disposed toward minimal deterrence postures. but in fact most affirmatives on this topic will be more liberal than realist. Liberalism is too prone to see potential for cooperation and insufficiently wary about potential threats. Third. "realism" stands in oppositions to "idealism" as a way of understanding foreign policy. There are. contemporary liberalism embraces democratic peace theory.neither event seems compatible with traditional power politics assessments. By seeing enemies everyone. Along with realism. liberalism is cosmopolitan. unlike realism. These include liberalism. the following are tenets which many liberals share. following Kant. and maybe more important realism is still treated as a unitary theory. It seeks wide and deep international engagements. liberalism. Eighth. which implies that there are a number of alternatives to realism that you may wish to defend. As the name suggests. Some think that the range of "dueling realisms" has become so wide that the term is no longer meaningful. and it neglects opportunities for cooperation. rather than ideas or institutions. The right often argues that liberalism leads to military weakness. human rights and democracy promotion all encourage peace. This means that realism is "tough minded. this is because of the anarchic structure of the global system -. the neorealism (or structural realism) of Waltz. liberalism tends to favor international arms control regimes as well as other international institutions. and because of this liberalism tends to support democracy promotion. The kritik argues that realism fails as a theory of international politics. whereas realists tend to favor strong deterrence policies. against genocide) when intervention is truly needed. Fifth. offensive realism. With regard to the kritik of xl .. certain perspectives common to most realists. Its security focus leads it to neglect environmental issues. Finally. liberalism tends to stress the values of economic interdependence and therefore to advocate globalization. Liberals claim that free trade. motivational realism. All of these traits of liberalism can be used as links to the kritik. globalization. Similarly. there is the problem that an ontological focus may lead to the neglect of ethical concerns. you are charged with realism. It also tends to center on nation-states and to see them as the central actors in the international system.) Defenders of liberalism. of course. And whereas some leading realists even support nuclear proliferation. meaning liberals are more likely than realists to give equal weight to the interests of non-Americans. and so on. It fails to effectively explain the continuing vitality of international institutions like NATO. This also suggests an important potential use for the affirmative answer side of this volume. It has a hard time explaining events like the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union -. realist threat perceptions are said to be self-fulfilling. you might counter feminist or critical/constructivist kritiks by defending liberalism. I believe that this kritik has wide application. Seventh. this volume has many potential uses in response to a wide variety of kritiks. Realism also sees the international system as generally prone to conflict and war. While there are many disagreements among liberals. Critics from the left offer a somewhat different set of indictments. sees considerable opportunities for international cooperation. In general. democratization. By exaggerating conflict. and the Oceans topic will prove no exception. On almost all foreign policy topics. Realism is still widely regarded as the leading paradigm of international relations. This may also be an effective answer to threat construction kritiks. Other critics from the left think that liberalism is imperialistic and even prone to genocide. or international law. Critics from both the left and right argue on occasion that liberalism is overly interventionist and may even be prone to moralistic global crusades based on liberal ideology. Liberal Wilsonianism is often castigated as a recipe for myopic foreign policy. and international relations feminism. Environmentalists dislike the free trade/globalization emphasis of liberalism. counter both sets of claims. trade. Second. Realism is also said to reinforce statism and international hierarchy in general.The Anti-Kritik Handbook Heidegger right? Finally. Liberalism is attacked both from the right and the left. as the above links suggest. First. Negative debaters often attempt to label affirmative policies as realist. liberals tend to be proliferation pessimists and to favor limits on other forms of WMD. Fourth. (The Vietnam War is often cited as an example of this. It exaggerates the state. In sum. realism may actually create such enemies." It tends to emphasize material forces. This is sometimes expressed in their strong human rights advocacy. Realists also tend to emphasize national security. on the affirmative. kritiks of realism are common. For many realists. All of these traits can be isolated as links to this kritik. Its defender claim that liberalism is not excessively interventionist but that it is still willing to intervene (for example. Kritik of realism are launched from a number of perspectives. Liberal theorists claim that there theory is sensitive to security issues and that it is better able to deal with contemporary conditions than are rival theories. and collective security ties. constructivism or critical international relations theory. This is especially true among those who critique realism. A focus on nature and the appreciation of being can lead to estrangement from human concerns and can create an indifference to human suffering. since realists are more prone to threat construction than liberals. One impact to the kritik is to turn solvency. Policies based on realist assumptions are likely to be misguided because of the flaws in those assumptions.a world of nation states not subject to an overarching authority. the idea that democracies are very unlikely to fight with each other.

Also. THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE OCEANS. a robust case attack should help in doing this. The oceans can be constructed in various ways -. there are a number of other reasons included here for why radical environmentalism is bad. or that if it is it will only be in a distorted. It may be that they think the system is so flawed that it does need to be totally made over. kritik--a kind of "turn. each of which in turn is strongly linked to peace and environmental protection. intrinsic value to nature. anti-modernism. Or. you need to be able to successfully characterize the affirmative as "radical" environmentalism. and it is important to be prepared to make it. The second main link story focuses on oceans. to engage in piecemeal reform.that is. in incremental adjustment. This kind of thinking is often used to defend so-called "utopian" counterplans. (Common arguments are that the utopian perspective can never be realized.) These arguments are not without merit. The other two links discussed below should help you in doing this. also available. On the affirmative. I want to highlight a few of its features. I want to discuss several examples of counter-kritiks. But society is too complex for any theory to grasp or any blueprint to alter. by this logic. to make adjustments at the margin. but it is usually underdeveloped.) In general. environmentalism. It is an offensive rather than a defensive answer to the . though. such as anarchy and world government. as an extension of national territory. Counter-kritiks seem especially valuable when debating in front of judges who are favorably disposed towards the kritik. You may also wish to argue that even mainstream environmentalism is radical -. To win this link. rather than trying to revamp the whole system. a counter-kritik does not necessarily take out the initial negative indictment of the affirmative discourse or assumptions." As authors such as Yale political scientist Charles Lindblom have argued. and irrationalism. (These counterplans are in many ways the direct ancestors of the kritik. Since "rethinking" is often said to be the "alternative" which the kritik embraces. It's better. like a turn against a disadvantage. or as something in the middle. anti-Americanism. not a reason to vote negative. this should offset most of the doomsaying link. The impact debate is more straightforward. The first focuses on radical environmentalism and argues that it attacks capitalism. his book provides evidence supporting both links and link turns. you should point to elements in the affirmative case analysis which suggest radical environmentalist themes (for example. You might argue that your plan is shallow." (Thus. Here you would probably need to win that affirmative harm claims really are much exaggerated. animal rights. rather than radical. These include ecofascism. a site of strong political influence but not sovereign control.e. The third link focuses on environmental doomsaying. It strengthens the argument considerably if the affirmative explains (and documents) just why utopianism is so pernicious. The indictment of utopianism also applies with some force to the idea of comprehensive "rethinking. it is argued that capitalism is key to both prosperity and democracy. a neutral space between nations. Or it can prove that they employ erroneous assumptions. For a counter-kritik to work effectively. The capitalism bad turn strategy is. you can try to deny the link in various ways. based on a wildly unrealistic and ultimately unrealizable ideal. Of course. Also. As this shell is written. Evidence is available which will allow the affirmative to argue that many plans can and will be constructed in ways favorable to capitalism. If you win all or most of your case harm debate. If you wish to avoid the capitalism good and bad debate. it may be necessary to assume much of the theoretical framework of kritiks. It is better. It can demonstrate that the negative is relying on faulty discourse. and so forth). ecocentrism. An argument made against many kritiks is that the perspective they assume is utopian--that is. But the countercase against utopianism is also strong. form. The key source here is probably Philip Steinberg's book." A defensive argument against a kritik (a takeout) only renders the kritik moot.The Anti-Kritik Handbook radical environmentalism proper. and my point is not to dismiss them out of hand. Various ways of constructing this ocean space seem to support.) It is frequently argued that utopianism must fail because it attempts to totally restructure society based on some comprehensive theory. The exaggeration of environmental impacts is used to fuel radical environmentalism. rationalistic rethinking. the long history of environmental doomsaying doesn't appear to have done too much damage to capitalism. The utopianism argument can be a powerful one. human cognitive capabilities are simply insufficient to engage in comprehensive. i. The kritik should work especially well against "critical" affirmatives because they will wear their radicalism up front. made especially against postmodern kritiks such as Heidegger and Foucault. Nihilism. he seems to believe that disputes over the uses of the oceans offer one arena in which capitalism can be challenged and it "contradictions" exposed. according to this argument. In the remainder of this introduction. potentially totalitarian. There are three basic link stories. this argument should be of frequent value. it can simply show that the thought process employed by the kritik is harmful rather than beneficial. A counter-kritik can work in several a void. hence they are likely to give it more weight than more standard arguments for why the kritik is not a voting issue. You can also argue that capitalism itself promotes peace and a clean environment directly. Utopianism. they may argue that utopian thinking is needed in order to establish a regulative ideal in order to guide future thought. Finally. These arguments can also be deployed as a series of impact turns against other kritiks grounded in the various radical environmental philosophies. that it shares anti-growth and anti-free market attitudes. is that they are xli COUNTER-KRITIKS A counter-kritik can be defined loosely as any argument used in answering a kritik which makes the kritik a reason to vote affirmative. You might also argue that capitalism is too deeply entrenched to be dislodged. while other constructions impede what Steinberg terms "postmodern capitalism. rather than attempting to wipe the slate clean and start over. Steinberg argues that the oceans are a social as well as a physical space. The counter-kritik functions within the framework which these judges prefer. Willingness to sacrifice millions of lives in order to reach some utopian future was a characteristic of both fascism and communism.. of course. There are authors who defend the position that "utopianism" is good. Another common argument.

wrote a long essay. that is probably because it restates. But you should at least be aware that there is a powerful counter-position opposed to the fashionable doom and gloom. the kritik is the only negative argument in the round). a position and party which Heidegger. the familiar argument that the kritik is operating in the wrong forum. Since postmodernism has been discussed in depth above. and politically paralyzing. Lacking some kind of affirmative faith and rigorously doubting everything. The attitude of historical and cultural pessimism has a long history. while the kritik tends to make absolute judgments (of right or wrong. The kritik is like dribbling a football or punting a basketball. This is an allegation which has been made against numerous forms of extreme skepticism." And. it can be argued. Heidegger was convinced (in part by Nietzsche and Spengler) of the decadence of modernity. The cultural crisis view is seen in works like Nietzsche's TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS. And the West. Beyond being empirically suspect. Unfortunately. you have the basis for a potentially powerful counter-kritik. a very large debate and not one which can be very meaningfully addressed in a paragraph. is policy debate. Postmodern thought is currently popular. he was predisposed toward radical alternatives. This argument is probably not a "counter-kritik" according to the definition which I gave above--it justifies rejecting the kritik. in its traditional form. in which he outlined the history of European nihilism over the past two hundred years and concluded that nihilism ultimately led to the mass bloodlettings of the twentieth century. Common arguments against postmodernism are that it is overly relativistic. having weathered two world wars and the challenges of both fascism and communism seems to have settled into a period of considerable. of course. This argument tends to suffer. Eliot's "The Waste Land. to his considerable notoriety. nihilistically skeptical. suggest that the present is a period of progress. (Marx's prediction of the downfall of capitalism is. and incommensurate. but this cannot be meaningfully accomplished because these are intrinsic to the language game of policy debate. It is simply not playing the same language game. which is that we exist in a period of cultural crisis. An example is religion and science. The policy debate language game assumes comparative marginal analysis. The language game we are playing.The Anti-Kritik Handbook "nihilist. The two positions a built upon such different. Ludwig Wittgenstein. I think. applies particularly well to certain kritiks--especially those which call for ongoing inaction because of the lack of a foundational certainty about some aspect of affirmative analysis. to update the story. however. of even more ancient vintage. not of decadence. The example of Heidegger provides a telling case in point. The normativity kritik draws heavily on the postmodern thought process of deconstruction. if you can successfully identify a position as resting on postmodern assumptions. "If nothing is true. One common argument is that nihilism produces political paralysis." Nihilism means literally believing in nothing. but it began to be especially pronounced during the late nineteenth century (a reaction perhaps to Enlightenment and Victorian ideas of progress). embraced. My point is simply that these can serve as offensive arguments for the affirmative in a kritik debate. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn made a similar point about those organizing belief systems which he referred to as "paradigms.) The kritik attempts to challenge the basic assumptions of policy argument. If this argument has a familiar ring. the nihilist is said to lack the grounds needed for commitment to political reform. correct or incorrect) in a non-comparative mode. an interesting and potentially effective way to express a common anti-kritik perspective. it should be noted." has its own distinctive rules and assumptions. and it was one of the early charges directed against the kritik. Spengler's THE DECLINE OF THE WEST. Since this argument. Cultural crisis. prosperity and relative calm." and Yeats' "The Second Coming. of course. perhaps the "language game" reformulation of the position will make it more salable. Thus. the alternative which presented itself to Germany in the 1920s and 1930s was Nazism. Albert Camus." The significance of all this for debate is that the kritik can be indicted for operating within the wrong language game." The French existentialist. from the familiar "familiarity breeds contempt" problem. This is. As far as its truth goes. but isn't a reason. of the great wars and "great politics" that Nietzsche foresaw. the reason that the cultural crisis perspective is dangerous is that it can be self-fulfilling. Heidegger and Foucault are both part of the pantheon of preferred postmodern thinkers. to be powerful. He argued that there are numerous different kinds of language activity and that each different language activity. Postmodernism. THE REBEL. then everything is permitted. The last counter-kritik I wish to discuss is one which attacks an underlying assumption of many kritiks. But crises rarely last over a hundred years.) Nietzsche announced the crisis of the Western World in the 1870s and 1880s. Numerous indicators. A similar indictment is made of xlii . Many kritiks rely on postmodern perspectives. Thus. The threat construction kritik employs basically a postmodern perspective on international relations. These rules and assumptions. I will not repeat all of these arguments here. or "game. no longer seems to carry much weight. This perspective can be indicted as both harmful and untrue. assumptions that they really have nothing meaningful to say to each other. (This is demonstrated by the fact that we are debating and always choose to debate policy topics. he goes on to argue. Language games. The idea of language games was developed by the Austrian philosopher. It may well be that in part Nietzsche was right--the twentieth century has been an era of conflict and crisis. independently to vote affirmative (unless. Accepting such a cultural critique. Spengler announced "the decline of the West" approximately eighty years ago. the argument needs to be enhanced. But it is. This kind of reasoning. such postmodern figures as Heidegger and Foucault draw heavily on the same sense of cultural crisis and decline. but it is also widely indicted. In contrast to the quiescence argument is the claim that nihilism can produce vast destruction. from affluence to life expectancy. cannot be meaningfully challenged from a perspective outside the particular language game. and I believe that this can best be done by articulating reason for why nihilism is so especially dangerous. in a somewhat more sophisticated way. of course.

The kritik is an imaginative form of argument.The Anti-Kritik Handbook the radical wing of the environmental movement. They also seek to limit technological development and economic growth. Evidence for this impact would be found in the post-humanism section. Other counter-kritiks. As part of your indictment of Derrida. you might choose to argue that the kritik relies on postmodernism. for example. the section on epistemology offers evidence which indicts epistemology. Many kritiks are indicted as having irrationalist roots and tending to destroy science. Even a casual perusal of this volume should reveal numerous other interactions. but the evidence is available in this volume for many other counter-kritiks. impacts to rationality are found in the "kritik of reason" answer section. you might argue that he relies heavily on Heidegger and is thereby corrupted by Heidegger's intellectual authoritarianism. Thus. Being convinced that ecological apocalypse is at hand. Against any kritik. To find evidence indicting Derrida. Careful reflection on the evidence should reveal many uses for cards beyond the use to which they are assigned in the book's current structure. I have highlighted these five positions as counter-kritiks. many of the arguments in this book interact. You would find evidence to do this in the answers to the kritik of modernity section. The section on metaphysical kritiks provides evidence which could be used to produce a counter-kritik of metaphysical thought. both of which are arguably key to environmental protection. and then proceed to indict postmodern thought. and it calls for an imaginative response. you would need to go to the section on deconstruction. xliii . Many other possibilities exist. there will be links to arguments found in one section with impacts found in another. radical environmentalists are willing to contemplate such "solutions" as starving millions in the less developed world in order to reduce pressures on natural eco-systems. A FINAL NOTE ON THE BOOK'S ORGANIZATION As should be clear by now. The impacts to science are found mainly in the section on general answers to epistemological kritiks. Cards in the section on language kritiks provide the basis for a counter-kritik of political correctness and excessive language focus. you might decide to indict Derrida as the typical postmodern thinker. In indicting postmodernism.

. . . . . . . . . GENERAL KRITIK ANSWERS A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271-72 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIELD SPECIFIC SCHOLARSHIP PROVIDES VALID KNOWLEDGE . . . . . . . METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS ARE UNANSWERABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LACK OF ALTERNATIVE PRODUCES INEFFECTIVE CRITICISM . . . 69-72 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261-66 6. . . . . . . . . . 17-25 3. . . . . . 201-06 12. . . . . . REJECTING REASON LEADS TO NIHILISM AND INHUMANITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-35 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174-80 6. . . 228-38 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . LIMITED PERSPECTIVES STILL ALLOW KNOWLEDGE . . . . . . . 52-61 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-50 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . THE WORLD IS KNOWABLE THROUGH SENSE EXPERIENCE . . . . . . SCIENCE IS POLITICALLY PROGRESSIVE . . . . METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION IS USELESS . . . . . RELATIVISM DOESN'T UNDERMINE SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-31 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHILOSOPHY SHOULDN'T REJECT COMMON SENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEANINGFUL DEBATE REQUIRES AN ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . SCIENCE IS OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267-70 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-50 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225-27 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-65 12. . . KRITIK IS BASED ON POSTMODERN AND DECONSTRUCTIONIST THOUGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASON CORRECTS ITS OWN ABUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197-200 11. . . . . . . . . 151-61 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109-13 8. . . REJECTION OF REASON IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY . . 273-76 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Anti-Kritik Handbook INDEX TO THE RESEARCH I. THE KRITIK THREATENS SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENSORING SPEECH HURTS MINORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191-96 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL ANSWERS TO EPISTEMOLOGICAL KRITIKS A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. . . REASON KEY TO DIGNITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181-84 7. . . . . . . . . . . . DEMOCRACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136-39 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140-41 5. . 119-25 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285-91 II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167-73 5. . . . . . . . . 162-64 2. . . . . . . . . . . . WE MUST ASSUME OBJECTIVE EXTERNAL REALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEPARATE SELVES EXIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCIENCE OFFERS THE MOST RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE . . . . . 283-84 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEBATE SHOULD ASSUME A POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EPISTEMOLOGICAL DOUBT DOESN'T JUSTIFY INACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244-57 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96-100 5. . . . . . . . . . 165 3. . . . . . . . . . THE APPEAL TO "NEW IDEAS" DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE KRITIK . . 84-95 4. . . . . . . . KRITIK LEADS TO NIHILISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASON NEEDED TO CHECK INTUITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-28 4. . . . . V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. . . . . . . . . . . . MEANINGFUL INQUIRY REQUIRES ASSUMPTIONS . 185 8. . . . . . . . . SCIENCE PROVIDES VALID KNOWLEDGE . . . . . . . . 79-80 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS VALIDATE SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASON COMPATIBLE WITH INTUITION/CREATIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOT ALL ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD BE QUESTIONED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIBERTY. . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217-20 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 4. . . . . . . 36-40 8. . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF REASON A. . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCIENCE COMPATIBLE WITH CREATIVE IMAGINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 11. . 126-34 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213-16 14. . . 221-24 16. . . . GENERAL ANSWERS TO LANGUAGE/RHETORIC KRITIKS A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101-02 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . SPEECH LIMITS CHILL EXPRESSION . . . . . . . . . 66-68 13. ANTI-FOUNDATIONALISM DOESN'T UNDERMINE REASON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . MODERN PHILOSOPHY REJECTS METAPHYSICS . . . . 142 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-44 7. . . . . . . . METAPHYSICAL STATEMENTS ARE MEANINGLESS . . . FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . CHANGING SPEECH WON'T SOLVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CENSORSHIP OF SPEECH IS INEFFECTIVE AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . ACTION MUST BE BASED ON PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277-78 10. . REASON HAS VALUE DESPITE ITS LIMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LACK OF ALTERNATIVE ENSURES POLITICAL FAILURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239-42 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114-18 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258-60 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . SPEECH LIMITS UNDERMINE THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "POLITICALLY CORRECT" CODES OF LANGUAGE ARE CENSORSHIP . 10-16 2. . . . . . . . . 186-90 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73-78 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOGIC PROVIDES VALID KNOWLEDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207-12 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPEECH LIMITS ARE JUSTIFIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 3. . . . . GENERAL ANSWERS TO METAPHYSICAL/SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT KRITIKS A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280-82 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORY PROVIDES VALID KNOWLEDGE . . 32-33 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FREE SPEECH IS KEY TO REFORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POLICY DEBATE ESSENTIAL TO THE PUBLIC GOOD . . . . . . . RADICAL SKEPTICISM IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103-08 7. . . . REJECTING REASON LEADS TO FASCISM AND TYRANNY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPEECH LIMITS SNOWBALL . . . REJECTING SCIENCE IS DISASTROUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASON PRODUCES THE BEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOCUS ON EPISTEMOLOGY IS BAD . . . . . 81-83 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE KRITIK OF SCIENCE FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 469-71 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DERRIDA'S THEORY OF MEANING FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTMODERNISM RESTS ON INTELLECTUAL PARANOIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION OVERSIMPLIFIES . . . . . . . . . 595 VII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391-98 16. 380-81 12. . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTSTRUCTURALISM FLAWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAUSE IS A NECESSARY ASSUMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448-56 5. . . . . . . 344-50 4. DECONSTRUCTIONIST WRITINGS FATALLY OBSCURE . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . 457-60 6. . . . THE INDUCTION PROBLEM DOESN'T DISPROVE SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376-79 11. . . . . . POSTMODERNISM UNDERMINES SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528-35 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF MODERNITY/ARGUMENTS AGAINST POSTMODERNISM A. . . . . . . . . . . IX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514-15 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION LACKS CREATIVE INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION IS JUST WORDPLAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARGUMENTS AGAINST FOUCAULT-BASED KRITIKS A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399-401 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION IS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SHOULD BOTH ACT AND DECONSTRUCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337-43 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366-68 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493-94 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306-09 REASON IS PRAGMATICALLY JUSTIFIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. 382-83 13. . . . . . . . . . 525-27 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559-61 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRAGMATISM SUPERIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION CAN BE RATIONALLY ATTACKED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593-94 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335-36 2. . . . . . 315-16 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300-02 TRUTH REQUIRES REASON . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTMODERN KRITIK OF SCIENCE FAILS . 442-44 3. . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION LACKS POLITICAL VALUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION IS NIHILISTIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT'S THEORY OF POWER FLAWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTMODERNISM JUST AN OBSOLETE FAD . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION JUST AN EXERCISE IN SELF-DRAMATIZATION . . 292 REASON KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322-24 4. . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT'S THEORIES UNDERMINE SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT'S METHOD BANKRUPT . . . . 436-41 2. . . . . . FOUCAULT'S THEORY POLITICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487-90 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478-85 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369-75 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTMODERN THOUGHT SELF-CONTRADICTORY . 461-62 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FREEDOM . . . . . . 413-20 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTMODERNISM UNDERMINES RATIONALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MODERNITY HASN'T FAILED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311-14 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422-35 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 14. . . . . POSTMODERNISM FAILS AS A THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDICTMENTS OF NIETZSCHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512-13 24. . . . . . 298-99 REASON NECESSARY FOR MEANINGFUL KRITIK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAUSALITY IS VALID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445-47 4. DECONSTRUCTION UNDERMINES RATIONALITY AND TRUTH . . . STRESSING "DIFFERENCE" IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANTI-FOUNDATIONALISM IS IRRELEVANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEMOCRACY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 8. . . POSTMODERN THOUGHT INCOHERENT . . . . . . . . . . VIII. . . . . . . . 305 REASON IS GROUNDED IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326-34 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. ENLIGHTENMENT PRINCIPLES VALID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 13. . . . . REALITY ISN'T JUST SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION IS INTELLECTUAL ANARCHY . . . . . . . . . . . . 537-41 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516-20 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DERRIDA'S THOUGHT MYSTICAL AND METAPHYSICAL . 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WE AREN'T ENTERING A POSTMODERN PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASON KEY TO BENEVOLENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION JUST DISAPPOINTED ABSOLUTISM . . . . . 505-09 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385-90 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317-21 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DERRIDA SELF-CONTRADICTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293-97 REASON KEY TO MORALITY . . . 499-502 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472-77 11. . . . . . . . . . 592 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. . . . . . POSTMODERNISM IS POLITICALLY REACTIONARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION DOESN'T OFFER USEFUL ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION LACKS LOGICAL FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION DESTROYS DEBATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DERRIDA'S SOCIAL THEORY FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354-56 6. . 495-96 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510-11 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . HUME DIDN'T DENY CAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MODERN VIEW KEY TO PEACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. . . . 351-53 5. . . . . . . . . . EVEN DECONSTRUCTION RESTS ON UNCHALLENGED ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION LACKS REAL WORLD UTILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION IS AN INTELLECTUAL FAKE . . . . . . . . . 491 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521-24 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION RESTS ON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF CAUSALITY A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT'S VIEW PRESERVES PATRIARCHY . 542-58 4. . 497-98 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . DECONSTRUCTION POLITICALLY REACTIONARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT NIHILISTIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303-04 HISTORY VALIDATES REASON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464-68 9. . . . . 562-91 6. . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSTMODERN THOUGHT IS NIHILISTIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOUCAULT'S KRITIK OF MODERNITY FAILS . . . 357-61 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402-12 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503-04 21. DECONSTRUCTION CAUSES DEBILITATING SKEPTICISM . . . . . . . . . . . . ARGUMENTS AGAINST DERRIDA AND DECONSTRUCTION A. 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362-65 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 637-42 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESTROYS FREEDOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665-69 8. GENERAL INDICTMENTS OF HEIDEGGER . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRONG DETERMINISTISM IS WRONG . . . . REJECTING NORMATIVITY SCREENS OUT OTHER VIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678-82 3. . . . ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE WILL SELF-CONTRADICTORY . . . 706-10 HEIDEGGER BASIC CONCEPTS WRONG 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DETERMINISM IS UNPROVEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHLAG'S VIEW IS PARANOID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795-98 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758-59 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 9. . F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE KRITIK OF NORMATIVITY IS INCOHERENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749-50 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 689-91 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LEADS TO TOTALITARIAN OPPRESSION . . . . . . HIS PHILOSOPHY CAN LEAD TO POLITICAL PASSIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXPERIENCE DENIES THE KRITIK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . 818-20 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE FREE WILL QUESTION IS MEANINGLESSLY METAPHYSICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821-23 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WE SHOULD ACT AS IF FREE WILL EXISTS . . . . . REJECTING NORMATIVITY REACTIONARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOCALIZED PREDICTION POSSIBLE--THE CONTINUUM OF FORCES ISN'T "INDISSOLUBLE" . . . . HEIDEGGER WAS A NAZI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIS CRITIQUE OF TECHNOLOGY IS MISGUIDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 10. . . HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINISM WRONG . . . . . . . . . . . . 834-35 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843-45 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692-705 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEANINGFUL PERSUASION AND DELIBERATION ARE COMPATIBLE WITH DETERMINISM . . . . . . DETERMINISM DESTROYS HUMAN VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596 CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ARE GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760-70 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726-27 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT INVITES FANATICISM/NIHILISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER JUST A PSEUDO-THEOLOGIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER RETAINED NAZI SYMPATHIES . . . . . . . . . 732-35 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUTONOMY IS GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629-30 X. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814-15 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711-13 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER REJECTED DEMOCRACY . . . . . . HIS RETHINKING FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777-81 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO HEIDEGGER AND THE POSTHUMANIST KRITIK A. . . EVEN SCHLAG CAN'T ESCAPE NORMATIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837-42 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . NORMATIVE THOUGHT CAN SUCCEED . . . . . . . . . 652-64 7. . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . 674-77 2. . . . . NORMATIVITY IS INESCAPABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM WASN'T INCIDENTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . HUMANISM IS GOOD . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER'S CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY FLAWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER'S WRITINGS/SPEECHES REVEAL HIS NAZISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE IS NORMATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771-76 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831-33 21. . . . . HEIDEGGER GLORIFIED POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714-18 3. . . . . . . . . . . HIS POLITICS ENCOURAGE NATIONALISM . . . . . . . 751-57 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSISTENT WITH RELEASEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SKINNER'S BEHAVIORISM IS WRONG . . . . 631-36 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743-45 12. . . . . 846-53 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DETERMINISM LACKS PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626-28 FOUCAULT'S PERSPECTIVE WON'T LIBERATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621-24 FOUCAULT OVERLY RELATIVISTIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782-85 4. . . . 603-14 FOUCAULT'S THEORY UTOPIAN . . 788-90 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HE IGNORES REALITY . . . . HUMAN AGENCY IS MEANINGFUL . . . 645 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670-73 HEIDEGGER AND NAZISM 1. . . 737-38 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649-51 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FREE WILL A FUNCTIONAL REALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597-602 FOUCAULT'S CRITIQUE OF REASON FLAWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739-42 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863-72 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIS LANGUAGE IS AUTHORITARIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIS CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIS POLITICS ENCOURAGE TOTALITARIANISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIS CONCEPT OF TRUTH IS WRONG . . . . . . . 615-16 FOUCAULT OFFERS NO ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683-88 4. . . . . 799-803 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719-22 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRONTLINE . . . . . 787 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HE WAS A COVERT THEOLOGIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHLAG CAN'T TRANSCEND THE CARTESIAN FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER VENERATED HITLER . . . . . . HIS POLITICS ENCOURAGE STATISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 9. . . . . . . . . 646-48 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723-25 5. . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. . . . . . . . . . . . 856-62 28. . . . . . . . . . . 824-25 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826-30 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . HIS CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER'S CONCEPT OF BEING INCOHERENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI. . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF NORMATIVITY A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEIDEGGER AN INTELLECTUAL AUTHORITARIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HIS FOCUS ON BEING IS DESTRUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816-17 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 REJECTION OF HUMANISM IS TERRIBLE 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VALUES CAN'T BE OBJECTIVELY PROVEN--THEY MUST BE ASSUMED . . . FREE WILL EXISTS . . . . . . . . . . HIS CRITIQUE OF RATIONALITY FAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791-92 8. . . . . . . . . . . 805-13 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REJECTING THE SUBJECT DEHUMANIZES AND DESTROYS REASON . . . . . . . . . 643-44 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873-82 C. . . . . . . . . . AUTONOMY IS POSSIBLE . . . 625 FOUCAULT MISUNDERSTANDS INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728-31 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHLAG OVERSIMPLIFIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617-20 LATE FOUCAULT RECANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NORMATIVITY IS ESSENTIAL . . . 854-55 27. . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . UTOPIANISM IS BAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062 8. ANARCHY DESTROYS PERSONAL IDENTITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRIVATE ARMIES/PROTECTION AGENCIES DESTROY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 3. . . . . . . . HEAD START EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . GOVERNMENT MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE MARKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. . . . . . . . . . 1096-97 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086-93 THE CRITICAL RACE THEORY DEFENSE OF RIGHTS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HUMAN RATIONALITY LIMITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GLOBAL DEMOCRACY EXPANDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000-06 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891 NORMATIVITY KRITIK RESTS ON POSTMODERNISM AND DECONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . 1144 XIII. . . . . . . OBJECTIVITY NOT BAD FOR WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099-106 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV. . . . . . 1022-24 33. . . . . . . . . 1011-12 29. . . . . . . . . . . . HUMANS INNATELY AGGRESSIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906 3. . . . 1107-10 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040-45 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRT ANSWERS FEMINIST CRITIQUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . 960-64 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PRODUCE DEPENDENCY . . . . . . . 1064-66 10. . . . . . . . 965-69 19. . . . . 936-38 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEEDS TALK NO BETTER THAN RIGHTS TALK . . . . . . . . . 1076-78 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017-18 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985-86 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 7. . . . . . . . . . . . 1098 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WOMEN PROGRESSING POLITICALLY . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO FEMINIST KRITIK OF RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRT ANSWERS CLS CRITIQUE . . . . 993-99 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OBJECTIVITY AND UNIVERSALISM HELP WOMEN . . . . B. . 1138-40 7. . . GOVERNMENT NOT INEFFICIENT . . . . . . 942-46 13. . . 1050-57 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES KRITIK A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080-85 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE KRITIK A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASON HELPS WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHY PRODUCES CRIME AND DISORDER . . . . . . SOCIAL ORDER REQUIRES GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOOD AND HOUSING PROGRAMS EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029-36 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANTI-GOVERNMENT RHETORIC CAUSES TERRORISM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113-19 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RADICAL REFORM WON'T OCCUR . . 1127-31 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THEY DON'T MASK . . . . . . . . . . . . 951-54 16. . . . POLLUTION CONTROL EFFECTIVE . . . . . 904-05 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE STATE CAN LIMIT WAR . . . . 939-41 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AMERICA RELATIVELY EGALITARIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RULE OF LAW KEY TO JUSTICE AND EQUALITY . . . . . . RIGHTS AREN'T REIFIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY REJECTS ANARCHY . . . . . . . . ANARCHY INCREASES VIOLENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXTERNAL AGGRESSION DESTROYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHY NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHY PRODUCES SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRONTLINE . . . . . . . AMERICA NOT OPPRESSIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007-10 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . REJECTING REASON AND OBJECTIVITY HURTS WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931-35 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIBERAL DEMOCRACY IS BEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORICAL EXAMPLES DON'T SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025-28 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914-25 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KRITIK OF LAW FLAWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132-34 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO UNIQUELY FEMALE EPISTEMOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013-16 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOVERNMENT LOWERS POVERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947-49 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019-21 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRT GENERALLY UPHOLDS RIGHTS . . . . . . . ANARCHY CAN'T PERSIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MORAL RULES NECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970-84 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHIST THOUGHT UTOPIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1141-43 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FAILURE LEADS TO FASCISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892-93 XII. . . . . . . . ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IMPROVING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067-70 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF STATISM A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RULE OF LAW GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071-75 12. . . . . . . . . . 1094-95 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894-903 EXTENSION BLOCKS 1. . . . . 927-29 8. . . . . . . . . . JOBS PROGRAMS EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHY CAN'T ENDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 955-59 17. . . . . . . . . 883-84 VALUES REQUIRE PERSONAL CHOICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FORMAL PROCEDURE GOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058-61 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888-89 LIFE IS VALUABLE . . . . . 926 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHY DESTROYS JUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1135-37 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907 4. . . . RULE OF LAW KEY TO LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY . . 890 NORMATIVE STATEMENTS ARE MEANINGFUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FAILS UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990 24. . . . . . . . . 989 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. THE STATE IS LEGITIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RULE OF LAW KEY TO GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120-24 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125-26 3. . . RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE SUCCESSFUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991-92 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987-88 22. . . . . . . . . 1079 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885-87 VALUE OF LIFE CAN'T BE ESTIMATED . . . AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NIHILISM IS SELF-REFUTING . . . . . . . . RIGHTS PRODUCE PROGRESS . . . . . . . . 1037-38 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOVERNMENT MEDICAL CARE EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FEMINISM IS IRREVERSIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908-13 5. . . . . . . . . . . ANARCHY UNDERMINES FREEDOM/INDIVIDUALITY . . . AMERICA NOT RACIST . . 1046-49 5. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250-54 NON-VIOLENCE UTOPIAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193-202 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1237-39 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203 3. . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1299-308 DISCOURSE ABOUT THE NUCLEAR THREAT NECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NON-WESTERN WORLD ACCEPTS MODERN VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217 NON-VIOLENCE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1227 2. . . . . . . GENERALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STORIES MUST BE VALID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1160-67 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STORIES UNDERMINE LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INCREASES VIOLENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GANDHIAN NON-VIOLENCE FAILS . . . 1255-58 RELATIVISM IS INCORRECT 1. . . . . . 1342-44 POSTMODERN APPROACHES TO FOREIGN POLICY FAIL . . . . . . . CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSISTENT WITH PACIFISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176-83 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 1241-42 NON-VIOLENCE INEFFECTIVE 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY JUSTIFIES REJECTION . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . CONSEQUENTIALIST PRINCIPLES JUSTIFY REJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184-89 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1228-32 3. . . . . . . . . . . . UNDERMINES LIMITED WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NARRATIVE INEFFECTIVE 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERALLY . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PURE PACIFISM UNDERMINES THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1351 NEGLECTING SECURITY CONCERNS IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF WAR . . . . . . . . 1212-14 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KANTIAN PRINCIPLES JUSTIFY REJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1221-25 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1262-70 4. . . 1353 REAL THREATS EXIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POLICE POWER JUSTIFIES MILITARY POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1354-7 MOTIVES NOT HARD TO ASSESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271-72 RELATIVISM IS WRONG 1. . . . . . . . . . . E. ETHIC OF CARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145 RADICAL FEMINISM TOTALIZES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1293-95 IGNORING THE NUCLEAR THREAT HEIGHTENS THE RISK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312-14 THE SLIGHTEST NUCLEAR RISK MUST BE AVOIDED . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE THREAT CONSTRUCTION KRITIK A. . . 1261 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOME CULTURES ARE SUPERIOR . . . . . . . 1190-92 CRITERIA FOR NARRATIVES 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1155-59 2. . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1316-19 MILITARY DETERRENCE EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STORIES REQUIRE ANALYTICAL INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . 1171-75 3. . . . 1259-60 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1240 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320-21 NUCLEARISM THREAT EXAGGERATED . . . 1204 REJECTING NARRATIVE DOESN'T SILENCE . . . . . . . . . . . 1273-74 2. . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO NARRATIVE A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . 1352 A WEALTH OF INFORMATION PERMITS INFORMED CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES' INTENTIONS . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1216 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STORIES MUST BE CLEARLY RELEVANT . . . . . . . . . . 1332-41 DETERRENCE IS NECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO CULTURAL RELATIVISM A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORY AND REASON DENY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1233-36 4. . . . 1358-60 ANSWERS TO TERRORIST THREAT CONSTRUCTION . . . . . 1275-76 ANSWERS TO ORIENTALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . 1218-19 2. . . . . . . LEADS TO TOTALITARIAN RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146-47 ANSWERS TO FEMINIST KRITIK OF SCIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . UNDERMINES ARGUMENT . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . 1346-50 SOME ENEMIES ARE REAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1281-91 NUCLEARISM DEFINED . . UNDERMINES REFORM . . . . . . . CONSENSUS REJECTS COMPLETE PACIFISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . GENERALLY . . 1323-28 NOT COUNTERING REAL THREATS LEADS TO WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148-54 XV. . . . . . . . 1322 THREAT ASSESSMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS NEEDED AND JUSTIFIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. F. . . . . DOESN'T EMPOWER MINORITIES . . . . . . . . 1220 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 1226 PACIFISM HARMFUL 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345 THREAT CONSTRUCTION KRITIK NOT ABSOLUTE . . 1277-80 EMPHASIS ON DIFFERENCE/"OTHER" COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1329-31 UNDERASSESSING THREATS IS A GREATER RISK . . . . . . . . . . . 1296-98 CONFRONTING THE NUCLEAR THREAT LOWERS THE RISK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RELATIVISM IS ETHNOCENTRIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1243-49 2. . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STORIES DISTORT DECISION MAKING . . K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . GENERALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANTI-RATIONAL . . . . . . . . . LEADS TO WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1206-11 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF NUCLEARISM A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOESN'T EMPOWER WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STORIES ARE ATYPICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO NON-VIOLENCE A. . . 1315 NUCLEAR SCENARIOS MUST BE CONFRONTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. . . . . . . . . . . . . JUSTIFIES MORAL ATROCITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1168-69 NARRATIVE IS HARMFUL 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . NO RIGHT TO CULTURAL SURVIVAL . . . 1309-11 SCHELL'S NUCLEAR DISCOURSE UNIQUELY FERTILE . . . . . . . . . . . . 1292 NUCLEAR EXTINCTION STILL A THREAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1170 2. . 1215 4. . . . . . . . . 1361-4 B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205 NON-VIOLENCE MORALLY FLAWED 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491 ECOFEMINISM ESSENTIALIZES WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1373 VALID DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM EXIST . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO HEIDEGGER-BASED ENVIRONMENTALIST KRITIKS A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1484 ECOFEMINISM HURTS THE STATUS OF WOMEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1421-2 DEEP ECOLOGICAL DISCOURSE ISN'T USEFUL . . . . ANSWERS TO THE ECOFEMINISM KRITIK A. . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF TERROR TALK A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . . . N. . . . . 1365-7 TERRORISTS KILL MANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .REAL PEOPLE DIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TERRORISM CAN BE ADEQUATELY DEFINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1370 STATE VIOLENCE DOESN'T JUSTIFY TERRORISM . . . . 1501-2 HEIDEGGER ANTI-DEMOCRATIC . . . . . . . . . . . 1380 EVALUATIVE DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM ACCEPTABLE . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. F. . . 1509-21 REALISM PRODUCES EFFECTIVE POLICIES . . . Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE DEEP ECOLOGY KRITIK A. . . 1453-4 SOCIAL ECOLOGY POLITICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . 1507-8 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . 1404-20 ANTHROPOCENTRISM DOESN'T CAUSE ECO-CRISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1372 RESPONSES TO TERRORISM ARE NEEDED TO PRESERVE CONSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1480 ECOFEMINISM IS INTELLECTUALLY UNSOUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1457 SOCIAL ECOLOGY CAN'T MAKE NEEDED TRANSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1483 ECOFEMINISM HURTS THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . D. . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1463 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . . . . . M. . . . . . 1434-45 SOCIAL ECOLOGY MISUNDERSTANDS HIERARCHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1481-2 ECOFEMINISM DOESN'T SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1403 FRONTLINE . G. 1398 TERRORISM NOT JUST DISCURSIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371 TERRORISM REINFORCES THE POWER OF THE STATE . . . . . . . . 1522-3 REALISM PROMOTES PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . 1456 SOCIAL ECOLOGY LACKS WIDE APPEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1391-3 TERRORISM IS INEFFECTIVE . . . XXII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1390 TERRORISTS NOT FREEDOM FIGHTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. 1432-3 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425 DEEP ECOLOGY PRONE TO CONSERVATIVE COOPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XX. . . . . . . . . K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524-5 DISCURSIVE CHANGE FAILS . . . . . 1430-1 DEEP ECOLOGY HURTS THE POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1455 SOCIAL ECOLOGY UNDERMINES COALITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1504 HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT DESTROYS FREEDOM . . . . . . . . . 1499-1500 ONTOLOGICAL FOCUS UNDESIRABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY KRITIK A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1478-9 FEMINISM SCAPEGOATS MEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1399 PAST IS A POOR GUIDE TO FUTURE TERRORISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . B. . . . 1374-9 PERFECT DEFINITION UNNECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1494-8 HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1474-5 PATRIARCHY NOT LINKED TO DOMINATION OF NATURE . . . . . . . 1448-9 REJECTION OF THE STATE NOT NECESSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1428-9 DEEP ECOLOGY IS GENOCIDAL . . . . . XXV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1492-3 FRONTLINE . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1472-3 ALL FORMS OF DOMINATION NOT LINKED . . . . . . . I. . . 1528-9 XXI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1464-71 ECOFEMINIST THEORY OF DOMINATION IS WRONG . . . . 1426-7 DEEP ECOLOGY ENCOURAGES AUTHORITARIANISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1485-6 ECOFEMINISM REINFORCES STEREOTYPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. . . . . 1368-9 TERRORISM RISKS ESCALATION TO WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1382-9 CURRENT TERRORISM NOT JUSTIFIED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1505-6 PERMUTATION: KRITIK AND ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1460 DECENTRALIZATION CAUSES CONFLICT AND WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1395-6 STATE TERRORISM NOT IGNORED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1462 SOCIAL ECOLOGY CAUSES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE . . . . . . . . . . . 1526 CONSTRUCTIVIST CRITIQUE OF REALISM WRONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1458 ATTACKING CAPITALISM ECOLOGICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE . . . 1400-2 WMD TERRORISM IS A REAL THREAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. . . . . 1503 HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT POLITICALLY REACTIONARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381 TERRORISM IS IMMORAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1446-7 CAPITALISM DOESN'T CAUSE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1397 TERRORISM THREATENS DEMOCRACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423-4 DEEP ECOLOGY POLITICALLY IMPOTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1450 REFORMISM LEGITIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1459 DECENTRALIZATION IS DISASTROUS . . . . . 1487-8 ECOFEMINISM IS POLITICALLY REACTIONARY . . . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1451-2 ANARCHY FAILS . . . . . . . . 1461 SOCIAL ECOLOGY HURTS THE POOR AND VIOLATES JUSTICE . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THEIR IMPACT IS REAL . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1394 STATE VIOLENCE DOESN'T EXCUSE TERRORISM . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF REALISM A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . 1489-90 ECOFEMINISM ANTI-DEMOCRATIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527 REALISM SUPERIOR TO CONSTRUCTIVISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1476-7 WOMEN NOT INNATELY PRO-ENVIRONMENTALIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1690-1750 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1561-2 CAPITALISM KEY TO DEMOCRACY . . . 1569-70 GROWTH IS KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1571-2 DEMOCRACY CAUSES PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1581 RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM ATTACKS DEMOCRACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. . . . 1556 ECOFEMINISM REJECTS CAPITALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE COUNTER-KRITIK OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM A. . . 1567-8 GROWTH AIDS THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1544 LIBERALISM ENCOURAGES PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1575-6 RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM THREATENS THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1558 ECO-RADICALISM REPUDIATES GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1541 LIBERALISM NOT PRONE TO IDEOLOGICAL CRUSADES . . . 1589-1689 XXIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1555 DEEP ECOLOGY REJECTS CAPITALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1577-8 RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM IS ECOFASCIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1542-3 LIBERALISM GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. . . . . 1557 SOCIAL ECOLOGY REJECTS CAPITALISM . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . 1565-6 GROWTH PROMOTES PEACE . P. . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1538-9 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EFFECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1582-3 ECO-RADICALISM THREATENS CIVILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. . . . . . XXVIII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1587 STATE ESSENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1585-6 RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM EMBRACES ANARCHISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1530-7 LIBERAL HEGEMONY BENIGN . . . . 1547-8 FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1588 XXVII. . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COUNTER-KRITIKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1573-4 CAPITALISM INCREASES LENGTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE . . . D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRAGMATISM . . . . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1584 ECO-RADICALISM REJECTS TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1540 LIBERALISM NOT OVERLY INTERVENTIONIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1559-60 CAPITALISM KEY TO PROSPERITY . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. . . . . . . ANSWERS TO THE KRITIK OF LIBERALISM A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XXVI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1545-6 LIBERALISM BETTER THAN ITS ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1563-4 CAPITALISM PROMOTES PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . 1549-54 RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM REJECTS CAPITALISM . . . . . . . FRONTLINE . . . . . . . . . . . L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1579-80 LOGIC OF ECOFASCISM JUSTIFIES MASS KILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. cheat on tests. 1995. No three people agree about the meaning of central terms like "deconstruction. which embraces the mass media as well as the more serious processes of education. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. AKH0010 MEANINGFUL DISCOURSE CAN ONLY OCCUR WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY Stanley Fish. Professor at Murdoch University in Australia. or anything else-it behooves you to retain and strengthen the vocabulary that marks its distinctiveness. has been convincingly shown to be erroneous? Are there not sufficient grounds to present a case for what Hans Blumenberg has called 'die Legitimitat der Neuzeit'? That a deep cultural crisis is endemic to historical modernity seems to have been much more eagerly assumed than properly demonstrated. If we keep in mind that regulation of speech is constitutive of meaningful discourse. that thinking will be distorted and dangerously talk shows and major league baseball games (and even these have their limits)-it is understood that the speech freely produced is tolerated because it doesn't matter. but because the very condition of purposeful activity (as opposed to activity that is random and inconsequential) is that some actions (both physical and verbal) be excluded so that some others can go forward. and we can identify the right questions only by subjecting our own ideas about the world to the test of public controversy." Every participant carries around his own definitions. King's College. DEBATING P. In the very few contexts in which the idea of "free expression" is really taken seriously. THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY. 1992.if we take it in at all. FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF THE SIXTIES. p. 1994. You can never go deep enough. A non-essentialist analysis treats its objects in terms of its specificity. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. In this way a non-essentialist analysis allows a far more thorough understanding of its object as it is not restricted to considerations in terms of an essence. To the extent that the academic left's critique becomes the dominant mode of thinking about science on the part of nonscientists. New York University Institute for the Humanities. Professor of History. I meant to stress how questionable are the assumptions that gave birth to the radical tradition within Kulturkritik. not information. things that upright people would not do or even consider: to walk out on their children. the sign of its mattering is the fact that only some forms of it will be welcome.G. The debate is unintelligible. you will find reasons whose perspicuity is a function of just those factors-institutional history. It is impossible to tell. University of Rochester. p. empirical verification and biblical inerrancy. Information. . Now and then a line of soldiers marches past. of some other enterprise. AKH0002 REJECTING WITHOUT AN ALTERNATIVE LEADS TO NIHILISM Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut. Of course. file false insurance claims. political and religious affiliation--from which Reason supposedly stands apart. art and morals work as separate though obviously not wholly unrelated spheres. Duke English and Law prof. But it is noisy! AKH0008 THE KRITIK FALSELY ASSUMES A CRISIS OF MODERN CULTURE J.149. is better understood as its byproduct. I think. or perhaps the followers of Lionel Trilling in exile from Columbia. We also need to return to a state in which there are a fair number of positive compelling commitments-the dos rather than the don'ts-that are beyond debate and dispute. AKH0007 THE KRITIK LEADS TO UNINTELLIGIBLE DEBATE Paul Berman. Why not.4. but only as errors or even delusions. p. then. p. what? I would say it looks like the Battle of Waterloo as described by Stendhal. rather easily undermined the fragile order of existing society: "to reject one social order without having any notion of which order might be erected in its place" demonstrates "one of the reasons for the decomposition we saw in May. It follows then that persons embedded within different discursive systems will not be able to hear the other's reasons as reasons. . 1994. This. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. What is threatened is the capability of the larger culture.C. above all. p. When speech does matter. . By stating that Foucault's anti-Enlightenment philosophical history. the entire argument begins to look like . are not only instances of a literarization of thought but also a surrender of thought to modernist ideology. Duke English and Law prof. one might ask. what will you examine and assess them with? And the answer is that you will examine and assess them with forms of thought that themselves rest on underlying assumptions. empty the savings accounts of others.18. . 1994. p. Otherwise we take in information passively.24. or force sexual advances on unwilling employees. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. . the tools of rational analysis will be vulnerable to the very deconstruction they claim to perform." I take the stress on the word demonstrably to mean that Carter understands fully that the clash between liberals and fundamentalists is a clash between two faiths. p. on the other hand." "multiculturalism. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. when it is produced in the service of some truth or preferred agenda." "difference. What democracy requires is vigorous public debate. . p. Essentialism means that strategies and tactics developed to achieve policy objectives must be limited to considerations only in terms of the essence maintained and not in terms of the specific conditions of existence of the policy concerned.260. p. p. it is demonstrably false.62. and therefore with the entities. Who are they? Which army do they represent? They may be Belgian deconstructionists from Yale. AKH0005 DEMOCRACY REQUIRES EFFECTIVE DEBATE Christopher Lasch. the way that on certain American streets every person packs his own gun. ." or "poststructuralism. to the pious countercultural worldview of most modern art. that is. TOWARD A CRITIQUE OF FOUCAULT.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 1 AKH0001 ARGUMENTS ARE MEANINGFUL ONLY WITHIN A REALM OF DISCOURSE Stanley Fish. its particular conditions of existence. to evaluate science intelligently.23. is not to science itself. Do the many failures and shortcomings of modern culture actually warrant such a massive indictment of modernity's achievements? Can we really say that the historicist appraisal and approval of an industrial order. An essentialist analysis. when taken. Merquior. and. This is what Tocqueville and Communitarian sociologist Robert Bellah mean by "habits of the heart": values that command our support because they are morally compelling. not because the landscape is polluted by censors. is bound by such restrictions-it must ignore or marginalize those aspects of the object being maintained But an essentialist analysis is not only analytically debilitating. or the sickness that real? Perhaps we should be entertaining second thoughts about it all. HIGHER SUPERSTITION.6. 1994. for you can not get rid of the vocabulary without depriving yourself of the resources (including resources of action) it makes available. The fog thickens. p. Regulation of free speech is a defining feature of everyday life. which. go deeper (in the wonderful world of rationality accidents are always being peeled away in order that essences might be revealed) and put those underlying assumptions on the table so that they could be scrutinized and assessed? To this suggestion I would pose a simple question: if you propose to examine and assess assumptions. the removal of those terms will not clean up that landscape but depopulate it. Perhaps they are French mercenaries. AKH0006 THE KRITIK THREATENS PRODUCTIVE RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND SOCIETY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. London. Insofar as you value the job being done by a particular enterprise-be it law. AKH0009 NEGLECTING POLICY SPECIFICS IS DEBILITATING AND ESSENTIALIST Michael Wickham. The danger for the moment at least. we will not regard proposals for regulation as anomalous but receive them as suggested modifications of a condition-the condition of productive constraint--that has always obtained. 1986. for no matter how deep you go. There is no need to consult clergy or a book by Kant to determine what one's duty is under such clear. When we get into arguments that focus and fully engage our attention. And when you take these numberless definitions into consideration. those who generally do the assuming-humanist intellectuals-have every interest in being perceived as soul doctors to a sick civilization. a parent rushes to help. GW govt prof. The ordinary situation is one in which what you can say is limited by the decorums you are required to internalize before entering. elementary conditions. We do not know what we need to know until we ask the right questions. without reference to an eternal external essence. but the kind of information it needs can be generated only by debate. 1990. more often than not. or if you prefer (and it is my thesis that these two formulations are interchangeable) between two ways of thinking undergirded by incompatible first principles. . to interact fruitfully with the sciences. evolutionary theory is not simply contrary to religious teachings. to draw insight from scientific advances. When a sick child cries at night.162-3. 1993. 1994. usually seen as the precondition of debate. Since the features of the legal (or any other) landscape come into view by virtue of the descriptive terms certified practitioners unreflectively employ. or repopulate it with the terms. fellow. AKH0004 CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED Amitai Etzioni.136. Yet is the medicine that necessary. AKH0011 MEANINGFUL ARGUMENT REQUIRES A SHARED DISCURSIVE SYSTEM Stanley Fish. no doubt because. French philosophers. Shots go off. 1986. we become avid seekers of relevant information. At any level."[1968] AKH0003 THE CRITIQUE OF ASSUMPTIONS IS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE Stanley Fish. it needs information too. literary criticism. personal education. is Carter's point when he observes that "to the devout fundamentalist . where knowledge. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. it is also politically debilitating. We need to return to a society in which certain actions are viewed as beyond the pale. Duke English and Law prof. From the disintegration of norms to the rise of neo-nihilism was but a single step. as well as Derrida's brand of irrationalism. A murky fog hangs over the field. Duke English and Law prof.

The end result is that we live in a state of increasing moral confusion and social anarchy. he or she will use it to communicate. Logically. reversal. often for valid reasons. His remark in "Destruktion and Deconstuction"-that when a dialogue starts out in two different languages.9-10. 1992. In the objective realm. In Truth and Method Gadamer asserts that without this common language. widespread noncompliance. Indeed the judge is not chosen. where subject interacts with subject (e. Her second book. SuDoc#Y4. (To be fair. AKH0023 SIMPLE REJECTION IS INTELLECTUALLY VACUOUS John Ellis. Otherwise. AKH0013 MEANINGFUL CRITIQUE CAN ONLY FUNCTION WITHIN A FORM OF DISCOURSE Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. of intimacy. THE NEED FOR U. 1991.g.AG4/2:Un3/5 Feb 6. Reconstruction is slow. MacMurray College.988. AKH0019 KRITIK WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE PRODUCES SOCIAL ANARCHY Amitai Etzioni. Stanford and Harvard. however. which advocated the restructuring of the family. Persuasive arguments are disciplinary arguments. Paul Berman ed. from within a form of life. 1989. was all the rage in the 1960s and early 1970s. it seems to me on a par with the slogan of the younger generation in the 1960S: "Don't trust anyone over thirty!" Both advocate an indiscriminate response to authority that lacks reflectiveness or discrimination. CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW. and it was busy thinking up alternative views of war and society that had their own logic. This is where we are now: it is time to reconstruct. Whether the judge wants to change or to conserve the language of power spoken by a society. humans. it did deserve a critical going-over. social values. p. It is therefore incumbent on critical scholars to present not only critiques. which was critical of the traditional family. are taken to be in severe collapse. where subject confronts object (e. scientific or empirical investigation). Claims are to sincerity. unless he or she has demonstrated a "know-how" of the current legal medium and a level of commitment to it. quasi-philosophical. p. by people sharing some particular form of life So the poststructuralist critic is limited to detailed observation.16. AKH0021 KRITIK ISN'T ENOUGH EVEN IN THEORY Ken Kress. there comes a time when those speaking have to switch to one language for the conversation to advance echoes this point.979. for it tells us nothing about original thinking in criticism and where it may lead us. 1992. AKH0014 ARGUMENTS HAVE RELEVANCE ONLY WITHIN SPECIFIC SPHERES OF DISCOURSE YALE LAW JOURNAL. We are. 1989. then. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. when you are dealing with a very difficult problem that is going to leave its earmarks on the solution No solution can be by some order of magnitude more elegant than the problem at which it is aimed. claims are to rightness. aesthetic expression).82. The result is rampant moral confusion and social anarchy.12. often nothing filled the empty spaces that were left when we razed existing institutions. Since the early sixties many of our moral traditions. critical scholars give us no cause to change our beliefs or our actions. social.g. official censure. What we have to understand. The problem is that the waning of traditional values was not followed by a solid affirmation of new values. Yet there was nothing in their leftism to prevent a substantial number of them from tilting to an opposite extreme and celebrating dictators like Mao Zedong. The great god of the Paris thinkers was Heidegger. from theologies to ideologies. A vacuum prevails. All legal systems and all legal theories are flawed. but also alternatives preferable to the doctrine and theories they critique.105. p.. For the whole point of postmodern theorizing was. (Some critical scholars are now vigorously making that attempt). p. the younger generation of the sixties never thought of this as a positive program in its own right. Duke English and Law prof. after all.. And in the social realm. partners in a conversation would talk at cross purposes and fail to make any headway toward mutual understanding (WM 360/341). The trouble now is not that the traditional family was undermined. and institutions have been challenged. Professors of Law. Although the New Historicist polemic emphasizes the virtue of hard archival work.S. HEALTH REFORM: UNINSURED AND CHRONICALLY ILL AMERICANS. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. The many dazzlements of '68 Philosophy were never any use in addressing mundane questions like these.g. 1993. where subject expresses experiences (e. because the standard according to which clams in each sphere are evaluated varies.C. We have let the situation go on too long. the Paris ultra-radicals who imbibed the theories of '68 Philosophy were anything but right wing. to adopt positions that were so far out.C. But the alternative he ended up embracing was the Nazism of Adolf Hitler. after all.) Moral transitions often work this way: destruction comes quickly.) AKH0024 MERE CRITICISM IS TRIVIAL)ALTERNATIVES ARE WHAT MATTER John Ellis. The trouble is that no new concept of the family-of responsibility to children. . NOT JUST DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM Amitai Etzioni. literary and social critic. p. while alien approaches provoke misunderstanding. (The fate of two books by Betty Friedan illustrates the difference: The Feminine Mystique. Professor of German. As for the French theorizing-metacritical. 1994. We are living at a time when all the once-regnant world systems that have sustained (also distorted) Western intellectual life. Legal argument is comparative. 1989. who was second to none in holding Western rationalism and humanism responsible for all the unhappiness of modern life and for hinting at millenarian alternatives. THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY. We decide which theory to believe by provisionally accepting that theory which has the best overall combination of virtues and vices. 1992. one might object to the assertion that an interpretation can be dismissed or declared incomplete simply because it is traditional. ad hoc speculations. In the subjective realm. p. and so is theory. reconstructed but firmly held. not gods.27. 1993. AKH0018 DECONSTRUCTION LEADS TO NIHILISM Irving Howe. GW govt prof. THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY. moral theory. 1986. AKH0017 RADICAL CRITIQUES END IN SUPPORT FOR TOTALITARIANISM Berman. Professor of German. law). Claims are made to truth or success. p. ridicule. there is no discourse we can deconstruct except our own discourse in use at the moment. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.. it is not really a position in critical theory at all." a process procedurally similar in each case Yet each sphere has a specific rationality that is substantively distinct. The Second Stage. University of California-Santa Cruz. conventional views should be given close scrutiny-though.1043. DIALOGUE AND DECONSTRUCTION. Habems posits that the objective. p.. of practices embedded in that form of life. This leads to a mood of skepticism. p. and subjective spheres which constitute our worlds all consist of understandings negotiated according to "communicative rationality. p. AKH0015 COMMON LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY FOR DIALOGUE Diane Michelfelder and Richard Palmer. AKH0016 REJECTING THE LANGUAGE OF A CERTAIN FIELD PRODUCES MISUNDERSTANDING AND BACKLASH YALE LAW JOURNAL. Persuasive arguments are arguments that can be seen as advancing a project whose goals are clearly articulated. AKH0022 CRITIQUE DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE IMPERFECTION OF ALL SOLUTIONS Congressman Barney Frank. and of commitment to one another-has emerged to replace the traditional form.6. so long as the horrors of liberal civilization were being opposed. AKH0020 WE NOW NEED MORAL RECONSTRUCTION. Ultimately.157-8. NYU Institute for the Humanities. p. to be sure. p. sometimes a world-weary nihilism in which even the most conventional minds begin to question both distinctions of value and the value of distinctions. an agnosticism of judgment. the position that the traditional and obvious must be systematically opposed and deconstructed is vacuous.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 2 AKH0012 PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT REQUIRES A DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE Stanley Fish. DEBATING P. GW govt prof. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. No one will object to the view that all traditional. but to return to a moral affirmation. as to blow your mind. and at times of a stupefying verbal opacity-it has provided a buttress for the academic insurgents. But there is no discourse in use except colloquially. It is a common tongue that evokes agreement and produces effect. fell on deaf ears. New Historicist assumptions permit interpreters to get away with doing almost no work at all of the kind that would result in persuasive arguments as opposed to discrete. in the full sense of the term-not to return to the traditional. and it will be a mistake to critique every solution because it is not going to be perfect. The real objection here is surely that it is just too easy to express a generalized scorn for all received opinion: much more valuable is the hard work of finding out what is wrong with a particular received view and thinking up a better one.320.. University of Iowa Professor of Law. 1986. But critique is not enough. when we design a solution is. Of course. Concepts are distinguishable by us only relative to discourses in which we participate (and which participate in us). 1989. or lack of support from other branches. DEBATING P. published in 1981. Once we were quite clear about what young couples were supposed to do-and refrain from doing-even if many of them did not fully live up to these expectations. in either a hierarchical polity or an egalitarian one.24. University of California-Santa Cruz. p. so wild. and its a rule that is too often ignored.

p. the tame pseudo-Nietzscheanism of academe. Megill's able characterization of crisis thinking as aestheticism falls short of the crucial critical step: it balks before the acknowledgement that the Kulturkritik-be it 'prophetic' (Heidegger). THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. It is thus conscious of the fallibility of all our methods. and it tries to replace all our theories by better ones. London School of Economics. this kind of discourse is unlikely to get much encouragement either from the academic left or from its critics on the right. but to announce simply an indiscriminate and unspecified opposition to any tradition in general and none in particular. PHILOSOPHY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. A researcher." That is not even a strategy for finding new ideas.. . for example. University of California-Santa Cruz. but by no means an impossible one. AKH0031 CONTEMPORARY "THEORY" UNDERMINES TRUE SOCIAL CRITICISM Christopher Lasch. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. This theory may have been a good one or a bad one.Skepticism is a philosophy of talk and not of life. AKH0027 NOT MOVING BEYOND CRITICISM MEANS POLITICAL FAILURE Catharine MacKinnon. The mistaken method starts from the question: how can we establish or justify our thesis or our theory? It thereby leads either to dogmatism. p. 1989. For what he has just said is rather like saying. Fall 1990. This is no doubt to be counted as social criticism of a sort.91-2. Orwell had a theory (at any rate from. But this does not mean that in every inquiry we take the same assumption for granted. rebel-like (Foucault) or cynical-ironic (Derrida) -is not a mimetic but a productive concept. This is. that he has nothing to say after all. and which of the thousands of currently neglected chemical possibilities is the one that the deconstructionist is recommending? If now the deconstructionist replies that he is recommending a general strategy not a concrete proposal. and within it. it seems absurd to indict a process as illegitimate merely because it does not avoid subjectivity.135. p.81-82)."-. I suggest.414. 1987. "Have a good new idea. Yet the prospect of CLS ending in skepticism is nevertheless at hand.. and that the abolition of private education would have beneficial effects on the class system. AKH0032 THE KRITIK EMBODIES DEBILITATING SKEPTICISM David Caudill. then. are a cure still worse than the illness. Professor of German. must surely have a social theory in order to explain why the reforms that he proposes will deal with the complaints that he articulates." Grotesque proposals were frequently advanced without pragmatic basis or sensitivity to institutional issues. intrigued by the possibility of a new idea. London. a difficult task. 1995. Professor of Political Science.. King's College. if you like. ideas.and often explicitly advocated violent solutions to political differences. Merquior. the correct method of critical discussion starts from the question: what are the consequences of our thesis or our theory? Are they all acceptable to us? Thus it consists in comparing the consequences of different theories (or. Professor of German. UC-Hastings Law Prof. They were receptive to paternalistic coercion to override the stated preferences of real human beings on the ground that those tastes had been corrupted by the 'system. Thinking about real problems is thus circumvented. say. of different frameworks) and tries to find out which of the competing theories or frameworks has consequences that seem preferable to us. For obvious reasons. It is a truism that every inquiry. THE ABDICATION OF PHILOSOPHY. AKH0026 KRITIK WITHOUT ALTERNATIVES PRODUCES POLITICAL OPPRESSION Louis Schwartz. University of London. but it was. is a gloomy histrionics passing for theoretical insight. a theory that begets its own object and then lays it in a humanist mind only too eager to hatch it. I think that Walzer skews his analysis by taking as his paradigmatic social critic the prophet Amos.) For the burden of Amos's complaint is that the Jews (and in particular the rich) are failing to live up to the precepts of the Covenant-failing. pp.95-6. or to an infinite regress. AKH0029 THE PROPER METHOD OF CRITIQUE INVOLVES COMPARISON Karl Popper. Eugene Freeman. (He is the major figure in the last third of ISC. and reappears at key points in CC. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. whether in history or the natural sciences. much less a new idea in itself. Evidently.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 3 AKH0025 SIMPLE QUESTIONING IS INTELLECTUALLY WORTHLESS John Ellis.287. Professor of History. deconstruction. thus neglected. 1976. All criticism)as opposed to lamentation)presupposes that it is possible for things to be better than they are now as a result of human action(CC pp. Briefly. p. 1986. a failure of determinism and radical paralysis. with no particular alternative in mind in any given case. AKH0033 NIHILISTIC KRITIK IS A WORSE CURE THAN ANY CULTURE ILLNESS J. Dickens's solution was that businessmen should model themselves on (post-spirit) Scrooge and the Cheeryble brothers. We thus can logically distinguish between a mistaken method of criticizing and a correct method of criticizing. the belief that he knew of a better way that made Orwell a critic rather than a mere grouser. But the deconstructionist replies only that the field must question its concept of what is central to cancer research. p. AKH0034 ALL INQUIRY MUST MAKE ASSUMPTIONS Charles Frankel. 1956.Once skeptics finish announcing the impossibility of making rational choices or of finding truth about anything. As George Orwell observed. Imagine a conference on cancer research at which the general sense is that recent research is going nowhere. AKH0028 CRITICISM WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE UNDERMINES REAL PROGRESS John Ellis. is not to take a position at all but only to gain rather too easily acquired feelings of iconoclastic superiority. asks what specific suggestion or suggestions the deconstructionist has in mind. As a program for criticism. they recognize that they themselves must make choices and must proceed upon assumptions of reality. correctly. these writers were contemptuous of "compromise" and "balancing. to return to their owners each night clothes given in pledge (ISC. Moreover. the audience will conclude. University of California-Santa Cruz. but just what aspect of the current consensus on centrality is the problem. "By arguing that decisionmaking is not grounded on objective criteria and denying the impossibility of 'liberal' theory's capacity to formulate objective criteria.17-18). however. if] no human process can avoid subjective decisionmaking. Thus. Charles Dickens was a critic of this kind: avarice was for him. the one form of intellectual activity that would seriously threaten the status quo and the one form that has no academic cachet at all. but typical social critics of the left in this century (including those on Walzer's list) have rejected as naive the formula of social reform constituted by individual reform.. The pieces exhibited that species of irresponsibility that denounces the political status quo without considering available alternatives. Columbia philosopher. as an insignia of its self-important wisdom.363-4.G. AKH0030 EFFECTIVE CRITICISM REQUIRES AN ALTERNATIVE Brian Barry. p.242. Professor of Philosophy..193. A critic of institutions as distinct from a critic of conduct. "Theory" is no substitute for social criticism. Failure to move beyond criticism. this version of deconstructive criticism is vacuous in theory and counterproductive in practice. What we leave unquestioned in one context we can very well question in another. Professor of Law. is failure of feminism in its left forms. ed.. p. University of Texas Adjunct Law Professor. democratic radicals have produced a critique that cannot be distinguished from that of the complete skeptic. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. replies the researcher. 1984. admittedly. 1989. Social criticism that addressed the real issue in higher education today-the university's assimilation into the corporate order and the emergence of a knowledge class whose ''subversive" activities do not seriously threaten any vested interest-would be a welcome addition to contemporary discourse. p. p. Churchill's aphorism that "[d]emocracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" apparently left no impression on these writers. the root of evil. University of Michigan. But although Megill is shrewd enough to realize that 'the problem with the crisis notion is that it can only speak in vague generalities'-which is music to our ears-he actually swallows a great deal of the Kulturkrisis myth and does not see that Derrida's nihilistic equivocations.[Further. By contrast.46. IOWA LAW REVIEW. p. for example. 1989. too. To oppose a particular tradition or viewpoint with a particular alternative program is to set out a real position. or to the relativistic doctrine of rationally incommensurable frameworks. STANFORD LAW REVIEW.241. must proceed by taking something for granted. TOWARD A FEMINIST THEORY OF THE STATE. Skeptics are walking contradictions: they have to be. University of Rochester. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.. including his underrating of crisis theory itself. Post-structuralist thought marks the ultimate intellectual decay of this vacuous ideological posturing. the late 1930s to the mid-1940s) to the effect that a capitalist economy was hopelessly inefficient compared with a socialist economy. A deconstructionist rises to tell the conference that it must look at hitherto marginalized.

even before they have been conveyed through the regular law-appointed organs. 1992. When debate becomes a lost art. but simply because they allow everyone to take part in public debates. to put their views at risk. most unresistingly and cheerfully obeyed. STANFORD LAW REVIEW. we should look elsewhere for a fuller explanation.150. If we adopt the attitude of the complete skeptic. Lord Bryce termed public opinion "the great source of power. German philosopher.162. If I am an historian and wish to explain the causes of the great French Revolution. according to a recent survey. AKH0046 POLICY DEBATE IS INTEGRAL TO FREE SOCIETY Jerry Anderson and Paul Dovre." Government by public opinion exists. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY. we come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others. AKH0038 ALL KNOWLEDGE MUST BEGIN WITH ASSUMPTIONS Bertrand Russell. MORALITY AND THE LAW. But do I really have to have a reason to make my position a matter of moral conviction? Most men think that acts which cause unnecessary suffering. Professor of Philosophy.306. AKH0047 PUBLIC OPINION SUCCESSFULLY INFLUENCES GOVERNMENT Russell Windes and Arthur Hastings. Professor of History. AKH0044 DEBATE ENHANCES DEMOCRACY Jerry Anderson and Paul Dovre. p. we are demanding what is impossible.92. The philosopher certainly may also develop a system of thought and indicate the anticipated practical consequence of adopting that system. AKH0036 A GOOD LIFE REQUIRES AN UNCRITICAL SET OF BELIEFS Francis Fukuyama. FOUR ESSAYS ON LIBERTY. are immoral. from blank doubt. and yet they could give no reason for these beliefs. p. and the testing of ideas through reasoned discourse provides a vital means of conflict resolution and decision making. when we are bombarded from all sides by a smoke screen of mass persuasion. Professor of History. As Lippmann noted. p. they remain opinions in Lippmann's pejorative sense-half-formed convictions based on random impressions and unexamined assumptions. 1995. bearing in mind that people readily acquire such knowledge as they can put to good use.xiii. In short. Thus I assume that all the ordinarily accepted physical laws of the external world apply. no logical argument can be advanced. 1968. Michigan State and Concordia College.8. Political practitioners and theorists long before and after LaFollette have maintained that applied argumentation. AKH0040 THE PHILOSOPHICAL KRITIK OF ASSUMPTIONS IS IRRELEVANT TO PRACTICAL AFFAIRS Louis Schwartz. University of Rochester. It seems contrary to common sense to deny that a position held in this way can be a moral position. . and when the amount of knowledge and information accessible to us burgeons daily. believe that Israel is an Arab nation. Bryce wrote. For according to Nietzsche." What is the power that makes public opinion such a potent force? Why do public officials obey the dictates of public opinion so eagerly once they have learned its meaning? Public opinion has influence because it has behind it both the authority of the vote and the so-called voting threat. Hence the criticism of knowledge which philosophy employs must not be of this destructive kind." gives them shape and definition. It is only by subjecting our preferences and projects to the test of debate that we come to understand what we know and what we still need to learn. a living thing cannot be healthy. Oxford professor of Jurisprudence.170. AKH0039 NOT ALL ASSUMPTIONS NEED TO BE JUSTIFIED. we will defend democracy not as the most efficient but as the most educational form of government. Professor of History. notwithstanding the wonders of the age of information. has never been taught at universities: all that has ever been taught is a critique of words by means of other words. no argument can begin. It is the act of articulating and defending our views that lifts them out of the category of "opinions. When. Michigan State and Concordia College. Whereas Lippmann relates debate to freedom of speech in a democracy and Ehninger speaks of the ideal objectives and method of debate. 1969. He develops the view that debate reinforces democratic values and mitigates the forces which naturally tend to erode those values. clarity of thought and expression. Millions of Americans cannot begin to tell you what is in the Bill of Rights." without such a horizon. that makes the public ill informed. Lippmann had forgotten what he learned (or should have learned) from William James and John Dewey: that our search for reliable information is itself guided by the questions that arise during arguments about a given course of action.413. and finally indicates the role of argumentation in securing the ideals. p. Instead of blaming the schools for this disheartening ignorance of public affairs. READINGS IN ARGUMENTATION. shelter. For all refutation must begin with some piece of knowledge which the disputants share. THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN. "Give the people the facts and freedom to discuss and all will go well" was a favorite aphorism of the late Wisconsin Senator and leader of the Progressive Party. and skilled citizen-advocates. even though it may be readily available. p. however. Professor Mills begins by identifying the ideals of democracy.65. Professor of Social and Political Theory. no nation gain its freedom.53. and that the student who firmly grasps principles of argumentation theory is best equipped to become a responsible and competent practitioner of argumentative discourse. information. p. p. and asking. rational analysis. Queens College and Stanford. "No artist will paint his picture. THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. to be compelled to return within the circle of knowledge. Cambridge. The philosopher becomes vulnerable only when he leaves the self-contained and assumption-bounded world of theory and assumes the role of leader in practical affairs.1971. AKH0043 REASONED DEBATE IS NEEDED TO FORM KNOWLEDGE Christopher Lasch. Michigan State and Concordia College. from this outside position. Oxford. . AKH0042 PUBLIC IGNORANCE IS DUE TO THE DECLINE OF PUBLIC DEBATE Christopher Lasch. what the Constitution says about the powers of the presidency. . University of Rochester. without proffering a draft of a statute to carry out these views. it has no reason to inform itself about civic affairs. They feel that no reason is necessary because they take it as axiomatic or self-evident that these are immoral acts. The only critique of a philosophy that is possible and that proves something. strong.. Since the public no longer participates in debates on national issues. complexity." Through public opinion the "national will shall be most fully expressed. most quickly known. not the school system (bad as it is).171. p. Mills attempts to relate debate to the broad spectrum of political ideals and forces. " however. we need to recreate it on a large scale. SOME ARE AXIOMATIC Ronald Dworkin. as is the custom. I naturally assume or take for granted certain general propositions. 1984. LaFollette. As for the claim that the information revolution would raise the level of public intelligence. But it is not difficult to see that skepticism of this kind is unreasonable. which in any event have up to this point solely the merit of consistency with postulated premises. clothing. READINGS IN ARGUMENTATION. It is we that jurisprudential scholars are under no moral obligation to pass for practical politicians. placing ourselves wholly outside all knowledge. The continuing strength of a democratic society depends on a public forum of competing arguments by informed. From this point of view the press serves as the equivalent of the town meeting. or productive except by living within a certain horizon. what Congress does. Rand. AKH0045 DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON PUBLIC ADVOCACY SKILLS Jerry Anderson and Paul Dovre. and our skepticism can never be refuted. I also assume that all or most men need and consciously seek food. the master of servants who tremble before it. It is the decay of public debate. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. p.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 4 AKH0035 TO BE MEANINGFUL. how the party system emerged or how it operates.1873. if any result is to be achieved. 1995. This is especially true today in an era when our world and nation are challenged by a greater number. Robert M. Instead of dismissing direct democracy as irrelevant to modern conditions. one that extends the circle of debate as widely as possible and thus forces all citizens to articulate their views." AKH0037 INTELLECTUAL INQUIRY LEGITIMATELY MAKES UNSTATED ASSUMPTIONS Isaiah Berlin. A sizable majority. 1968. 1995. then enumerates some of the forces which may undermine these ideals. some degree of protection for their persons. A philosopher may legitimately restrict his inquiry to questions such as those concerning the assumptions that underlie particular systems of thought or the inconsistencies or logical flaws in the systems put forward on the basis of those assumptions. namely trying to see whether one can live in accordance with it. that is. it is necessary to impose a certain limitation. intensive research.187. Arguments were what took place in the absence of reliable information. we speak of philosophy as a criticism of knowledge. Until we have to defend our opinions in public. no general win his victory. and scope of social issues. (Cambridge U. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. The study of argumentation is based on the premises that thoughtful deliberation. small communities are the classic locus of democracy-not because they are "self-contained. and sound judgment. makes no impression. UNTIMELY MEDIATIONS. p. Against this absolute skepticism. p. a set of values and beliefs that are accepted absolutely and uncritically. . University of Rochester. and to cultivate the virtues of eloquence. UC-Hastings Law Professor. 1912. 1965. A CRITIQUE MUST BE POSSIBLE TO LIVE BY Frederich Nietzsche. Press). AKH0041 DEMOCRACY REQUIRES DEBATE Christopher Lasch. p. it is no secret that the public knows less about public affairs than it used to know. responsible. Richard Wasserstrom. ed. debate. 1968.55. p. If we insist on argument as the essence of education. without loving the work that they do "infinitely more than it deserves to be loved. is integral to a free society. and makes it possible for others to recognize them as a description of their own experience as well. Professors of Speech. "where the wishes and views of the people prevail. and facilities for getting their grievances listened to or redressed. READINGS IN ARGUMENTATION. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. Sr. or break a serious promise with no excuse.

128. is constitutive of expression. Some views are persuasive and grow in influence.. In the course of this consideration many things will be of help. views do not simply persevere unaltered. 1995. On the other hand. that concern alone is not sufficient. as they are used now. the world does not consist of individuals stubbornly clinging to their first thoughts and not talking to others. Queens College and Stanford. It may sound paradoxical but the First Amendment has a positive claim on us only if we understand it to be self-qualifying. 1994.103-4. stigmatizes counterarguments. these phrases tend to obscure rather than clarify our dilemmas. as a limit case that tests the resources of philosophy. The First Amendment is not a self-declaring statement and will assume the form given to it by powerful and authoritative interpreters. AKH0057 WHETHER SPEECH SHOULD BE REGULATED DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION Stanley Fish. p. even abandonment of ideas in the process of discussion. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. if one is predisposed to regard that Western position of privilege as wicked.21. Without restrictions. together with its immediate realization as technology. We have observed that opportunity and ability depend on the constitutional guarantees of a free marketplace.17. preferably scathing. . Schauer. I would not be heard as arguing either for or against regulation and speech codes as a matter of general principle. 1994. We have already seen that the survival of free institutions depends on the opportunity and the ability of sovereign people to make responsible decisions in social matters. but among them will not be phrases like 'freedom of speech' or 'the right of individual expression. others do not persuade and are forgotten. Regulation of other forms of speech-. because it occupies the rhetorical high ground. 1994. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Witch-hunting still exists. and it is one of the oddities of 'official' First Amendment rhetoric that such peculiar spaces are put forward as the norm. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. of making oneself qualified to examine various alternatives to the solution of a problem in order to arrive at positions on those alternatives. you will not abridge speech that is supportive of the values in the name of which we have joined together. 1994. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. The Florida case allows us to see exactly what balancing means. Along with concern goes the responsibility of making oneself knowledgeable. will vary with the underlying purpose for which some social space has been organized. as well as the concern free people demonstrate in public affairs and their willingness to knowledgeably participate in the decision-making process. we're for objectivity and you are playing politics. University of Rochester.. In saying this. said the unsayable when he suggested that standard free-speech arguments have all the earmarks of an ideology because it is assumed in the society that counterarguments are dangerous and must be rejected by all right thinking persons. a noted First Amendment scholar. it is right there in the middle of the fray. If public opinion is not based on thorough analysis of an issue and the support of a resulting position through evidence and reasoning. opinion based on false information and indefensible analysis. Sooner or later any critique of Western values aspiring to be comprehensive must offer an analysis of natural science. for it will no longer be heard as an extraordinary question provoked by extraordinary circumstances. we're for free speech and you are for censorship and ideological tyranny. we're heir opponents: we're for fairness and you are for biased judgment. The development of knowledge is a social process argument between differing individuals counts for a great deal in this process. AKH0052 FREE SPEECH ONLY HAS VALUE AGAINST BACKGROUND OF UNPERMITTED SPEECH Stanley Fish. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. we will not regard proposals for regulation as anomalous but receive them as suggested modifications of a condition --the condition of productive restraint--that has always obtained. and if it is pursued as successfully as it has been in recent years by the neoconservatives. It is only in the most peculiar and eccentric of social spaces. In that clash. In the real world in which we live. 'It depends. 1994. 1994.13. then that opinion may be not only worthless but pernicious Witch-hunting in the seventeenth century represented a certain public opinion. I want to say that all affirmations of freedom of expression are like Milton's. AKH0051 ANY KRITIK OF WESTERN VALUES ULTIMATELY ATTACKS SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. p. we're for merit and you are for special interests. And the moral that follows from that one is that the First Amendment does not in and of itself (finally a meaningless phrase) direct a politics but will display the political 'spin' of whatever group has its hand on the interpretive machinery. 1994. 'little free inquiry about free inquiry and little free speech about free speech' in the current climate.' because. and we can not rely on abstractions that are either empty of content or filled with the content of some partisan courses of action. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. p.111. Professor of History. there could be no assertion and no reason for asserting it. p. monitoring its progress and keeping the combatants honest. p. observes. AKH0049 INFORMED PUBLIC DEBATE IS KEY TO FREE INSTITUTIONS Christopher Lasch. 'Free speech' is thus just like 'fairness' and 'merit'--rather than a concept that sits above the fray. progress in all fields occurs through the clash of different views and of conflicting opinions. an object of contest that will enable those who capture it to parade their virtue at the easy expense of their opponents: we're for fairness and you are for biased judgment. science. 1989.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 5 AKH0048 INFORMED KNOWLEDGE IS KEY TO BENEFICIAL EXERCISE OF PUBLIC OPINION Russell Windes and Arthur Hastings. AKH0058 THE VALUE OF THE FREE SPEECH INTEREST VARIES WITH THE SITUATION Stanley Fish. dependent for their force of an exception that literally carves out the space in which expression can then emerge. without an inbuilt sense of what it would be meaningless to say or wrong to say. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. On the contrary. p. AKH0050 INTELLECTUAL PROGRESS IS POSSIBLE THROUGH ARGUMENT John Ellis. Once they are deprived of their talismanic force. And how would I answer the question? I would say. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. a vocabulary which. no more or less difficult that the question of whether spectators at a trial can applaud or boo the statements of opposing counsels. It is a paradox that an orthodox of tolerance is intolerant of those 'who have less protective rather than more protective views about freedom of speech. Recently Frederick Schauer. I do not mean that expression (saying something) is a realm whose integrity is sometimes compromised by certain restrictions but that restriction in the form of an underlying articulation of the world that necessarily (if silently) negates alternatively possible articulations. p. to take the obvious example-can simultaneously succeed and maintain their identities only to the degree that they naturalize the science and technology of Western culture. where the production of speech has no purpose other than itself that absolute toleration will make sense. The question of whether or not to regulate will be a local one. which means we are against that--in relation to which meaningful assertion can then occur. AKH0054 MEANINGFUL DISCOURSE REQUIRES REGULATION OF SPEECH Stanley Fish. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. University of California-Santa Cruz.129-30. the conversation could continue in directions that are now blocked by a First Amendment absolutism that has only been honored in the breach anyway. There is. Instead my argument turns away from general principle to the pragmatic (anti)principle of considering each situation as it emerges. Consequently. rather it will be heard as a perfectly ordinary question. p. In this light the question: 'Should hate speech be regulated?' will lose much of its sexiness. p. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. If we keep in mind that regulation of speech is constitutive of meaningful discourse. Non-Western societies-Japan. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. 1965.' an answer that may be philosophically unsatisfying but one that is responsive to the messy contingency of a world that defies the neatness of philosophical formulations. the result is to place the opposition in the difficult position of having not only to respond to arguments but to dispute the very vocabulary in which the issues have come to be framed. Even if people should concern themselves over a public controversy. p. for its prejudices and for its history of conquest.16. alteration. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. 1994.speech either irrelevant to the maintenance of those values of subversive of them--should not be regarded as an exception to the amendment but as a fulfillment of its mandate. like a Hyde Park corner. then one will inevitably regard Western science with suspicion and perhaps with contempt. It means that the value of the 'free-speech' interest. It is a wonderful (not here a word of approbation) strategy. AKH0055 MOST FREE SPEECH DEFENSES ARE UNREFLECTIVE IDEOLOGY Stanley Fish. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. p.constituted as all values are by an act of exclusion--that some forms of speech will be heard as (quite literally) intolerable. The exception to unregulated expression is not a negative restriction but a positive hollowing out of value--we are for this. Professors of Speech.' AKH0056 APPEALS TO FREE SPEECH ARE ESSENTIALLY RHETORICAL PLOYS Stanley Fish. and there is modification. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. AKH0053 WE SHOULD SUPPRESS SPEECH COUNTER TO CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES Stanley Fish. individuals present their views for discussion by others. It is in reference to that value-. which is a real interest.5-6. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.123-4. Professor of German. once it is no longer strategically effective simply to invoke them in the act of walking away from a problem. is-as much as anything can be-the single aspect of Western thought and social practice that defines the Western outlook and accounts for its special position in the world.129.

At the same time. and the tabula rasa paradigms. On the one hand. and other marginalized groups. In Germany. minor repairs. U Cal-Berkley. games-playing. and it is your job to make sure that they someone is not you. proponents cannot really be allowed to get away with the claim that they deserve the credit for having gotten rid of absolute truth and objective knowledge. and spontaneity to calculated reflection. 1994. AKH0065 THE KRITIK IS RADICALISM WITHOUT RISK Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. University of Bristol. a politics upon which the wear-and-tear of ordinary political life can have little effect. one's doctrine is confirmed: if something good happens. Slippery slope trajectories are inevitable only in the head. the nascent political radicalism of groups such as the Freemasons was often associated with esoteric magical doctrine. Jungians.) Kant's fervent conviction of man's inward sense of morality may well have been rooted in that particular soil. but in any complexly organized society there will always be countervalues to invoke and invested persons to invoke them. it allows scholars of a certain stamp to construe the pursuit of their most arcane interests as a defiantly political act against the repressive strictures of society. 1986. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. yet each. To be sure. Harvex. we need constantly to bear in mind the central paradox of their achievement: more often than not. A predilection for the unconventional almost always reigns among rebellious spirits. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. has faded.e. 1994. we rarely debate them. darkness for the others. Furthermore. however the step even from A to B will always meet with resistance of all kinds from persons differently positioned. In the eighteenth century. And when someone warns about the slippery slope and predicts mournfully that if you restrict one form of speech. U Cal-Berkley. at the end of which still another line will be provisionally drawn. radical intellectuals. It is a radicalism that university administrators and even boards of governors have found easy to tolerate. The new self-consciousness could readily slip into a radical skepticism: from an awareness of the subjective character of social thought it was an easy step to denying the validity of all such thought-or. since its calls to arms generally result in nothing more menacing than aphorisms lodged in obscure periodicals. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. p. the uninsured. you never know what will be restricted next. policymaking has defeated the hypothesistesting. among other forms. not of fostering spontaneity and liberation. his own. AKH0068 RADICAL SKEPTICISM CAN PRODUCE FASCIST ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM H. We put it forward as a general rule that the indulgence of one kind of heterodoxy betokens a further susceptibility to eccentric or highly speculative ideas. 1994. former president of Yale University. p. and the like. disposed to read texts with minute attention and to attend to the higher-order resonances of language. 1989.111. Freud. the eighteenth century saw the spread of scientific ideas through the thinkers of the Enlightenment.' he continues. plan amendments. It is. 1994. It does not endanger careers but rather advances them. their patrons and sympathizers.100-1. In nearly every case. even if it was the dominant one. Earlier in this century. we have always and already slid down the slippery slope someone is always going to be restricted next. limitations on speech in relation to a defining and deeply assumed purpose are inseparable from community membership. kritiks contest the dominance of "traditional" policymaking analysis. Professor of German. until new pressures and new resistances provoke a new round of debates. KANT'S POLITICAL WRITINGS. That was really done a very long time ago.74. THE PRAXIS OF KRITIKS. persistent criticism of the Enlightenment came not only from the orthodoxy of established religion and from privileged or traditional political interests. Methodism and Quietism. p. p. no underbrush. the slippery slope argument assumes that there is nothing in place.' for the phrase recognizes what Schmidt would deny. and Nietzsche through Heidegger to Derrida and Foucault. University Of Texas Debater. Just as philosophy triumphed in the ancient battle against rhetoric and capitalism emerged victorious in the war against communism. historical figures like Cagliostro and the Illuminati attest to this. .8. and rhetorical postures of a culture gives one transmutative power over that culture finds acceptance for a number of reasons. In the real world. First of all. Stanford historian. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. AKH0061 COMMUNITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FREE EXPRESSION Stanley Fish.g. All of those thinkers described a general human state of epistemic occlusion-of inevitable subjection to the warping effects of class membership or species-wide cowardice or the repressed unconscious or the hermeneutic circle or the prisonhouse of language. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. but it was also characterized by a religious way of life centered on the emotions and inward experience. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Viewed against this broader background. that expression only occurs in communities. This is exhilarating: it is radicalism without risk. Marxism and Freudianism became the modern movements par excellence that induced fervid belief by holding out this double promise: enlightenment for you and me. But just as postmodern thinkers such as Derrida have renewed the challenge to philosophy's privileged status and the market system has come under criticism for its failure to protect the homeless. saw already that all knowledge was in the nature of a hypothesis. p. 'freedom must be the paramount obligation of an academic community. debate has begun to settle into a comfortable equilibrium. finally. but of guaranteeing that entrenched leaders will not be contradicted by upstarts possessing uncongenial ideas. Pietism stressed the cultivation of the inner life and fostered an emotional approach to religion. but also. but their extended presence as counter-warrants. it shifts the game of politics to the home turf of those who by inclination and training are clever with words. According to Schmidt. Criticism of the Enlightenment arose not merely in its decline. May 6. tropes. 1977. alternatively. 1991). CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. It came from those who preferred intuition to reason. and not only in Germany. mingled with theosophists. the perception of genius to common sense. and even on poetry rather than on science. The objection to this line of reasoning is well known and has recently been reformulated by Benno Schmidt. to a desperate resolve to "think with the blood. and the resulting epistemological position is not a new and provocative one but instead a commonplace. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. The parallel between postmodernism and kritiks is obvious: both criticize attempts to control the objects and methods of thinking. If something bad happens. it was to a greater or lesser extent self-defeating. as a line will be drawn beyond which regulators will be prevented from going. else there could be no meaningful assertion. AKH0063 REJECTION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH ISN'T AN INTELLECTUAL INNOVATION John Ellis.130. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. University of California-Santa Cruz. And these opinions and many like them have become an entrenched part of the thinking of the learned world.118. Charles Sanders Peirce. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. p. p. one could reply. AKH0064 TOO MUCH SUSCEPTIBILITY TO "NEW IDEAS" LEADS TO ABSURDITIES Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Although we all hear about paradigms. 1986. p. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH.-if not in an academic community. in the act of making his claims. In Germany. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. where you can slide from A to B to Z with nothing to retard the acceleration of the logic.17. spiritualists. AKH0066 RADICAL SKEPTICISM IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY Frederick Crews. English prof. it characterizes the whole "School of Suspicion"-the line of radically anti-consensual philosophy that runs from Marx.' The flaw in this logic is on display in the phrase 'academic community. to stop the slide. at least for a time.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 6 AKH0059 THE SLIPPERY SLOPE IS TOTALLY NON-UNIQUE Stanley Fish. for instance. a reasonable judgment of the value of the recent debate over the meaning and usefulness of "all interpretation is misinterpretation" will be obvious enough: it is not very well informed and not really very interesting. Stuart Hughes.' AKH0060 SLIDES DOWN SLIPPERY SLOPES ARE ALWAYS HALTED Stanley Fish. But the Poststructuralist Two-Step is not as novel as it looks. it is vindicated.108. It must not be forgotten that the Enlightenment was only one body of thought in the eighteenth century. 1970. There were other strands. implied that a superior mind." In evaluating the permanent significance of the generation of the 1890's. as the century progressed. 1994.224. 'Some form of speech is always being restricted. English prof. but accompanied its rise and predominance. In one form or another. That is. more than a century ago. Professor of German. They tended to base their understanding on the individual instance and example rather than on the universal rule.xviii. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. p. In these communities and in any others that could be imagined (with the possible exception of a community of major league baseball fans). we have preserved their implications as they relate to topicality or counterplan burdens. a scorn for independent criteria of judgment is ultimately a means. The idea that close attention to the words. AKH0069 POSTMODERNISM INTELLECTUALLY PARALLELS THE KRITIK Jon Brody. As we ought to have learned by now from the larger political realm. But the slippery slope argument is another one of those exercises in abstract reasoning that imagines a worse-case scenario every time because nothing fills up its landscape but its own assumptions. AKH0062 THE KRITIK ISN'T NEW Hans Reiss. (It was not without its counterparts elsewhere-. 1994. justification arguments. their work encouraged an anti-intellectualism to which the vast majority of them were intensely hostile. and. Since the decline of the system counterplans. from various new irrationalists. 'When the goals of harmony collide with freedom of expression. was unaffected by those forces. AKH0067 REJECTING OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS ENTRENCHES THE STATUS QUO Frederick Crews. p. then in a shopping mall community or a dinner party community or an airplane ride community or an office community. subject to modification and critical reformulation by future experience. speech codes on campuses constitute 'well intentioned but misguided efforts to give values of community and harmony a higher place than freedom' (WALL STREET JOURNAL. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.

The current catchwords--diversity. 1994. 1992. Paul Berman. better society-if we can only do that. former President of Yale University. whether public or private. and their respective roles. compassion.167 There is also the damaging effect of these 'protective' regulations on the very people who are insisting they be safeguarded. 1992. too. Those who oppose postmodern thinking should welcome the opportunity. AKH0071 THE KRITIK EMBODIES POSTMODERN THOUGHT Jon Brody.' AKH0077 FREE SPEECH IS KEY TO ADVANCING CIVIL RIGHTS Nat Hentoff. Speech/Writing. These campuses are heedless of the oldest lesson in the history of freedom of expression. author of Illiberal Education. we have lost sight of the tough realities that cannot be softened simply by flattering people's self-image What does it profit the residents of the South Bronx to enforce speech codes at elite universities? AKH0074 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HAS PRODUCED ORWELLIAN CONDITIONS Roger Kimball. In the debate. but are in addition antithetical to the idea of the university. University Of Texas Debater. This celebration of 'difference' may sound like a prescription for tolerance and genuine pluralism. fellow. it is only by fitting that kritiks be difficult to divide and describe according to those processes. 1992. being an academic activity. after the hierarchy reverts to its original form we leave with a different understanding of the elements. these is little resistance to growing pressure to suppress and to punish rather than to answer. in the hierarchy. on many campuses around the country. or whatever-will still bear a huge burden of poverty. That is a wild notion..30. social critic. Harvex. based on their own standards. p. speech that offends notions of civility and community. Deconstruction seeks to overturn the dominant order in order to resurrect what has been subordinated. Professor of History. how to dissect it.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 7 AKH0070 THE KRITIK RESTS ON IDEAS OF POSTMODERNISM Jon Brody. And finally. 1992. he calls himself 'a First Amendment Absolutist. or dictate the literary canon. If you read Malcolm X's collected speeches and listen to his recordings. doubts. AKH0080 SOCIAL REFORM THROUGH LINGUISTIC CHANGE IS ABSURD Paul Berman. And Rushing notes how effective Martin Luther King Jr. geography. p. mandatory 'consciousness raising' classes. Deconstruction temporarily inverts these hierarchies in order to think about the subordinated element in such a way that it is not defined by the dominant one. p. 1992. liberal education should be about high standards and about free speech. ed. Docherty notes that postmodern "leaves its traces on every cultural discipline from architecture to zoology.134. 1994. Thus. not the disease. DEBATING P. which is that offensive. now have censorship regulations outlawing racially and sexually offensive speech. and the radiant new day will be at hand. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. It is precisely this cluster of phenomena that is summed up in the phrase 'political correctness.164 A number of blacks on the CLUM board are in agreement with Hagler. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. But I know that even when all women are Ms. They should not let language intimidate them but rather fight back--when words are used against them--with more powerful words of their own. If they spend four years cooped up under repressive regulations. New York University Institute for the Humanities. Steven Rhode. contain the elements of thinking kritiks. DEBATING P. offend no one.' having learned the crucial importance of free speech. to defend their beliefs. entitlement--express the wistful hope that deep divisions in American society can be bridged by goodwill and sanitized speech. ed. but there is also Byron Rushing. and the arts in general. resourceful. Yet bits and pieces of that idea peek out from within the academic vocabulary. debate should clear a space for postmodern thinking. he felt. erroneous and obnoxious speech is the price of freedom. forestry. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. philosophy. we are told. Since postmodernism and kritiks challenge the accuracy and desirability of modernist processes of understanding. must be a place for robust wide-open and free discussion Students bring to college all their prejudices. AKH0076 REPRESSING EXPRESSION OF PREJUDICES LEAVES THEM UNEXAMINED Nat Hentoff. quoted in: FREE SPEECH FOR ME. I'm willing to make an issue of these things.336. Instead. And there is the idea that. THE PRAXIS OF KRITIKS. perhaps most. 1992. In our preoccupation with words. Offensive speech cannot be suppressed under open-ended standards without letting loose an engine of censorship that cannot be controlled. he points out. points out: 'A university campus. p.C. taking on its way biology. it's clear he was an extraordinarily resilient. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. p. their misconceptions. University Of Texas Debater. deconstruction seeks to destabilize the enlightenment project in order to uncover what modernist practices hide from us. Harvex. As has been widely reported in the press recently. author of TENURED RADICALS. Paul Berman. to think what remains unthought.' AKH0075 OFFENSIVE SPEECH IS THE PRICE OF FREEDOM Benno Schmidt. many campuses. history. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. who was co-chairman of the Los Angeles Bar Association Bill of Rights Bicentennial Committee. If fear..168-9. should reflect and educate us about developments in Academy.' Rushing told me. . they might well dutifully obey the rules. DEBATING. great results will occur. It often creates martyrs and drives them underground where they attract new. DEBATING P. processes that categorize things by dividing them into distinct boxes. many campuses are witnessing attack on academic standards as being the sole property of white males and. impressionable followers on the pretext that they themselves [the bigots] are an oppressed minority whose truths are so powerful they are banned by the Establishment. fears. BUT NOT FOR THEE. Deconstruction observes the Western thought operates through binary oppositions. or get everyone to abandon certain previously unanalyzed phrases that contain the entire structure of oppressive social domination. I like being called Ms. at least not in full. University Of Texas Debater. 1992.23-4. If we believe that debate. we'll still get sixty-five cents for every dollar earned by a man. Briefly. How did he get that way? Not by being protected as he grew up from wounding language. the dominant order wants to deflect questions away from the subject. Man/Woman. banning racial epithets and other forms of hateful speech will do wonders for their morale.. p.C. University of Rochester. Although the reversal is temporary. literature. empowerment. Harvex. probing master of language. ignorance and bigotry exist on our campuses. a forthright member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. the negative could argue that voting negative signifies a temporary inversion or overturning of the dominant element (normative practice) and represents an attempt to think what the dominant order prevents us from thinking.. politics. Examples include: Rationality/Mysticism. For if we can only command the school curriculum. how to use it as both a shield and sword. Above all. p. to illiberal education. the anti-bigot reformers.7. Rather than curb speech on campus. or even suspension or expulsion. P. and 'tolerance' is reserved exclusively for those who subscribe to one's own perspective. 'we need to train people in how to deal with free speech. and racial harassment.' Without hesitation. in their understanding of the power of discourse. and so on. I'm all for verbal uplift. Deviation from the multiculturalist orthodoxy on any number of issues is punished by social ostracism. sparkling like jewels here and there.C. Punishing bigoted speech only treats the symptoms. he added. 1995. Malcolm X used to talk about the need to learn how language works. will somehow raise their opinion of themselves. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. But in fact it has fostered a positively Orwellian situation in which 'diversity' really means strict intellectual conformity. and Man/Nature. a constitutional lawyer. it is far better than they be exposed and answered than that they be bottled up. attempts to endorse the ethic of 'difference' have led to egregious violations of academic freedom and have poisoned the atmosphere for honest intellectual exchange at campuses across the country. p. free and open debate. Verbal uplift is not the revolution. can only get hold of the dominating verbal structures. AKH0079 WORDS AREN'T KEY Barbara Ehrenreich. that we can turn the world upside down-if we. 1992. THE PRAXIS OF KRITIKS. AKH0073 CHANGING SPEECH WON'T SOLVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS Christopher Lasch. So we have gone from liberal education to its antithetical opposite. during his work in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and since. more than a hundred. p. We are called on to recognize that all minorities are entitled to respect not by virtue of their achievements but by virtue of their sufferings in the past. law. and Malcolm X were by vigorously exercising their freedom of speech. Minorities by any other name-people of color. In this case. and misconceptions firmly intact. discrimination. medicine. blacks should not be fearful of language. their fears. which consciously no one believes. AKH0072 THE KRITIK RELIES ON DECONSTRUCTION Jon Brody. AKH0081 CAMPUS CENSORSHIP IS CREATING ILLIBERAL EDUCATION Dinesh D'Souza. a millenarian alternative is somewhere lurking. Compassionate attention. sexuality. AKH0078 MINORITIES NEED TO BE EXPOSED TO WOUNDING LANGUAGE TO COUNTER IT Nat Hentoff. and replace these phrases with other phrases that contain a new. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. Now. Language kritiks. and leave with all their prejudices. further. hierarchies where one element is subordinated to the other. Paul Berman. their doubts. 1994. Vague and unpredictable possibilities of punishment for expression on campus not only fly in the face of the lessons of freedom. I don't want people saying "man" when they mean me. 'Bigotry thrives underground.64-5.C. ed. THE PRAXIS OF KRITIKS.

AKH0086 THE EROSION OF FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS COULD SNOWBALL TO SOCIETY Nat Hentoff. of all places.hate speech on campus. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. The First Amendment is almost always tested with speech that is profoundly divisive or painful. The kind of chilling atmosphere they describe was exemplified last year as a case assigned for a moot court competition became subject to denunciation when a sizable number of law students said it was too 'offensive' and would hurt the feelings of gay and lesbian students. anti-choice groups think it's okay to impose their religious principles and moral values on everyone else.C. Yale became the leading university in the country in the defense of free speech. ed. usually quite lively and fired by a muckraking glee at exposing 'politically correct' follies on campus.. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. 1992. Most are not pro-life. gay studies.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 8 AKH0082 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS LEADS TO SELF-CENSORSHIP Nat Hentoff.. If that is so with respect to freedom of expression. AKH0084 SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS UNIQUELY APPLY TO SPEECH Frederick Schauer. the more aggressive moral therapy becomes. as Benjamin Cardozo reminded us. 1992. AKH0088 SUPPRESSING DISSENT SNOWBALLS TO EXTERMINATING DISSENTERS Justice Jackson. but they believe that fathers should have a say in whether the fetus should be sent off into eternity. conservative students have their own newspaper. It is extremely hard to distinguish the true limit between them.84 If our descriptive language about speech is less refined or less precise than our descriptive language about other forms of conduct-. In March 1991.260. The case concerned a divorced father's attempt to gain custody of his children on the grounds that their mother had become a lesbian. Quite the contrary. P. there is always the risk that those who would destroy free speech may be sufficiently eloquent to use that constitutional freedom to end it. for instance. quoted in. and suppressing speech that is hurtful. and it is bound to suspect a theoretically infinite number of unintended ones.217-8 One of the myths about the rise of PC (politically correct) is that. Although some of the faculty responded by insisting that you learn to be a lawyer by dealing with all kinds of cases.. under which designated groups of victims are protected from whatever they decide offends them. AKH0093 SITUATIONAL LIMITS ON SPEECH SNOWBALL Nat Hentoff. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. will have moved closer to their goal of destroying free speech.Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. the erosion of principle we have seen throughout our society in recent years may be only the beginning. 1992.83 The hypothesis here is that 'slippery slope' and 'where do you draw the line?' arguments may have special relevance with respect to regulating speech..C. Columnist.132-3 Under Benno Schmidt. an unsteadiness that especially threatens freedom of expression.including some of the finest universities. Lord Chesterfield. and the only speech that will be left protected will be abstracted. and not only from the political religious Right: '. colleges and universities that the principle of free speech is merely situational.freedom of thought is in danger from well-intentioned but misguided efforts to give values of community and harmony a higher place in the university than freedom. AKH0085 SPEECH LIMITS ARE ESPECIALLY PRONE TO BE OVER-INCLUSIVE Frederick Schauer.. P. p. And invariably. p.254 Holmes' logic is inescapable. along with Donald Kagan and others. political correctness--are making the argument that you can suppress certain kinds of speech just because it does so much harm. the Balkanization of campus life. AKH0090 LIMITS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT SNOWBALL Nat Hentoff. WASHINGTON POST Columnist.. There was little public opposition from the other students to the attempt to suppress the case. conducting 'racial awareness seminars' and other 'sensitivity training. that it is not easy to correct the one. ed. etc. . George Bush and a lot of others think flag-burning is an unacceptable form of expression. indulging in 'hate speech' can get you thrown out of some colleges.. That would be a mere shadow of freedom.Paul Berman. women's centers. p. Paul Berman. FREE SPEECH FOR ME. Once speech can be limited in such subjective ways. p. Editor. College of William & Mary Law professor...and this seems by no means an implausible hypothesis--then any regulating rule may be particularly vulnerable to the vice of linguistic over-inclusiveness. I've talked to many of them. speaking at the 92nd Street Y in New York said: 'The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses. the freedom that is the indispensable condition. Censorship is a double futility. emotionally lightweight speech that doesn't pack any wallop. 1982. 1992. 1992. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. but we cannot easily discover where one ends. we can easily see there are two different colors. WASHINGTON POST columnist. feminists against pornography. 1992. This suggestion is hardly novel.. some women's rights advocates think any speech that degrades women ought to be outlawed. It was against PC to represent the father. p. 1992. so nerves are rubbed raw by the competitive cultivation of grievances. DEBATING. This is done by encouraging group identities--black dorms. and the steady march toward an official-secrets-act regime of national-security secrecy all have in common in a pervasive doubt about the capacity of our society to live and flourish in conditions of freedom. p. 1992. Schmidt. then there is some validity to the claim that slippery slope fears are more well. of all our liberties.C. WASHINGTON POST columnist.218-9 Students at New York University Law School have also told me that they censor themselves in class..' AKH0091 CARVING OUT EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT KILLS IT Leslie Williams. Attitudes on campus often presage tendencies in the larger society. permissible speech will become more and more narrowly defined. If all these people and others are able to make exceptions to the First Amendment. FREE SPEECH: A PHILOSOPHICAL ENQUIRY. American Civil Liberties Union. but not for them. but they wonder whether progeny of middle-class black families should get scholarship preference. 1982. To cure the offensiveness of others. without dangerously wounding the other. the political agitation over indecency in the arts. And once the concept of curbing speech is established.388 We all believe in free speech for us. At almost every college I've been. Many. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.222 A precedent has been set at. And if this is so. p. This orthodoxy is reinforced--and enforced--by codes of conduct called 'anti-harassment' codes. P. then the enemies of free expression have already won a significant victory-. One is a general anxiety in our society that is eroding our commitment to enduring principles in our national life. p. 1992. The issue of freedom in our universities is not only of critical importance to the quality and integrity of higher education. As college administrators change. Schmidt. BUT NOT FOR THEE. we might as well kiss free expression good-bye. it is primarily intimidating conservatives on campus. What the near-miss of amending the First Amendment to deal with flag burning. therapists.133-4 'The problem of freedom of expression on our campuses lies at the intersection of two extremely disturbing tendencies. College of William & Mary Law professor.' These moral tutors have a professional interest in the exacerbation of group tensions. FREE SPEECH: A PHILOSOPHICAL ENQUIRY. even encouraging. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind. AKH0092 THOUGHT POLICING SNOWBALLS George Will. Paul Berman. The status of victim is coveted as a source of moral dignity and political power. Holocaust survivors think anti-Semitic speech should be outlawed. WASHINGTON POST columnist. BUT NOT FOR THEE. have questions about certain kinds of affirmative action.259 Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Tribe pointed out in THE NEW YORK TIMES. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. Paul Berman.founded in reference to regulation of speech than in reference to other forms of conduct. On many. remarked that: There is such a connection between licentiousness and Liberty. ed.. those most intimidated--not so much by the speech codes themselves but by the Madame Defarge-like spirit behind them--are liberal students and those who can be called politically moderate. including those you personally find offensive.people in so many contexts-. By and large.. to which university administrations contribute by allowing. continued the spirit of the Woodward Report. coming from the left. and they no longer get involved in class discussions where their views would go against the grain of PC righteousness. each time the state suppresses speech.even as they are silenced. or where the other begins. that this case came before the Court at a time when the First Amendment is under siege throughout the country. But if speech is to be limited to prevent that possibility. p. AKH0083 CODES REPRESS MODERATES--NOT CONSERVATIVES Nat Hentoff. speaking against the Theatres Act of 1737. DEBATING. DEBATING. Such a conclusion would support recognition of a Free Speech Principle solely to counteract the special slipperiness of this particular slope. They are not partisans of Jesse Helms or David Duke. p. and thought police are proliferating on campuses.. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. other faculty members supported the rebellious students. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. p. But if you start making exceptions. these exceptions will swallow free speech. Senator Jesse H elms thinks whatever he considers indecent should not be protected by the First Amendment.' AKH0087 FREE EXPRESSION IS KEY TO ALL OUR LIBERTIES Nat Hentoff. DEBATING. like a changeable silk. praising them for their sensitivity. P. making matters worse. It cannot prevent any single intended criticism. p. Others have a question about abortion. more and more expression will be included in what is forbidden. If speech is to be free. 1992.247 Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters.C. quoted in: FREE SPEECH FOR ME. those enemies. so will the extent of free speech on campus. The more brittle campus relations become.' AKH0089 SUPPRESSING INTOLERANT SPEECH IS SELF-DEFEATING Nat Hentoff.

.I don't think the university is first and foremost a community. to the idea of a university. the effort of a lifetime. AKH0099 PROTECTING FREE EXPRESSION IS THE UNIVERSITY'S PARAMOUNT GOAL Woodward Commission-Yale University. The only way to begin to deal with racism is to bring it out in the open--not pretend it has been scared away. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. the provocative. taking great sardonic pleasure in depicting the righteous left as neo-McCarthyites.116 The conclusions we draw. in a regime of freedom. WASHINGTON POST columnist. from Brown to Stanford.. 1992. quoted in: FREE SPEECH FOR ME. p. It's not worth the hassle--or being placed in Coventry. But under some of the speech codes at more and more colleges. without violating their justification for existence. are these: even when some members of the university community fail to meet their social and ethical responsibilities. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. AKH0095 SPEECH CODES ARE INHERENTLY OVERBROAD Nat Hentoff. It has been tried and tried and tried. and Supreme Court Justices of the future. p. AKH0100 DIVERSE SOCIETIES ESPECIALLY NEED FREE SPEECH Benno Schmidt. 'expression' can be graphic as well as verbal. in the dark.169 Stanford prides itself on being one of the elite universities. is disastrous to freedom of thought. p. dean of the university's Madison College of Letters and Sciences.. even to the extent of superseding freedom of expression. And a university is a place where people have to have the right to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable and challenge the unchallengeable. civility.. The language on campus could become as pure as country water. and cultural diversity call for controls in the interest of harmony and community.. FREE SPEECH VALUES OUTWEIGHS VALUES OF CIVILITY Woodward Commission-Yale University. They tend to be quite lively and witty (humor being in exceedingly short supply among the Jacobins. conservatives--usually with the help of funds from highly conservative foundations--are publishing alternative papers. I think that these [speech] codes make a terrible mistake. And I worry about the impact of politically correct intolerance on the generation of leaders we are currently educating. On many campuses. legislators.. It is. about affirmative action.115 If a university is a place for knowledge. AKH0104 SPEECH CODES COULD BE USED TO SUPPRESS BLACKS AND WOMEN Nat Hentoff. example. If the university's overriding commitment to free expression is to be sustained. pluralistic.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 9 AKH0094 SPEECH CODES PERSUADE FUTURE LEADERS OF LEGITIMACY OF CENSORSHIP Nat Hentoff. Farrakhan ought to be able to speak anywhere he chooses. Free speech is a barrier to thy tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion as to the rightness or wrongness or particular doctrines or thoughts. AKH0103 SPEECH CODES DON'T REDUCE RACIST ATTITUDES Nat Hentoff. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE.. then.152 On Fred Friendly's Public Broadcasting System program. these are important values other institutions may properly assign them the highest.) And these papers take much muckraking pleasure in exposing the surrenders. I can only imagine what James Madison or Holmes would have thought of this complete inversion of the theory of free expression. first and foremost. indeed.223 One of the exceedingly few college presidents who speaks out on the consequences of the anti-free speech movement is Yale University's Benno Schmidt: Freedom of thought must be Yale's central commitment. quoted in FREE SPEECH FOR ME. and the unorthodox. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. BUT NOT FOR THEE 1992. important as they are..that unhibited freedom of speech was somehow more appropriate in the days when our universities were more homogeneous. 1992.. E. the disturbing. Among them will be the lawyers. 1992. 1992.' Leaders will emerge from the ranks of these college and university graduates. 1992.. no matter how obnoxious in content. And the mind-set with which some leave the campus in these years is: some censorship is okay--provided that the motivations are okay. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE.. values of civility and community have been offered by some as paramount values of the university. BUT NOT FOR THEE. and a good university will seek and may in some significant measure attain these ends. educators. judges. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. But beyond that. a circle of friends. AKH0101 SPEECH CODES CHILL THE EXPRESSION OF MODERATES Nat Hentoff. NOT COMMUNITY Nat Hentoff. That so many people of goodwill would make such an argument shows how far we have drifted from our confidence in and commitment to freedom. former chairwoman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 'It is technically impossible to write an anti-speech code that cannot be twisted against speech nobody means to bar.The chilling effects on speech of the vagueness and open-ended nature of many universities' prohibitions. This obligation can and should be enforced by appropriate formal sanctions. p. p. But universities cannot censor or suppress speech. testified that the code would indeed chill student's rights to artistic expression. To be sure. p. It's not a place for threats. p. So long as the students have the right to question him and argue with him. It's not a place.. or threats of it. and that's antithetical.Much expression that is free may deserve our contempt. Should the father have any say at all in what happens to the fetus? AKH0102 SPEECH CODES CHILL ARTISTIC EXPRESSION Nat Hentoff. We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new. p. and certainly on a college campus.' AKH0097 CENSORSHIP VIOLATES THE ESSENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY Nat Hentoff. small and large. they'll have something to gain from the experience. of university administrators to the demands of the ultra-orthodox. harmony. P..168 Also overlooked by students especially concerned with artistic expression is that a 'hostile atmosphere' can be created by a painting or a piece of sculpture because obviously.C.are compounded by the fact that these codes are typically enforced by faculty and students who commonly assert that vague notions of community are more important to the academy than freedom of thought and expression. and contentious that most urgently need freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now it's not a place of violence. it is also a special kind of small society. for example. and yet the majority of its faculty and students have yet to learn so basic a historical truth as this--stated by Eleanor Holmes Norton. secondary social and ethical responsibilities must be left to the informal processes of suasion. I said. p. Let us suppose these codes were in place on every campus in the country. We may well be moved to exercise our own freedom to counter it or to ignore it.152-3 Conservative students are enjoying their role as champions of free speech.. Without sacrificing its central purpose.. Is that what the black students pressing for speech codes want? To have black speakers they invite on campus rejected because of what they say and how they say it? Do women students want radical feminist Andrea Dworkin barred because of possible charges that she creates a 'hostile environment' for nearly all men? . WASHINGTON POST Columnist.. How far should it go? Should the progeny of the black middle class get preference? And questions about abortion. But I am appalled at the intolerance of many who share by substantive views. When the University of Wisconsin's speech code was being debated before the state's Board of Regents. DEBATING. the paramount obligation of the university is to protect their right to free expression. Such a view is wrong in principle and. I think. WASHINGTON POST Columnist.' AKH0096 THE UNIVERSITY'S BASIC MISSION IS TRUTH. 1992. quoted in FREE SPEECH FOR ME. that is about the inculcation of thought [and] habits of mind that I might agree are correct and constructive. But it will never let these values. a club. WASHINGTON POST Columnist.168 Furthermore--and this is a poignant dimension of the rush to virtuous censorship--it won't do a bit of good. a replica of the civil society outside it.On some other campuses in this country. 1992. David Cronon. override its central purpose. The university has a fundamental mission which is to search for the truth. if extended. Schmidt said: 'I take a completely different view of what a university is.There's no place for violence. solidarity. and argument.136 I have often heard the argument.168 In my view. p. p.Students think that they are codes about building communities that are based on correct thoughts. On campus after campus. AKH0098 IN A UNIVERSITY. since I happen to agree as a matter of substance with most politically correct positions. 1992. ed. Would racism go away? Racism would go underground. it cannot make its primary and dominant value the fostering of friendship. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. It is not easy to embrace..158 Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz--among the boldest and bravest of First Amendment defenders--writes: 'I feel this problem quite personally. but racist attitudes would still fester. where it's most comfortable. Farrakhan--having created a 'hostile atmosphere'--would quite likely not be permitted on campus again. or mutual respect. Paul Berman.. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. 1992. Yale University. Questions.. Those most stifled by the pall of orthodoxy on campus are students who are liberals but of an independent mind--and moderates. 1992.. while current conditions of far greater racial. I have talked to students who say there are some views that hold--or questions they want to ask--that they no longer bring up in class or in most places outside of class. and not merely a subordinate priority. BUT NOT FOR THEE. Yet it is not primarily a fellowship. It is precisely societies that are diverse.. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. religious..

1992. she is a fiercely persistent exposer of racial discrimination. As Malcolm X and Frederick Douglass and William Du Bois and Martin Luther King had. What is racial prejudice. homosexuality. the idea was that so long as there is room and time to reply to bad speech. he says.Yale University. p. By establishing content-based restrictions on speech. Paul Berman. ed. black state legislators.. kind of civility. marital status.306 Beginning with James Madison and including. religion. They were heard. ed. The student pleaded guilty. with repudiation and contempt.' However. Increasing diversity is clearly a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education. was one of the milder ways in which they used to make his day. and other townspeople would address him as 'Judensau' (Jew pig). p. ed.' AKH0106 CODES ARE BEING USED TO REPRESS PERSONAL LIBERTIES Dinesh D'Souza. members of the Board of Regents. for example. color.C.C. he says.213 And more fundamentally. conservative or liberal. our young people have to learn to grow up on college campuses. Donna Shalala. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. Former President. quoted in. If you outlaw the use of the term 'girl' instead of 'woman' you're not going to do a thing about the sexist attitudes underneath.. We have to teach them how to deal with adversarial situations. but the shining of a pitiless verbal light on the lies and distortions and sheer meanness of the awful speech in question. on religious or aesthetic preference. and a good many members of the faculty? Judge Warren addressed that claim directly: 'The Board [of Regents] first asserted compelling interest in increasing minority representation to add to the diversity of the University of Wisconsin System campuses. in fact. ancestry. Gunther emphasized.' 'As for providing a nonintimidating educational environment. based. 1992. sex. P. To take a fairly typical example. Free speech to us is just a joke anyways. p. 'We don't own any major newspapers or radio stations. THE LIBERTARIAN IDEA. A university ought to be the last place where people are inhibited by fear of punishment from expressing ignorance or even hate. just. in Nazi Germany and his life here that it's necessary to denounce 'the bigots' hateful ideas with all my power yet at the same time challenge. A black community college administrator from Colorado.' Edari said. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. he recalls. and the university administrators told him your punishment is that you will have to write a forced apology titled 'Learned My Lesson' to be published in the campus newspaper. There his teacher. and homophobic attitudes is a challenge for those of us who believe in a multicultural.. Gunther pointed out during the campus debate that he received his elementary school education in a very small town in Nazi Germany. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. 'I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 10 AKH0105 SPEECH CODES UNDERCUT THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY Nat Hentoff. TIME magazine Columnist. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. from devastating counterspeech: Ed Murrow on television and Boston lawyer Joe Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings.224 In the national board debate at the ACLU on college speech codes. to the administration.. surrounding activism. handicap. president of the Black Student Union. and organizing.' AKH0115 LEARNING TO COUNTER OFFENSIVE SPEECH IS A KEY SKILL FOR MINORITIES Nat Hentoff. there's a tendency to rely on administration-enforced rules to stop offensive speech and to enforce a new.34-5 The problem is that students are beginning to talk among themselves about the taboo topics surrounding racial preference. president of Rutgers University. Justice Hugo Black. surrounding racial separatism. 1992. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. How can you have free speech when you can't be heard?' By continuing to speak.136 It does not follow that because the university is committed to nondiscrimination. AKH0113 FREE SPEECH WORKED TO END MCCARTHYISM Nat Hentoff. p.. The blanket of protection would seem to omit no one. FREE SPEECH FOR ME. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. BUT NOT FOR THEE.' AKH0110 OFFENSIVE SPEECH IS BEST COUNTERED WITH MORE SPEECH Nat Hentoff.' Edari said. classmates. 'it is difficult to credit the seriousness of those who assail [speech codes] as evidence of. the rule limits the diversity of ideas among students and thereby prevents the robust exchange of ideas which intellectually diverse campuses provide. was his view. because that is an essential part of his personality. but before that. They always have and they always will. 'Minority students. DEBATING. p. you start in motion a process that inevitably ends up justifying suppression of the unpopular ideas of unpopular minorities. p. and quite admirable. Anthony Amsterdam's prophecy will come true: 'More basically. It is fanciful to think that bigots cannot beat you at the game you have begun. after all. P.. the first speaker and I think she had a lot to do with making the final vote against codes unanimous--was Gwen Thomas.' Accordingly..' AKH0111 FREE EXPRESSION BEST DISPELS PREJUDICE Benno Schmidt. instead. a student was hauled before a disciplinary committee and accused of making the statement that homosexuality was immoral. knowing what constant harassment by vilification feels like. Professor Gunther. so long as others are left free to answer. p. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE.any community's attempt to suppress hateful ideas by force of law. AKH0109 EVEN HIGHLY OFFENSIVE SPEECH STRENGTHENS THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY Jan Naverson.. P. But Gunther did not have much support among other faculty members. Paul Berman. not imprisonment. there is an enormous imbalance in institutional resources. p. Joe McCarthy. and we to enroll you in sensitivity education to raise your consciousness on this issue.' The way to deal with bad speech.335 First. if more law professors do not join the law students supporting free inquiry. p. These are decent arguments why individuals and the community as a whole are at least in certain respects better off when the Nazi has spoken his piece. education. but a particularly vicious form of ignorance and fear? It is precisely the function of free expression to dispel ignorance and fear with the light of truth.181-2 But what about a claim by the university made by its chancellor. It is not a problem you turn over to the police.C.. even by the entry.183 The MILWAUKEE JOURNAL interviewed Svovata Edari.. 'don't need to hear views such as Belling's spoken again. 1992..censorship. the University of Michigan. or anybody else. 1992. p.also. 1992. and yet there is a veritable plague of racist graffiti and other rawly offensive expression on campus. That. homosexual rights activism and so one. of wholly despicable points of view. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. and sexual orientation. AKH0114 MINORITIES ULTIMATELY LOSE FROM SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH Nat Hentoff. So a subject that is a matter of legitimate discussion is. we might well concede. counterspeech would provide the punishment that was needed.390 To Francis Lawrence. but no change in the laws would have been accomplished without free speech and assembly--including speech by those who did not own any major newspapers or television stations. She started by saying. in our time.that political activity in a community is made more vigorous by variety. is 'with more speech. and the university is seeking to regulate the students' discussion of these topics so as not to give offense. They have to learn how to survive offensive speech they find wounding and hurtful.that each person has an important interest in developing his own independent political convictions. Not money damages. the UW rule does as much to hurt diversity on Wisconsin campuses as it does to help it. 1988. the problem is: Rules don't work. 1992. Changing sexist. 1992. it should suppress any speech that can plausibly be though to be racist. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. with better speech.. 1992. arguably the nation's leading authority on constitutional law. 1992. Paul Berman. Rutgers has a stiff speech code which hauls into the dock students whose words offend on the basis of race. that is. racist. author of Illiberal Education. p. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. settled not by reference to persuasion but by reference to force. in DEBATING. Quite aside from the free speech issue. The only route is through persuasion. WASHINGTON POST Columnist. Obviously. University of Waterloo Philosopher. AKH0107 SPEECH CODES FAIL Barbara Ehrenreich. and equal world. for instance received his terrible punishment not in his eventual censure by the Senate. DEBATING..' . many minority students. AKH0108 SPEECH CODES HAVEN'T LIMITED OFFENSIVE SPEECH Nat Hentoff. This. AKH0112 FREE SPEECH IS EFFECTIVE DESPITE UNEQUAL RESOURCES Nat Hentoff. once you begin to exclude ideas from the discourse of a community on the ground that they are wrong or offensive.159 The leader of the opposition at Stanford was law Professor Gerald Gunther. the need for censoring insulting speech on campus is so obvious that. learned. we'll be next.291 We may agree that some speech activities may plausibly be singled out as requiring special protection. the dissemination of weird political ideas at London's famed Hyde Park Corner. FREE SPEECH FOR ME--BUT NOT FOR THEE. Thus Dworkin again: 'In the case of free political speech. I suppose.

London. AKH0125 PHILOSOPHY SHOULDN'T REJECT COMMON SENSE A. LANGUAGE. in fact. together with the fact that they are not a priori propositions. Look at the case of Georgetown University. TRUTH AND LOGIC. p. pursue.J. 1992. p. he merely displays his ignorance of the true purpose of his enquiries. TRUTH AND LOGIC. ii questions about the nature of mankind.C. whites. but by punishing the student. then I hold that it is metaphysical. None of the codes say this because. author of Illiberal Education. Professor of Philosophy. blacks.. Hispanics. metaphysics is the study of the basic structure of existence and of the nature of being. from which it must follow that the labours of those who have striven to describe such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense. p. author of Illiberal Education. or which speculates about the aim of existence. Professor of Sociology. 1946. And as tautologies and empirical hypotheses form the entire class of significant propositions.38 Well. Hollingdale. LANGUAGE. but that some possible senses-experience should be relevant to the determination of its truth or falsehood. AKH0117 REJECTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS KEY TO DEALING WITH RACIAL PROBLEMS Dinesh D'Souza. Maybe there are good arguments for affirmative action. as I said. To test whether a sentence expresses a genuine empirical hypothesis. 1946. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. And in assuming that they are not a priori propositions. Paul Berman. it is neither true nor false but literally senseless. or whether others really exist. The same is not true of a minority of people who treat our inability to be certain about such matters not just as an intellectual worry. Philosophers have shown us that on a cognitive level there are few. But you could have a code on campus that simply had one line in it: A student shall not yell racial epithets at each other. enter into evolution and progress. Professor of Philosophy.35 I think that America is becoming a multiracial society and the whole issue is transcending black and white. and Asians in this diverse culture. the central paradox is that affirmative action or racial preference policies that are not routinely practices by colleges are saying to students that the best way to fight discrimination in America is to practice discrimination.92-3. AKH0128 METAPHYSICAL STATEMENTS ARE MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN PRINCIPLE A. If he does so. ed. AKH0118 CONTROLLING RACIAL SLURS ISN'T THE REAL POINT OF SPEECH CODES Dinesh D'Souza. . the pragmatist typically believes that we should start from where we are and build up our conception of knowledge out of our present practices.42-3. For the pragmatists. AKH0123 TRUE METAPHYSICAL DOUBT IS MENTAL ILLNESS Anthony Giddens.. and so avoids this. AKH0121 METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS ARE RATIONALLY UNANSWERABLE Anthony Giddens. It should be mentioned here that the fact that the utterances of the metaphysician are nonsensical does not follow simply from the fact that they are devoid of factual content. that's not the problem. p. p. Ayer. Ayer. not indeed that it should be conclusively verifiable. express neither a tautology nor an empirical hypothesis. Our charge against the metaphysician is not that he attempts to employ the understanding in a field where it cannot profitably venture. This is to say the least a paradoxical assertion. London.. Hollingdale. for Balkanization. Ayer. do think and act in this way. or racial rationing. owe this certainty to the fact that they are tautologies. in DEBATING. By the broadest definition. p. University of Warwick.34. we are once again anticipating the conclusions of a later chapter in this book. Ayer.51. of racial preference. whenever they want. or whether what is perceived really exists. but is Itself incapable of. p.C. Professor of Philosophy. which takes the grammatical structure of the sentence as a trustworthy guide to its meaning. such a metaphysical pseudo-proposition as "the Absolute enters into. We are going to have four or more groups.C. 1990. P. and then point out that the sentences under consideration fail to satisfy it. I think this is a formula for division. or did not. AKH0120 QUESTIONS OF GOD. For it will be shown there that a priori propositions. P.36. may be called metaphysical. but (a) let's talk about it and (b) let's discuss some possible alternatives. in DEBATING. And this is the line of argument which we shall. TRUTH AND LOGIC. AKH0124 PRAGMATISM JUSTIFIES REJECTING METAPHYSICS Roger Trigg. or searching for firm foundations of knowledge. LANGUAGE. which have always been attractive to philosophers on account of their certainty. Professor of Philosophy. being metaphysical. On the other hand. 1990. p. Professor of Philosophy. BEING. Certain categories of individuals regarded by others as mentally ill. I don't believe that people should be able to say anything they want. London. iii questions about the nature of the world. but they need to be named. AKH0129 METAPHYSICAL PROPOSITIONS ARE MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEITHER EMPIRICAL NOR TAUTOLOGICAL A. Paul Berman. If something is beyond our grasp. AKH0122 METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION IS USELESS R. LANGUAGE. p. if any. not by debating the issue. 1992. It follows that the philosopher has no right to despise the beliefs of common sense. It's very important to have a fair set of rules to arbitrate the differences among these groups. Ayer. TRUTH AND LOGIC. any philosophy which purports to "get down to fundamentals" and to describe the nature of life and the world as a whole. LANGUAGE. Consequently one cannot overthrow a system of transcendent metaphysics merely by criticizing the way in which it comes into being.152. in DEBATING. may be entirely incapable of inhabiting the same social universe as other human beings. What is required is rather a criticism of the nature of the actual statements which comprise it. p. Paul Berman. p. and it is easy for anyone to deny its existence. London. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. Pragmatism begins with our actions and our actual purposes. ed.93. This is perhaps part of the reflexivity of modernity. one that at the very least needs to be publicly stated and defended. Certain questions-"Do I really exist?" "Am I the same person today as I was yesterday?" "Do other people really exist?" "Does what I see in front of me continue to be there when I turn my back on it?"-cannot be answered in an indubitable way by rational argument. in fact. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. and that. 1993. and ultimately for racial hostility. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. 1946. or as a theory of the first principles or ultimate truths of the universe. 1979. Ayer. 1992. p. Professor of Sociology. The universities are trying to outlaw and suppress a different kind of discussion. p. What he is entitled to despise is the unreflecting analysis of those beliefs. aspects of our personal existence about which we can be certain.J. The proposition which unites all philosophers who can be called positivist is that all genuine knowledge is based on sense experience. we are justified in concluding that all metaphysical assertions are nonsensical. as for Wittgenstein. London. but as a deep disquiet that feeds into many of the things that they do." is not even in principle verifiable. We need only formulate the criterion which enables us to test whether a sentence expresses a genuine proposition about a matter of fact. University College. University College. where the kid released partial data about the subject and the university responded not by releasing full information.J. Professor of Philosophy. University College. Cambridge. philosopher. In general. And the problem is that universities and to some extent society at large are moving away from a fair or neutral set of principles and are engaging in a politics of expediency. A person who is existentially unsure about whether he or she is several selves. evolution and progress. AKH0119 METAPHYSICAL STATEMENTS ARE MEANINGLESS A. and is not a tautology.36.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 11 AKH0116 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ULTIMATELY LEADS TO RACIAL HOSTILITY Dinesh D'Souza. For one cannot conceive of an observation which would enable one to determine whether the Absolute did.J. AKH0126 METAPHYSICS IS MEANINGLESS BECAUSE IT ISN'T BASED ON SENSE EXPERIENCE A.J. p.35. but is certainly not limited in its application only to a specific historical period.41. 1946.J. It can also be defined as the study of those things which transcend experience. it can open up the possibility of skepticism. ed.J. University College. Nor are we ourselves obliged to talk nonsense in order to show that all sentences of a certain type are necessarily devoid of literal significance. 1979. but does.J. University College. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. particularly schizophrenics.31. but that he produces sentences which fail to conform to the conditions under which alone a sentence can be literally significant. Cambridge. HUMAN NATURE AND THE NATURE OF THE WORLD ARE METAPHYSICAL R. The questions considered by this department of philosophy fall into three big groups: i questions about the nature of God and being. 1946. I might part company here with the ACLU. it might appear that we have no very great reason for believing it is there. Critics of political correctness are not saying get rid of affirmative action. I adopt what may be called a modified verification principle. and that metaphysical speculation can produce no genuine knowledge and must be abandoned in favour of the methods of science.35 I'm not a free speech absolutist. TRUTH AND LOGIC. If a putative proposition fails to satisfy this principle. LANGUAGE. We may accordingly define a metaphysical sentence as a sentence which purports to express a genuine proposition. philosopher. 1946. London. For I require of an empirical hypothesis. Because metaphysics tends to point to a reality beyond our knowledge. It follows from that fact. University College. author of Illiberal Education. P. For we shall maintain that no statement which refers to a "reality" transcending the limits of all possible sense-experience can possibly have any literal significance. TRUTH AND LOGIC. AKH0127 METAPHYSICAL STATEMENTS DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MEANINGFUL SENTENCE A. metaphysical speculation should be ruled out Instead of reasoning about the nature of reality. Professor of Philosophy.

In the view of ordinary language philosophers. the third of the most famous "existentialists". In a famous image he said that 'you must bring out of each word its practical cash value' (1907. are not capable of surviving a critical scrutiny. believed metaphysics to be impossible. if any. In the vast majority of cases the sentences which are produced by poets do have literal meaning. very rare for a literary artist to produce sentences which have no literal meaning. p. LANGUAGE. It would seem that knowledge concerning the universe as a whole is not to be obtained by metaphysics. p. it is still possible to make positive discoveries in philosophy. AKH0138 METAPHYSICAL STATEMENTS ARE INHERENTLY PARTIAL. but that he explicitly rejected metaphysics. Nonsensical propositions are held to be those which are not propositions of formal logic nor capable of being the subject of some scientific discipline: such propositions are not true or false. p. University of Warwick. AKH0136 METAPHYSICS FAILS TO GUIDE ACTUAL PRACTICE Roger Trigg. but meaningless. AKH0135 METAPHYSICS CAN'T REVEAL THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE Bertrand Russell. Extremely dissatisfied with every philosophical position ever adopted. AKH0133 METAPHYSICAL IDEAS ARE MEANINGLESS WHEN APPLIED TO EXPERIENCED REALITY R. For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. we may safely say that it does not constitute a reason for it. Hollingdale. Thus.J. p. p. philosopher. the essential rationality of the universe. and that the proposed proofs that. a work of art is not necessarily the worse for the fact that all the propositions comprising it are literally false. such as that which leads to the view that the sensible world is unreal. to say that "existence precedes essence" is still to speak the language of metaphysics. for instance. logical positivists maintained that the task of philosophy was not to produce propositions about the world but only to clarify the meaning of statements made by others. in his well-known book The Concept of Mind. but metaphysical propositions are neither empirical nor analytic. p. THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. Heidegger. The analysis of language in terms of the use of words leads. "believe". p. TRUTH AND LOGIC. of the world as a totality. who would see in the fact that the metaphysician's utterance are senseless a reason against the view that they have aesthetic value. Of Hume we may say not merely that he was not in practice a metaphysician. 1979.154. "we take in our hand any volume.53). 1979. 1946. According to this outlook. to the correction of many misleading ideas.J. p. Hollingdale.153-4. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. it is claimed. "believe" and "infer" are actually used.141. For example. To Heidegger. 1979. therefore they are not meaningful. The foregoing is expounded in the Critique of Pure Reason. London. We find the strongest evidence of this in the passage with which he concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. since no observation can be imagined which would verify or refute it. by a priori metaphysical reasoning. Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.154.37. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION.profess to be able to prove. in fact. The philosopher's task is to understand the world through understanding the correct use of words. p. Gilbert Ryle shows that many untenable ideas concerning the nature of the mind have arisen directly from the misunderstanding of how such words as "know. scientific (including statements of empirical observation) and nonsensical (including almost all philosophy hitherto). London. and so on. Professor of Philosophy. He lapses into it through being deceived by grammar. p.43. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION.54. while Sartre's definition was certainly correct. the unreality of all evil. but that the one is primarily concerned with the expression of true propositions. If the author writes nonsense. It appeals to what. Hollingdale. but not of the metaphysical kind. we must.141.159. Philosophical perplexity is shown to arise in many cases not from any inherent difficulty in the subject-matter but in a subtle misuse of language. as a sentence of gibberish is without meaning. philosopher. let us ask. AKH0134 METAPHYSICAL PROPOSITIONS ARE NEITHER ANALYTICAL NOR EMPIRICAL. Cambridge. 1993. begin with the concrete things around us in our every day world William James put the matter succinctly (1907. without going so far as this. but literally without meaning. But it is not the mark of a poet simply to make mistakes of this sort. the illusoriness of matter. The argument that metaphysical propositions are not meaningful can be stated as follows: only empirical or analytic propositions are meaningful. 1979. The difference between the man who uses language scientifically and the man who uses it emotively is not that the one produces sentences which are incapable of arousing emotion. Hollingdale. The Ideas of the soul. p. the sentences are carefully chosen for their rhythm and balance. moral or rational "truth" was true only from a certain perspective--considered absolutely it was false.44-5. LANGUAGE. The view that the metaphysician is to be reckoned among the poets appears to rest on the assumption that both talk nonsense. but pure reason demands them as concepts. 1946.157. Professor of Philosophy. But if these concepts are applied to supposed objects of experience-. philosopher. if they were a posteriori concepts or categories then error and illusion results. There are some. HENCE THEY ARE MEANINGLESS R. not true or false. Professor of Philosophy. Ayer. and the other sentences which have no sense. very many. such things as the fundamental dogmas of religion. This hope. And similarly. TRUTH AND LOGIC. p. in virtue of the laws of logic such and such things must exist and such and such others cannot. and of God-which are the three forms of absolute unity demanded by the three forms of logical inference-can never be objects of experience. p. which suggests entities which have no real existence. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. HENCE UNTRUE R. AKH0139 METAPHYSICS IS BASED ON GRAMMATICAL AND LOGICAL ERRORS A.J. philosopher. 1979. The propositions of metaphysics are without meaning if they involve either the application of the categories to things-in-themselves or the application of the Ideas to experienced reality. does not intend to write nonsense. it is without meaning.45. And where this does occur. they believe.45) when he said that the pragmatist method aimed to settle metaphysical disputes that might otherwise never end. The criterion for distinguishing between a scientific proposition and a nonsensical one is called the principle of verifiability: a statement can be considered significant if one knows what observations would have to be made in order to verify or refute it. LANGUAGE. Hollingdale. or through committing errors of reasoning. To Nietzsche.J. or school metaphysics. the other with the creation of a work of art. "promise" are actually used is to come nearer to a knowledge of the mind and of the nature of man. is vain. To understand how such words as "know". University College. Most philosophers--or at any rate. AKH0140 NIETZSCHE DEMONSTRATED THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF METAPHYSICS R. And.J. University College. Ayer." he says. Nietzsche was the "last metaphysician of the West" who had demonstrated the impossibility of metaphysics: Heidegger's study is ontology. p.J. Thus the statement "All men have free will" is declared. of divinity. But this assumption is false. Kant's masterpiece. philosopher. AKH0132 NON-VERIFIABLE QUESTIONS ARE MEANINGLESS R. The object of classifying statements into one of these three kinds is to determine which discipline is appropriate For dealing with questions arising from it. 1912. if no conceivable observation could either verify or refute a statement. AKH0137 METAPHYSICS ISN'T EVEN POETICALLY VALUABLE A. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION.the nature of being-and human existence he regards as a "window" through which being can be observed. 1979. if a work of science contains true and important propositions. objected to that term to characterize his own philosophy on the ground that. indeed. University College. Ayer. I believe. Commit it then to the flames. religious. there are three possible kinds of statement: logical (including mathematics). and he. on the other hand. Professor of Philosophy. it is because he considers it most suitable for bringing about the effects for which his writing is designed. But to say that many literary works are largely composed of falsehoods.J. The metaphysician. 1946. There can be no doubt that the hope of finding reason to believe such theses as these has been the chief inspiration of many life-long students of philosophy. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. Instead of starting with the conception of some reality which may not even be attainable. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE." What is this but a rhetorical version of our own thesis that a sentence which does not express either a formally true proposition or an empirical hypothesis is devoid of literal significance? AKH0131 STATEMENTS WHICH AREN'T LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL ARE MEANINGLESS R. London. Professor of Philosophy. . Martin Heidegger. TRUTH AND LOGIC. ''If. AKH0141 LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY DEMONSTRATES THE FUTILITY OF METAPHYSICS R.J. It is.J. is not to say that they are composed of pseudo-propositions. philosopher. Hollingdale. would be the practical consequences of the truth of one theory rather than another. its value as a work of science will hardly be diminished by the fact that they are inelegantly expressed. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. all truth except scientific truth had been "unmasked" as error: a metaphysical. Hollingdale. philosopher.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 12 AKH0130 STATEMENTS NOT LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL ARE MEANINGLESS A. Pragmatists object to metaphysics because it fails to guide our actual practices.J. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION.

The Anti-Kritik Handbook 13
AKH0142 IT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY TO DENY COMMON SENSE A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.52. Locke is generally regarded as being one who, like G. E. Moore at the present time, puts forward a philosophy of common sense.' But he does not, any more than Moore, attempt to give an a priori justification of our common-sense beliefs. Rather does he appear to have seen that it was not his business as a philosopher to affirm or deny the validity of any empirical propositions, but only to analyze them. For he is content, in his own words, "to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way of knowledge"; and so devotes himself to the purely analytic tasks of defining knowledge, and classifying propositions, and displaying the nature of material things. AKH0143 COMMUNICATION ASSUMES OBJECTIVE EXTERNAL REALITY John Searle, Berkeley philosopher, DEBATING P.C., ed. Paul Berman, 1992, p.114. The person who denies metaphysical realism presupposes the existence of a public language, a language in which he or she communicates with other people. But what are the conditions of possibility of communication in a public language? What do I have to assume when I ask a question or make a claim that is supposed to be understood by others? At least this much: If we are using words to talk about something, in a way that we expect to be understood by others, then there must be at least the possibility of something those words can be used to talk about. Consider any claim, from particular statements such as "my dog has fleas," to theoretical claims such as "water is made of hydrogen and oxygen," to grand theories such as evolution or relativity, and you will see that they presuppose for their intelligibility that we are taking metaphysical realism for granted. AKH0144 OUR BASIC LINGUISTIC PROCESSES PRESUPPOSE METAPHYSICAL REALISM John Searle, Berkeley philosopher, DEBATING P.C., ed. Paul Berman, 1992, p.114. I am not claiming that one can prove metaphysical realism to be true from some standpoint that exists apart from our human linguistic practices. What I am arguing, rather, is that those practices themselves presuppose metaphysical realism. So one cannot within those practices intelligibly deny metaphysical realism, because the meaningfulness of our public utterances already presupposes an independently existing reality to which expressions in those utterances can refer. Metaphysical realism is thus not a thesis or a theory; it is rather the condition of having theses or theories or even of denying theses or theories. This is not an epistemic point about how we come to know truth as opposed to falsehood, rather it is a point about the conditions of possibility of communicating intelligibly. Falsehood stands as much in need of the real world as does truth. AKH0145 SEPARATE BODIES AND SENSE EXPERIENCES CREATE SEPARATE SELVES A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.125. But, as it is logically impossible for any organic sense-content to be an element of more than one body, the relation of "belonging to the sense-history of the same self" turns out to be a symmetrical and transitive relation. And, from the fact that the relation of belonging to the sense-history of the same self is symmetrical and transitive, it follows necessarily that the series of sense-experiences which constitute the sense-histories of different selves cannot have any members in common. And this is tantamount to saying that it is logically impossible for a sense-experience to belong to the sense-history of more than a single self. AKH0146 PERSONAL IDENTITY IS GROUNDED IN BODILY IDENTITY A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.127. For we have solved Hume's problem by defining personal identity in terms of bodily identity, and bodily identity is to be defined in terms of the resemblance and continuity of sense-contents. And this procedure is justified by the fact that whereas it is permissible, in our language, to speak of a man as surviving a complete loss of memory, or a complete change of character, it is self-contradictory to speak of a man as surviving the annihilation of his body. For that which is supposed to survive by those who look forward to a "life after death' is not the empirical self, but a metaphysical entity-the soul. And this metaphysical entity, concerning which no genuine hypothesis can be formulated, has no logical connection whatsoever with the self. AKH0147 THE STATEMENT OF HOLISM IS LOGICALLY NONSENSICAL A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.146. We have, indeed, already remarked that the assertion that Reality is One, which it is characteristic of a monist to make and a pluralist to controvert, is nonsensical, since no empirical situation could have any bearing on its truth. AKH0148 SENSE EXPERIENCE JUSTIFIES BELIEF IN OTHERS A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.130. And just as I must define material things and my own self in terms of their empirical manifestations, so I must define other people in terms of their empirical manifestations-that is, in terms of the behaviour of their bodies, and ultimately in terms of sense-contents. The assumption that "behind" these sense-contents there are entities which are not even in principle accessible to my observation can have no more significance for me than the admittedly metaphysical assumption that such entities "underlie" the sense-contents which constitute material things for me, or my own self. And thus I find that I have as good a reason to believe in the existence of other people as I have to believe in the existence of material things. For in each case my hypothesis is verified by the occurrence in my sense-history of the appropriate series of sense-content. AKH0149 COMMUNICATION JUSTIFIES BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF OTHERS A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.132-3. In the same way, each of us has good reason to suppose that other people understand him, and that he understands them, because he observes that his utterances have the effect on their actions which he regards as appropriate, and that they also regard as appropriate the effect which their utterances have on his actions; and mutual understanding is defined in terms of such harmony of behaviour. And, since to assert that two people inhabit a common world is to assert that they are capable, at least in principle, of understanding one another, it follows that each of us, although his sense-experiences are private to himself, has good reason to believe that he and other conscious beings inhabit a common world. For each of us observes the behaviour, on the part of himself and others, which constitutes the requisite understanding. And there is nothing in our epistemology which involves a denial of this fact. AKH0150 THE KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER PEOPLE IS A FICTITIOUS PROBLEM A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.130-1. It appears, then, that the fact that a man's sense-experiences are private to himself, inasmuch as each of them contains an organic sense-content which belongs to his body and to no other, is perfectly compatible with his having good reason to believe in the existence of other men. For, if he is to avoid metaphysics, he must define the existence of other men in terms of the actual and hypothetical occurrence of certain sense-contents, and then the fact that the requisite sense-contents do occur in his sense-history gives him a good reason for believing that there are other conscious beings besides himself. And thus we see that the philosophical problem of "our knowledge of other people" is not the insoluble, and, indeed, fictitious, problem of establishing by argument the existence of entities which are altogether unobservable, but is simply the problem of indicating the way in which a certain type of hypothesis is empirically verified. AKH0151 EPISTEMOLOGICAL EMPHASIS IMPEDES PROGRESS Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Harvard, THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY, 1989, p.93. The epistemological problematic of modern philosophy now, in Dewey's view, stands in the way of American and world progress. Like religion, for him, it misdirects human powers and misleads human energies. Similar to the opiates of old, this problematic lingers on owing to cultural lethargy, academic entrenchment, and existential quests for certainty. To go beyond the epistemological problematic is to be a twentieth-century pioneer "wandering in a wilderness" (his self-description in his only autobiographical account) ready to reflect critically upon and realize new possibilities for a better future. AKH0152 EPISTEMOLOGICAL CRITIQUES DON'T JUSTIFY ABANDONING NORMAL POLICY ARGUMENTS Stanley Fish, Duke English and law prof, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH, 1994, p.20. This is the hardest of lessons for the cultural and intellectual left, whose members want very much to think that what they take to be their epistemological sophistication gives them an advantage over their adversaries and makes their reasons different in kind from the reasons of those who retain a faith in objectivity. But this is a flat-out misreading of the lesson anti-foundationalism preaches, for if all arguments are inevitably intermixed with policy and therefore challengeable, no argument, even the argument that all arguments are inevitably intermixed with policy, can claim an epistemological superiority that would give its proponents an advantage independent of the hard work of presenting evidence, elaborating analogies, marshaling authorities, and so on. It is because all arguments owe their force to contingent historical factors that no meta-argument can make contingency a matter either of suspicion or of celebration; contingency is a given and can count neither for nor against an argument; any argument must still make its way by the same routes that were available before contingency was recognized as a general condition.

The Anti-Kritik Handbook 14
AKH0153 THE SUM OF ARGUMENTS CAN PRODUCE RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Harvard, THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY, 1989, p.44. Fourth, the Cartesian philosophical method of inference overlooks the relatedness of ideas to other ideas, propositions to other propositions. Indubitable foundations and absolute certainty are beyond human attainment, but warranted claims and reasonable conclusions result from a"multitude and variety" of forms and styles of argumentation that "form an integral unbroken part of the great body of truth." Peirce's image here is not that of "a chain which is no stronger than its weakest link, but a cable whose fibers may be ever so slender, provided they are sufficiently numerous and intimately connected." AKH0154 EXTERNAL REALITY IS JUSTIFIED BY SENSE EXPERIENCE A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.50. Thus it is common for writers on the subject of perception to assume that, unless one can give a satisfactory analysis of perceptual situations, one is not entitled to believe in the existence of material things. But this is a complete mistake. What gives one the right to believe in the existence of a certain material thing is simply the fact that one has certain sensations: for, whether one realises it or not, to say that the thing exists is equivalent to saying that such sensations are obtainable. AKH0155 DEDUCTIVE LOGIC PROVIDES CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE R.J. Hollingdale, philosopher, WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION, 1979, p.40. A form of knowledge apparently free from these limitations is deductive logic and mathematical knowledge. In this case, certain knowledge seems to be attainable: the conclusion of a valid syllogism is true, beyond any doubt. AKH0156 IT'S POSSIBLE TO LEARN FROM THE PAST Herbert Muller, Indiana U Govt prof, THE USES OF THE PAST, 1952, p.38. And least of all can we afford to explain away our own shortcomings as historic necessities. Although the irresponsibility of America after the First World War was quite understandable and predictable, it was not strictly inevitable. It was a moral and intellectual failure, for which Americans were responsible. They have learned something from it, and must continue to learn; for in all history no nation has faced such staggering responsibilities as face America today. AKH0157 GOOD REASONS DERIVED FROM SUB-DISCIPLINES OFFER VALID KNOWLEDGE Frederick Crews, U Cal-Berkeley, English prof., SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS, 1986, p.174. We now know that individual sub-disciplines, not the sciences en masse, become coherent and progressive when their practitioners have developed solutions to major problems and acquired a feeling for what Thomas Kuhn calls the "good reasons" that tacitly inhabit those solutions: "accuracy, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness, and the like" (Kuhn 1974b, 261). Each of the human studies contains comparable specialties-research traditions that generate well-focused debate, high standards of reasoning, and even a degree of consensus. I suggest, not that we stop theorizing and expressing our sociopolitical views, but that we notice where our most substantial theories always originate: in concrete disciplinary engagement. AKH0158 THE RELIABILITY OF SCIENCE IS BEYOND IS BEYOND SERIOUS QUESTION Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics, HIGHER SUPERSTITION, 1994, p.256. At this point in history, for anyone who has read it honestly, the status of science as a reliable, profound, and productive source of knowledge ought to be beyond serious question. AKH0159 MODERN LIFE DEPENDS ON SCIENCE Roger Trigg, Professor of Philosophy, University of Warwick, RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE, 1993, p.35. Any discussion about the possible justification of science is likely to be met by the conviction that whatever its rational foundations, it certainly works. Scientists seem progressively more able to control the physical world. It has made more difference to the. lives of ordinary people than any other human activity. Modern life is dominated, even cocooned, by the products of this century's physical science. Every time we turn a switch to obtain light or heat, every time we watch television or get a cool drink out of the refrigerator, we affirm the obvious success of science. Our transport by road, rail, air or sea depends on modern inventions. Life, in short, would be unimaginable without the benefits of modern science. AKH0160 SCIENCE IS THE MAIN ALLY OF THE POLITICALLY PROGRESSIVE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics, HIGHER SUPERSTITION, 1994, p.23-4. There are many reasonably well read people to whom the growing antagonism toward science on the part of a large number of left-wing intellectuals will come as something of a surprise. There is a tendency, mostly justified, as we have seen, to think of political "progessivism" as naturally linked to a struggle against obscurantism, superstition, and the dead weight of religious and social dogma. In this effort, the obvious ally and chief resource is scientific knowledge of the world and the systematic methodology that supports it, as these have developed over the past few centuries, chiefly in Western culture. AKH0161 THE CRITIQUE OF SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN ITS SUCCESSES Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics, HIGHER SUPERSTITION, 1994, p.58-9. Latour's picture of science is bleak and ominous: a war of all against all! Science is presented as a savage brawl in which, from day to day, the dominant chieftain is he who assembles, by dint of wealth, prestige, and warrior cunning, the biggest and nastiest gang of henchmen (i.e., a "network," in Latour's parlance). We must remind ourselves-with a pinch if necessary- that this process is alleged to account for the emergence of celestial mechanics, Maxwell's equations, the periodic table of the elements, plate tectonics, the genetic code, algebraic topology, quantum mechanics, massive parallel processing, and a million other insights and advances, modest as well as exalted. Empirical verification is dismissed as a species of bluster, or as a kind of collective hallucination of the power-crazed. AKH0162 EMPHASIS ON EPISTEMOLOGY IS INTELLECTUALLY IMPOVERISHING Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Harvard, THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY, 1989, p.89. Dewey's metaphilosophy is essentially an act of intellectual regicide; he wants to behead modern philosophy by dethroning epistemology. For too long, modern philosophy has deferred to the authority of knowledge" in the name of science, without questioning this authority and demystifying science, i.e., bringing it down to earth, as it were. Therefore, the diversity, complexity, and plurality of experience have been "assimilated to a nonempirical concept of knowledge." This impoverished empiricism "has said Lord, Lord, Experience, Experience, but in practice it has served ideas forced into experience, not gathered from it." AKH0163 FOCUS ON EPISTEMOLOGY PRODUCES AN ARID SCHOLASTICISM Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Harvard, THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY, 1989, p.78. Dewey's aim is to evade the epistemological problematic of modern philosophy and thereby emancipate philosophy from its arid scholasticism and cultural conservatism. Just as Peirce evaded Cartesianism, so Dewey calls into question the most fundamental project of modern philosophy: the bridging of the gulf between subject and object by means of epistemological mechanisms. Unlike Peirce--and similar to James--Dewey embarks on his critique by interrogating the notion of experience deployed by modern philosophers and suggests a deeper and richer conception of experience. His basic claim is that the marginal significance of modern philosophy in North Atlantic cultures results from paltry notions of experience derived from a ''spectator theory of knowledge" and the ''idea of invidiously real reality." Dewey's goal is to show just how poverty-ridden (and wrong!) these notions of experience are; to reveal the concomitant spectator theory of knowledge as a blinding philosophic fiction; and to blame the idea that philosophy somehow knows Reality more ultimately than other science for the cultural isolation and irrelevance of philosophy In this way, Dewey's metaphilosophy is a kind of counterepistemology that is, a creative revision of Emerson's evasion of epistemology-centered modern philosophy. AKH0164 REJECTING EPISTEMOLOGY FREES PHILOSOPHY TO DEAL WITH REAL PROBLEMS Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Harvard, THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY, 1989, p.93. Dewey echoes these metaphilosophical sentiments in his 1919 lectures at the Imperial University in Tokyo, Japan, published as Reconstruction in Philosophy (1920). Modern philosophic thought has been so preoccupied with these puzzles of epistemology . . . that many students are at a loss to know what would be left for philosophy if there were removed both the metaphysical task of distinguishing between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds and the epistemological task of telling how a separate subject can know an independent object. But would not the elimination of these traditional problems permit philosophy to devote itself to a more fruitful and more needed task? Would it not encourage philosophy to face the great social and moral defects and troubles from which humanity suffers, to concentrate its attention upon clearing up the causes and exact nature of these evils and upon developing a clear idea of better social possibilities . . . ?

The Anti-Kritik Handbook 15
AKH0165 EPISTEMOLOGICAL DOUBT ISN'T A REASON NOT TO ACT Stanley Fish, Duke English and Law prof, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH, 1994, p.113. That reasoning, as I understand it, goes as follows: although we ourselves are certain that the Holocaust was a fact, facts are notoriously interpretable and disputable; therefore nothing is ever really settled, and we have no right to reject something just because we regard it as pernicious and false. But the fact-if I can use that word-that settled truths can always be upset, at least theoretically, does not mean that we cannot affirm and rely on truths that according to our present lights seem indisputable; rather, it means exactly the opposite: in the absence of absolute certainty of the kind that can only be provided by revelation (something I do not rule out but have not yet experienced), we must act on the basis of the certainty we have so far achieved. Truth may, as Milton said, always be in the course of emerging, and we must always be on guard against being so beguiled by its present shape that we ignore contrary evidence; but, by the same token, when it happens that the present shape of truth is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt, it is our moral obligation to act on it and not defer action in the name of an interpretative future that may never arrive. By running the First Amendment up the nearest flagpole and rushing to salute it, the student editors defaulted on that obligation and gave over their responsibility to a so-called principle that was not even to the point. AKH0166 REJECTING THE POSSIBILITY OF SYSTEMATIC KNOWLEDGE IS ABSURD Anthony Giddens, Professor of Sociology, Cambridge, THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY, 1990, p.46-7. Let us first of all dismiss as unworthy of serious intellectual consideration the idea that no systematic knowledge of human action or trends of social development is possible. Were anyone to hold such a view (and if indeed it is not inchoate in the first place), they could scarcely write a book about it. The only possibility would be to repudiate intellectual activity altogether-even "playful deconstruction" -in favour, say, of healthy physical exercise. Whatever the absence of foundationalism in epistemology implies, it is not this. AKH0167 THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS KNOWABLE THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATION Hazel Barnes, Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado, AN EXISTENTIALIST ETHICS, 1967, p.132. If one is speaking about physical objects, I see no objection here. If one identifies a table as a table, knows its typical function and the molecular structure of its material, one does indeed know what a table is. Even if Sartre is right in insisting on a certain transphenomenality of Being, claiming that after one has performed a host of examinations of an object, there is still something left over-even so one knows what a table is. It is those things I have discovered about it even if it is something more too. Stating that one never knows absolutely is not to deny all knowledge as such. Rand is right in insisting that we have certainty about many specific things even if absolute certainty is lacking. AKH0168 THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE Roger Trigg, Professor of Philosophy, University of Warwick, RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE, 1993, p.235. With his doctrines about scientific revolutions and the incommensurability of scientific theories, no one has done more to challenge the place of rationality in science than T. S. Kuhn. Yet it is intriguing that even he feels an urge for a rational grounding for induction. He notes that the whole problem arises from the recognition that we have no rational alternative to simply learning from experience. AKH0169 WE SHOULD ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF SENSE DATA Bertrand Russell, Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge, THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, 1912, p.151. Some knowledge, such as knowledge of the existence of our sense-data, appears quite indubitable, however calmly and thoroughly we reflect upon it. In regard to such knowledge, philosophical criticism does not require that we should abstain from belief. But there are beliefs--such, for example, as the belief that physical objects exactly resemble our sense-data- which are entertained until we begin to reflect, but are found to melt away when subjected to a close inquiry. Such beliefs philosophy will bid us reject, unless some new line of argument is found to support them. But to reject the beliefs which do not appear open to any objections, however closely we examine them, is not reasonable, and not what philosophy advocates. AKH0170 REJECTING THE WORLD OF SENSE EXPERIENCE IS NONSENSICAL A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.39. A good example of the kind of utterance that is condemned by our criterion as being not even false but nonsensical would be the assertion that the world of sense-experience was altogether unreal. If must, of course, be admitted that our senses do sometimes deceive us. We may, as the result of having certain sensations, expect certain other sensations to be obtainable which are, in fact, not obtainable. But, in all such cases, it is further sense-experience that informs us of the mistakes that arise out of sense-experience. We say that the senses sometimes deceive us, just because the expectations to which our sense-experiences give rise do not always accord with what we subsequently experience. That is, we rely on our senses to substantiate or confute the judgements which are based on our sensations. And therefore the fact that our perceptual judgements are sometimes found to be erroneous has not the slightest tendency to show that the world of sense-experience is unreal. AKH0171 NO OBSERVATION CAN PROVE THE WORLD OF SENSE EXPERIENCE UNREAL A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.39. And, indeed, it is plain that no conceivable observation, or series of observations, could have any tendency to show that the world revealed to us by sense-experience was unreal. Consequently, anyone who condemns the sensible world as a world of mere appearance, as opposed to reality, is saying something which, according to our criterion of significance, is literally nonsensical. . . . AKH0172 ALL KNOWLEDGE COMES THROUGH EXPERIENCE Bertrand Russell, Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge, THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, 1912, p.148-9. Thus knowledge as to what exists becomes limited to what we can learn from experience not to what we can actually experience, for, as we have seen, there is much knowledge by description concerning things of which we have no direct experience. But in all cases of knowledge by description, we need some connexion of universals, enabling us, from such and such a datum. Thus in regard to physical objects, for example, the principle that sensedata are signs of physical objects is itself a connexion of universals; and it is only in virtue of this principle that experience enables us to acquire knowledge concerning physical objects. The same applies to the law of causality, or, to descend to what is less general, to such principles as the law of gravitation. AKH0173 ALL FACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ARE EMPIRICAL, SO THEY SHOULD BE VERIFIABLE A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.41. As to the validity of the verification principle, in the form in which we have stated it, a demonstration will be given in the course of this book. For it will be shown that all propositions which have factual content are empirical hypotheses; and that the function of an empirical hypothesis is to provide a rule for the anticipation of experience. And this means that every empirical hypothesis must be relevant to some actual, or possible, experience, so that a statement which is not relevant to any experience is not an empirical hypothesis, and accordingly has no factual content. But this is precisely what the principle of verifiability asserts. AKH0174 LOGIC IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENT Irving Copi, Professor of Philosophy, University of Hawaii, INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC, 1972, p.vii. There are obvious benefits to be gained from the study of logic: heightened ability to express ideas clearly and concisely; increased skill in defining one's terms; enlarged capacity to formulate arguments rigorously and to scrutinize them critically. But the greatest benefit, in my judgment, is the recognition that reason can be applied in every aspect of human affairs. Democratic institutions are under attack today from all directions. They can best be defended by being made to work. And this can be accomplished only by each citizen thinking for himself, discussing issues freely with his fellows, deliberating, weighing evidence, and acknowledging that with effort we can tell the difference between good and bad arguments. If we are to govern ourselves well and responsibly, we must he reasonable. The study of logic can give us not only practice in reasoning but respect for reason. AKH0175 LOGIC ILLUMINATES THE WORLD Morris Cohen, Professor of Philosophy, City College of New York, A PREFACE TO LOGIC, 1944, p.10. Reflection shows that logic cannot be isolated from any realm of being, cannot, for example, be confined to the analysis or description of thought or of symbolism, even assuming it were possible to have thought without objects, or symbols without things symbolized. Indeed, logic could not possibly illumine thoughts and symbols if it did not illumine that which is the object of thought and symbolism. If logic were indeed only a manipulation of symbols it would be as devoid of philosophical significance and scientific utility as chess or tic-tac-toe.

The Anti-Kritik Handbook 16
AKH0176 ALL LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS ARE VALID A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.81. A point which is not sufficiently brought out by Russell, if indeed it is recognised by him at all, is that every logical proposition is valid in its own right. Its validity does not depend on its being incorporated in a system, and deduced from certain propositions which are taken as self-evident. The construction of systems of logic is useful as a means of discovering and certifying analytic propositions, but it is not in principle essential even for this purpose. For it is possible to conceive of a symbolism in which every analytic proposition could be seen to be analytic in virtue of its form alone. AKH0177 LOGIC AND MATH ARE TRUE BY DEFINITION A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.77. The principles of logic and mathematics are true universally simply because we never allow them to be anything else. And the reason for this is that we cannot abandon them without contradicting ourselves, without sinning against the rules which govern the use of language, and so making our utterance self-stultifying. In other words, the truths of logic and mathematics are analytic propositions or tautologies. AKH0178 PURE LOGIC CAN RESOLVE ALL AUTHENTICALLY PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS A.J. Ayer, Professor of Philosophy, University College, London, LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, 1946, p.133. That is to say, the questions with which philosophy is concerned are purely logical questions; and although people do in fact dispute about logical questions, such disputes are always unwarranted. For they involve either the denial of a proposition which is necessarily true, or the assertion of a proposition which is necessarily false. In all such cases, therefore, we may be sure that one party to the dispute has been guilty of a miscalculation which a sufficiently close scrutiny of the reasoning will enable us to detect. So that if the dispute is not immediately resolved, it is because the logical error of which one party is guilty is too subtle to be easily detected, and not because the question at issue is irresoluble on the available evidence. AKH0179 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC HAS BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BUT HASN'T BEEN DISPROVEN Morris Cohen, Professor of Philosophy, City College of New York, A PREFACE TO LOGIC, 1944, p.9. In the history of ideas the past century is one marked by an extraordinary development of logic. A discipline which had remained for more than 20 centuries in approximately the state to which the mind of Aristotle reduced it, suddenly entered upon a period of rapid growth and systematic development. While the essential elements of the Aristotelian logic have not been overthrown or shaken, the labors of Boole, Peirce, Schroder, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, and a host of fellow workers have produced a calculus of classes and a calculus of propositions in which the Aristotelian theory of the syllogism is seen to occupy only a tiny corner. AKH0180 MODERN LOGIC CAN DEAL WITH PROBABILITIES Morris Cohen, Professor of Philosophy, City College of New York, A PREFACE TO LOGIC, 1944, p.11. Again, the traditional logic has seemed to assume a world of hard and fast concepts, a world in which everything is black or white and where there are no gradations or twilight zones. But modern logic is a more flexible instrument than the Aristotelian syllogism, and it is fully capable of dealing with the world of probabilities and uncertainties which is the true object of science and the material of daily life. AKH0181 UNCERTAINTY DOESN'T NEGATE THE VALUE OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE Herbert Muller, Indiana U Govt. Prof., THE USES OF THE PAST, 1952, p.41-2. History itself is the deadliest enemy of the Eternal and Absolute. The whole history of thought is a refutation of the finality to which thinkers have endlessly aspired. I conclude, accordingly, that in first and last matters we cannot conclude with absolute certainty. But I should at once add that the admission of ultimate uncertainty does not mean complete uncertainty. The absolutist tradition of Christendom leads men to assume that if we don't have absolute standards we can't have any standards, and that if we are not standing on the Rock of Ages we are standing on nothing. Actually, we can and do know plenty of objective truths without knowing the whole or final Truth. Beneath the manifold diversity of human history, more specifically, we can discern the basic uniformities and continuities that make it an intelligible history, not a chaos. AKH0182 HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING IS KEY TO COPING WITH THE FUTURE Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Harvard, THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY, 1989, p.91. Dewey's prospective instrumentalist viewpoint here is deeply indebted to Emerson, yet his pervasive historical consciousness leads him to take with more seriousness than Emerson the role of the past in the present and its use for the future. Imaginative recovery of the bygone is indispensable to successful invasion of the future, but its status is that of an instrument the movement of the agent-patient to meet the future is partial and passionate, yet detached and impartial study of the past is the only alternative to luck in assuring success to passion. AKH0183 HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE HAS MADE MAJOR ADVANCES Herbert Muller, Indiana U Govt. Prof., THE USES OF THE PAST, 1952, p.31-2. It is always easy to be cynical about history, as 'a pack of tricks we play on the dead.' Yet it is impossible to deny the impressive advance that has been made in the last hundred years. Historians have built up an immense body of factual knowledge, knowledge that is no less genuine because it is subject to different theoretical interpretations. They have systematically widened, deepened, and clarified the sources of knowledge by philological, paleographical, archaeological, and ethnological research. They have come to realize the importance of commonplace, everyday events, in particular the economic activities that had been neglected in favor of the political and military. They have learned a great deal about the influence of both the physical and the cultural environment, what lies below factual history and above it. They have become aware of evolutions of origins and growths, of the history of history itself. Their very ignorance is suffused with knowledge, which at least keeps them from being ignorant of their ignorance. AKH0184 OUR SOCIAL COMPLEXITY ENHANCES OUR HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING Herbert Muller, Indiana U Govt. Prof., THE USES OF THE PAST, 1952, p.33-4. Our distinctive interests and beliefs make it possible for history to be relatively disinterested and impartial. Through Marx, Freud, Sumner, Pareto, Boas, Spengler, and many others, we have become more aware of the inveterate habit of rationalization and the sources of bias--the class interests, the mores, the conditioned reflexes of culture, the unconscious assumptions, the 'climate of opinion.' Although we can never entirely escape or control our climate, never attain a God's-eye view, we can more freely discount and supplement-at least when we read the other fellow's history. The very crisis of our civilization is in this aspect an aid to understanding. In a stabler society we might expect to have a simpler, stabler past, whose primary meaning was the wisdom of the ancestors. We are not naturally wiser than our ancestors; but the revolutionary conditions of our thought and life have forced a realization of relativity and complexity, the uncertainties of all history, and the ambiguities of the good old days that somehow led to these very bad days. AKH0185 SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS PROVIDES SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE Frederick Crews, U Cal-Berkeley English Prof., SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS, 1986, p.viii. My reply to the School of Suspicion is that its Romantic, individualistic model of the search for knowledge has been erroneous from the start. The turn toward nihilism is unavoidable if we begin by picturing the single mind alone with the enigmatic universe on one side and a meager stock of metaphors on the other. My own starting point is an acknowledgment that we do, by now, know a great many things with enough assurance to profit from their consequences. We know them, not because the isolated mind is a reliable instrument or because some magus has bequeathed us his vision, but because our disciplinary communities have evolved ways of choosing shrewdly between an array of (mostly poor, often foolish) cognitive opportunities. AKH0186 SCIENCE IS CONTINUALLY CHECKED BY REALITY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics, HIGHER SUPERSTITION, 1994, p.234. Science is, above all else, a reality-driven enterprise. Every active investigator is inescapably aware of this. It creates the pain as well as much of the delight of research. Reality is the overseer at one's shoulder, ready to rap one's knuckles or to spring the trap into which one has been led by overconfidence, or by a too-complacent reliance on mere surmise. Science succeeds precisely because it has accepted a bargain in which even the boldest imagination stands hostage to reality. Reality is the unrelenting angel with whom scientists have agreed to wrestle. AKH0187 SCIENCE GIVES POWER BECAUSE IT'S ACCURATE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics, HIGHER SUPERSTITION, 1994, p.220. The natural view-that science gives power to those who understand and underwrite it precisely because it sees accurately into the workings of nature-is, of course correct; but it sorts ill with the temperament of the would-be exorcist. AKH0188 ENDURING SCIENTIFIC RESULTS CAPTURE OBJECTIVE REALITY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics, HIGHER SUPERSTITION, 1994, p.139. No serious thinker about science, least of all scientists themselves, doubts that personal and social factors influence problem choice and the acceptance of results by the scientific community. Few serious thinkers about science, however, outside the camps of feminists and social constructivists, argue that the stable results of science, those that have been subject to empirical test over time and have survived, are not written in nature! Most know that whatever the underlying calligraphy, self correcting science is the best translation of it we have.

Recall that since the end of the eighteenth century various groups at one or another time regarded by European Christians as lesser breeds have come increasingly to be represented in science. by any test. and for bringing them into some sort of agreement on the facts. 1994. p. p. 1994. accordingly. none of them are self-corrective in a steady and deliberate way. AKH0197 SCIENCE IS THE MOST RELIABLE ROUTE TO KNOWLEDGE Roger Trigg. For they now have the advantage of a vast. 1956. that by some mystifying process. and neither has anything to do with the personal merits or social status of individual scientists. The achievement of such an institutional technique for achieving objective beliefs is. AKH0199 THOUGH UNCERTAIN. AKH0196 SCIENTIFIC METHOD OFFERS OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIETY Herbert Muller. Indians. in effect. p. (1992. is due not to the impartiality of all the social scientists. The notion that such work as that of Newton and Einstein was "needed" by the technological infrastructures of their respective societies is plain nonsense. what counts is whether a given piece of evidence. 1952. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. But the idea that physics is in for a major conceptual upgrade because multiethnic perspectives will be brought to bear upon it is sheer fantasy. Although every historian remains fallible and subject to bias. it is supremely solid and convincing. p. they have a deeper insight than the great Gibbon had. is sufficiently independent of the particular theories in conflict. p. philosophy. moreover. Columbia philosopher. Jews. and incapable of taking the ideas of others seriously. while her counterpart of 1905 did the same for Einstein! This is not intellectual history. Individual scientists.97-8.. p. THE USES OF THE PAST. The truism that all facts are theory-laden is irrelevant. There are techniques in all societies for fixing men's beliefs. indeed. as the rest of the human race. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. Columbia philosopher. and for bringing unquestioned assumptions or "ideologies" under criticism. All of these methods involve accepting something without question--custom. The undoubted achievements of twentieth-century science are sufficient testimony against the envious proposal that scientists possess no evidential basis for choosing between rival ideas. conducted in a scientific spirit. Prof.178). p. Indiana U Govt. nothing is certain. p. the signal intellectual achievement of modern liberal society.131. but to the publicity and community of the scientific method. . international. THE USES OF THE PAST. In this respect. As individuals. University of Warwick. 1990.138-9. Professor of Sociology. Reliable knowledge is not enough by itself but nothing can take its place no arbitrary assertion of higher truths and goods. when judged by an expert community possessing common values and rules. SCIENCE OFFERS THE MOST RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE POSSIBLE Anthony Giddens.40. p. Thus Kepler's laws of motion are explained by the fact that. AKH0201 SCIENCE IS VALIDATED BY ITS HIGH DEGREE OF PREDICTIVE SUCCESS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.362. and nothing can be proved.. The relative objectivity of contemporary social science. and they are objective in the precise sense that they meet impersonal standards which are independent of the peculiar perspective of any individual. and all inherited ideas are subject to the continuing correction of experience. Professor of Religion. Columbia philosopher. the planets move as predicted by those laws This seeming tautology will leave relativists and cultural constructivists feeling quite out of sorts. 1956. The emergence of such a revolutionary institution in the modern world represents a turning point in the way in which human society achieves its beliefs. but. But the ideas that come to be accepted by the scientific community are objective. that Rome succumbed to barbarian invasions. attached to their own ideas. It is the one point at which that society differs most fundamentally from other societies. We share with enthusiasm the hope that the ethnic and sexual demography of the sciences will come to resemble that of the human species as a whole. In the simplest terms. sociology. AKH0190 SCIENCE ALLOWS THE PROGRESSIVE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH Charles Frankel. 1952.. The cultural implication here is that Dewey's acceptance of the authority of science is itself instrumental-science is simply the best tool we conscious organisms have to cope with our environment. even if scientific endeavour provides us with the most dependable information about the world to which we can aspire. p. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.32. Pakistanis. Turn-of-the-century industrialists were not sending out desperate requests for a more subtle understanding of the invariance of physical law under change of inertial frame. AKH0198 SCIENCE IS OUR BEST TOOL FOR DEALING WITH THE WORLD Cornel West. 1994. many of them have made contributions of the first rank and of enormous influence. These groups include. cooperative enterprise. Chinese. Seventeenth-century merchants and navigators needed innovation in the form of an accurate chronometer. He does believe that science. Scientific knowledge is no less useful because of ultimate uncertainty. Japanese. To claim that their ethnicity left a particular stamp on the content of their achievement is to revert to the odious ethnic essentialism of Professor Lenard.143. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN.39. and perceive the dry rot that had set in during the Golden Age he celebrated. No elaborate argumentation is necessary to establish the all-too evident fact that science has come out on top. Aronowitz's thesis is no more than an unsupported dictum that declares. is not the progress of some one creed at the expense of others. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. represent a radically new technique for coordinating men's ideas without coercion. as Karl Popper points out. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. AKH0191 SCIENCE'S IMPERSONAL STANDARDS MAKE IT OBJECTIVE Charles Frankel. Rescher's pragmatism.128 Does physics. p. p. The institutions of modern science. 1989. however. provides the most reliable route to knowledge: The mechanisms of scientific reasoning clearly represent the most developed and sophisticated of our probative methods. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. The second is that these ideas are the results of a process in which no ideas or assumptions are regarded as sacrosanct. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. 1993. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. acknowledge that.xvii. For the progress of science. Cambridge. not an explanation of Keplerian ellipses in terms of the inverse square law. such as Karl Popper. p. Prof. THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. "all science rests upon shifting sand. means that he goes further than Wittgenstein. AKH0200 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS USEFUL EVEN IF ULTIMATELY UNCERTAIN Herbert Muller. it serves the quite sufficient purpose of enabling us to go about our business in a world whose metaphysical 'reality' we do not absolutely need to know. his work remains subject to correction and criticism by his fellows. historians are now generally agreed in discounting the most obvious explanation. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. 1986. as he expresses it. AKH0194 SCIENCE IS NOT DETERMINED BY SOCIAL CONDITIONS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Even philosophers who most staunchly defend the claims of science to certitude. AKH0192 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE CAN BE OBJECTIVE Charles Frankel. have an explanation for the history of physics? In one very strong sense it does: the history of physics as a collection of ideas is largely explained by the objective nature of the phenomena it describes and schematizes.143. AKH0195 THE ETHNICITY OF SCIENTISTS DOESN'T INFLUENCE THEIR RESULTS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. as well as a boundless ignorance of the phenomena one is trying to explain. if in no other. To offer this sort of "explanation" as an account of profound intellectual developments is to show unlimited contempt for the very notion of explanation. the only effective world community that now exists is the community of science. in contrast. The metaphysical implication is that although science has no monopoly on what is true and real. Indiana U Govt. most of them also contain an element of coercion. p. as explanations go. U Cal-Berkeley English Prof. the Zeitgeist Fairy of 1665 contrived to tickle Newton's brain cells with her magic wand. the vision of eighteenth-century liberal philosophers has been achieved. In spite of all their disagreement. its predictive and explanatory powers help us deal more effectively with the world than anything else available to us. Arabs. and many have been honored appropriately. It is the progress of a set of rules and procedures which allow men to co-ordinate their thinking and to co-operate in the search for truth.139." In science. the superior judgment of selected individuals. or anything else worth a scholar's serious attention. in professional journals and congresses. Harvard. The first is that these ideas are the products of a co-operative process in which the individual has to submit his results to the test of public observations which others can perform. and Koreans. 1956. inter alia. a revelation. as they saw. are likely to be just as jealous of their reputations.55. Columbia philosopher. Professor of Philosophy. AKH0193 SCIENCE OFFERS A UNIQUE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE INSIGHT Charles Frankel. There are two principal reasons why scientific ideas are objective.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 17 AKH0189 TWENTIETH CENTURY SCIENCE PROVES RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE Frederick Crews. then. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. 1956. to a high degree of precision.

The primary function of theory is to lead to new experiences. University College. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. AKH0208 SCIENCE IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY Charles Frankel. through "gestalt switches. Professor of Social and Political Theory. Columbia philosopher.J. p. depends on certain "ultimate" or unquestioned assumptions that it is. is the test of its success in practice.168. paradigms compete. Actually.157. When men approach their world within the framework of a theory. AKH0204 NATURAL SCIENCE SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTS Isaiah Berlin. . It is a way of bringing all creeds to the test of certain common techniques and methods." about which we hear so much. is regarded with considerable skepticism by a majority of contemporary philosophers of science. unified creed. the ones traditionally celebrated by scientists: logical economy.72. It is plain that on our ability to make successful predictions depends the satisfaction of even our simplest desires."paradigm shifts"-are conditioned not only by the officially recognized cognitive processes of textbook science. AKH0212 PERSPECTIVISM DOESN'T EFFECTIVELY INDICT SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Chief among them is--of course-the work of Thomas Kuhn. from the discovery of the scientific method by men like Descartes. London.that is. p." but the rationality of science is not thereby impaired. an epistemological progenitor of the more iconoclastic social-constructivist critiques. and the here-and-now. University College. Scientific theory is not the opposite of imagination. has interesting things to say about the history of science. A scientific theory thus makes a positive contribution to human experience.J. The story of AIDS. AKH0213 SCIENCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH IMAGINATION Charles Frankel. And this involves a fundamental misconception. music. which. much as they are tempted to do so. There is no need to say why we require such rules. And when we reject it for being provincial. to be an instrument by which men can deliberately and intentionally expand their horizons. that is. Oxford. 1992.180. indeed. like any other body of belief. the rhetoric of scientific debates. Kuhn happens to be a fervent believer in scientific rationality and progress. He is a firm believer in scientific progress and in the power of science to "solve puzzles. p. 1994. simply as it is recounted. not broad theories or methodologies-must indeed be made globally. LANGUAGE. Moreover. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. London. Those "recent developments" turn out to be not so recent.40. The hypotheses may therefore be described as rules which govern our expectation of future experience. and has had a consistent if frequently unperceived effect in shaping the fundamental character of human societies. Those that possess ferrous metallurgy and agriculture were quite different from ones that only knew stone tools or hunting and gathering.. LANGUAGE. Only the most superficial reading of this work and of subsequent commentary by Kuhn on his critics can lend support to strong forms of relativism. 1946. Even that clarification of Kuhn's position. more so perhaps than any other in contemporary science. the shape of modern science as a social institution. p. on the other hand. however. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Bacon. and Spinoza in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 244). p. By incommensurability Kuhn never meant that competing theories are incomparable but only that the choice between them cannot be entirely consigned to the verdict of theory-neutral rules and data. as Kuhn himself insisted in defending his work against its critics.50. 246. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. London. U Cal-Berkeley." while harboring doubts only about the permanent representational value of any regnant paradigm. nor are the results of modern natural science subject to human caprice. he argues. The scientific understanding of nature is neither cyclical nor random. Columbia philosopher. or architecture: it is not clear that Rauschenberg is a better painter than Michelangelo or Schoenberg superior to Bach. perspectivism can make at best a trivial contribution. Professor of Philosophy. enables us to predict future experience. What justifies scientific procedure. 1969. in its soberest and most prudent form. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS.142-3. Professor of Philosophy. University College. but by various social factors as well as personal whim and aesthetic considerations. Shakespeare and the Parthenon represent a certain kind of perfection and it makes no sense to speak of ''advancing" beyond them. Human beings are free to pursue certain branches of science rather than others. the notion that science is not so much a matter of expanding knowledge as it is of competing. But a qualitative change occurred in the relationship of scientific knowledge to the historical process with the rise of modern natural science. and it does not rest on any wholesale presuppositions. Ayer. and as he has continued to insist with mounting astonishment at his irrationalist fan club.) Transitions between paradigms-which in any case are mere problem solutions. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. The function of a system of hypotheses is to warn us beforehand what will be our experience in a certain field-to enable us to make accurate predictions. it is not the view of a sect. For science. AKH0210 KUHN'S PERSPECTIVE IS NOT GENERALLY ACCEPTED Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. 1994. FOUR ESSAYS ON LIBERTY. AKH0203 SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS ARE NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL A. p. another ideology. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. and so to control our environment. in a word. THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN. refutes. p. (What looks like a "mistake" in one theory's terms may be a legitimate inference in the terms of its rival.J. 1946. culturally constructed paradigms. is not a creed in competition with other creeds. To be sure. The notion that one can discover large patterns or regularities in the procession of historical events is naturally attractive to those who are impressed by the success of the natural sciences in classifying.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 18 AKH0202 SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE VALIDATED BY SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS A. their experience has a dimension which simple observation alone cannot give it. and have nothing to do with the content or truth of these ideas. Rand.43. They take no account of the specific logic of the sciences and they are far too coarse to deal with the conceptual texture of any category of important scientific thought. is hardly a recent development. Natural science. 1986. 1956. p.169). English Prof. to the extent to which it is capable of being justified. It is a product of imagination. So far as we are concerned. can occur only after a given specialty has gotten past the stage of "theory proliferation" and "incessant criticism and continual striving for a fresh start" (Kuhn 1974b. The so-called "metaphysical foundations of science. we reject the one language which has been able effectively to cross boundaries and to draw men together. Ayer. are at best a misnomer for the historical origins of scientific ideas. "What better criterion than the decision of the scientific group could there be?" (Kuhn 1970. As Kuhn asked. AKH0205 SUCCESS IN PRACTICE IS THE ONLY TEST OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY A. Professor of Philosophy. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. the analysis of a synthetic principle tells us nothing whatsoever about its truth. The attempts to read scientific knowledge as the mere transcription of Western male capitalist social perspectives. We are entitled to have faith in our procedure just so long as it does the work which it is designed to do. the only one that is by common consensus unequivocally cumulative and directional is modern natural science. It makes no advance commitments which it is unprepared to discard under any circumstances. AKH0209 EVEN KUHN IS NOT A STRONG SCIENTIFIC RELATIVIST Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. we shall see that the only test to which a form of scientific procedure which satisfies the necessary condition of self-consistency is subject. Scientific knowledge has been accumulating for a very long period. For science is not a single. and they can obviously apply the results as they please. 1994. 1946. but the succession of paradigms does not involve starting each time from scratch. 1956. LANGUAGE. and an instrument for emancipating it from enslavement to the familiar. is the success of the predictions to which it gives rise: and this can be determined only in actual experience. Ayer. For if we look around at the entire range of human social endeavor. Theory choice is not just a matter of politics and style. poetry. perspectivism. AKH0207 KUHN DOESN'T UNDERMINE SCIENTIFIC RATIONALITY Frederick Crews. especially when one considers that Kuhn's work. But all of these soft impeachments of science rest on the view that science. When it comes to the core of scientific substance. explanatory parsimony. correlating. AKH0206 MODERN KNOWLEDGE PROVIDES BONA FIDE CUMULATIVE KNOWLEDGE Francis Fukuyama. NOT JUST A SUCCESSION OF PARADIGMS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. p. p. The same cannot be said for activities like painting. 1994. and the deep methodological and epistemological questions-above all. TRUTH AND LOGIC. are hopelessly naive and reductionistic. simply because they lived in the twentieth century. and above all predicting. including the desire to survive. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. p. But in achieving this it does not justify scientific procedure. well known as it is. mankind does not return periodically to the same state of ignorance. quite simply. By itself. and it hardly justifies Keller's hopes for epistemic reform. The task of defining rationality is precisely the sort of task that it is the business of philosophy to undertake. and they contribute at any moment to the formulation of questions and the choice of "puzzles" (Thomas Kuhn's word). TRUTH AND LOGIC. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. that are accessible to any undergraduate physics student today simply because he or she was born later. a position that Kuhn is at pains most energetically to deny. the routine. AKH0211 SCIENCE IS PROGRESSIVE. p. but neither dictators nor parliaments can repeal the laws of nature. whose studies of theory choice led him to conclude that major upheavals of scientific theory-. TRUTH AND LOGIC. and the capacity to synthesize once-disparate theories into a conceptual unity. the incredibly difficult ontological questions-that arise in scientific contexts. builds upon itself: there are certain "facts" about nature that were hidden from the great Sir Isaac Newton.139.50. he clearly believes that the dominant factors in theory choice are. or as the deformed handicraft of the prisonhouse of language.97.139. HIGHER SUPERSTITION.

p. it represents. in this regard. To the extent that the liberatory and democratic ideals that roiled the nineteenth century and persist to our day with amplified force face the adamant resistance of dogmatic religions of one sort or another (hardly a dead issue in a world beset by a swarm of angry fundamentalists). 1994. Theoretical science. was a transcendent characteristic of romantic natural philosophy. but its primary function is more humane and. it seems to us. The mathematical side of modern science is probably responsible for the popular impression that science is cold. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. It has dispelled much of the nonsense that sustained sexual and racial discrimination. It remains the author of our major problem. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. AKH0215 SUBSTITUTION OF INTUITION FOR ANALYSIS UNDERMINES SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. freed of any need to analyze their situation "objectively. aesthetic-to cause human experience to be fruitful and to multiply. and with the AIDS epidemic that has reawakened slumbering fears of plague and fatal contagion. for stabilizing and disciplining the human imagination. identification with. Chiefly. Herzen. its instability. the pope who denounced socialism.138. And it is a language that all can use and share and learn . Indiana U Govt.. In the final analysis. AKH0224 SCIENCE HAS BEEN POLITICALLY PROGRESSIVE HISTORICALLY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. 1994. and our only source of hope. perhaps most important. The more Baconian science we get. The dissecting blade of scientific skepticism. Spinoza. remains the one international language capable of providing objective knowledge of the world. HIGHER SUPERSTITION.159. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. To deny them this is another kind of racism. Columbia philosopher. But the mathematical side of modern science is in fact a remarkable example of how the human imagination can be at once liberated and disciplined. the substitution of ideals for logic and abstraction.178. science. and absolutism. and remote. social reform. waywardness. p. they allow us to render the same verdict on things at different times and independently of how we feel. has a great deal to do with the latter problem. And it is an instrument. and makes it possible for their commerce with the world to have scope. modernism. Quite apart from its technological applications. domination. Moreover. Turgenev. mechanical. in short. and its idiosyncrasy. AKH0221 REPUDIATING SCIENCE MAINTAINS OPPRESSION Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. indeed. order. p. 1994. dispassionate scientific spirit. On the other hand." AKH0222 SCIENCE EFFECTIVELY COUNTERS SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL AUTHORITARIANISM Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. women's rights. carries them beyond the limitations and accidents of their lives. Kant. It has been used as an instrument of industry and of war.23. many of the peoples whom this strategy is designed to help are. in particular. that characteristic was a root cause of its failure to produce useful science. Russell. and a faith that what we learn that way can improve the prospects for human life. while the claims put forth to bolster the egalitarian view have endured. they provide a way of transcending the idiosyncrasy of different perspectives and of bringing the experience of different men together: Mathematical methods thus represent not merely professional techniques. AKH0220 SCIENCE IS NEEDED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS SCIENCE CREATED Herbert Muller. 1956. not less. man's own instruments against his obtuseness. has been and will be their strongest and least dispensable ally. 1994. 1994. p. and systematic consequences. Prof. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. they enable us to put our perceptions in a definite order so that we can reason from them with more assurance and to more far-reaching consequences. science has been in some crucial respects a positive source of support to oppositional movements. on this lovely planet that spins its way through an unimaginably violent-and indifferent-space. one thinks. rather well.362. in its gift of tremendous power that has been terribly abused. with the administration of our economic and political life. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. so much greater will be the chance of making disastrous errors of policy." In Fox's view.81-2. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Taken as principle. Science has had very little to do. p. selective reordering of experience. Martin Heidegger was their recent offspring. however. Hume. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. The notion that human liberation ought to be the chief project of the intellectual community is. p. it is simply absurd to impugn science as the tool of the most embittered reactionaries. 1952. if we are to judge a body of ideas by its worst enemies. a real if grossly imperfect alignment persisted between the scientific outlook and the great emancipatory sentiments-abolitionism. Science. It has given powerful evidence of the ineluctable importance of environmental consciousness in the application of technology. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. of the objective. Those forces. with its insistence that theories are worthy of respect only to the extent that their assertions pass the twin tests of internal logical consistency and empirical verification. 1994. a "final good" something which has its own inner dynamism. castes. the easier it will be to believe that we have a fighting chance. which releases men from the narrowness and urgency of their routine affairs. Mill. Their emergence constitutes a sociological phenomenon of first-rate importance-the emergence of a new technique for co-ordinating human experience and for bringing men into uncoerced agreement. AKH0217 SCIENCE IS KEY TO GLOBAL SURVIVAL Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. if no more than that. not least those that sustain social systems based on exploitation. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. has been an invaluable weapon against intellectual authoritarianisms of all sorts. And here's to Baconian science-if that misattribution is to persist in our universities-Baconian in the sense of a rigorous adherence to the empirical. AKH0216 SCIENCE LIBERATES HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS Charles Frankel. and can give stability and direction to the rest of our lives. quantitative techniques permit us to make more minute and precise distinctions. those whose politics inclined toward the left were all too happy to have a rationale for reconstituting their discipline as part of a social movement to champion the oppressed races.157-8. but for the wise use of this power we need more. . At any rate. and sexual outcasts of the earth. as it were. p. coeval with the idea that superstition and credulity are among the most powerful foes of liberation. p. and egoism. 1994. THE USES OF THE PAST. Mathematical methods are ways of overcoming at least four weaknesses to which our ordinary everyday experience is liable-its grossness. goes its own way. Voltaire. AKH0223 SCIENCE HAS AIDED OPPOSITIONAL MOVEMENTS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. p. And its relation to practice is the relation of any fine and liberating art-it carries men beyond the foreground of their experience. Far from being less refined than the qualitative judgments we usually make. Closeness to. the "science" that sustained the most ferociously antiegalitarian ideas-racist eugenics. To put it another way. . Columbia philosopher. poorly served: "Science. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. but social inventions.158. Towering figures of political and ethical thought over the last three or four centuries make this point. of unfettered intuition for analysis. to use an old philosophical expression. To the extent that science-the only reliable source of numbers for environmental cost/benefit analysis-is battered in the course of a primarily ideological crusade. is an example par excellence of a liberal art-a deliberate. p.179. represented by Maistre and by Pius IX. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. it would seem. Einstein-the list could be extended endlessly. socialism itself-that drove the most idealistic souls of the era. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. and the scientific outlook in a single breath. AKH0219 REJECTING SCIENCE LEADS TO DISASTROUS POLICY ERRORS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. . with its objectivity . the object. we shall be concerned with the abiding problem of racial justice. its idleness and disorder. . . THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. Locke.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 19 AKH0214 SCIENCE HELPS OVERCOME THE LIMITS OF IMAGINATION Charles Frankel. of Galileo. Lessing. were convinced that their quarrel with science was a struggle to the death. obviously.24. and that science. genders. AKH0218 SCIENCE IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR DEALING WITH AIDS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. 1956. on the whole. in the end. and. as well. p." and the like-has long since been effaced. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. Diderot. and enlarges the dimensions of human choice by acquainting men with the alternative possibilities of things. in spite of early attempts to ally it with the forces of repression. 1994.229. "social Darwinism. The wretched of the earth want science and the benefits of science. In fact it is our only defense. holds out the best hope for cutting through their fogs of error and confusion.

And: it is a recipe for disaster in ecological matters-and in human affairs generally! It is the substitution of moonbeams and fairy-dust for thought. a frequent human practice. Even more discouraging is the fact that among the thinkers who most clearly and accurately emphasize the dangers into which technocratic society falls. And. the minority no less than the majority. 1993. and its all-obliterating appeal to the power of brute force is unprecedented in the West. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. and the great statesmen of the past have been thoughtful men who weighed alternatives with care. The net effect of these decisions has been to produce a radical deterioration in our conception of what it means to be reasonable. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. reckless gambles will succeed. that such well-founded criticism often leads further to bizarre and shoddy theorizing about the epistemic status of science. or perhaps do not see things as they "really" are. Its distinctive feature is self-proclaimed barbarianism. p. 1980. AKH0227 THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH. It is disheartening to note. its gesticulating Fuhrer transmitting directives from Providence. With minor variations. or get caught in performative contradictions. although a handful of figures with scientific credentials. however. its anti-Semitic demonology. there are quite a few who lose perspective and begin to expound dubious positions concerning modern science. The assumption that makes specific knowledge of science dispensable is that certain new-forged intellectual tools-feminist theory. let alone everything. as if allegiance to such doctrines could somehow magically generate the power to halt the technological misuse of scientific knowledge. 1958. p. p. and especially of our own being. it must necessarily be an attack upon what I regard as the enemies of reason. "What is involved here is a reconceptualization of the human side of the human/nature dualism to free it from the legacy of rationalism. Reason is not the great adversary of inclination and passion: it is allied with man's profoundest passion. AKH0232 THE LIMITS OF REASON DON'T JUSTIFY ITS ABANDONMENT Walter Kaufmann. the moral authority with which the academic left emphatically credits itself are in themselves sufficient to guarantee the validity of the critique. or explain it away.. Princeton philosopher. boastfully trumpeted defiance of reason. Professor of Philosophy. responsibility succeeds much more often than irresponsibility. AKH0237 REASON RESPECTS MINORITY VIEWS Russell Windes and Arthur Hastings.xiv. there would never have been so much fuss about it!) AKH0228 RATIONAL POLITICAL CHOICES ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED Walter Kaufman. throughout the entire range of ecoradical literature.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 20 AKH0225 THE KRITIK OF SCIENCE IS BASED ON IGNORANCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Our reasoning has to be rooted in the character of the world. i. as a subhuman. they feel justified in bypassing the grubby necessities of actual scientific knowledge. obscure it. Such processes may be painfully slow. It has been verified as fully and irrefutably as is possible for an empirical proposition. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. p. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.429. undisguised. the theme recurs. Otherwise the idea that science can explain anything. deep ecology-and. That is why we want physicians to act responsibly. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM.47. 1973. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. deconstruction. postmodern philosophy." proclaims the feminist philosopher Val Plumwood. AKH0229 NAZISM EPITOMIZED IRRATIONALISM Leonard Peikoff. Professors of Speech.51-2. Queens College and Stanford. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. AKH0226 THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF SCIENCE DON'T DISPROVE ITS TRUTH Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. above all. 1969. but those who continue to place their trust in them generally come to grief before long. It is no different in politics. It is not some brooding metaphysical dictum about the Knower versus the Known. Professor of Philosophy. a predictive law about the behavior of concrete phenomena that can he tested and confirmed like other physical principles. A curious fact about the recent left critique of science is the degree to which its instigators have overcome their former timidity or indifference toward the subject not by studying it in detail but rather by creating a repertoire of rationalizations for avoiding such study. AKH0231 THE ATTACK ON REASON IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY Roger Trigg. he can turn himself into a subhuman creature and he can turn his life into a brief span of agony)just as his body can exist for a while in the process of disintegration by disease. but that very slowness insures against injurious and dangerous alternatives. philosopher and novelist. of being. Once we try to deny it. 1994. p. The industrial world's catalysis of population growth and its consequent need for resources attacks the forest and pollutes the ocean. his mind. we cannot avoid the question. can be found on the movement's fringes. Such an exercise in self-contradiction is worse than being involved in an infinite regress. critique "in the name of what?" His quarrel with many so-called "postmodern" thinkers is that they either fail to confront this question. University of Warwick. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Professor of Philosophy. p. and despite the attacks on this legacy. Once obscurantism has been stripped away. although the danger of nihilism is a permanent human possibility. He can abandon his means of survival. NOT AN INDICTMENT OF KNOWLEDGE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. it insists that no problem of public policy should be resolved until all that should be heard about it has been heard and weighed carefully. 1982. (If that were not so. 1994. those who would abandon it on that account might as well pluck out their eyes because they are not able to see everything. AKH0234 REASON IS THE KEY TO SURVIVAL Ayn Rand. we recognize that the uncertainty principle is a tenet of physics.23. we cannot continue to practice the physical sciences as they have been traditionally understood. insistently. Penn State philosopher. ed. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY. AKH0235 REJECTING RATIONALISM LEADS TO ECOLOGICAL DISASTER Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. 1964. Rational decision-making respects the rights and dignity of all citizens. it has been triumphantly confirmed. Man has to be man by choice)and it is the task of ethics to teach him how to live like man. They are like men protected from the ocean by a dike who tear it down because it does not reach the heavens. For Habermas. Since my book is a defense of reason. University of Warwick.universals-which permit criticism of the given." as recent events from South Africa to Eastern Europe so vividly demonstrate. the uncertainty principle is a very certain item indeed. in an ecofeminist version of the credo. My claim is that. That is why scientists and engineers are trained to check and double-check their hunches. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE. 1993.176. excoriating it for nonexistent philosophical flaws. indeed. 1965. . RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. p.24-5. 1993. when viewed as a law of physics. Princeton philosopher. Hunter College. p. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.6. it nevertheless will not die-the demand for freedom and claim to dialogical reasonableness does have a "stubbornly transcending power. AKH0233 REASON IS CREATIVE Walter Kaufmann. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. The politics of Nazism-with its racist obsessions. The human ability to reason must be the starting-point for all our thinking. THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS. but one that has taught grim lessons in the course of history. as well as the occasional refugee from an unsatisfactory scientific career. Without an ability to see what is true and to separate it from what is false. p. The brazenness of this revelation is matched (and made possible) only by the brazenness of the Nazi epistemology. we merely use the very ability we attack.. its drive for profits adds toxins to the air long after it has become clear that this is in the end a stupid thing to do. p. In other words. not for its collectivism but for its undisguised irrationality. achieving anything but the subhuman)as the ugly horror of the antirational periods of mankind's history can demonstrate.e. the actual pervasive presence of nihilism today is due to a series of specific philosophical decisions in the past. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. It is a staple in Jeremy Rifkin's books. Man cannot survive as anything but man. p. One reason why Habermas "speaks" to so many of "us" and is so relevant to the "modern/postmodern" condition is because however feeble and fragile this aspect of the Enlightenment legacy has become. Reason is creative: it fashions general concepts--so-called-. If there is one thing above all that we have learned since their time--and especially in our time it is this: although reason has its limitations. Occasionally. 1994. 1994. But he cannot succeed. Princeton philosopher. The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value)and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man. AKH0230 REJECTION OF REASON LEADS TO NIHILISM Stanley Rosen. Given a large sample and a long period of time. Gary Madison. AKH0236 RECENT HISTORY VALIDATES THE CLAIMS OF REASON Richard Bernstein. is sheer illusion.224-5. Buoyed by a "stance" on science. concerning the way in which the statistical outcomes of repeated observations of various phenomena must be interrelated.192. This is not because any great number of science apostates has flocked to their banner. but rather a straightforward statement. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Professor of Philosophy. p. NIHILISM.230.12. It is an objective truth about the world. CRITIQUE OF RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY.223. mathematically quite simple.368. whatever it may be. p. the aspiration to be as God. Attacks on rationality put in jeopardy the very activities that are often being taken for granted. AKH0238 REJECTING RATIONALITY MEANS REJECTING SCIENCE Roger Trigg. New School for Social Research.

It points out that if men are going to negotiate their disagreements over values rationally. through reliance on fear. they. as if the validity of poetic. mock.190. Winston Smith. existing in its own right. Professors of Speech. Typically. p. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. 1952. one could be sincere and a Nazi or a Stalinist. or. and teaching the canon in one's classes or openly asking the seven questions would have been a recipe for death. To live intelligently. Prof. p. it suggests that the impact of our values on human interests provide just such a publicly observable kind of test. KANT'S POLITICAL WRITINGS. which subordinated the individual to the community. Many are attacking the claims of reason itself in the name of faith. ed. if one holds that the science and culture we teach are basically a "patriarchal construction" designed to support a "male hegemony. Clark University.' To live decently we must also recognize that this definition of him is more adequate than such popular definitions as a beast of prey. or religious claims to higher truth were thereby automatically proved.13.182. more specifically. and it points out. 1970. between reality and propaganda. the rejection of the League of Nations. O'Brien reminds Winston Smith that he will be paying the price for that old-fashioned belief "You believe that reality is something objective. half playfully. We may then realize that a denial of the claims of reason naturally leads to a denial of the claims of the heart too. Matters of public concern are too frequently resolved in similar ways. an illusioned robot. AKH0240 MORAL ARGUMENT REQUIRES AN OBJECTIVE AND PUBLIC BASIS Charles Frankel. and enlist his free consent in joint enterprises. between objective teaching and inculcating a set of beliefs. Professors of Speech. the patience to suspend judgement until all pertinent arguments have been heard. desire. But I tell you. on the other side. there can be no hope of avoiding catastrophe. Once that is granted. AKH0247 IRRATIONALISM RISKS NEO-FASCISM Richard Bernstein. The organic theory of the state. external. p. New School for Social Research. 1965. p. half mockingly. especially in a period in which basic irrationalist undercurrents. AKH0242 REASON AVOIDS OVER HASTY DECISIONS Russell Windes and Arthur Hastings. 1965. the suppression of minority thought during the McCarthy era. intuition. they have to appeal to evidence that is equally available to all. Iris Murdoch once shrewdly remarked "it is always a significant question to ask of any philosopher: what is he afraid of?" The answer for Habermas is clear. as a matter of principle. for example. These irrational approaches to conflict resolution often lead to errors. Of course. reason is irrelevant when it comes to fateful decisions. reality is not external . 1980.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 21 AKH0239 REASON PROTECTS US AGAINST CLEARLY FALLACIOUS CHOICES Walter Kaufmann. in short. by holding fast to the belief in an objective reality. 1973.21-2. in fact. It no longer mattered much whether the individual was politically free. disguised neo-conservative variations. History abounds with decisions made irrationally: the war with Mexico. we must recognize that man is not simply a 'rational animal. For the Romantic mode of thought introduced into German political thought a note of irrationalism which permeated almost all areas of German thinking for a century and a half between the Napoleonic wars and the end of the Second World War. It is "irrationalism" whatever guise it takes-whether ugly fascists forms. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE.. the voice of the blood. 1973. it is assumed that because reason alone cannot prove that we should choose this project rather than that. reject these distinctions. The Romantics' rejection of Kant's cosmopolitanism in politics meant that. one may choose a religion or a movement. Why does the use of rational processes guarantee better decision making? Precisely for the many reasons we have already examined in this chapter. the failure to react to the menace of dictators. the influence of an authority. what most plainly and positively distinguishes him from other animals is the power of conscious thought and responsible behavior. Indiana U Govt. and his followers were required to change their views overnight. Only those who suppose that most people do could possibly suppose that some of Hitler's or Stalin's followers did. 1956. But what reason and the new integrity can do is crucial: safeguard us against decisions and commitments that anyone who asked the seven questions would not make. Few people have ever lived by the canon. p. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY. Gary Madison. AKH0243 RATIONALITY IS KEY TO HUMAN DIGNITY Herbert Muller. It assumes that a philosophy which says that an appeal to human interests is the indispensable feature of moral or political thinking is espousing a particular set of moral values. and the time to prepare cogent arguments for and against each alternative. In these cases.22-3. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. Matters of personal concern may be privately resolved through the uncontrolled influence of emotion. the party line kept changing. AKH0244 REJECTION OF CRITICAL REASON PROMOTES FASCISM Walter Kaufman.. p. a frightened public may react to a problem in such an emotional manner that hurried decisions may strike at the roots of free government. metaphysical. If we respect him at all we must treat him as if he were rational. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. AKH0245 TOTALITARIANISM REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF RATIONALITY Walter Kaufman. Social groups may attempt to solve a problem by avoiding the problem altogether. and the patience to let public opinion gradually inform itself and make itself known to representatives. Many men now take a strange pleasure in emphasizing the limits of scientific knowledge. ignorance.362. Many campus feminists do. For when the Big Brothers in an Orwellian world justify their cynical manipulation of the many by the tyrannical few. The mistake in the notion that a relativistic philosophy is narrowly this-worldly or materialistic is a simple one. 1952." then one denies. THE USES OF THE PAST. But it is not. . O'Brien. rationalizations. and ignorance were not merely bliss but wisdom." . AKH0249 REJECTING OBJECTIVE REALITY LEADS TO TYRANNY Christina Sommers. the time to analyze alternatives carefully. The way is thus cleared for the positive irrationalism of the dictators the brutal contempt of mind exhibited in their policy when not their creed. influence of authority. and that the endeavor to think well is the basic morality. University of Bristol. and because through the use of rational means the possible use of irrational approaches is excluded.. 1994. too. In the light of recent history and of the use to which Plato was put by Nazi educators. Prof. ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY. Princeton philosopher. 1898. In a time when it has become so fashionable to attack. with his death-followed a year later by that of Schiller-(most of von Humboldt's political writings were only published many decades later)-the climate of opinion changed drastically.. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. Queens College and Stanford. p. time to investigate problems thoroughly. pride. intuition.' ridicules 'brain-trusts. and he may or may not have an immortal soul. p.67. Winston. and that if its powers are as inadequate as many seem pleased to think. Columbia philosopher. WHO STOLE FEMINISM?.. the patience to listen to opposing points of view. Habermas is not afraid to appear "old-fashioned"-to insist on "the stubbornness with which philosophy clings to the role of the 'guardian of reason' "-a role that "can hardly be dismissed as an idiosyncrasy of self-absorbed intellectuals. that the appeal to absolutes is intellectually stultifying and socially disruptive because it introduces considerations for which there is no common evidence. In the world of affairs such attitudes are translated into the kind of common sense that scorns all 'theory. Queens College and Stanford. People often reach decisions irrationally. prevailed. and so forth.. social pressures of conformity may force the acceptance of an alternative to a problem by people who have reason to doubt the wisdom of the alternative. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE.269. He shares his basic drives and reflexes with other animals. 1919-20.' and identifies learning with absent-mindedness. THE USES OF THE PAST.363. and that is pedagogically and politically irresponsible and dangerous. Princeton philosopher.97. tries to defy the torturer. If mockery is needed now it is Socratic mockery: irony at the expense of unreason and uncritical thinking. the heart. mistakes. even blunders and tragedies. There are basically two approaches to the resolution of conflict. decisions were made irrationally." AKH0248 IRRATIONALISM LED TO NAZISM Hans Reiss. Professor of Philosophy. and in thousands of others. It is merely trying to put the discussion of morals and politics on an objective and public basis. and so forth. p. or the playful antics of those who seek to domesticate Nietzsche. 1950-54. But nobody who applied the canon could have accepted Hitler's or Stalin's irrational views. the irrational and the rational approaches. or an imprisoned soul. 1935-38. the way is clear for one or another of the strategies of decidophobia. are transmuted once again into a dubious form of politics. Under Stalin. Princeton philosopher. 1848. again and again and again. If one believes that all knowledge is socially constructed to serve the powers that be. instinct. p. AKH0241 IRRATIONAL DECISION PROCESSES LEAD TO DISASTER Russell Windes and Arthur Hastings. The whole argument for liberty and democracy ultimately rests on Pascal's dictum that thought makes the whole dignity of man. rationalizing various reasons for such an avoidance. Rational decisionmaking emphasizes the fact that wise decisions ordinarily require time and patience. 1993. A mob may irrationally reach a decision which results in lawless violence. In 1984. argue that reality is "socially constructed" by those in power and that indoctrination is all we can expect. p. the Spanish-American War. general disarmament following World War II. between truth and dogma.213. Professor of German. AKH0246 REJECTING REASON LEADS TO AUTHORITARIAN CATASTROPHE Herbert Muller. Professor of Philosophy. George Orwell's tragic hero. Indiana U Govt. the influence of group pressures. ridicule the claim to Reason. any important difference between knowledge and ideology. we cannot shut our eyes to the great danger of philosophies that thus address themselves to man's irrationality while paralyzing his critical spirit.

AKH0258 REJECTING RATIONALISM LEADS TO NIHILISM Stanley Rosen. ed. self-assertive judgement. Professor of Philosophy. "a manifestation of the soul. We cannot insist upon the irrationality of our presuppositions without at the same time making irrational the consequences of those presuppositions. they will be led. p. the fear of a living creature deprived of any means to deal with reality.e. or some sort of intuitive. one may posit non-A). inhumanity. or reduce each other to silence. the issue of good or evil becomes. Professor of Philosophy. Why should he. 1982.. advocated a variety of anti-senses. of man's mind. HABERMAS AND MODERNITY.45. the critical function of reason is our best safe guard against fanaticism.227. CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL.302. and has become a disease of life. p. 1993. in the interest of persuasion. Kant. held to be irrelevant) in the field of morality. p. and an objectively perceivable reality is their only common frame of reference. But a man indoctrinated with the notion that reason is impotent and selfsacrifice is his moral duty. 1982. More precisely: reason does not permit man to feel metaphysically helpless. we can no longer talk of rationality. 1980. properly understood and accepted. it is better to begin with a logically adequate case and then to add the so-called emotional appeals. p. force becomes men's only way of dealing with one another. AKH0255 NEGLECTING REASON IN PERSUASION PRODUCES PROPAGANDA Glen Mills. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. but the deeper. Hunter College. p. The aspiring dictator may not be able to identify in philosophic terms the clash between reason and his particular schemes. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. By so doing. p. Professor of Philosophy. . i. The idea. What fundamental truths did the Nazis and the American collectivists and all their sources in the history of philosophy struggle to evade and annihilate? The answer is contained in two concepts. Professor of Philosophy. and especially with critical reason. ultimately.195. can be fixed. If men uphold reason.e. When every rational suggestion is as good as any other.with such an effect that "it itches. To omit the rational element of persuasion is to violate the ethical principle which holds that an appeal should not circumvent the critical thinking process. p. as is obvious in the existential and ontological attacks against "Platonism" mounted by Nietzsche and Heidegger. READINGS IN ARGUMENTATION. wielded by an elite endowed with an allegedly superior. that there is no target for our beliefs. and presuppose: reason and egoism. a young Nazi intellectual. The contemporary nihilist situation is essentially a mood of boredom with the tradition of western European rationalism. AKH0251 REASON IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH TOTALITARIANISM Leonard Piekoff. Princeton philosopher. From such a viewpoint. That would. and passionately urged position on the subject's fundamental issue. which is that affective appeals work best when they supplement the logical ones which were discussed under the third assumption. but the deeper. by definition.73. Obedience is the precondition of totalitarianism. If there is any reason for us to think as we do. AKH0260 REJECTING REASON LEADS TO NIHILISM Roger Trigg. NIHILISM.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 22 AKH0250 THE REJECTION OF REASON IS THE PRECONDITION OF TOTALITARIANISM Leonard Piekoff. . including that we alone are rational. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. There will be no difference between good or bad reasoning. if it is irrational? If whatever we say is irrational. 1982. . Penn State philosopher. suggests that all our reasoning is going to be unconstrained." "Even the most profound. to conclude that men should deal with one another as free agents. eds. and spread this mood of the times via the mass media . Hunter College. AKH0254 REJECTING REASON LEADS TO RELIANCE ON PHYSICAL FORCES Leonard Piekoff. The statism all these figures upheld or fostered is a result. "We are now at the end of the Age of Reason. In some (usually unverbalized) form. There are many men at all times who are willing to be done with reason. Penn State philosopher. University of Frankfurt. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. he knows that he cannot demand unthinking obedience from men. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. intensify. If a man believes that the good is a matter of arbitrary subjective choice. These two. or pseudoscience and the genuine article. NIHILISM. p.e. will agree with. by a process of voluntary. the root lies in their view of knowledge. no genuine object on which faith. Reason is the only means of communication among men.] "[t]he intellect has grown autocratic. This is the meaning of the fourth assumption.. p. AKH0259 REJECTING REASON LEADS TO INHUMANITY AND TERROR Walter Kaufmann. The preconditions of obedience are fear and guilt. Marx. in the sense of an unequivocal. anything.45. metaphysical fear created by inner helplessness. however. The stubbornness with which philosophy clings to the role of the "guardian of reason" can hardly be dismissed as an idiosyncrasy of self-absorbed intellectuals.302. ultimately. which is to say that the conditions of its intelligibility are independent of its own jurisdiction. is aware of it. p. But he. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. having shrugged aside the demands of logic. i. 1968. for him an issue of my feelings or theirs? No bridge.368-9." AKH0257 REASON IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO FORCE Ayn Rand. not merely the guilt of committing some specific crime. he who pretends to deny reason is surely absurd. anti-intellect doctrines.. with everything they include. when these are invalidated (i. Professor of Philosophy. It is not an accident that Plato. until he has first persuaded his future subjects to ditch their brains and their independent. understanding. In my opinion. If men reject reason. mystic means of cognition. and then endure. Jerry Anderson and Paul Dovre. will obey anyone and anything. not merely the existential fear created by terroristic policies. a populace which. the most learned of intellects touches the surface of things only. Professor of Philosophy. one may discuss it rationally." "The life of a race and of people is . University of Warwick. He knows that he can succeed only with a populace conditioned to seek neither evidence nor argument. then every Weltanschauung would define the intelligible and there would be as many conceptions of intelligibility as there are Weltanschauungen." Hitler declared to Hermann Rauschning[. and thereby removes the possibility of talking about truth.22-3. no purpose for our scientific investigation. In truth. Northwestern. Reason destroys fear. result in propaganda. settling their disputes by an appeal to the mind. 1985. and which also motivates the ostensibly anti-metaphysical or even anti-philosophical teachings of Marxism and positivism in its various contemporary guises. to motivate the acceptance of a decision. There will always be a ready audience for all who denounce it as essentially a parasite. which cannot be explained by the logic nor by causal analysis. There is a nazi epistemology. and the whole tradition of German nationalism from Luther on. 1982. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. p. justified or unjustified belief.. associative. to chaos or nothingness. especially in a period in which basic irrationalist undercurrents are transmuted once again into a dubious form of politics. or communication is possible to him. Hunter College. AKH0256 REASON IS A NECESSARY DEFENSE AGAINST NEO-CONSERVATIVISM Jurgen Habermas. and terror. are the immovable barrier to any attempt to establish totalitarian rule. Even if it is deemed necessary.46. AKH0261 THE REJECTION OF THE RATIONAL IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY Stanley Rosen. this reason must itself be reasonable: it must be intelligible. but it did take Heidegger to infer that poetry. these conceptions would contradict each other (since for every A. 1969.. metaphysical guilt of feeling that one is innately unworthy and immoral. thinking should replace rational discourse and become immune against critical reason. If they were not. they will be led. lead to. Professor of Philosophy. 1969. Richard Bernstein. but hardly really poetic. to conclude to conclude the opposite: that men have no way to deal with one another at all . then certainly we can say anything we like. AKH0253 TYRANNY IS GROUNDED IN THE REJECTION OF REASON Leonard Piekoff. rational persuasion. egoism destroys guilt. AKH0252 REJECTING REASON LED TO NAZISM Leonard Piekoff. egoism does not permit him to accept unearned guilt or to regard himself as a sacrificial animal. egoism does not permit him to feel metaphysically helpless.255. a mystical way except physical force. Professor of Speech. But if it is intelligible. philosopher. or gain their consent to the permanent rule of brutality." writes Rosenburg.193. It did not take Heidegger to discover that reason cannot build a metaphysical Tower of Babel. anti-logic. Hunter College. 1982. 1967. we make it possible for our opponent to reject our Weltanschauung without being required even to consider it. too." writes Gottfried Neese. it is precisely the neoconservatives who articulate. p. It arises from a tendency implicit in the origins of the modern revolution against the classical Greek conception of reason. whether scientific or whatever. Hegel. Hunter College. The threat of nihilism is as real as the threat of a narrow scientistic vision which insists on a monopoly of truth. consistent. As a result.

RIGHTS--THE NEW QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS. If. This is a way of saying that while it may be reasonable to keep your eyes open when making relatively petty decisions.308). 1995. because it looks like making the demand itself already presupposes what is demanded to be proved. humility in admitting one's own fallibility and the limitations of the human mind. 1979.of the tolerance that is indispensable for the pursuit of truth. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. any place from which their critique can be lodged. 1992. If these are not the highest values.23. DEBATING P. the applicability of which is constitutive of something's being an argument or proof. the "why" of all knowledge. philosopher. AKH0273 WE CAN HAVE PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE DESPITE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DOUBTS R. Rather. taking subject-centred reason as the whole of reason. AKH0263 IRRATIONALISM IS SELF-DEFEATING Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. based on honest thought and the best available knowledge. but that which considers each piece of apparent knowledge on its merit and retains whatever still appears to be knowledge when this consideration is completed. Professor of Philosophy. like all other such ideas. and that are more relevant than arbitrary absolutes. AKH0270 MORAL IRRATIONALISM CONTRADICTS COMMON SENSE EXPERIENCES Walter Kaufmann.. It enables a higher objectivity. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE. p. Professor at the Sorbonne.41. This view is exemplified in different ways by Kierkegaard and Heidegger and widely associated with existentialism. Univ. . Adorno and Horkheimer-. This statement is itself an idea about human affairs. 1952. straight lines. it defines the conditions of judgment. 1956. for social harmony. The situation is a bit like those challenges one used to hear in the 1960s. p. Hence a refusal on principle to say the last word about human history is not a refusal to say any word. It speaks only of itself and of its own terms. in a word. p.C. these writers are forced to generate an 'extraordinary discourse' that ' claims to operate outside the horizon of reason without being utterly irrational' (p. 1973. and this knowledge survives our discovery that we do not know any such thing-it is the not getting burned which weighs with us. This is also the case in geometry and trigonometry. it seems arbitrary to suggest that there can be no others. that any use of the principle of causality in the historical sciences leads the historian to repudiate "in fact the very object of his own science" is not only to make an impossible wager (who can think more than a few minutes without using the principle of reason?) but also to commit a major philosophical error: the error of identifying any use of the principle of reason with ontotheology. Imagine that he frankly admitted this and then offered to flip a coin or to pluck the petals of a daisy: to cut or not to cut. AKH0272 LOGIC AND MATH DON'T GIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD R. Cambridge. In short. p. and the means to further knowledge of man's history.135. Indiana U Govt. 1990.43. it is not easy to dispense with the traditional notion of objective truth. and our search for knowledge a search for the most efficient instrument and not.J. to cut or not to cut . Philosophy may claim justly that it diminishes the risk of error. Hollingdale. Of Essex. reason is irrelevant when one is confronted with fateful decisions. equilateral triangles. In engaging with the distortions of reason and rationality the philosophical discourses of modernity that are the target of Habermas's critical history . 1973. It is compatible with any of the first six strategies and need not be considered here at length as a separate strategy. not for knowledge. Princeton philosopher. Then the most plausible hypothesis--or one of the most plausible-would be chosen tentatively. AKH0265 IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSISTENTLY REPUDIATE REASON Luc Ferry. Derrida. and his reasons and the evidence cannot establish conclusively what is the cause of your ailment. RECOVERING ETHICAL LIFE. The moral irrationalist says more or less explicitly that when it comes to ultimate commitments reason is irrelevant. involves to his mind an ultimate commitment. Bataille. THE USES OF THE PAST. its reactionary rejection of the scientific worldview. p. there is no reason why people who hold a different point of view should pay any attention to it. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. Paul Berman. But the certainty attainable through deductive logic is gained at the cost of a divorce from everyday life and from the actual world. determines to reject. Bernstein. In other words. which are concerned entirely with ideal figures-perfect circles. Or is this need in reality a need. p.J. Prof. it seems to me undeniable that the radical critique of the principle of reason involves its practitioners in insurmountable aporias: to dare to write. p. but why: why "knowledge" at all? Clearly we have no "organ of knowledge" as we have an organ of digestion.the writings of Heidegger.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 23 AKH0262 INTELLECTUAL RELATIVISM IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY Charles Frankel. 1952.22.. and so forth. . and q. 1979. Foucault. once we have chosen it. It is one example of an idea whose truth transcends the historical circumstances in which it is uttered. theory of knowledge has to inquire. it is the outcome of comprehensive knowledge. p. Rather.159.. An argument of the form "If.113. leaving them without any possible rational foundation or ground. and for simple humanity.151-2. not with the dogged conviction that.191. The criticism aimed at. then p" is valid whatever propositions we put in place of "p" and "q". an unpredictable and impossibly complicated world is rendered predictable and calculable: perhaps that is the purpose. AKH0267 SOME JUDGMENTS ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. . In these instances. only a fool will say that any opinion is as good as any other opinion-and even a fool is apt to seek expert opinion when he gets sick. and that in some cases it renders the risk so small as to be practically negligible. As a consequence. and not any "search for the nature of reality". AKH0264 CRITIQUES OF REASON ARE SELF-DEFEATING J. this principle encourages a positive faith in positive values: of liberality. as if that were the essence of integrity. Prof. philosopher. You cannot in the same breath appeal to argument and proof and deny rationality. willingness to adventure. Above all. If. but when you go over fifty miles per hour shut your eyes! AKH0271 PHILOSOPHY CAN NEVER ARRIVE AT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY Bertrand Russell. then" variety. Even the Sociology of Knowledge implicitly invokes it.42. The conclusions in all these cases are of the "if . WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. Say that our most cherished beliefs are matters of opinion and it is then our business to get sound opinions. as we know. when students would ask for a proof of rationality. 1912. Such totalizing critiques of enlightened reason involve an inevitable recoil. or to pass any firm judgment. p. and more than this no prudent advocate of philosophy would claim to have performed. not only what we know. that the admission of a principle of relativity and uncertainty should not be simply depressing. a fuller understanding of present and past.M. indeed. THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. there is an embracing paradox about the idea that all ideas about human affairs are true only from the point of view of a particular culture or social class. it makes no sense to keep them open and examine your impulsive preferences as well as the most significant alternatives when a choice is likely to mold your future. but for something else security. Columbia philosopher. not an understanding of it.commit a metonymic fallacy. Prof. . have no counterpart in the real world and cannot even be drawn. "What is your argument for rationality?" But any demand for an "argument" or "proof" already presupposes standards of rationality. Are there convincing arguments for metaphysical realism? The demand for a proof of the existence of a reality that is independent of our representations of reality is a puzzling one. AKH0266 RATIONALITY CAN'T BE DISPROVEN BY RATIONAL ARGUMENT John Searle. it is not limited in its validity. and the choice of a religion or a movement or a school of thought. p. What you would expect him to do is to invoke the canon. if not-p then not-q. Indiana U Govt. It is a kind of self-defeating apostasy. A syllogism can tell us nothing about what really exists. HIGHER SUPERSTITION.27. Princeton philosopher. it is a doctrine which is true for some people but false for others. hospitality to new ideas. That some risk of error remains must be admitted. but it cannot tell us whether these propositions are true or false: it can give us no information about the actual world. is not that which. and this is also the case when we posit the existence of straight lines and circles. Moral irrationalism claims that because reason by itself cannot show people what to do. AKH0269 COMMON SENSE SHOWS WE SHOULD ACT ON THE MOST PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS Walter Kaufmann. And if there is one such idea. of Philosophy. To do more than this is not possible in a world where mistakes must occur. at all an attempt to discover "the nature of reality" ? Certain typical characteristics of our "knowledge" suggest that these questions are not misdirected: we know that fire causes heat so as not to get burned. breadth of spirit. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE. be careful when you drive slowly. AKH0268 THE LACK OF CERTAINTY DOESN'T DENY RELATIVE TRUTH Herbert Muller. on the other hand. none are more essential to the hopes of world order and peace. . EVEN IF NONE ARE CERTAIN Herbert Muller. First. I am therefore led to my final assumption. then it is an exception to the very generalization it utters. we know that the sum of the angles of an equilateral triangle is 180 degrees. p. Berkeley philosopher. THE USES OF THE PAST. p. Suppose you consult a doctor. This would be a paradigm of irresponsibility. we are not compelled to know as we are compelled to breathe: yet the need to know seems to be as ineradicable and "natural" as the need to breathe and digest. The left's flirtation with irrationalism. It enables wiser choices among the possibilities open to us-among goods that are no less real because they are relative. Hollingdale. since human beings are fallible. we have to stick with it. It does not destroy all possibility of knowledge and judgment. and we continue to know this even when we have understood that in reality equilateral triangles do not exist-here our need is for a simplification of reality. or growth and expansion ? Is "knowledge" only an instrument. of a life style like drifting or a way of thinking like exegetical thinking or possibly even Manichaeism.40. as did Arendt subsequent to Heidegger. In the end. From yet another perspective. is deplorable and contradicts its own deepest traditions. for instance. 1994. ed. without reason. which. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.

Maturity is the discovery of the quasi-transcendental basis of community as all we have and all we need. 1993. For Habermas. we contradict the very idea of knowledge. the sentiment and passion that alone can give force to its ideals. Of its importance "for all normal symbolic creative thinking. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. And this means that no general proposition referring to a matter of fact can ever be shown to be necessarily and universally true. does not mean that we cannot affirm and rely on truths that according to our present lights seem indisputable. 1956. AKH0281 SELECTIVE KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T IMPLY BIAS Charles Frankel. University of California Berkeley. It is often thought to involve him in complete skepticism. AKH0276 THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY IS DESTRUCTIVE AND MISGUIDED Christopher Lasch. and its power. Doing so also means that he is not a foundationalist as the modern philosophers were.J. Whatever higher faculties man may have-of feeling. consists in preserving the primacy of reason articulated most recently and fully in Kant's enlightenment critique while facing up to the loss of metaphysical ground of our substantive beliefs. This conclusion. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 24 AKH0274 THE SEARCH FOR CERTAINTY WHERE IT CAN'T BE OBTAINED IS IRRATIONAL A. London. 1956. knowing came to be split off from doing. Professors of Philosophy and anthropology.111. It is a romantic prejudice that a highly developed reason and a critical intelligence are not compatible with the creation of great art." Every human perspective. In this century many social scientists have displayed an incredibly naive confidence in the power of intelligence to control the 'behavior patterns' with which they play. quite simply. AKH0275 WE SHOULD ACT ON TRUTHS WHICH SEEM COMPELLING-NOT SUSPEND JUDGEMENT Stanley Fish. THE USES OF THE PAST. spontaneous life. intuition. Prof. 1952. p. The modern philosophers privilege subjectivity as the paradigm of philosophical efforts to discover the foundations of knowledge. THE USES OF THE PAST. The simple point is that all thinking has its physical. Whitman.13. the problem of modernity. p.. p.about ends and means in the regulation of practical behavior.. No product of social intercourse is more precious than reasonableness. Partial knowledge does not necessarily mean false knowledge.. Habermas claims to have moved beyond the philosophy of subjectivity into the philosophy of language. They can none of them ever become logically certain. and therefore abstractions. then. and we have no right to reject something just because we regard it as pernicious and false.. talking as if social conflict could be handled in the same way as infectious disease. . That reasoning. by the same token. For to see only part of what is to be seen does not mean that whatever we do see is partial in the sense of being prejudiced. and Hitler are on the same footing. for it recognizes the failure of the modern philosophers to ground the possibility of knowledge in the self-certainty of subjectivity. Stanford historian.219. But they rest. AKH0280 PARTIALITY OF PERSPECTIVES DOESN'T UNDERMINE TRUTH Charles Frankel. it is selective. These questions are the second line of argument on which the Sociology of Knowledge depends. leaps in art and science by means of which the creative process sometimes dons seven league boots. supposedly unlike the neo-Nietzschean French postmoderns. trance. it is our moral obligation to act on it and not defer action in the name of an interpretative future that may never arrive. and what goes best is apt to be blind unreason or brute force.232. applies not only to general propositions. University of Rochester. David Couzens Hoy. for love itself is a partial sentiment that often goes wrong. all knowledge is selective. on the basis of this truism. By its very nature. AKH0282 BIASES DON'T PRECLUDE RELATIVITY OBJECTIVE SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE Charles Frankel. AKH0278 REASON DOESN'T REQUIRE A METAPHYSICAL GROUND Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. For all knowledge involves generalizations. when it happens that the present shape of truth is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt. we are using the term "biased" in such a way that the distinction between being biased and being unbiased loses all meaning. 1952.30." In their pursuit of the absolute and immutable. By running the First Amendment up the nearest flagpole and rushing to salute it. Traditional rationalism has taken too supercilious an attitude toward the instinctive." there can be little doubt. was misguided to begin with. It can at best be a probable hypothesis. and human dignity. 1973. But this is a far cry from saying that all knowledge must inevitably be distorted or biased. Columbia philosopher. AKH0284 REASON ISN'T COMPATIBLE WITH INTUITION H. Columbia philosopher. But the fact--if I can use that word--that settled truths can always be upset. ed. It is difficult to see. University College. AKH0285 REASON IS NEEDED TO JUDGE OTHER METHODS OF INSIGHT Herbert Muller. Having substituted language for the moderns' philosophy of the subject. Prof. therefore. why this should be absolutely impossible in our social thinking. and Euripides give the lie to this legend. whether artistic or scientific. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. jealousy.113. . It alone "makes possible those . Truth may. 1977. ed. therefore nothing is ever really settled. as I understand it. theory from practice. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. University of California-Santa Cruz. among the moderns it may suffice to recall Leonardo and Goethe. p. p. he has not abandoned modern philosophy's goal of formulating and defending rationality and universality. became in their eyes "intrinsically an inferior sort of thing. Liberals generally have set their sights too high. or imagination." In the world view of Western philosophy. its responsibility. at least theoretically. 1946. or more essential to attaining and sharing the goods of life. or ecstasy-can be trusted only after they have been interpreted and judged by reason. Yet it is still reason that warns us against such unreasonable expectations. For the fact that the validity of a proposition cannot be logically guaranteed in no way entails that it is irrational for us to believe it.133. and human knowledge must always be incomplete. Professor of History." It is characterized by a "fusion of intermediate steps" that resists precise identification. . intuition is only partially so. As John Dewey pointed out. Gary Madison. In fact. but this in no way implies that human beings cannot be objective. is one which must be accepted by every consistent empiricist. Professor of Philosophy. Nietzsche. Instead. In its most mournful judgments of its frail powers it still proves its necessity. but this is not the case. and if it were not selective it would not be knowledge. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. leading to division. overestimating the rationality and virtue of free men. it distracted attention from the real business of philosophy the attempt to arrive at "concrete judgments. which we shall elaborate later on. in vision. then. but this has not prevented men from attaining what everyone accepts as objective knowledge in the study of the physical world. as Milton said. is limited and selective. p. 1995. but to all propositions which have a factual content.363. 1986. facts are notoriously interpretable and disputable. it need hardly be said. to demand certainty where probability is all that is obtainable. and hatred. Ayer. Habermas's stance is later than the modern one. we imply that we can never learn the objective facts about anything until we are omniscient.362. psychic. LANGUAGE." as Dewey put it. So it is tempting to think of Habermas himself as a postmodern. that all knowledge is therefore biased. p. he thinks that philosophy must recognize that its claims are fallible instead of absolute.134. p. what is irrational is to look for a guarantee where none can be forthcoming. p. but. Sophocles. and rejected their absolutism and foundationalism for empirical fallibilism means that in central ways he comes later than modernity. "Practical activity. Otherwise anything goes: the visions of Buddha. It may be that the two are no more than different aspects of the same sort of psychological functioning-that what we call intuition is simply a combination of rational and affective processes too minute to be identified. Indiana U Govt. a unique historical problem. goes as follows: although we ourselves are certain that the Holocaust was a fact. Stuart Hughes. philosophers took a disparaging view of the time-bound and contingent. it means exactly the opposite: in the absence of absolute certainty of the kind that can only be provided by revelation (something I do not rule out but have not yet experienced)} we must act on the basis of the certainty we have so far achieved. For it must be apparent that simply to oppose "intuition" to "reason" as two contradictory (or complementary) paths to knowledge offers no real solution to the difficulty.. Yet.. While reasoning is almost wholly conscious. This is partiality -partial truth. the student editors defaulted on that obligation and gave over their responsibility to a so-called principle that was not even to the point. AKH0279 REASON CORRECTS ITS OWN ABUSES Herbert Muller. 1956. always be in the course of emerging. And this. The quest for certainty. Columbia philosopher. Mohammed. for philosophy. On the contrary. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. and social determinants. Princeton philosopher. we shall find. Professor of philosophy. When we apply the term "biased" to our beliefs merely because they are selective. TRUTH AND LOGIC. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE." Even the most science-minded could scarcely object to such a characterization.133. 1994. and we must always be on guard against being so beguiled by its present shape that we ignore contrary evidence. on an unwitting play on the word "partiality. Yet intuition is not an "unconscious" process in the Freudian sense: it goes on in the area that Freud called the "preconscious" and William James termed the "fringe of consciousness. p. p. THE CASE FOR MODERN MAN. p. Marx. Physical science is not the immaculate product of the disembodied mind any more than social science is.72. AKH0283 REASON NEED NOT DESTROY CREATIVITY Walter Kaufmann. rather. Christ. Indiana U Govt. AKH0277 RATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY ARE CONSISTENT WITH ANTI-FOUNDATIONALISM David Couzens Hoy. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. which became an obsessive theme in modern thought when Descartes tried to ground philosophy in indubitable propositions. Professor of Law and English at Duke University. Among the ancients Aeschylus. More. the mind from the body. If we insist.

AKH0292 REASON IS KEY TO BENEVOLENCE Charles Taylor. (1992. University College. If man is to live on earth. Our science is built on our communal search for such rational warrant." or even himself devise an empirical test to validate his "knowledge.266). sociologist. but we cannot welcome their gifts indiscriminately without inviting superstition and random stupidity. not ignorance. not because moral positions are supposed to be unemotional or dispassionate quite the reverse is true . the source of all his evils. it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. but the refusal to know. however imperfect our practice. therefore. 1970. himself.118. You have discovered something when you can intervene to change things. in that today. 1946. putting their own aesthetic sensibility above the vital needs of masses of suffering people. . however it may have been arrived at. AKH0288 PRINCIPLES CAN BE DISCOVERED BY INTUITION BUT MUST BE VALIDATED BY SCIENCE A. For his part. philosopher. the development of human freedom provides him with the necessary clue. If I base my view about homosexuals on a personal emotional reaction ('they make me sick') you would reject that reason as well. Francis Bacon criticized the traditional Aristotelian sciences for having contributed nothing "to relieve the condition of mankind. from which it is not only 'possible. p.268. and since the purpose of nature is to realize man's essence. If life on earth is his purpose. p. LANGUAGE.J. If some men do not choose to think. they can survive only by imitating and repeating a routine of work discovered by others-but those others had to discover it. Rationality is man's basic virtue. LANGUAGE. University of Bristol. it is right for him to use his mind. and that cannot take place without a commitment to the real world. as a phobia or an obsession. he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the rational. University College. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. we do not deny the fact of his emotional involvement. p. it is essential to distinguish the psychological question. 1977. The genius of a poet is not sufficient warrant against such dangers. he would be able to express it. the mystic may protest that his intuition does reveal truths to him. and we accept this under the premiss of an active interventionism in nature. p. Professor of Philosophy. which is not blindness.94-5.but because the moral position is supposed to justify the emotional reaction. The fact that he cannot reveal what he "knows. As we have said many times already.a severe emotional reaction to a practice or a situation for which one cannot account . But the cognitive project is not so easily evaded. 1980. but the law of identity. nature has made man in order that he should become rational. makes it clear that the comparison with religious practices is not a threat to science or to cognitive inquiry: The religious project is optional: one may simply decline to enter in. 1978. We think of these as in principle curable or preventable evils. "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law. this does not mean that they can be intuitively validated. We do not in any way deny that a synthetic truth may be discovered by purely intuitive methods as well as by the rational method of induction. THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS. He would be able to indicate in some way or other how the genuineness of his discovery might be empirically determined. McGill University philosopher. the suspension of his consciousness. 1964." shows that his state of mystical intuition is not a genuinely cognitive state. For we can hardly maintain a priori that there are no ways of discovering true propositions except those which we ourselves employ. Modern science is in essential continuity in this respect with Bacon. We do not deny a priori that the mystic is able to discover truths by his own special methods. and not only profitable. Professor of Philosophy. philosopher and novelist. London. aqi H. which may have important social or political consequences. 1946. We don't accept that people should continue to be potential victims of hurricanes or famines. The answer is that we set no limit to the number of ways in which one may come to formulate a true proposition. philosopher and novelist. at least in theory.312. CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL. they can survive (temporarily) only by looting the goods produced by others-but those others had to produce them. for instance. 'We cannot. Indeed. p.that we tend to describe. We are heirs of Bacon. Princeton philosopher. but the refusal to see. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. as for the sciences. Or (to put it differently) since nature has endowed man with reason. do something or other. it is right to act on his own free judgment. is the act of unfocusing his mind. as such. 1991. But while it must be recognized that scientific laws are often discovered through a process of intuition. Stuart Hughes. Those who react against the place it has come to take in our lives on aesthetic or lifestyle grounds (and this has been a large part of the protest over the decades since the eighteenth century) are often taxed by defenders with being morally callous and unimaginative. to him the intuitionist position made possible the evasion of responsibility for scientific judgments. a commitment to a course of blind destruction. If some men do not choose to think or to work. p. How is it certified as knowledge? AKH0289 INTUITIONS MUST BE EXPRESSIBLE AS EMPIRICAL PROPOSITIONS A. Only in so far as they measure up to such criticism can intuitions constitute knowledge." He proposed in their stead a model of science whose criterion of truth would be instrumental efficacy. TRUTH AND LOGIC. 1946. in order to see whether they are verified or confuted by our empirical observations. p. Already in the early seventeenth century. and not vice versa. THE ETHICS OF AUTHENTICITY. so far from producing propositions which are empirically verified. Our immediate intuitions of meaning may be real and. it is just this sort of position .25. survive or perish in proportion to the degree of their rationality. the source of all his other virtues. in this issue.' he says. is anti-life. Professor of German. must eat this or that. he merely gives us indirect information about the condition of his own mind. Since his main concern is with human freedom. INTUITION MUST BE SUBJECT TO CRITICAL REASON Talcot Parsons. And therefore we say that his intuition has not revealed to him any facts.36. For philosophy. p. p. Regardless of what choice is made. regardless of what blind. LANGUAGE.43. vision and intuition are indispensable. p. or none would have survived. Man's basic vice. And without such criticism the door is opened to any number of uncontrolled and unverifiable allegations. irrational. must be subject to the test of actual experience. KANT'S POLITICAL WRITINGS. AKH0295 RATIONALITY IS THE NECESSARY CONDITION OF HUMAN SURVIVAL Ayn Rand. We distinguish moral positions from emotional reactions. Ayer. We wait to hear what are the propositions which embody his discoveries.118-9 It is no use his saying that he has apprehended facts but is unable to express them. p.250. admittedly a subjective one. Irrationality is the rejection of man's means of survival and. 'act effectively without rationally warranted confidence in our (putative) knowledge' (p. or evil course they may choose to pursue-the fact remains that reason is man's means of survival and that men prosper or fail. TRUTH AND LOGIC. Professor of Philosophy. Ayer. correct.J. But we do say that every synthetic proposition. but profitable. 1993. For we know that if he really had acquired any information. AKH0291 REASON IS NEEDED TO JUSTIFY OUR EMOTIONAL RESPONSES Ronald Dworkin. AKH0294 LIFE REQUIRES RATIONAL INQUIRY Roger Trigg. move here or there. by any man or by any number of men. University College. or none would have survived. AKH0290 INEXPRESSIBLE INTUITIONS AREN'T GENUINE COGNITIVE STATES A. University of Warwick. is unable to produce any intelligible propositions at all.265) It seems that our need to survive and to flourish in this world will immediately generate the need for rational inquiry. So that in describing his vision the mystic does not give us any information about the external world. We have come to accept a universal solidarity today. and that we who do not possess this faculty of intuition can have no ground for denying that it is a cognitive faculty. AKH0293 REASON IS THE KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVAL Ayn Rand. in lay terms. Kant adopts a point of view. London.104-5. THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS.137. 1964. Rescher. we mount great international campaigns for famine relief or to help the victims of floods. but necessary' to look at the facts of history. Ayer. even though he cannot explain to others what these truths are. Weber had a very deep and strong ethical feeling on this point. AKH0287 TO BE RELIABLE.17. How does our knowledge originate? from the logical question. If a man is unable to produce such reasons. NYU law prof. but we do not take this involvement as demonstrating his moral conviction. London. This practical and universal benevolence also gives a crucial place to instrumental reason. But their interpretation cannot dispense with a rationally consistent system of theoretical concepts. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. We must act to live. A is A-and Man is Man. He therefore assumes that a plan of nature must intend the education of mankind to a state of freedom. But what is important about Bacon is that he reminds us that the thrust behind this new science was not only epistemological but also moral. AKH0297 RATIONALITY IS THE ESSENCE OF HUMAN NATURE Hans Reiss.J. p. that which is anti-mind." AKH0296 REJECTING RATIONALITY MEANS REJECTING LIFE Ayn Rand. TRUTH AND LOGIC. p. But the mystic. Professor of Philosophy. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. 1967.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 25 AKH0286 UNCHECKED INTUITION INVITES SUPERSTITION AND STUPIDITY Walter Kaufmann. TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY.

Moreover. The most important achievement of such an approach is the possibility of clarifying a concept of communicative rationality that escapes the snares of Western logocentrism. AKH0305 THE CHOICE OF REASON IS HISTORICALLY VINDICATED Leonard Peikoff. KANT'S POLITICAL WRITINGS. HABERMAS AND MODERNITY. More recently.211. For in advancing any theory we are always making universal validity claims which are necessarily open to ongoing criticism and revision. Derrida denies being an enemy of reason. To advance the spread of rationality is a moral obligation. For he argues that the logic of all these "positions " when we think them through undermines the possibility of critique that is rationally grounded and warranted. in order to give a reason in a particular case. AND PUBLIC THEOLOGY. and reasons cannot apply in a particular case only. Derrida recognizes that his own discourse is subject to the constraints and rigors of philosophical (as opposed to those of "literary") expression. p. LANGUAGE. introduction to POSTMETAPHYSICAL THINKING by Jurgen Habermas. that particular ethical and value judgments can be supported by reasons. need not set themselves up in opposition to the principle of reason. Richard Bernstein. not simply a new model that replaces an old one. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. 1946. MODERNITY. AKH0308 HABERMAS IS GERMANY'S LEADING PHILOSOPHER Francis Fiorenza. normative rightness. is tantamount to claiming that good reasons can be given in support of it. AKH0303 TRUTH CLAIMS REQUIRE THE EVALUATION OF REASONS William Hohengarter.and with the historical fate of a reason that has been arrested again and again. Professor of Theology. p. AKH0307 REASON IS INCLUDED IN ALL SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION Jurgen Habermas. a thousand years later. New School for Social Research. HABERMAS. and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. with a built-in self-destructor. Following Peukert's interpretation that the critique of reason belongs to the tradition of the Enlightenment. "Because you promised to do it" or ''Because it gives pleasure. For we define a rational belief as one which is arrived at by the methods which we now consider reliable. Lamb underscores the point that rationality entails a learning and self-correcting process. ETHICS. one must presuppose a general proposition. therefore. we evaluate truth claims not by directly comparing a statement with a state of affairs in the objective world but by examining the reasons that a speaker can give in support of what she says. In this respect. The result was a magnificent new country. If they apply in one case. Habermas argues that. U of Michigan philosopher. relativism decisionism. AKH0302 EVEN DERRIDA REJECTS IRRATIONALISM David Couzens Hoy. Professor of Philosophy. His dialectical interpretation of modernity steers the middle path between a modern dogmatism and a postmodern nihilism. in general. Their influence extends over a broad range of disciplines that include philosophy. Gary Madison. University of Bristol.211. p. 1973. p. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. and public policy. Professor of Philosophy.196. 1992. Jurgen Habermas is by far the most pre-eminent and influential philosopher in Germany. social theory. according to the extent of their knowledge and their virtue. Instead of following Nietzsche's path of a totalizing and self-referential critique of reason.37..100. Throughout his intellectual career Habermas has relentlessly sought to track down. ethics. it seems to me. and neo-Aristotelian contexualism that have been so fashionable in the twentieth century. Against the radical critics of Western philosophy he argues that the wholesale rejection of the metaphysical tradition inevitably undercuts the possibility of rational critique itself. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. p. Professor of Philosophy. ed. He criticizes all forms of totalizing critique claiming that they lead to performative contradictions. Gary Madison. Like most contemporary thinkers. they apply in all similar cases. Here the validity dimensions of propositional truth. Professor of Philosophy. There is no absolute standard of rationality. 1993. noted earlier. University College. the founders of America struggled to reaffirm the choice of their Renaissance ancestors. AKH0310 RATIONALITY IS DEFINED AS THE BEST AVAILABLE METHODS IN PRACTICE A. introduction to POSTMETAPHYSICAL THINKING by Jurgen Habermas. whether it be via Heidegger to Derrida. 1982.311." "If thought can no longer operate in the realms of truth and validity claims then analysis and critique lose their meaning. ed. p. p. AKH0306 RATIONALITY IS GROUNDED IN EVERYDAY CONVERSATIONAL PRACTICES Jurgen Habermas. Similarly. that is. Professor of philosophy. In the ancient world. 1992. for this advance is the only way in which our moral nature can be fully realised. he has acknowledged that his own discourse is institutionally framed by the philosophical profession. of its potential for domination as well as emancipation. or valid. p. after centuries of a gradual decline. University of Frankfurt. Richard Bernstein. AKH0309 HABERMAS AVOIDS DOGMATISM AND POSTMODERN NIHILISM Francis Fiorenza. 1992. Professor of Philosophy. ed.vii. If in the future we were to adopt different methods. 1992. THE OMINOUS PARALLELS. Men chose Christianity. he cautions against relinquishing that conception altogether. In contrast to the global postmodern criticisms of modernity. 1970.197. MODERNITY. p. Rorty takes Western logocentrism as an indication of the exhaustion of our philosophical discourse and a reason to bid adieu to philosophy as such. ed. We trust the methods of contemporary science because they have been successful in practice. it is more promising to seek this end through the analysis of the already operative potential for rationality contained in the everyday practices of communication.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 26 AKH0298 ETHICAL ARGUMENT REQUIRES REASON William Frankena. The breath and depth of his writings are remarkable. This is the way in which he conceives of his own theory of communicative action. then beliefs which are now rational might become irrational from the standpoint of these new methods. AKH0299 ADVANCING RATIONALITY IS A MORAL OBLIGATION Hans Reiss. Professor of Philosophy. p. "Oh. the choice was the ideas of classical civilization or the ideas of Christianity. The result was the Dark Ages. Harvard. Men chose Aquinas.J. If Jones makes such a judgment. University of Frankfurt. In the Enlightenment world. Habermas's fallibilism is not incompatible with making universal claims and seeking to redeem them with the strongest arguments we can give. and to expect an answer like." If he answers. Early in his career he opposed the interpretation of deconstruction as advocating the death of philosophy. . AKH0304 UNIVERSAL VALIDITY CLAIMS ARE LEGITIMATE WHEN SUBJECT TO ONGOING CRITICISM Richard Bernstein." One is left only with the seductions of a "bad" aestheticism that "enthrones taste.. educational theory. and defeat the varieties of nihilism. so does the specific form of the choice.8. the 'Yes' and 'No' of the palate (BGE p. This point is connected with the fact. University of California-Santa Cruz. In Habermas's words: "The speaker refers with his validity claim to a potential of reasons that could be brought to bear for it. 1993. At the same time. Habermas sees no epistemological difference between a theory of communicative action and any other scientific theory." These reasons are in turn evaluated in terms of their intersubjective acceptability as good reasons for holding something to be the case. expose. however. The task of criticism involves a double gesture of formulating rationally questions about the limits of rational endeavors. the choice was Augustine or Aquinas. TRUTH AND LOGIC. but that also stubbornly raises its voice in every inconspicuous act of successful communication. 1985.242-3. What he says about Nietzsche applies equally to all those who work in his shadow (including Derrida): "Nietzsche's critique consumes the critical impulse itself. Derrida explicitly acknowledges that his own efforts conform to the principle of reason. Hunter College. Rather. p.. 1993.x. Professor of German." AKH0301 RADICAL CRITIQUE REQUIRES REASON William Hohengarter. New School for Social Research. ed. linguistics. hermeneutics. He may want to challenge the rationality of many established conceptual distinctions or institutional practices. and subjective truthfulness or authenticity are intermeshed with each other.25. London. four centuries later. for no reason whatsoever. it is appropriate to ask him for his reason for believing that the act is right or the object good. Since men's grasp of reason and their versions of non-reason differ from era to era. and its specific result. p. nor need they give way to 'irrationalism'" Since philosophy has always been the "place" where reason must be respected. Ayer.1. Habermas is critical of the Western metaphysical tradition and its exaggerated conception of reason. or via Bataille to Foucault.. historicism. AND PUBLIC THEOLOGY. Claiming that one's statement is true. The result was the Renaissance. Harvard. Habermas criticizes the modern Enlightenment yet does not abandon the project of the Enlightenment. it involves an ongoing and critical process so that we can and must interpret modernity in a way that makes us aware of its ambiguity. 341) as the sole organ of knowledge beyond Truth and Falsity beyond Good and Evil. This way of reading the tradition can not be maintained if philosophy can be transformed so as to enable it to cope with the entire spectrum of aspects of rationality . p. and he does not recommend that others who would share in these efforts try to contest reason: "Those who venture along this path. AKH0300 NEGLECTING RATIONAL TRUTH UNDERMINE ALL MEANINGFUL CRITIQUE Richard Bernstein.. He thus defends the view that genuinely postmetaphysical thinking can remain critical only if it preserves the idea of reason derived from the tradition while stripping it of its metaphysical trappings. HABERMAS. 1985. but they could not make it stick historically. Professor of Theology. ideologically misused and distorted. But the fact that this is possible has no bearing on the fact that these beliefs are rational now. Gary Madison. just as there is no method of constructing hypotheses which is guaranteed to be reliable. HABERMAS AND MODERNITY. Communicative action is. anthropology. Here too his motivations are not exclusively theoretical-they are motivated by his practical concerns." we are puzzled and feel that he has misled us by using ethical or value terms at all. Moral and value judgments imply reasons. In the medieval world.

Harvard philosopher. And this means that it is a fictitious problem. THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. Only then can we see any order in nature. 1946. Hume had convincingly refuted the possibility of philosophically justifying induction. and the truth of beliefs hangs on what they assert. If you hear thunder without having seen lightning. he infers a human being. For him. 1946. p. since all genuine problems are at least theoretically capable of being solved: and the credit of natural science is not impaired by the fact that some philosophers continue to be puzzled by it. 1978. For it is his failure to make this second point clear that has given his views the air of paradox which has caused them to be so much undervalued and misunderstood. of things done now for the sake of their future effects. p. Ayer. Professor of Philosophy. AKH0315 IT IS RATIONAL TO EXPECT THE FUTURE TO REPEAT THE PAST A. OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD. has happened in accordance with causal laws. LANGUAGE.296-7. but almost our whole vocabulary is filled with the idea of activity. so far as our observation has extended. while insisting more strongly than he did that no better justification is required. AKH0313 HUME DIDN'T DENY THE EXISTENCE OF CAUSE A. the genealogy of these assertions in the mind of the believer. the fact that a certain form of procedure has always been successful in practice affords no logical guarantee that it will continue to be so. it is because his treatment of causation. AKH0316 CAUSALITY FOLLOWS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF INDUCTION Bertrand Russell. AKH0318 OUR WHOLE WAY OF SPEAKING ABOUT REALITY ASSUMES CAUSE Bertrand Russell. AKH0319 OUR MENTAL STRUCTURES NECESSITATE CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS Hans Reiss. as it could not be if it asserted nothing and had no object beyond itself which it pointed to and professed to describe. London. but the fact that it is a belief. works of analysis. Thus it appears that there is no possible way of solving the problem of induction. you infer that there nevertheless was a flash. Of course. and he might justify his inference by the general proposition. for him causality was only the result of a habitual association of the mind. and limping skepticism. London. LANGUAGE. far from proving that it must be false. If the principle is unsound we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future. actually put forward any view concerning the nature of philosophical propositions themselves. not by extending knowledge and testing it further. All our conduct is based upon associations which have worked in the past. The question is whether such an object as they describe lies in fact in the quarter where they assert it to lie. The general principles of science. for we must see it within the framework of our mind. p. Cambridge. When we see what looks like our best friend approaching us. Williams College. It is for science and further investigation of the object to pronounce on the truth of any belief. So that whilst all the animals trust their senses and live. would. no definite sequence.50. they are beliefs. though interesting. or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall. p. AKH0314 THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION IS A BOGUS ONE A. and that all the empirical evidence we possess is compatible with the view that everything. Ayer. to reject Hume's actual definitions of a cause. 1923. KANT'S POLITICAL WRITINGS. TRUTH AND LOGIC. p. control.12-3. we shall have no reason to suppose that his body is not inhabited by the mind of our worst enemy or of some total stranger. such as the belief in the reign of law. but by reviewing it maliciously. not on their origin. LANGUAGE. All this is sheer sophistry. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence. But the failure of causal order offers no hope for freedom. as Hume was in his deeper moments of insight. This whole school criticises knowledge. Professor of Philosophy. The world of appearance is thus conditioned by being located in the particulars of space and time and ordered by a priori concepts of our understanding or categories such as causality. or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future. to a speechless wonder. But then it is a mistake to demand a guarantee where it is logically impossible to obtain one. whereas in fact he was concerned only with defining it. Cambridge. p. 1970. 1929. argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present. Cambridge. 1929. and this likelihood is dependent for its validity upon the inductive principle. Professor of Philosophy. AKH0321 HUME'S SKEPTICISM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH PRACTICAL EXISTENCE George Santayana. uniformity. Indeed. If this is not universally conceded. Professor of Philosophy. TRUTH AND LOGIC. the method of establishing necessary universal laws proceeding from individual instances. "All marks in the ground shaped like a human foot are subsequent to a human being's standing where the marks are. Where objects and events possess no regular constitution. But they are not mere images. SKEPTICISM AND ANIMAL FAITH. TRUTH AND LOGIC. p. Professor of Philosophy.17. All arguments which. p. but constructions of the mind used for the purpose of understanding nature. to stop living.69. we cannot know the world other than as it appears to us. 1946. University College. which is the main feature of his philosophical work. Not only do memory and hope make a difference in our feelings as regards past and future. But although we are obliged.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 27 AKH0311 ALL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CAUSAL LAWS Bertrand Russell. TRUTH AND LOGIC. are most questionable. Professor of Philosophy. 1912. By a "causal law" I mean any general proposition in virtue of which it is possible to infer the existence of one thing or event from the existence of another or of a number of others. London. LANGUAGE. THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. if he was consistent. because of the general proposition.68-9. Cambridge. p. All transitive verbs involve the notion of cause as activity. but those of his works which are commonly accounted philosophical are. What we have said so far is that there have been hitherto certain observed casual laws. Hume's writings roused Kant from his 'dogmatic slumber'. no matter how much corroborated and corrected. OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD. philosophy would persuade man alone not to trust them and. every opportunity for will. p.J. When we hear a man speaking. and would have to be replaced by some cumbrous periphrasis before this notion could be eliminated. How shall one proceed to cure headaches if pain occurs for no reason at all? What drug could the physician recommend? Both head and drug would lose their lawful outlines. All these inferences require causal laws for their justification. on the tacit assumption that knowledge is impossible. University College. unless the inductive principle is assumed. as it is ordinarily conceived.J. in any case they have grown up humanly. AKH0320 ALL INFERENCES RELY ON CAUSAL LAWS Bertrand Russell. p. for these reasons.J. Ayer. "All thunder is preceded by lightning. And we agree with him that there can be no other justification for inductive reasoning than its success in practice. University College. on the basis of experience. indeed. to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone. so far as I know." When Robinson Crusoe sees a footprint. assume the inductive principle. is often misinterpreted. renders it possibly true. he found it necessary to start his enquiry not from objects of experience. we infer that he has certain thoughts. Purpose can neither formulate nor execute itself apart from dependable sequences in nature. Professor of Philosophy. University of Bristol. OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD. But in that case this review of knowledge and all this shrewd psychology are themselves worthless. the human will gets no intellectual content in terms of which to assert its direction and its program. University College. Professor of Philosophy. and they may have grown up in the way these critics suggest. . is irrelevant. Certainly the vulgar notions of nature. We can never explain the world as it appears to us merely by reference to experience. p. THE PARADOX OF CAUSE. it destroys every shred of security. or purpose quite as effectively as does necessity. In order to refute Hume and to vindicate science philosophically. It is true that Hume does not. In fact. 1946. coherence and order are imposed on nature by our minds. hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. He has been accused of denying causation. AKH0322 HUME BELIEVED THAT SUCCESS IN PRACTICE JUSTIFIES INDUCTION A. but from the mind. AKH0312 THE REJECTION OF CAUSE UNDERMINES EFFECTIVE AGENCY John William Miller. For when we come to define rationality we shall find that for us "being rational" entails being guided in a particular fashion by past experience.174. 1912. So far is he from asserting that no causal propositions are true that he is himself at pains to give rules for judging of the existence of causes and effects. 1929. It will remain a mere belief to the end. Ayer.54. All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood.J. Professor of Philosophy.55. This does not mean that it is irrational to expect future experience to conform to the past. Professor of Philosophy. our view of the nature of causation remains substantially the same as his." When we see the sun set. to do so we need necessary principles logically prior to and independent of experience.164-5. Professor of German. Cambridge. apart from certain passages which deal with questions of psychology. and which we therefore regard as likely to work in the future. and we are reduced. the laws of nature were not inherent in nature. London. we expect that it will rise again the next day. AKH0317 INDUCTION CAN'T BE LOGICALLY PROVEN BUT IT'S A PRACTICAL NECESSITY Bertrand Russell. and the belief that every event must have a cause. In other words. cease to be recognizable.50. both mental and physical.171. are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life. and even the scientific ones. Anarchy in nature excludes power.

In embracing the brittle skepticism of postmodern thought. would-be leftists are never more than an inch away from passivity. in its skepticism about everything save itself. Beyond modernity.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 28 AKH0323 HUME RECOMMENDS FORGETTING THE PROBLEM OF CAUSALITY IN PRACTICAL LIFE R. Professor of Law. Rather than entering a period of post-modernity. 1994. p. 1993. Although not named in the Adorno Prize speech. For the whole point of postmodern theorizing was. A. Yet there was nothing in their leftism to prevent a substantial number of them from tilting to an opposite extreme and celebrating dictators like Mao Zedong. In scorning the Enlightenment. in our view-is that the doctrine. the Viva la muerte!. There is no need to release hold of 'modernism' yet. upon which fascism was erected in the first half of this century. as to blow your mind. It is time. p. What actually triggered the polemic was Habermas's attack on French "poststructuralism. They might.75.210. an incarnation of the anti-Philosopher's Stone. HUME. his official position is that of a determinist. London. Secondly. how is it possible that he saw all this almost a century ago? Why was Nietzsche able to make such a breakthrough without as he freely said. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. so wild. if Nietzsche was the principal author disconnecting postmodernity from modernity. p.47-8. AKH0334 DERRIDA IS THE CHARACTERISTIC POSTMODERN THINKER Richard Bernstein. HIGHER SUPERSTITION." is nevertheless taken to be the "postmodern" thinker par excellence. after all. 1990. Professor of Philosophy. Throughout his analysis of the passions. doing anything more than uncovering the hidden presuppositions of the Enlightenment itself? AKH0331 WE AREN'T ENTERING A POSTMODERN PERIOD CURRENTLY Anthony Giddens. that formed and sustained its most deeply held egalitarian ideals. and one which precludes the possibility of a positive alternative. p. what should be rejected is the (neo)conservative ideology of postmodernity. p. indeed. he speaks of the probabilities which cause them as belonging to one or other of two kinds. it is because we like it more. p. Considering the relish with which Hume denies the necessity of the proposition that every event has a cause.273.225. . but this is a rare departure from his usual view that 'what the vulgar call chance is nothing but a secret and concealed cause' (T I30). to abandon the superstition that natural science cannot be regarded as logically respectable until philosophers have solved the problem of induction. FIVE FACES OF MODERNITY. Baudrillard in addition to Derrida and Foucault-is. 1994. J. AKH0333 ENLIGHTENMENT IDEALS DON'T NEED TO BE ABANDONED Anthony Giddens. only an unfinished one. ineffectuality. DEBATING P. AKH0324 EVEN HUME HAD TO ASSUME CAUSATION WHEN HE FORMULATED ETHICAL AND POLITICAL PRINCIPLES. p. 1987. to adopt positions that were so far out. If we do prefer one. we can perceive the contours of a new and different order. and cynical despair. the postmodern left is clearly cutting away the roots. AKH0330 POSTMODERNISM RESTS ON WHAT IT REJECTS--A GRAND THEORY OF HISTORY Anthony Giddens. Postmodern relativism undercuts any possible protest grounded on the notion of objectivity. But the alternative he ended up embracing was the Nazism of Adolf Hitler. Professor of Philosophy. 1994.9-10. HOUSTON LAW REVIEW. 1992. emotional as well as intellectual. we may be surprised to discover how firmly he accepts its truth. There is a paradox in all this. whether chiefly derived from one philosophical source or drawing eclectically on a flock of them-Lyotard. 1993. I think it valid to say that social and political theory is currently going through a period of transition. so long as the horrors of liberal civilization were being opposed. and even the right to stand for what it has always stood for and to be understood as it has always been understood. Everything it touches is drained of value.206. be more reluctant to accept that science has only lost its authority because all human reason has been rendered impotent. AKH0326 POSTMODERNISM LEADS TO FASCIST NIHILISM Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. The difference is between a critical project which might choose to exempt itself from presenting a positive alternative. is the reason he does it. Hollingdale. 1990. Friedrich Nietzsche. roughly speaking. Indiana University.73. Professor of Sociology. RATIONALITY AND SCIENCE. Habermas wanted to stress their common descent not only from Heidegger but ultimately from the most antimodern of modern philosophers. Jean Francois Lyotard.J. a passage in the Treatise where. AKH0335 POSTMODERNISM DEVALUES EVERYTHING Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. validity.881. It entails a perspectivism that finds no basis for epistemological distinctions between science and fables. Ayer. at its most virulent. Professor of Philosophy.C. 1982. to renounce the ideals of the Enlightenment as false gods to be replaced by a brutish acquiescence in the reality of power. New York University Institute for the Humanities. TRUTH AND LOGIC. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. fellow.85. where the point is precisely to dismantle with no ground left. ed. Indiana University. 1979. Cambridge. the problem of finding a way to prove that certain empirical generalizations which are derived from past experience will hold good also in the future. Professor of Sociology. Horkheimer. So far as he can see. is hardly distinguishable from the moral blankness. University College. however. was probably the main target of Habermas's criticism. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. There is no abstract justification for preferring one principle to another. who was second to none in holding Western rationalism and humanism responsible for all the unhappiness of modern life and for hinting at millenarian alternatives. What should be rejected is not modernity. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION. p. FIVE FACES OF MODERNITY. 1980. 1987. p. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. Moreover. LANGUAGE. 1946. We can no longer legitimate any of our activities. Derrida. AKH0337 POST-MODERNISM IS POLITICALLY REACTIONARY Matei Calinescu. but is only one language game amongst many. Cambridge. according as the object is already certain but 'uncertain to our judgement' or 'when the object is really in itself uncertain. or Benjamin is still a source of "emulation for the intellectual". It dethrones science by attacking the very human rationality which has produced science. p. which is "post-modern".66. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY. Fall 1994. a third French man. All probable reasoning follows taste and sentiment. Cambridge. therefore. and his exploration of the foundations of morals and politics. AKH0328 POSTMODERNISM UNDERMINES REASON AND TRUTH Roger Trigg. philosopher. I shall claim. The many dazzlements of '68 Philosophy were never any use in addressing mundane questions like these. Fisher goes on to argue that with the radicalized extension represented by postmodernism. Professor of Sociology." AKH0332 MODERNITY ISN'T A FAILED PROJECT Matei Calinescu. But modernity or the "project of the Enlightenment. Some may welcome the conclusion that science cannot monopolize human reason. authority. the Paris ultra-radicals who imbibed the theories of '68 Philosophy were anything but right wing. Ayer. p. Oxford philosopher. and to be determined by chance' (T 444).3." Habermas argues from the standpoint of his own emancipatory philosophy. we are moving into one in which the consequences of modernity are becoming more radicalized and universalized than before. This skeptical doubt concerning the validity of all non-deductive reasoning Hume calls a "malady" from which one can free oneself only by "carelessness and inattention": one can live happily only by forgetting what one knows. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.. p.135. rather than terminal collapse. To speak of post-modernity as superseding modernity appears to invoke that very thing which is declared (now) to be impossible: giving some coherence to history and pinpointing our place in it. A criticism frequently advanced by opponents of postmodernism-justifiably. who rarely even mentions "modernity" or "postmodernity. AKH0336 THE POSTMODERN PERSPECTIVE PRECLUDES A POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE Francis Mootz. There is. but only a multiplicity of standpoints which amounts to no standpoint--an everywhere which is nowhere--the enabling suspicion of the older tradition is extended and intensified into paranoia--and thus becomes disabling. Of course. p. the sole reason for studying philosophy is that one likes to do it: that." defined as a conservative rejection of modernity and its central values of rationality and universality. is not a failed project. In this speech the neo-Marxist Habermas identifies the notion of postmodernity with the (neo)conservative position of those who believe that modernity has failed and that the utopian impulses it gave rise to should therefore be suppressed.49. On this understanding post-modernism is an attack on notions of reason and truth. The problem of induction is. AKH0325 THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION DOESN'T REFUTE SCIENCE A. p. AKH0327 POSTMODERN THOUGHT LEADS TO SUPPORT FOR TOTALITARIANISM Paul Berman. a phenomenon supposedly happening today. whose critical heritage as reappraised by the Frankfurt School of Adorno. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Gary Madison. The great god of the Paris thinkers was Heidegger. University of Warwick. New School for Social Research. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. AKH0329 POSTMODERN RELATIVISM CAN'T DISTINGUISH SCIENCE FROM FABLES Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Western New England College School of Law. but this is quite distinct from what is at the moment called by many "post-modernity. postmodernism. at any rate.J. p.273. in the course of discussing the passions of fear and hope. By suggesting that Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida are profoundly akin to the group of thinkers known during the Weimar Republic as the Jungkonservativen (Young Conservatives).

" It is corporate control that has diverted social resources from the humanities into military and technological research. or "situated. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics." Postmodernism. consumer or multinational capitalism. replaced the English language with bureaucratic jargon. The spell of postmodern theory has lured its acolytes into a bizarre philosophical cul-d-sac. chiefly in the schools of Foucault and Derrida. a desperate amalgam of solipsism and magical thinking. they are subverting them from within. p. and the media to a hitherto unparalleled degree throughout society. AKH0343 ACADEMIC RADICALISM ISN'T REALLY SUBVERSIVE Christopher Lasch. but their activities do not seriously threaten corporate control of the universities. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. 1994. Spring 1993. self-referential atmosphere of politicized academic postmodernism obviously has a great deal to do with it. It recurs to the ancient confusion between names and things. I shall confine myself to a brief description of them since their analysis is pursued in the succeeding volume. But the world of postmodern thought is well provided with devices for keeping out the cold light of day. He does not object to the "tenured radicals" because they are more interested in tenure than in radicalism. p. One can now understand why postmodernism precisely by being "anti-aesthetic. such a creed seems pathetic as well as futile. "to the extent that the Academic Left partook of various structuralist theories. This fact.88. thanks to the postmodern contortions of the left. RIGHTS--THE NEW QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS. The caution and scrupulousness that working scientists are conditioned to expect are swept aside. reality eluded its vocabulary. postmodernist work is in great measure prophetic and hortatory. at least outside the hothouses (i e. AKH0347 POSTMODERN THOUGHT IGNORES REALITY IN FAVOR OF WORDS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. 1994. but it cannot produce such understanding itself. evidence. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. and created a top-heavy administrative apparatus whose educational vision begins and ends with the bottom line. the entanglement of would-be progressive intellectuals with the conceptual freak show of postmodernism continues to isolate and neutralize them. Mary's College. 1994. The post-industrial (and culturally postmodern) society in which we live. The right and the left share another important assumption: that academic radicalism is genuinely "subversive. as most postmodernists do. AKH0346 POSTMODERNISM IGNORES LOGIC AND EVIDENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. FIVE FACES OF MODERNITY. over terminology and lexicon.22. The postmodernist affirmation of the positive value of difference might. p.G. . At its most benign. St.237. however unwittingly.72. not academic radicalism." by blunting the powerful cutting edge of the aesthetic. Director of UNC Program in Social Theory and Cross-Cultural Studies. 1986. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. 1994. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. [Postmodernism's] formal features in many ways express the deeper logic of this particular system. the two basic 'faces' of modern metaphysics are reason (the principle of reason) and free will (the ability to act in accordance to the representation of ends). then. with power ubiquitous and anonymous. political. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. In a nearly literal sense. social. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Jameson writes. postmodernism cannot help but play. . with the historical conditions of its existence.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 29 AKH0338 POSTMODERNISM REFLECTS A DANGEROUS NOSTALGIA Andrew Cutrofello. television. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. the part of a "reinforcer of the logic of consumer capitalism. This is a dangerous nostalgia which finds its unlikely (or maybe not so unlikely) paradigmatic expression in Heidegger's "Only a God can save us now. rigidly circumscribed by its interests and prejudices. we must ask. AKH0348 POSTMODERNISM IS MAGICAL THINKING Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. is mastery over the world.74. instead of attempting to destroy our educational institutions physically. as a stimulus to change in other theories. to scorn the canons of logic. right-wing theorists seem on the point of establishing themselves upon the ethical and philosophical high ground. there are merely stories. He objects to them because in his view. ends up being less subversive than modernism had been. and that all human awareness is a creature and a prisoner of the language games that encode it. In France. because. objectivity. Moreover as suggested above. 1994. and aesthetic aspects. "narratives. . p. Now. will. What of value can postmodernism say about hunger in Africa or unemployment in America's inner cities? Virtually nothing. politics by other means. however. Merquior. they attack in unacknowledged ways the interests.457-8. It holds that all knowledge is local." Kimball takes the radical claims of the academic left at face value. AKH0344 THE CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY ENTAILS IRRATIONALISM AND AMORALISM Luc Ferry. p. 1990. p. One will cheer or deplore this fact as one's political tendencies dictate. Such terms as 'power and hegemony' and 'domination and discourse' marked a shift from labor to language in which text." devised to satisfy the human need to make some sense of the world. they use the security of their academic position to attack the foundations of social order."2 In the cold light of day. For the first time in modern American history. like war. p. Professor at the Sorbonne. and there is a disturbing nostalgia lurking in most theories of the postmodern today. academic departments and conferences) in which they flourish. University of Rochester.104. For them. as we have seen. p. an inability that is elevated into an affirmative refusal by some postmodernists. Confronted by an epidemic that is all too grimly real. has brought about "new types of consumption. that has "corrupted our higher education. then it is a short step to the belief that mastery over words. in this broad scenario of a social mutation. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. p. it encodes a faith in charms and magic words. p. where "reality" is effaced as a meaningful term and where representation. At its worst. If. in the final analysis." AKH0339 POSTMODERNISM SIMPLY REINFORCES CONSUMER CAPITALISM Matei Calinescu. the critical dimension of postmodernism is challenged by its inability to ground normative positions. retrieval is one thing. rhetoric. and discourse are the only allowable phenomenological categories. speech. . coupled with the sober acknowledgment that it did not. they set out to implement it. ultimately make for better theoretical understandings to inform such practical dealings. 1995.191 Harris has leveled his guns at a very curious phenomenon indeed. . and it is corporate control.. prejudices. Indiana University. If one holds. 1989. that "reality" is chimerical or at best inaccessible to human cognition. p. at need. these postulants are driven full circle into a giddy doctrine asserting that control over representation and rhetoric.94. Antinomianism without Utopian ingredients became the rule." No doubt they would like to think so. In this milieu. postmodern nostalgia functions as an undialectical wish to return to some idealized conception of premodern reality. does such grossly misplaced intellectual self-confidence come? The smug.192-3. AKH0341 DERRIDA'S AND FOUCAULT'S KRITIK OF MODERNITY EMBODIES TOTAL PESSIMISM J. Contrasted to the Enlightenment ideal of a unified epistemology that discovers the foundational truths of physical and biological phenomena and unites them with an accurate understanding of humanity in its psychological. the antinomian stance vis a vis the culture of modernity broke with every vestige of anthropological optimism. all knowledge projects are. 1987. which they do indeed incur in their less coherent versions-the risks of irrationalism and amoralism.293-4. the growth of the great net of superhighways and the arrival of automobile culture. however has little penetrated left-academic discourse. is the cultural product of "the emergence of this new moment of late. with every positive appreciation of humanity or polity. On this view. postmodern skepticism rejects the possibility of enduring universal knowledge in any area. They are ready. this nostalgia functions (as I think it does in Habermas) as a wish that modern history could have turned out differently. Whence. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. "When the children of the sixties received their professorships and deanships they did not abandon the dream of radical cultural transformation. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. hermetic. has introduced a new rhetorical wrinkle that shields it from such rebukes.175-6. by contrast. There is no knowledge. As a domesticated kind of (anti)modernism. over language and imagery. King's College. between mention and use. AKH0349 POSTMODERNISM IS PROPHETIC RATHER THAN ANALYTIC Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. beneath its ostensibly up-to-date skeptical veneer. of itself. rather than analytic it announces and cheers on a sweeping "paradigm shift" within our civilization. AKH0342 POSTMODERNISM NEGLECTS PRACTICAL PROBLEMS Craig Calhoun. Professor of History. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. the life of the mind is a dance on thin air. the phenomenological deconstructions of modernity run two risks. In so doing. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. SOCIAL THEORY AND THE LAW. planned obsolescence. . p. and nostalgia another. However. and coherence on which most of them used to depend for a living. and other forms of communication came to be seen as more refined systems of control. a change that is supposed to liberate us all." AKH0340 POSTMODERNISM LEADS TO POLITICAL IMPOTENCY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. dispel the menace of AIDS. is purely magical thinking. . This. and conceits of their devisers. material problems. Yet the postmodernist position is radically undermined by its refusal to enter into the world of practical. London. the penetration of advertising. there is not much thought given to simple scientific accuracy. 1994. The postmodern left. As Diggins says. AKH0345 POSTMODERNISM REJECTS THE IDEA OF UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. confined to an unavoidably circular "textualism" and refusing to distinguish between the aesthetic and the non-aesthetic. SOCIAL THEORY AND PRACTICE." the product of interaction of a social class. fostered an obsession with quantification that has destroyed the social sciences.

if it exists only to make profits or to gratify the ambitions of scientists trapped in a perverted system of rewards and incentives. Everything he explores emanates from and is drawn back to these poles. and massive attempts to obliterate the obvious. In each case. Even if we stick to mathematics alone. The mentality of postmodernism has an emphatically totalizing component. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. that the "critical theory" in which academic leftists take such delight is a swamp of jargon. and which.106. There is. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. 1994. p. Animal subject research is. If there is no necessary progress in history. scientifically complex. and has no argument that the late modern should become a postmodern. whether they address Newtonian celestial mechanics or the fractal geometry of the basins of attraction of the roots of a polynomial that appear when Newton's method is applied in the complex plane). under the postmodernist regime. p. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. which would seem to subvert ab initio their self-proclaimed postmodernity. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. Alluquere Roseanne Stone. 1994. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. is not only academic nonsense-it is concretely dangerous nonsense." and is still assumed by the late modern. 1991. University of California-Santa Cruz. She writes specifically about a recent forum devoted nominally to the history and analysis of twentieth-century art. Professor of philosophy. is comparable to that of "creation scientists" in addressing evolutionary biology. Poststructuralism. Virtually all of them claim to discern important intellectual themes and political motifs in past and current science. 1993.89. the only possible attitude. not the preeminent mathematician and physicist of the same name. . This adds considerably to the impression. ed. The results are grotesque. 1993. AKH0355 POSTMODERN THINKERS ARE SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENTS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. and (ii) perspective or interest. and Manuel de Landa. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. its crucial role in shaping the material conditions under which we live as well as many of the assumptions we bring into our discussions of the world. Their arrogance. it is not a fixed or stable matter of conceptual structure or logical inference. an inextricable element of these postmodern philosophical excursions. This is not an anomaly-it comes closer to being characteristic of scholarly life among contemporary humanists. will tease forth all the deepest truths of human experience. Professors of Law. spiritually aware. there are in contrast examples of attempts to deal with the same subject that rely for their doctrine and methodology on the arcana of full-blown postmodern theory. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. "Both [Derrida and Foucault] have. AKH0351 POSTMODERNISM IS IMPLACABLY HOSTILE TOWARD SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. 1994. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. We conclude that hostility to science is. the postmodern cannot claim a normative advantage in being later in time or a sign of the future. and culture by a throng of well-known postmodernists. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. as we have seen. His reading of the philosophic discourse of modernity is that "postmodern" philosophic discourses are caught within the aporias of a "philosophy of subjectivity" which is now exhausting itself. if pursued at great enough length with sufficient intensity. So the postmodern should not claim to be better or more advanced or more clever than the late modern." as critique of them all rather than fellow target of criticism. This is a volume of meditations on science. as well as any nostalgia for the past. and ecologically sane. even as it pretends to denounce the totalizing propensities of whatever it wishes to attack. They illustrate both the megalomaniac pretentiousness and the utter impotence of postmodernism under full sail as it attempts to engage itself with the world of honest science.237-8. if the postmodern attitude is as I have described it. For Habermas communicative action and rationality are the powerful magnetic poles of his work. themes and motifs that are quite invisible to the scientists themselves. name dropping. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. we find papers by Gilles Deleuze. ethically sensitive. 1994. 1994. enormously important to efficient medical practice. and its abandonment would entail incalculable human costs. By contrast. A recent article by Heather MacDonald wryly analyzes this phenomenon. then the postmodern would be inconsistent in thinking that postmodernism is the most advanced. It takes the form of the "good guys ( persons?) versus bad guys" scenario that the critics impose relentlessly on the history and sociology of science. there are amateurish errors or efforts to pass off mere verbal tinsel as mathematical knowledge. in different ways.75. Postmodernism in general and postmodern science in particular have come to liberate us from repression. The centrality of science to the contemporary world. are committed not only to the view that at any moment some stance must be privileged. AKH0353 POSTMODERNIST REJECTION OF SCIENCE UNDERMINES NEEDED ANIMAL RESEARCH Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Stanford and Harvard. one which is philosophically sophisticated. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics." The reader may be inclined to characterize these dicta as a Very Grand Theory indeed. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA.. after all. why not ban it and spare the poor animals all that suffering? Postmodernism. guaranteed that sooner or later postmodern dialecticians would feel bound to turn their guns on it. others just in passing. ed. AKH0352 POSTMODERNISM TOTALIZES ITSELF BY ATTACKING SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. we think. Gary Madison. 1994. for instance. or to that of Galileo's persecutors within the Inquisition in their response to his cosmology. logic chopping. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. It is mirrored in the remarkable arrogance with which postmodernists address these issues. The recent compendium ZONE 6-Incorporations is replete with examples. AKH0359 POSTMODERNISM CAN'T TRANSCEND SUBJECTIVITY Richard Bernstein. or feminist theory. AKH0354 POSTMODERNISM IS UTTERLY IMPOTENT IN DEALING WITH SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. it is not hard to find other examples of postmodern thinkers whose urge to pontificate on science far outruns their competence to do so. on a technical competence so shallow and incomplete as to be analytically worthless. Biology is similarly ill served. sociology. with its insistence that science is "just another discourse. That is the nub of the problem. p. to those abstract and totalizing methods of the traditional Western humanist the new theory claimed to reject.105. New School for Social Research. Gary Madison. These supposed insights rest. Professor of Philosophy. generates scholarly essays that seem to have as their subject everything in general and nothing in particular. But the postmodern seems to have abandoned the idea that the present is necessarily better than the past.95. but to the view that it could be any available stance and that no privilege is stabilized against dislodgment. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.. They have failed to make the paradigm shift to a model of communicative dialogical action and rationality. history. in its most impudent form. an abiding cabalistic faith that excursions into theory. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. 1994. p. p.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 30 AKH0350 POSTMODERNISM IGNORES THE FACTS AND LOGIC OF PARTICULAR SUBJECTS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Frederick Turner. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. This mission is especially crucial since only postmodern science can save us from the ecological catastrophe into which modern science is driving us: "Postmodern science draws the conclusion that a new.96. wherein they attempt to make references to deep mathematics-some of them at length. I think that the label is not really a useful one. Peter Eisenman. Gilbert Simondon. or in general. p. These discourses-despite desperate protests to the contrary-have failed to break out of a philosophy of subjectivity or consciousness. In perusing it. The postmodern position. p. actually stimulated a return to a form of scholasticism. there is supposed to be an embryonic "postmodern" science that points to the overthrow of the old order.200 If animal research is misleading anyway. here joins pragmatism: which stance stands as critique and which others stand as targets is always and strictly a matter of (i) occasion or focus. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. within which there is supposed to be no Grand Theory. p. This theme can be traced in the continued insistence that the "chaos theory" postmodernists think they are talking about is "post-Newtonian" (even though it is perfectly clear to the mathematically literate that Newtonian themes are central to these new developments. incorporated into the sloganeering of animal rights militancy.224. rejecting foundations. common outside of academic-left circles. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. However. Such a normative advantage is implied in the notion of "modernity. p. The "Newton" that postmodern cultural critics are trying to escape is Blake's figment. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. then. p. Under this dispensation. AKH0360 POSTMODERN FAITH IN THEORY IS TOTALIZING Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Since the postmodern could not be an advocate of postmodernism. p. If there can be no privilege over privileges. AKH0356 THERE IS NO DISTINCTIVELY POSTMODERN SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.80. 1994. a wide variety of disciplines may be addressed and pronounced upon without requiring a detailed familiarity with the facts and logic around which they are organized. p. The irony is that this faith in the omnicompetence of theory runs particularly strong in those who claim to abhor "totalizing" theories. However.38-9. are equally suitable for symposia in literature. postmodern paradigm is necessary. Postmodernists. which. is no less available to any other "jurisprudence" on our list than it is to poststructuralism To claim otherwise-to insist on a privilege over privileges-would be to restore a foundation." provides this impulse with a highly efficient lubricant. The confidence of the postmodern cultural critic is the confidence of a generalizer who excuses himself from many of the usual obligations of erudition." AKH0361 POSTMODERNISM DOESN'T OFFER A PRIVILEGED POSITION Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. most rational. 1994. AKH0357 POSTMODERNISM IS ITSELF A GRAND THEORY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.1029-30. many of whose participants turned out to have no particular knowledge thereof. technology. then the claim for a privileged status vis a vis the other "jurisprudences. without any question. AKH0358 THE TRUE POSTMODERN WOULDN'T ADVOCATE POSTMODERNISM David Couzens Hoy.

" which has been brought back into print. They elevated puns into a literary genre. It is. p. Professor of History.20. p. New York University Institute for the Humanities. University of Rochester.456-7. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. everything familiar and reassuring as well) has been rigorously excluded. According to the constructivist canon. obviously not among the sophisticated thinkers.C. It was disturbing.72. complex and critical thinking. Their belief in the "social construction of reality"-the central dogma of postmodernist thought-reflects the experience of living in an artificial environment from which everything that resists human control (unavoidably. Control has become their obsession. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Yet the distinction between the postmodern ideas and the reactionary ones is not necessarily so clear-if only because. supposedly progressive harping on race today? It is argued that "race" in the postmodern. there is a peculiar inability to detect any Nazism at all in de Man's Nazi articles. They speak. as befitted a philosophy that regarded clarity and lucidity as engines of Western oppression. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. HIGHER SUPERSTITION." plain speech having been dismissed as an instrument of oppression. p. however strong. moreover. a dominant [role in a] culture that cleverly and powerfully uses 'clear' and 'simplistic' language to systematically undermine . Or the theories were fictions that claimed to be nonfictions. As much as anything can be. 1995.230-1. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. p. This inference is not easily impeached as the warped product of sexist science.105. p. is somewhat like that of stereotypical ex-Catholics-as rigidly antagonistic to the Church as they accuse the Church of being dogmatic. a touch of the young de Man's Euro-style racial thinking does sometimes creep into the discussion. The prose was characteristically mud. AKH0367 CULTURAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IS REDUCTIONIST AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. plurality.226. for instance. 1995. New York University Institute for the Humanities. a test. "The language of clarity. Super-brilliance was their panache. Yet the controversy over de Man and his youthful errors has had one merit at least. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Joan Scott of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study dismisses this criticism as the work of "disaffected scholars" and "marginal intellectuals. with irritating complacency. the Yale critic. St. And because. at least in the full-blooded version of ideologues like Aronowitz. and dismisses the ability of the intellect to make transcendent imaginative leaps. biological usage. . In no way does it imply the inadvisability of complete legal and social equality between the sexes. but not terribly surprising. on the grounds that a young person's early mistakes should not be used to hound his later achievements. . p. In a new and highly politicized area such as women's studies. and otherness. The stance of the Crits. women who would have been happy to reach the opposite conclusion. and the more super the brilliance became the murkier became the ideas. and science is just another inadvertent ratification of its ideological premises. Spring 1993.16. but on the margins of the movement. which raises doubts about the reliability of the new techniques. . in a way that O'Brien. They were the equivalent of Finnegans Wake or canvases by Rothko. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. Of course that will always be the subversive appeal of '68 Philosophy. Rather they are engaged in trying to produce a space for alternative identities. The truest class struggle in the '68 sense was always the struggle between the hip and the unhip. . ed. His worry is that the celebration of plurality and difference all-too-easily degenerates into a self-defeating relativism." in Allan Megill's phrase. "plays . But must we view all action on behalf of others as a violation of their otherness? Suppose I try to persuade the workers that they are being exploited. It is fascinating that postmodernism.C. having largely supplanted Marxism. a fact whose political implications are generally negligible. and that only someone who is motivated by hostility or by a stubborn unwillingness to entertain new ideas would detect in these up-to-date progressive ideas a scent of old-fashioned reactionary rightism. For their part. virtually every scholar and student pays tribute to the supposed depth of postmodernist insight and the richness of postmodernist methodology. is to be allowed to dent their conviction that all but the obvious anatomical differences between men and women are "socially constructed. In their drive to insulate themselves against risk and contingency-against the unpredictable hazards that afflict human life-the thinking classes have seceded not just from the common world around them but from reality itself. except to the extent that the latter has been able to cover itself in postmodern dress. postmodernism is the unifying doctrine of the academic left. New School for Social Research. fellow." AKH0364 POSTMODERNISM IS THE UNIFYING DOCTRINE OF THE ACADEMIC LEFT Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.C. no evidence. for instance de Man's collaborationist article from 1941. But there was no point in asking whether these theories were faithful to truth and reality in the ordinary sense of social science or conventional philosophy.16-7. reactionary. 1994. SOCIAL THEORY AND PRACTICE. . sociological. For Habermas the primary question is how one is to respond to this intensified pluralization.56. or practical problems of social justice. Nonetheless feminists who fear the lurking dangers of essentialism are outraged and frightened by this innocuous work. and of many other postmodernists. not programs. many Crits and especially many other sorts of postmodernists are not engaged in solving material problems about class society. and these theories were. It pains the admirers of Yale deconstruction and of race/ class/gender-ism when anyone mentions the early career of de Man. and biologists must all succumb. denies the substantive reality of human idiosyncrasy. all are puppets of the temper of an age. a virtual article of faith.9. as members of a professional establishment that has given up the attempt to communicate with a broader audience. Only the cultural constructivists themselves (of course) are licensed to escape the intellectual tyranny of this invisible hand. AKH0369 POSTMODERN POLITICS CAN PRECLUDE MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT Andrew Cutrofello. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics.. here was an example of cultural analysis in which writers were categorized on the basis of racial "difference. progressive usage has nothing to do with "race" in the old. AKH0365 POSTMODERNIST KRITIK IS UNCONSTRUCTIVE DOGMA Craig Calhoun. fellow. Exactly what makes de Man's early reactionary harping on race different from the postmodern. There are manifestations of otherness that we legitimately seek to eliminate and destroy-when we are convinced the other we are confronting is evil-like the evil of apartheid and fascism. Director of UNC Program in Social Theory and Cross-Cultural Studies. in short. Professor of History. Mary's College. p. strong to begin with and growing stronger over time. has become so conspicuously identified with radical scholarship and campus political activism on behalf of left-wing causes. 1992." the Jews on one hand and the Europeans on the other. the postmodern categorical imperative paralyzes any meaningful engagement with others. p. that a number of perceived behavioral differences between males and females. Apparently. and "bad" historicism.'" they maintain. chemists. in the movement for multiculturalism that has emerged out of race/class/gender-ism. as it is in William Corlett's attempt to think through a Derridean politics. AKH0370 EMPHASIS ON "DIFFERENCE" PROMOTES RACISM Paul Berman. DEBATING P. of one's loyalty to feminist principles. New York University Institute for the Humanities. DEBATING P. 1994. in fact. to discover a certain inappropriate fixation on the Jews in the thinking of a couple of the professors who helped draw up the proposed new multicultural public school social-studies curriculum in New York State. especially at an early age. and in that respect they were artistically faithful to the bleak twentieth-century spirit. Cultural constructivism. are more interested in the defense of their professional privileges against criticism from outside. p. p. 1992. would cheerfully approve. among some of the deconstructionist masters of literary interpretation. Gary Madison. They were illegal thoughts. "The Jews in Contemporary Literature. Now.178. the Das Kapital of hip. 1989. so to speak-"provocations. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. fellow. who are embarrassed by the problem." Left-wing academics cannot be bothered to argue with opponents or to enter into their point of view. DEBATING P. University of Rochester. which is to give everyone the opportunity to read some Nazi-style literary criticism. Sometimes the theories were put-ons or jokes. are in fact innate and congenital. AKH0366 NOT ALL HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. The theories were modern art's extension into philosophy. difference. since many of the researchers who came up with it were. p. contextualism. there is evidence. physicists. Habermas does provide an important corrective to those who uncritically celebrate contingency. these days. AKH0372 POSTMODERN RACE CONSCIOUSNESS PARALLELS OLD-STYLE RACISM Paul Berman. a point of view that must flirt continuously with nihilism. in certain circles. mathematicians. But academic radicals. SOCIAL THEORY AND THE LAW. for instance. AKH0371 NOT ALL DIVERSITY SHOULD BE RESPECTED Richard Bernstein." This proposition amounts to a credo. 1992. Professor of Philosophy. AKH0368 BELIEF IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY IS AN ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE REALITY ITSELF Christopher Lasch. On the other hand. either as teachers or as writers. would I be guilty of trying to speak on their behalf since I would be trying to persuade them that my view is the one which they should adopt? Carried to an absurd extreme. They defend their incomprehensible jargon as the language of "subversion. is a relentlessly mechanistic and reductionistic way of thinking about things. 1994. 1993. Ultimately.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 31 AKH0362 POSTMODERN THOUGHT IS JUST A PROVOCATION Paul Berman. AKH0363 ACADEMIC LANGUAGE IS AN EXERCISE IN MYSTIFICATION Christopher Lasch. 1984's master manipulator of consciousness. It flattens human differences.

Even those who celebrate plurality and difference-like Lyotard and Rorty-make an implicit appeal to universality-when.) than anyone seemed to imagine when the theories were in vogue. AKH0374 POSTMODERNISM ALSO PRODUCES MARGINALIZATION Andrew Cutrofello. and after that a wave for Foucault. 1992. Nietzsche. Spring 1993. that: Much was believ'd. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. AKH0375 POSTMODERN RESPECT FOR OTHERNESS JUST REPRODUCES THE LIBERAL VALUE OF TOLERANCE Andrew Cutrofello. p. New York University Institute for the Humanities. 1992.12-3. Consequently. St. They worried that by carrying skepticism to extremes. finally. AKH0377 POSTMODERNISM IS OBSOLETE IN FRANCE Paul Berman. to the point which White rightly critiques as an inactive responsibility to otherness the postmodern imperative closes off the very openness to otherness that it insists upon. HOUSTON LAW REVIEW. New School for Social Research. Spring 1993. DEBATING P. Policy Consultant. the era of human rights.272. Their resurrections have sometimes leaned in a more leftish direction. who worried about the mind-blowing ultraradicalism of the older generation. The younger writers set out to resurrect the very notions that '68 Philosophy was designed to debunk-an admiration for Enlightenment reason. p. But the biggest and most important of the footholds. disturbed by the implications of their own doctrines. interpreting literature in order to show the impossibility of a definite interpretation). and suspected. for example they advocate a world in which there is a universal "letting be" where difference is allowed to flourish. for instance.880. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. was at hand-in Paris. Then a new generation of writers came along. Nietzsche believed the era of European nihilism. But in the discourse of postmodernist politics. 1992. DEBATING P. p. objectless wars whose only purpose was to affirm war itself. Linda Fisher intelligently extends Bywater's claim in her comparison of postmodernism and the tradition of the "hermeneutics of suspicion" exemplified by Marx. After all. Gary Madison. p. Fall 1994.. pushed to its obvious limit. the sort of people who can no longer make sensible judgments because they stumble around wondering: Is that a door? Is that a window? The younger writers raised an eyebrow at the muddy prose style. Fall 1994. "Postmodernism's relentless refusal to accept any description. fellow. DEBATING P. Carried to such an extreme--that is. St. Paranoia amounts to a refusal to take anything at face value. etc. Obviously we should be cautious in making totalizing claims. 1992. elegantly represented in the famous exchanges between contemporary Continental philosophers Jurgen Habermas and Hans-Georg Gadamer. the eagerness to disparage universal ideas of rights. Next came a wave for the Heideggerian/linguistic ideas of Derrida. who shifted camp altogether. G. The self which formerly was able to confront nothingness is now dissolved into a concatenation of signifiers or a jumble of disconnected images. and while he can be defended from the narrow charges of being the forefather of National Socialism's simpleminded doctrines.. sometimes in a more conservative direction (whatever those terms might mean in today's world). the next question after "How dare you speak for marginalized group x?" is "How dare you speak for me. p. Just as in the case of his follower. p. He hoped for the birth of a new morality that would favor the strong over the weak. skeptical view that not everything can be taken at face value. AKH0383 NIETZSCHEAN RELATIVISM HELPED LEAD TO FASCISM Francis Fukuyama. New York University Institute for the Humanities. with more relief than regret.226. Western New England College School of Law. and to be dull was constru'd to be good. which he was helping to inaugurate. the relationship between his thought and Nazism is not accidental. rather than simply critical. in the art world.. p. that the high-water mark of postmodernism has passed and that it is likely soon to be regarded as a mere relic of the discontents of the eighties. 1993. in the form of "deconstruction" (meaning. AKH0379 POSTMODERNISM IS SIMPLY AN INTELLECTUAL FAD Paul Berman. rather we seem to be frozen with intellectual paranoia. p. Alain Finkielkraut (and writing in English. New York University Institute for the Humanities. but little understood. and. in turning so ferociously against liberalism.880. Mary's College. It is difficult for those of us who believe in liberal democracy to follow Nietzsche very far down the road he takes. Paranoia must be distinguished from the mature. and replaced it with a doctrine of strength and domination. p. and Western-style freedoms. too. the drift toward humanism was unmistakable. at least some postmodern efforts dissolve the important distinctions "between suspicion and paranoia. The subtle dialectic of the hermeneutics of suspicion and the hermeneutics of belonging. Even a few of the elders of the sixties. where radical posturing has a certain virtue-the more radical.C. p. destruction and self-destruction. the '68 theories had their day. Western New England College School of Law. AKH0378 CONTEMPORARY FRENCH PHILOSOPHY REEMBRACES LIBERAL HUMANISM Paul Berman. this particular individual?" What starts out as an absolute commitment to otherness ends in being a degenerate affirmation of the isolated bourgeois individual the absolute otherness of others that Hegel describes in the dialectic of the unhappy consciousness. SOCIAL THEORY AND PRACTICE. Policy Consultant. It is just here that we see how little difference there is between postmodernist insistence on respect for otherness and the traditional liberal insistence on tolerance." AKH0382 NIETZSCHE'S ETHIC IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH LIBERAL DEMOCRACY Francis Fukuyama. Pascal Bruckner. There were writers like Tzvetan Todorov. and we should critique the effects of marginalization that such claims produce. the late J. SOCIAL THEORY AND PRACTICE. the more virtuous. Then came a feminist wave for the Freudian/linguistic ideas of Lacan. Merquior). In Paris. Rand Corp.. Professor of Philosophy. fellow. which lasted well into the late seventies and beyond. the people who were students in '68 but came into adulthood only in the calmer years that followed-writers like Ferry. Rand Corp. lucidity.106. sometimes bore a closer relation to the old German romantic philosophies of the far right (the cult of irrationalism. French ideas established themselves in waves of fashion in these departments during the course of the seventies and into the eighties.C. or state of consciousness at face value.333. AKH0376 POSTMODERNISM IS INCREASINGLY OBSOLETE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. clarity. The hope which might have sprung from the dissolution of the old values is rendered as suspect as those old values themselves. 1992. Still. These younger writers began to suspect that '68 Philosophy. if you do it well. Postmodernism does not refresh us with a sense of renewal. theory.10-1. AKH0380 POSTMODERNISM FREEZES US IN INTELLECTUAL PARANOIA Francis Mootz. would lead to "immense wars" of the spirit. Either way. as Merquior commented (citing Pope). .10. He was an open opponent of democracy and of the rationality on which it rested. And in the realm of ideas a new liberal age. general statements about "others" and "marginalized subjects" produce the same effects of marginalization as any other general statement. and Freud.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 32 AKH0373 RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY REQUIRES A PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY Richard Bernstein. There was an early vogue for the anthropological/ Marxist/linguistic ideas of Roland Barthes. Professor of Law. THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN. HOUSTON LAW REVIEW. One of the most obfuscating aspects of "modern/postmodern polemics" is the way in which universality is pitted against plurality and alterity." suggests. limitation and abnegation. the '68 Philosophers were turning into a species of idiot. pulled back over the course of the later seventies and the eighties. was in the humanities departments of a handful of universities.C. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics." AKH0381 POSTMODERNISM DISSOLVES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUSPICION AND PARANOIA Francis Mootz. 1994. Professor of Law. Renaut. in "What Was Postmodernism. the foothold that has mattered most in the current debate. Nietzsche's relativism shot out all of the philosophical props holding up Western liberal democracy. is flattened by postmodernism's radical quest to overturn received traditions. ed. the Paris literary theorist. Martin Heidegger. Michael Rosenthal. posture.313. Nietzsche's relationship to German fascism has been debated at great length.103-4. the sixties Paris ideas did establish some footholds in the United States. fellow. THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN. its unswerving insistence that what seems most clear and certain is least likely to be so. William Bywater recently suggested that some postmodern literary criticism has come to resemble a paranoid. that would heighten social inequality and even promote a certain kind of cruelty. Mary's College. p. and its maneuvers which demonstrate that stability in meaning or in sense of self must give way to eternal slippage have all been cited as evidence of postmodernism's nihilistic and destructive character.

to slide into a quasi-essentialism where we talk as if there are a set of determinate features that mark off the "modern" from the "postmodern. and still not universal). AKH0393 THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERNITY IS NOT HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE Richard Bernstein. Gary Madison. University of Wales. Oxford philosopher. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. but leave it at that. Although these passages give some indication of the "postmodern" mood.G. AKH0389 IT'S ABSURD TO OPPOSE MODERNITY IN ITS TOTALITY Leszek Kolalowski. communal life either manages to survive under modern circumstances or actively becomes resurgent. in its immense variety. New School for Social Research. Gary Madison. I do not know what postmodern is and how it differs from premodern. King's College. professor of international relations. ed. and many have drawn upon such investigations in order to challenge these two positions. was. London. MODERNITY ON ENDLESS TRIAL. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. Its advantage over those who correctly note the aestheticist nature of Kulturkritik. when the basic rules of scientific inquiry were elaborated and codified and scientists realized-thanks mainly to Galileo and his followers-that physics was not to be conceived as a report from experience but rather as an elaboration of abstract models never to be perfectly embodied in experimental conditions. and relates to the fact that post-modernism-certainly that of a doctrinaire variety-does not deliver an ethics for the emancipation of victims across the world.. as it was worked out in Christian philosophy from the eleventh century onwards. The reason for this is obvious. and the subsequent bureaucratization of social relationships. Cambridge. AKH0387 MODERN AND POST-MODERN ARE MEANINGLESS EXPRESSIONS Leszek Kolalowski. MODERNITY ON ENDLESS TRIAL. that the foundation of modernity is in science. Professor of Sociology. AKH0392 KRITIK NEGLECTS THE RATIONAL POTENTIAL OF MODERN CULTURE J. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA.11. My own conviction is that we have reached a stage of discussion where these labels (and their cognates) obscure more than they clarify-that it is better to drop these terms from our "vocabularies. the dissolution of foundationalism. The disjunctions which have taken place should rather be seen as resulting from the self-clarification of modern thought. The idea of the decline of community has been effectively criticised in the light of empirical research into city neighbourhoods. Thus in criticising Louis Wirth's interpretation of the anonymous nature of urban life. Merquior.). Whether we will some day live in the cosmic night of nihilism or restore a proper balance between communicative and systems rationality is still an open question. are so different from the core perspectives of the Enlightenment as to warrant the view that far-reaching transitions have occurred. Those who live against the wall. overlooks the positive rational potential of modern culture-its humanizing. as he is at pains to stress. The critique of modernity. has been alert to the self-destructive tendencies unleashed by the Enlightenment. p. Oxford philosopher. etc. ambiguous. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. it would be proper to date it from the first half of the seventeenth century.6. If it is big business.6-7.205. But against them he argues that we need a more differentiated analysis of the conflicting tendencies of modernity and the Enlightenment legacy-one that does justice to the powerful tendencies of the growth and spread of systems rationality and those fragile practices in which we can still discern the transcending power of communicative rationality. Anselm and Abelard its (respectively unwilling and willing) protagonists? There is nothing conceptually wrong with such an extensions but there is nothing very helpful about it either. AKH0386 THE MODERN/POSTMODERN DISTINCTION IS UNILLUMINATING Richard Bernstein. but so far it has failed to prevent modernity from advancing at an unprecedented speed. Claude Fischer has sought to show that modern cities provide the means of generating new forms of communal life. Therefore. If we think. New School for Social Research. might be seen. it is becoming increasingly evident that the terms "modern" and "postmodern" are not only vague. aesthetocentric thought. nor do I feel that I ought to know. 1986. NOT POST-MODERNITY Anthony Giddens.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 33 AKH0384 POSTMODERNISM FAILS AS A THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Ken Booth. AKH0385 WE'RE EXPERIENCING THE RADICALIZATION OF MODERNITY. 1990. largely unavailable in premodern settings. Cambridge.116. 1993.. p. Professor of Philosophy. 1993. According to the proponents of this third view. How far back modernity may be extended depends. Habermas. p. not only because it is pointless to try to stop the development of technology. The "colonization of the lifeworld by systems rationality" is the most powerful tendency of advanced technological societies. p. 1990. Having no clear idea what modernity is. New School for Social Research." and to try to sort out the relevant issues without reifying these labels. p. Professor of Philosophy..212. p. At British International Studies Association conferences. It is trivially true that very often the blessings and the horrors of progress are inseparably tied to each other. and slippery. 1990. Professor of Philosophy. p. whether in Nietzsche himself or in Heidegger. do not hold these views. AKH0394 COMMUNITY HASN'T DECLINED Anthony Giddens. Nor are they organized by those ANC supporters who identified with the metanarrative and world-wide political movement against racism. Habermas shows that our present situation. is more of a problem than a solution. Professor of Sociology. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. The very distinction between natural and divinely inspired knowledge. but because both modernity and antimodernity may be expressed in barbarous and antihuman forms. Habermas's entire project can be conceived of as a rethinking and rewriting of the Dialectic of Enlightenment. Yet nothing prevents us from probing more deeply into the past: the crucial condition of modern science was the movement toward the emancipation of secular reason from revelation. We have not moved beyond modernity but are living precisely through a phase of its radicalisation. MODERNITY ON ENDLESS TRIAL. whether literary or philosophical. Foucault or Derrida. like his mentors. science. 1993. p. of course. If one scratches a committed post-modernist one will almost certainly find a comfortably off Western urban liberal. And what might come after the postmodern? The post-postmodern. MODERNITY ON ENDLESS TRIAL. together with the emergence of counterfactual future-oriented thought and the "emptying out" of progress by continuous change. It would be silly. p.259. But in a more dialectically nuanced manner. postcapitalism. .12. as long as the world is full of victims. Habermas's particular diagnosis of the centrality of the aesthetic is up to now the best discussion of postmodern and poststructuralist theory. is that unlike them Habermas sees that aestheticism. as far as cognitive standards go. ed. p. Shall we then project our "modernity" onto the eleventh century and make St. Even when this confusion is acknowledged there has been a strong temptation to go on using them." The trouble is that nobody seems to agree about what these distinguishing characteristics are. however. Oxford philosopher. Moreover.116. ed. Habermas is far more dialectical than Horkheimer and Adorno. Its political logic is that of universal toleration (once a bold and original idea. But this tendency is not the manifestation of a logic of history that is working itself out "behind our backs. 1995. as a self-defense organ of our civilization. Yet referring to these as post-modernity is a mistake which hampers an accurate understanding of their nature and implications. Gary Madison. Fifth: the international politics of relativism/post-modernism is undermined by its own critique. and economic rationality. we have recently tried to escape forward from the issue by talking about postmodernity (an extension or an imitation of the somewhat older expressions postindustrial society. For the overwhelming thrust of the Dialectic of Enlightenment is negative-it is a dark narrative of ineluctable self-destruction. emancipatory horizon. 1990.51. 1990. The break with providential views of history. p. the neoantimodern? AKH0388 THE CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY IS FUTILE Leszek Kolalowski. Oxford philosopher. and the struggle for the independence of the faculties of arts from those of theology in medieval universities was an important part of this process. of course. and it would be difficult to decide which came first: the purely philosophical separation of the two areas of knowledge or the social process whereby the intellectual urban class with its claims to autonomy was established. on what we believe constitutes the meaning of the notion. we do not have panels endorsing post-modern ethics organized by formerly footbound Chinese women. rational planning. to be either "for" or "against" modernity tout court. as the remnants of tradition and providential outlooks are cleared away. and the future possibilities open to us are systematically ambiguous. in its turn." The promise of modernity is still an unfinished project-a project whose realization is dependent upon our present praxis. or who have emancipated themselves from such a position. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY.212. the conceptual foundation of this struggle. the neo-postmodern. as are the enjoyments and the miseries of traditionalism. AKH0390 MODERNITY IS AN ARBITRARY CONCEPT Leszek Kolalowski. Postmodernism is an anti-metanarrative metanarrative. the extent of modernity is to be measured in decades rather than centuries. The Iranian theocratic revolution was clearly antimodern. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. and in Afghanistan it is the invaders who carry in various ways the spirit of modernity against the nationalist and religious resistance of poor tribes. they have been used in conflicting and even contradictory ways. 1990. AKH0391 MODERNITY CAN BE REDEEMED BY COMMUNICATIVE RATIONALITY Richard Bernstein. it is an approach which will not become universal. the welfare state.

they remain resolutely unable. p. with increasing theoretical finesse. Modern urban milieux are often considered dangerous because of the risk of being attacked or mugged. Professor of Philosophy. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. Fall 1994. taken together. 1993. 1970).' and . having its origins in the mid.48. Haverford College. p. Professor of Sociology.208-9 But at first." individuals are similarly and naturally--i. Yet in the decidedly less lethal venue of academic life. AKH0398 LIFE IN THE PREMODERN WORLD WAS NASTY. p. excessive rainfall. 1990. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the break with foundationalism is a significant divide in philosophical thought. p 31 One might epitomize Habermas's entire intellectual project and his fundamental stance as writing a new Dialectic of Enlightenment--one which does full justice to the dark side of the Enlightenment legacy. 1990. and what is light move [to]. justice. storms. we are confronted with the spectacle of a revived ethnic tribalism in Europe. or Magyars and Slovaks. I refer to these. AKH0403 THE ENLIGHTENMENT LEGACY CAN BE REHABILITATED Richard Bernstein. Romanians and Magyars. and happiness which still stubbornly speaks to us. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation 32-36 (Denis Savage trans. Professor of Philosophy. . HABERMAS AND MODERNITY. But nor only is this level of violence characteristically minor as compared with many pre-modern settings. especially those inhabiting naturally bountiful areas. For those who survived childhood. the racial and religious chauvinism that pits Sikh against Hindu against Moslem. 1990. AKH0405 THE ENLIGHTENMENT DIDN'T DOGMATICALLY BELIEVE IN EMPIRICISM Anthony Giddens. such milieux are only relatively small pockets within wider territorial areas. RIGHTS--THE NEW QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS. explains its causes but nevertheless redeems and justifies the hope of freedom. on the basis of such a cosmology. Elsewhere. we find that tribalism. Jurgen Habermas has provided the most careful translation of this tradition into a modern conception of emancipatory critique. HOUSTON LAW REVIEW. Russians and Romanians. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. Western New England College School of Law. Professor of Sociology." See Paul Ricouer. and this it must do either above or below. of the horrors lurking in tribalism. Cambridge. The project of modernity. AKH0396 THE MODERN WORLD IS PHYSICALLY SAFER THAN THE PREMODERN Anthony Giddens. to think of something like human rights. I should make clear what I mean by "antidemocratic. by the vagaries of climate and had little protection against natural disasters such as floods. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. The risk environment of traditional cultures was dominated by the hazards of the physical world. was inegalitarian:--in both its cosmology and politics--was naturally hierarchical: just as "`above' is not anything you like. may have been less subject to infectious illness than individuals living in fixed local communities or urban areas in larger pre-modern societies. At a deeper level there was a failure to do justice to what Habermas first called symbolic interaction (and later called communicative action). for the moment. 1985. slavery is defensible. and its distinctive type of rationality--the type of action that is oriented to mutual understanding and consensual action rather than to the goals of efficiency and success.. irreversibly--destined to occupy different hierarchical stations in the social body--of which Plato's Republic is the most striking example. Professor of Sociology. since democracy found its first adherents in ancient Greece. `below' is not anything you like. There are some definite respects in which levels of ontological insecurity are higher in the modern world than in most circumstances of pre-modern social life. There is some evidence that hunters and gatherers. Habermas argued that this monolithic portrait of the totalitarian character of Enlightenment rationality was overdrawn. AKH0401 THE CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY CAN'T EFFECTIVELY COUNTER TOTALITARIANISM Luc Ferry. often in drastic ways. life expectancy was relatively low and many people suffered from chronic illnesses as well as being vulnerable to infectious diseases of different kinds. and later. where Serbs.881 Paul Ricouer popularized the term "hermeneutics of suspicion. is not a bitter illusion. p. they condemn the will to transparency that leads to the inevitable terroristic goal of suppressing all social division.. human life would be "nasty.106. Cambridge. Hobbes's celebrated observation that. in one form or another. AKH0402 THE INDICTMENTS OF ENLIGHTENMENT RATIONALITY NEGLECT ITS DEMOCRATIC DIMENSION Richard Bernstein. but where fire. Professor at the Sorbonne. Given that democracy seems not incompatible with Hellenism. p. while modern ones are not. Professor of Law. but once they have performed this "deconstruction"-analogous at every point to the one conducted against metaphysics--. see Fisher.. AND SHORT Anthony Giddens. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. Yet the settings of traditional cultures were in a generic way fraught with anxieties and uncertainties.49 Although most regarded the evidence of our senses as the most dependable information we can obtain. as the environment of risk characteristic of the pre-modern world. HIGHER SUPERSTITION.107. p.21 The critics of modernity then find themselves in an acutely ironic situation when they claim to be attacking totalitarianism: after analyzing the plan for absolute mastery of the social. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. the hope of Enlightenment thinkers. . Sense data could never provide a wholly secure base for knowledge claims. is the most-favored project of leftist ideologues. in which security against physical violence is vastly greater than ever was possible in regions of comparable size in the traditional world. AKH0400 REPUDIATING MODERNITY REJECTS ALL DEMOCRATIC VALUES Luc Ferry. New School for Social Research. Greek slavery is unthinkable. RIGHTS--THE NEW QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 34 AKH0395 THE REJECTION OF FOUNDATIONALISM IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF MODERNITY Anthony Giddens." and "every place should have `above' and `below. we may soon see something similar between Balts and Russians. p. But it surely makes sense to see this as "modernity coming to understand itself" rather than the overcoming of modernity as such. 1990. Arab Sudanese against black Sudanese goes on unabated. BRUTISH. p. insofar as it assumed that politics is an imitation of the natural order. Professor of Sociology. almost instinctively. It failed to do justice to those philosophic and historical tendencies--also rooted in the Enlightenment--that gave rise to democratic public spaces in which a different type of communal rationality was manifested. the universalism that once shone through even the dreariest left-wing can't. not a naive ideology that turns into violence and terror. and Bosnian Moslems rape and murder one another in the charnel house of the former Yugoslavia. in a state of nature. AKH0404 HABERMAS OFFERS A VALID EMANCIPATORY CRITIQUE Francis Mootz. Professor at the Sorbonne. even the early Enlightenment thinkers were well aware that such "evidence" is always in principle suspect. The murderous hatreds that rend Northern Ireland no longer seem anomalous. We might expect the humanitarian conscience to be especially aware.e. each body should naturally move to and remain in its proper places.5 (recognizing Paul Ricouer as an authority on the hermeneutics of suspicion). Professor of Sociology. for reasons I shall try to identify. but even they were certainly not free from the range of endemic illnesses which abounded in pre-modern times.105-6. . ed. To specify these various contexts of trust in premodern cultures is not to say that traditional settings were comforting and psychologically snug. precisely because of the critique of subjectivity on which they based their critique of late nineteenth century. or drought. Likewise. but a practical task which has not yet been realized and which can still orient and guide our actions. AKH0397 LIFE IN PREMODERNITY WAS LESS SECURE THAN LIFE IN MODERNITY Anthony Giddens. and short" is not inaccurate if it is read as a description of the real life circumstances of many individuals in pre-modern cultures. Apart from such a cosmology. but where heavy and earthlike things move [to]. AKH0399 ETHNIC CONFLICT SHOWS THE EVIL OF REJECTING UNIVERSALISM Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. at 107 n. Cambridge. supra note 8. 1990. p. Cambridge. who appear to have abandoned. Sinhalese against Tamil. 1990. Cambridge. p. All types of pre-modern social order were affected. Croats. 1990. classical political philosophy (in Strauss's sense). Gary Madison.20 The political motivation for a return to classical thinking is deeply antidemocratic. brutish. 1994." First. in such a time.203 As we write. Rates of infant mortality as well as death of women in childbirth were by modern standards extremely high.

1994. on rational solutions and humane behavior--represent an abiding legacy of overriding importance: as a guide for intellectuals no subsequently enunciated principles have been anywhere near as effective Obviously it is our privilege--and duty--to accept as our own the nineteenth. 1977. for holding up to it that bright clear mirror fashioned by the Enlightenment . that defines us a heirs to the Enlightenment makes it impossible for us (that is to say. Stuart Hughes. Throughout the study the point of reference. the man who above all others is supposed to have destroyed the justification of Enlightenment rationalism. This. So while he still wishes to criticize humanism for borrowing a specific theological and metaphysical conception of human nature. where possible. Stanford historian. if by that is meant someone who denies that `we still depend in large part' on the enlightenment.G. . We are bound to Enlightenment values--the universality of moral principles. "More than ever before. AKH0415 POSTSTRUCTURALISM BETRAYS THE KRITIK BY ABANDONING CRITICAL ARGUMENT J. which can be "experienced" only as it is lived in and which is intrinsically refractory to being put into words. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. 1977. The age which venerated reason and science as man's highest faculty cannot and must not be lost . p. p. Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. Object-relations theory is informative because it analyses how the individual obtains a sense of coherence and how this connects with reassurance in the "reality" of the external world. . Yet as guides to conduct and intellectual investigation we can reject the principles of the Enlightenment only at our peril. For by the use of his faculties of observation and analysis he added more to our knowledge about humanity than any other thinker of our time.G. Stanford historian. . We must find a way not only to see that age in its own shape but to release again those original forces which brought forth and molded" it. 1986. 1986. Merquior. in my view. and in so doing I associate myself with his view of the Enlightenment--a view that stresses the open. was the greatest child of the Enlightenment which our century has known. let alone Jacques Derrida. p. Kermode's point was to distinguish between early and late modernisms. 1977. undogmatic understanding for "sensibility" and "the passions. 1986. you've had it. London. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. that only knowledge allows reason to function. AKH0409 ENLIGHTENMENT RATIONALISM SHOULD BE MODIFIED BUT NOT REJECTED H. . HIGHER SUPERSTITION. death. Stanford historian. This profession of faith by the greatest contemporary historian of eighteenth-century philosophy I should like to make my own. AKH0408 18TH CENTURY THOUGHT WAS FLEXIBLE AND BALANCED H.22 Foucault was working toward the end of his life on an essay also called `What is Enlightenment?' Here he insists that he is not a `counter-enlightenment' thinker. AKH0413 POST-STRUCTURALISM FOCUSES ON FRAGMENTATION. . And it will be our further responsibility to distinguish between different types of criticism of the Enlightenment. AKH0414 POSTSTRUCTURALISM RESPONDS TO A CRISIS OF ITS OWN INVENTION J. Hence it is important to distinguish between those who in scoffing at the Enlightenment were consciously attacking the humane values of the West. Stanford historian.28. The whole thing clearly belongs to the kind of problem analysed by Frank Kermode in a crucial chapter (`The modern apocalypse') of his book The Sense of an Ending (1967). For its part. modernist ideology invades philosophy (in which we called the literization of thought). If consciousness is such a prisoner of power--and Foucault seems much more gloomy than Marx in this respect--then hopes for a break with the oppressive past must be futile indeed. the honest among us) to disguise the rancid corners of our history under gaudy banners of nationalism. the sanctity of individual volition. . The very clarity of vision. a detestation of wanton cruelty--and yet we have no choice but to indict the very civilization that begat those values as it goes careening through time leaving pain. they were a triumphant vindication of those same anticipations. the base line from which the analysis will proceed. In so doing. Princeton professor of politics: "It is. 1977. via post-structuralism. the 'modern apocalypse' turns overtly nihilistic. it seems to me the time is . he admits that he cannot claim to stand outside the enlightenment tradition itself. it is a betrayal of critical scepticism in that it abandons critical argument and shuns debate. Merquior. And after the horrors of the past four decades it would be difficult to retain the full eighteenth-century confidence in man's potentialities for good. .152. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. p.243 Post-structuralism essentially makes gestures towards an apocalyptic sense of a crisis largely of its own invention. The very scope of the knowledge we have insisted upon rules out a comforting ignorance. My own position is quite consciously "eighteenth century. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. .and twentieth-century criticisms that have corrected the epistemology and psychology of the Enlightenment to the extent that they actually were shallow and mechanistic. p. it consists less in embracing spurious political millenarisms than in betraying critique through crisismongering. were actually "loyal" critics. . p. King's College. Foucauldian analysis despite the tender-heartedness of some of its instincts. Thus from one standpoint his discoveries seemed to throw into the discard the optimistic anticipations inherited from the Enlightenment. 1990. . London. p. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. Stuart Hughes. 1977. the insistence on calling things by their true names. self-criticism to the present age. AKH0407 EVEN FOUCAULT ACCEPTS ENLIGHTENMENT PRINCIPLES David Couzens Hoy. having rekindled `eschatological pressures'. What I mean to suggest rather is that certain ethical postulates characteristic of the eighteenth century--chief among them the insistence. is the true aporia. modernism as apocalyptic utopianism is to political revolution '. and those who. p." I believe that we are all to a greater or lesser extent children of the Enlightenment. Professor of Philosophy. the wreckage of aboriginal tribes and of rain forests in its wake." Freud's own career offered the best possible proof that his faith in human reason was no mere illusion.243 Building on this we could say that when. Notes Alan Ryan. such as Freud and Weber and Croce. Stuart Hughes. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. The paradox of the matter is that "Freud. some of those of second rank may properly be described as "disloyal": Sorel is the obvious example. Stuart Hughes. AKH0410 THE ENLIGHTENMENT PERSPECTIVE IS INESCAPABLE H. sought to restate that tradition in terms that would carry conviction to a skeptical generation. and that it is from this standpoint that civilized members of Western society--the heirs to a humane tradition more than two centuries old--almost necessarily judge the political and social movements of their own time. ." Thus re-established in it original outlines the philosophy of the enlightenment appears far less intellectualistic than as usually characterized. AKH0412 FREUDIAN PSYCHOLOGY VINDICATES THE ENLIGHTENMENT PROJECT H. by probing more deeply the problem of human motivation and the structure of society. AKH0416 POSTSTRUCTURALIST THOUGHT IS POLITICALLY DEBILITATING Paul R. seems equally to lead to resignation and quietism. p. 1994. or justice. but he acknowledged that `the sense of an ending' is `as endemic to .27. however--in common with post-structuralist thought in general--it focuses primarily upon one type of process. is the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. bewilderment. ." For "his fundamental assumption" was "that the search for truth must never stop.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 35 AKH0406 ENLIGHTENMENT VALUES ARE NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY CRITIQUE OUR CULTURE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Stanford historian. As for the new trahison des clercs. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER.27. such an approach is (or can be made) consonant with a Wittgensteinian view of the "givenness" of the world of objects and events. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Norman Levitt. p. University of California-Santa Cruz. ripe for applying . The minority view was always that power could be undermined by truth . breathes an ethos of `schismatic nihilism'. for instance. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. Professor of Sociology.218 Yet the mind framed by the ethic of the Enlightenment has no natural path of retreat. p. AKH0411 THE GREATEST CRITICS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT ACCEPTED ITS FUNDAMENTAL VALUES H. But again. If the greatest minds of the early twentieth century. NEGLECTING INTEGRATION AND WHOLENESS Anthony Giddens. then-apropos of Pound's fascist leanings--he spoke of a `a failure' or `betrayal' of clerical scepticism. religion. pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace Michel Foucault. Gross. progress. which is in actuality complemented by countertendencies towards integration and wholeness. showing how the latter.96 Lacan's work is significant because it helps capture the fragility and fragmentation of the self. . and that only reason can make us free. . THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. Once you read Foucault as saying that truth is simply an effect of power. Cambridge.29. . Foucault recognizes that his efforts to show the extent to which the present is historically conditioned by the enlightenment are guided by the enlightenment's own `principle of a critique and a permanent creation of ourselves in our autonomy'. and its presumed fondness for mechanistic and materialistic explanations and naive faith in human progress stand revealed as largely the product of subsequent critical distortion. King's College.82. CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY. From another standpoint. for us. Stuart Hughes. and not the mincing word games of the deconstructionists. the terms of that indictment can be spelled out only in the language of those values.

AKH0420 POST-STRUCTURALISM IS DOGMATIC AND ANTI-EMPIRICAL Frederick Crews. London. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. Anglo-American academics. Merquior. the deconstructive rejection of humanism and the Enlightenment has seemed mere nihilism. In doing so they have absorbed a dogmatism of intellectual style that is plainly apparent in their sources.) without substantial modification or fresh analysis on each occasion. and the revival of pragmatism as an object of historical and philosophical study--one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal picture--holds out some hope of a way out of the academic impasse. Merquior. Hirsch.14 The trouble is academia.xvii-xvii. p. Jr. in another sense they are much alike: all of them neglect or openly dismiss the principle of intersubjective skepticism. Modern culture is deemed to be in crisis because its mental set is `shown' to be fallacious. King's College. The crisis. ever convince us that its picture of our cultural predicament is the right one? Karl Kraus wryly dubbed psychoanalysis the illness for which it purports to be a cure. a literary critic of emphatic left-wing sympathies but scornful of deconstruction and its political consequences: "To many of Derrida's critics. and their terms. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. Barthes. 1986. p. flatly asserts: "Since it is essentially a negative methodology. D. But it is precisely this anti-`Western' stance that has been the key. the post-structuralists eagerly uphold the idea that there are no thoroughly neutral independent facts. Gary Madison. This position of dual allegiance. Professor of History. That this is not." In step one. ed. too. continue to draw liberally on both structuralist and poststructuralist authorities. 1995. intellectually probing new movement. University of Rochester. deconstructive writings tend to go over the same ground and use the same vocabulary (logocentrism. 1986. I think. remarkable for its conformism. regardless of whether they originate from the right or the left. Alexander J. as well the case with Heidegger. But the difficulty is to gesture in opposite directions at the same time: on the one hand to preserve a distance and suspicion with regard to the official political codes governing reality.240 By the same token. he must take a discreet hop toward the cognitive center. fallacies and non-sequiturs reign unimpeded." AKH0423 DECONSTRUCTION IS INTELLECTUALLY CONFORMIST. their emphases. such as political ones. in fact. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Merquior.218 Derrida declares "all of our political codes and terminologies still remain fundamentally metaphysical. London. he answers: Not at all. 1986. Argyros.41-2. AKH0419 POST-STRUCTURALISTS SKEPTICISM IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY Frederick Crews. the theorist asserts a total undecidability between propositions. p. then. when deconstruction is called upon to address concrete issued. these are not the signs of a genuinely open. 1986. but that excludes the really progressive possibility of just departing from those views. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. Kulturkritik presupposes a Kulturkrisis.83 Even those among leftist intellectuals who have in part accepted the stance or methodology characteristic of postmodernism are left with a degree of unease. Similarly. NOT INNOVATIVE John Ellis. derives not from the absence of secure foundations but from the belief (shared. University of California-Santa Cruz. In step two. that facts are actually created by our theories. the Derridian ontology of absence makes for an irrationalist philosophy. I try where I can to act politically while recognizing that such action remains incommensurate with my intellectual project of deconstruction.G. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. 1993. Not surprisingly. AKH0422 DECONSTRUCTION IS NIHILISTIC Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. King's College. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. the vanguard position of cognitive nihilism can only be managed through a logical trick. London." AKH0425 WE SHOULD BOTH DECONSTRUCT AND POLITICALLY ACT Richard Bernstein. Althusser. 1986. Merquior. instead of moving on to search for a more viable idea representing a new and higher level of thought. while the gurus of theoreticism differ sharply among themselves. p. it must be repeated.168-9. in which I personally find myself. and Derrida. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. AKH0418 POSTSTRUCTURALISM IS INTELLECTUALLY FRIVOLOUS J. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. p. this fuite en avant from intellectual responsibility reaches unheard-of heights of conceptual laxity: question-begging. AKH0426 DECONSTRUCTION FAILS TO OFFER ALTERNATIVE IDEAS John Ellis. and anyone who doubts his claim is accused of being stuck in the outmoded Cartesian dualism of subject and object. its penchant for eliding commitment and its resistance to postulating scales of value render it ineffectual at best and reactionary at worst. London. whereby the facts of the world are innocently thought to lie "out there. For. 1994. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. he implies that for himself alone the truth is accessible after all. post-structuralist theory should be prepared to accept the possibility that its One Big Thesis--the massive rottenness of our culture--is a creative fake. University of California-Santa Cruz. it would seem that deconstruction is a victim of the restrictive binary logic that it likes to denigrate: it thinks in terms of subverting and undermining traditional views. has no referent? For it may well be that behind the cultural void and trash alleged by advanced nihilist thought there is nothing to be apprehended. 1976) and others have explained. In any case. When asked again whether he thinks this implies inaction and noncommitment. it is as if this form of philosophy deliberately advanced further and further towards amateurism and frivolity--precisely what those who are concerned with scientific or argumentative standards blame much continental philosophy for.. difference. p. p. how can such a school of thought. King's College. whenever the necessity arises. Lacan. enlightened) values: it must sound hollow. to intervene here and now in a practical and engaged manner. However. etc. Moreover.G. 1994. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. . AKH0424 DECONSTRUCTION IS POLITICALLY INEFFECTUAL AND REACTIONARY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. AKH0428 DECONSTRUCTION IS UNPERSUASIVE--IT JUST INVERTS ALL ACCEPTED VIEWS John Ellis. Derrida himself is not clear whether this is possible. it does not in the least follow that because our knowledge of the world presupposes interests and values the world itself is therefore but a product or a projection of those values and interests. Professor of Philosophy. by both parties to this debate( that in their absence the only possible outcome is a skepticism so deep that it becomes indistinguishable from nihilism. demystifying.240 The kind of theory represented by Derrideanism must be treated less as philosophy stricto sensu than as a new style of free-wheeling. Perhaps the greatest general weakness of the deconstructive pattern of thinking is visible here--the tendency to place greatest emphasis on "putting in question" a given view. 1986. p. AKH0421 PRAGMATISM IS THE BEST WAY OUT OF THE PRESENT INTELLECTUAL IMPASSE Christopher Lasch. on the other.226 Once removed from this original `theological' and mystical framework. then. 1989. representing various currents of structuralism and poststructuralism. p. to the influence Derrida's work has had on a broad spectrum of the academic left. the core of any empirical commitment.G. since it is all a construct rather than a record of a real situation.85 Notes Vincent Pecora. the only possible outcome would have been abundantly clear to Dewey. AKH0427 THE KRITIK RESTS ON A FALSE BELIEF IN CULTURAL CRISIS J. in fact. is one of perpetual uneasiness. Hence the invariable phoniness of its thundering against Western (that is modern. Professor of German. p.243-4 As Jacques Bouveresse has recently noted. Professor of German.89 The temper of deconstructionist criticism is. Of course the direct intellectual inspiration for most theoriticism has come from such French thinkers as Levi-Strauss. For instance. Foucault. Hence its blatant non-sequiturs. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS.81 Paradoxically. p. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS." But since the theorist is himself a subject making a claim that he wants to be deemed objectively true. It is surely that kind of departure that provides real progress. (1967. However. New School for Social Research.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 36 AKH0417 POSTSTRUCTURALISM FALSELY ASSUMES THE ROTTENNESS OF OUR CULTURE J." But this still leaves open the question whether it is even possible to imagine a "political code" that is not metaphysical--at least in the "objectionable" sense of metaphysical. from the premiss that one needs a theory whenever one knows a fact. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. rather than the reverse. Its content is not a set of arguments but an axiom of debunking--the indictment of modern culture. is the statement of purpose that begins his book. would be less an object than a product of countercultural thought. who seem only dimly aware that structuralism became vieux jeu in Paris shortly after they discovered it around 1966. 1989. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. essayistic cultural criticism with an apocalyptic spirit. one that Gerald Graff has named the "Postructuralist Two-Step. University of California-Santa Cruz.G. Professor of German. as E. all observations being already theory-laden and thus bound to a prior interpretation of reality. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. and its method consists in pinpointing crises in the latter's main assumptions about truth and knowledge. 1989. thanks merely to his watchfulness against the biases he finds in others. in their Nietzchean epistemology. p. But the same thinkers seem keen to conclude. however. King's College. embattled as it is against all notions of objective truth. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. p. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. what if one turns the table against it? What if the crisis. AKH0429 DERRIDEAN PHILOSOPHY IS ESSENTIALLY IRRATIONALIST J. nihilist theory might be described as the cultural crisis of which it deems itself to be a diagnosis.

The defensive moves correspond exactly to the essentials of deconstructive logic.237 As for Derrida. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS.G. AKH0431 DECONSTRUCTION IS INTELLECTUAL ANARCHISM J. 1993.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 37 AKH0430 DERRIDA CONVERTS LINGUISTICS INTO METAPHYSICAL MYSTICISM J. seems content to undo meaning instead of trying to make knowledge. as rector of his university during the thirties. does not come to terms with the large body of writing that has already performed this task. it all comes down to an ontology of the void that recalls Plotinus: `Because there is nothing in the One. and also his indifference to ethics.223-4 Derrida's grammatology employs Saussurean concepts such as `difference' and `signifier' to convey Heideggerian tenets. his own credibility as a liberatory thinker came under challenge. (for) in order for being to be. His contentment with that annotative role marks him as an intellectual nihilist. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. philosophy. MacMurray College. everyday matters that can be ignored in favor of the more important ontological investigations. avant-garde literary theorists are forced to antagonize their own more conventional colleagues instead. p. by the consequences of Derrida's emphasis on difference and undecidability: his inclination to avoid the risks of dialogue. AKH0433 DERRIDA'S STYLE RELIES ON TERRORISTIC OBSCURITY John Searle. not just among theories.5 In Derrida. Autumn. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. 1993. they think that since everything is phony anyway. University of California-Santa Cruz. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. The attack on the reference theory of meaning is translated into an attack on the "metaphysics of presence. What becomes even more surprising is that the authors seem to think it is all right to engage in these practices. p. it relishes the starkest intellectual anarchism.487. With such an approach I am indeed not sympathetic. London.142 But there is a second and even more important means that deconstruction employs to maintain a semblance of viability: the issues are generally cast in new and strange terminology so that familiar positions may not seem so familiar and otherwise obviously relevant scholarship may not seem so obviously relevant. AKH0435 HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM ALSO IMPUGNS DERRIDA Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Thus. the author says.227 Derrida. p. indeed commendable. AKH0443 DECONSTRUCTION MERELY REPEATS FAMILIAR IDEAS IN OBSCURE LANGUAGE John Ellis. quite alien to the original empirical analysis of semiotic phenomena. on the other hand. 1986. to perpetrate unforgivable acts of repression. AKH0441 DERRIDA IS AN INTELLECTUAL NIHILIST Frederick Crews. if not ideas. in their enthusing over Derrida.239 More strongly than Foucault. I). to attack "the metaphysics of presence" is to attack at least a new set of words. the One cannot be being.171. ed. Hence he has no way of arriving at more fruitful ideas than the inherited ones he has doomed himself to deconstruct ad infinitum and thus to retain in a limbo of combined attention and nonassertion.236 Deconstruction. 1989. To put it crudely. Merquior. 1986. AKH0438 HABERMAS SEES DERRIDA AS PURELY NEGATIVE David Couzens Hoy. London. Feyerabend abolished only the hierarchy of contending scientific theories. who has no discernible positive programme. Merquior. Yet in the end the result is pretty much the same as in Adorno or Foucault: a Kulturkritik conspicuously lacking positive horizons. The name of the difference is. since it lies right on the surface ready for further deconstruction. though. His way of unnerving the original Nietzschean temper used not despair but radicalized unbelief. London. a desert of being that is deemed to supersede all reality. his "neglect" of the dimension of human activity in which judgment and decision-making are essential. Habermas accuses Derrida of being like Heidegger in maintaining that politics and history are merely ontic. Dallmayr welcomes a more thoroughgoing critique of subjectivism. it is the art of lethal paraphrase. Professor of Philosophy. p. Derrida goes far beyond this: he wants to suppress order among meanings. DIALOGUE AND DECONSTRUCTION. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. however. 158) automatically precludes recourse to evidence." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and then when one criticizes it. He is bothered. Merquior. So one might say that whilst Nietzsche was a tragic but not a pessimist thinker. not just knowledge.G. and think is little more than an effect of our own subversion by sign-systems whose operations we are unaware of. for any direct statement is against the first law of deconstruction: perpetual equivocation. Derrida's judgment that "there is nothing outside the text" (Derrida 1976. University of California-Berkeley. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS." though both are essentially the same rather naive view of the relation of words and things. Since Derrida had always claimed derivation of his thought from Heidegger. 2. in mounting this attack. 1989. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. except for the people who are telling us we are dupes. London. Derrida is a non-tragic yet a (crypto-) pessimist one. AKH0437 DERRIDA'S PROGRAM IS TOTALLY NEGATIVE J. Professor of German. new facts came to light concerning the enthusiasms of the influential philosopher Martin Heidegger for Nazi doctrine. Feyerabend and his like.218 Trained philosophers such as Searle usually protest when they read literary critics like Culler who. Husserl and Saussure. the unscience of the decadent humanities. hear.188 There is deconstructive writing. in a word--historical optimism. AKH0434 DERRIDA'S PHILOSOPHY IS MERELY A RHETORICAL RESTATEMENT OF HEIDEGGER J. a mix of differing and deferring): a modest scientific conceptual tool became burdened with an unexpected metaphysical load. but rather to creating its illusion. p. 1989. who at least may be capable of appreciating their insults. Since Trump and Iacocca have no interest in the involutions of academic cerebration. Thus Saussure's `difference'. remain logocentric squares: anarchy must free signification. King's College. 1994. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. And that is what makes deconstruction. To Mikel Dufrenne.144 These. of course. King's College. 1993. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. U Cal-Berkeley English prof.178-9 Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste. original thinking. 1991. At heart. because they hold a theory to the effect that pretensions to objective truth and rationality in science.76-7 At about the same time. to "circumvent and elude" interaction with other points of view. p. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. Professor of German. so dismal in performance. the anarchists of epistemology. though a learned and exuberant one. Professor of Philosophy. with no redeeming theory but simply a desire to blow up and trash tradition and continuity. AKH0442 DECONSTRUCTION ONLY PRODUCES THE ILLUSION OF CREATIVITY John Ellis. King's College. His leitmotiv is not the appeal to an uncanny salvation but the relentless undermining of the western code of values. p. 1986. all things derive from it. An apotheosis of epater le bourgeois is accomplished by demonstrating that the apparent meaning of whatever we read. Habermas thinks that Derrida's practice is subversive and anarchistic. King's College. AKH0440 DECONSTRUCTION IS CRITICAL TERRORISM HUDSON REVIEW. Gary Madison. overlook the importance to him of Husserl or Heidegger. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.. Its theory of the text is not only anti-empiricist but downright antiempirical. p. was converted into a portent of ever-delayed meaning based on a pun on difference (differance. and that let Heidegger. p. constructive alternatives. the phoniness of deconstruction is somehow acceptable. Anyone who has engaged in an exchange on deconstruction will have noticed that the defense takes very standard forms. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. To reject the reference theory might seem too obviously commonplace. "Vous m'avez mal compris. p. p. and common sense can be deconstructed as logocentric subterfuges. University of California-Santa Cruz. .G. University of California-Berkeley. then. Nietzsche's old foe: decadent nihilism. harnesses the ontology of absence to a quite different task. Unlike Heidegger. but the new terms make the issue seem different and help to conceal the otherwise embarrassing fact that Derrida. his own addendum--quickly imparted to all his school--was not a direct statement of pessimism.G. which in the Course in General Linguistics humbly denotes the diacritical nature of linguistics signs. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. These metaphysical conceits turn deconstruction into a kind of blank mysticism. are the essentials of the deconstructive logic: a logic not well adapted to productive. from Plato and Rousseau to Freud.G. Difference theory beckons to a nowhere. but the breeder of being' (Enneads. This analysis is both confirmed by and explains the sometimes baffling behavior of deconstructionists when they are under attack. however prudently qualified. p. vous etes idiot" (hence "terroriste"). AKH0439 DERRIDA NEGLECTS ETHICAL CHOICE Diane Michelfelder and Richard Palmer. This leaves just about everyone in the position of dupes. p. Merquior. Deconstruction is Kulturkritik in the form of corrosive commentary. 1986. Deconstruction has indeed become a form of "critical terrorism" (to use a phrase from Foucault) built upon the priestly resentments of extraordinarily intelligent intellectuals who profess to loathe bourgeois success but who are crazed with a desire for the very power and fame they find so vulgar in people like Donald Trump and Lee Iacocca. 1986. 1986. Merquior. King's College. v. AKH0432 DECONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON INTELLECTUAL FAKERY John Searle. the general weaknesses of the deconstructive enterprise become selfjustifying. Hence the paradoxically parasitical status of deconstruction: it feeds on the text of tradition. Few realize--as did Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut--that Derrida's originality is at bottom merely rhetorical. Professor of philosophy. AKH0436 DECONSTRUCTION IS A DECADENT NIHILISM J. p. Yet it has no theory other than the systematic reversal of western thought--`a complete overturning of cultural domination'. enthusiasms that now appear to have been heartfelt. London. an enterprise of relentless symbolization of Heidegger's theme of the `ontological difference'. University of California-Santa Cruz.

unless deconstruction gives us a new vocabulary it is useless as a guide to action. ed. 1993. University of California-Santa Cruz.218 For deconstruction is acclaimed in philosophically unskilled quarters precisely because it got rid of argumentative rigour while providing the pathos of an apocalyptic Weltanschauung. Kafka. let alone better. A conception of politics in which it is intelligible for politics to be "progressive. but with the texts. 1993. AKH0445 DECONSTRUCTION UNDERMINES DEBATE John Ellis.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 38 AKH0444 CREATIVITY REQUIRES INTELLECTUAL DISCIPLINE John Ellis. Derrida. yet no vision can motivate if it always arrives already (atemporally. Gary Madison. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. ed.G. AKH0451 HABERMAS AND FOUCAULT SEE DECONSTRUCTION AS OFFERING NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS David Couzens Hoy. p. It implies that there can be no discussion of deconstruction at all and no possibility of arguing for or against a particular viewpoint. is that deconstructive politics claim that the adoption of any fixed vocabulary will involve the construction of a marginalized Other. examination. London. I would express their worry as follows. If it were allowed to stand. the deconstructionist's admission that we cannot think in any other terms than those metaphysically-laden ones being deconstructed. etc. Spring 1993.100 How can we translate the lessons of deconstruction into concrete political action? Any such translation must occur by way of language. Benjamin. So deconstruction is not even subversion. 1991. this claim cannot be granted. we want some orientation about what changes "here and now" are needed in our present institutional structures. and deconstruction demurs from thinking about how things could be different. and that as a result Derrida falls back into an older conception of philosophical theory as world-disclosing. "It can be interpreted as a strategy for avoiding certain sorts of questions that anyone concerned with politics and political reflection must fact. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA.227 It is an important virtue to be vigilant--as Derrida is--about the ways in which any general social and political theory or code can go awry. ed. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. King's College. irreparably. Professor of philosophy." a strategy which never quite rises to the level of the political because it is forever problematizing political categories. stop the whole argument dead. p." Or even more minimally. Consequently there is a danger that. There is nothing in Derrida's writings that seeks to rule out the importance of critical theoretical and empirical research into the structural dynamics of society and politics." AKH0454 DECONSTRUCTION FAILS TO OFFER A MEANINGFUL GUIDE TO POLITICAL ACTION Richard Bernstein. better reason must exist to dislodge the status quo than the mere fact that it is the status quo... But it is just as important and necessary to seek. Mas'd Zavarzadeh takes just that position in his review of Culler's The Pursuit of Signs. where it is disastrously wrong. University of California-Santa Cruz. He sees Derrida as holistically trying to get a global picture of how everything hangs together with everything else. however. p. is hard to couple with a conception of politics that cannot make sense of a commitment to work toward a vision of a better future. But in reality it offers nothing to replace that which it destroys. To sustain political motivation. On the contrary. world-disclosure over problemsolving. violence he does not primarily deal with specific institutional practices. as opposed to a showing that a particular change involves particular losses in meaning. That better reason can only be our vision of a better future. one that must. we want some understanding of what kinds of institutions and practices should be developed for "a democracy to come. At the same time. we will never rise to the level of the political.150 The inevitable result of this generalized resistance to any change in or analysis of terms. Professor of philosophy. Hegel. best expressed in his famous plea for `white mythologies'. and thus no exposition. thus far. Gary Madison. for all the evocative power of the very idea of a "democracy to come. though. Professor of Philosophy. New School for Social Research. I do not want to denigrate this way--this methodus. Professor of German. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. specifically the writings of those who have addressed these issues--Aristotle. But this is a very serious step indeed. that we cannot get beyond metaphysics. Yet if we opt for perpetual deconstruction. theory would degenerate into a series of solipsistic monologues without any points of contact between them. His analyses are extraordinarily perceptive and rich in their consequences. p. The problem. p. White seems to think. and not to change anything. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA." AKH0450 HABERMAS SEES DERRIDA AS NEGLECTING PRACTICAL PROBLEM SOLVING David Couzens Hoy. 1986. AKH0449 DECONSTRUCTION CAN'T ENLIGHTEN POLITICAL ACTION Andrew Cutrofello. New School for Social Research. and it suggests that nothing could serve as a replacement that could not be deconstructed and subvened in turn. 1989. since subversion implies a desire to change. and thus sharing in Heidegger's preference for the ontological over the ontic. or evaluation of any views or arguments. A new idea in a business concern that results in a highly successful new venture is called creative. Kant. there is explanation of just what those standards are and how they are to be justified. ed. in any sphere of activity. Professor of philosophy. Mary's College. White contends that Derrida can recommend nothing other than a "perpetual withholding operation. for example. speculative and poetic over the empirical and practical.9 When. how it can deconstruct itself. Derrida's claims about a "democracy to come" are powerfully evocative. standards uniquely appropriate to him. we judge someone to have been creative only if he produces an idea that is both original and valuable. University of California-Santa Cruz. Stanford and Harvard. ed. p.. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA.. The practice of deconstruction appears to be subversive. University of California-Santa Cruz. 1989. with particular arguments addressed to those changes. 1993. p. AKH0446 DECONSTRUCTION DESTROYS ARGUMENTATIVE RIGOR J.228-9 When Derrida examines questions of justice. law. This can and should be decided by participants. is in its assumption that creativity means freedom from constraints or from standards of judgment operating on its results. AKH0453 DERRIDA'S FAILURE TO DEAL WITH HISTORICAL COMPLEXITY LIMITS HIS POLITICAL VALUE Richard Bernstein. terminally) deconstructed. . Deconstruction is not wrong to say that the critic is creative. p. St.1055 Such implications risk not only communicative misunderstanding. Professor of German. philosophy over science. except that unlike Heidegger's fascistic allegiance to authority. 1993. vague abstraction.246 Habermas and Foucault both allege that Derrida has not paid enough attention to the social practices that surround textuality. The first thing liberated by the Liberation of the Signifier movement is the right to wild philosophizing--an outcome blessed frivolously by Derrida's own destruction of the difference between logos and mythos. Levinas. Again voicing the typical complaint. Professor of Philosophy. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. University of California-Santa Cruz. Derrida's stance is anarchistic. deconstruction or any other. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. p. He warns us against identifying this "democracy to come" with any of its present institutional forms.243-4 Habermas thinks that Derrida does not see that philosophy can recognize the problemsolving capacity of theory. nevertheless. Professors of Law.246 Habermas believes that Derrida is like Heidegger in preferring the realm of pure philosophy to that of politics. Professor of German. he would insist that it is not the task of the philosopher or theorist--as some sort of "master" intellectual--to lay out blueprints for such a democracy. such an endeavor is what his own questioning of boundary-fixing demands. p." the idea of such a democracy can become an impotent. Gary Madison.. his neglect of dealing more directly and explicitly with political and societal institutions in their historical complexity does have the consequence of making his own understanding of society and politics sound rather "thin. seems to leave thought in the same situation. without some kind of explanation. for a general understanding and explanation of the institutional dynamics of politics and society. Like Habermas. has very little to say about any of this. 1989. Merquior. in a fallibilistic spirit. it is claimed that Derrida must be judged and evaluated by different logical standards. can only be a rejection of reason itself. foundationally." to aspire to creation of communities that empower human beings. AKH0448 DECONSTRUCTION UNDERMINES PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL CHANGE Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. no debate on or evaluation of differing viewpoints would be possible. in science just as in philosophy and criticism. Creativity is not simply achieved by letting the mind wander with complete freedom into thoughts never previously recorded. one that results in bankruptcy is called a piece of folly. 1993. but dissipation of reformist political will. Otherwise the specific ways in which we intervene "here and now" can lack any orientation. SOCIAL THEORY AND PRACTICE. Gary Madison. AKH0452 HABERMAS SEES DERRIDA AS REJECTING CONSTRUCTIVE POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT David Couzens Hoy. p. Gary Madison.134 Imagination and creativity are vital aspects of all thought. University of California-Santa Cruz. if taken seriously. But still it is fair to ask for some determinate content. But this is not what Derrida does. But surely--as Derrida himself acknowledges--they need to be supplemented by the theoretical and empirical study of societal institutions and practices. AKH0447 THE DECONSTRUCTIONIST REJECTION OF REASON STOPS ALL DEBATE John Ellis. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.

p. that appears to turn deconstruction into a paroxysm of overinterpretation. AKH0464 DECONSTRUCTION LEADS TO INFINITE REGRESS Russell Jacoby. It is this abyss-effect. University of California-Santa Cruz. are members in good standing of the academic establishment from which they claim to be freeing us.96 But feminists and Marxists are very mistaken to see support for their position in deconstruction's rhetoric. 1986. Deconstruction and conservatism are in a kind of symbiosis in which the two feed on each other. But given such aims. and there is something distinctly odd about attacking a system of oppression by altering the rules of its literary criticism. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. carrying the reek of a decadent mandarinate that has seen everything once too often. 1989. 1986. Derrida's translator. not upon the huddled masses. 1989. The problem--and it is a problem for which there cannot be any final or permanent "solution"--is how to live this perpetual uneasiness in a way in which we "gesture in opposite directions at the same time.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 39 AKH0455 DERRIDEAN DECONSTRUCTION IS A SYMPTOM OF POLITICAL IMPOTENCE.) This is his point about gesturing "in opposite directions. it is. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. AKH0456 DECONSTRUCTION CAN'T PRODUCE SOCIAL REFORM Frederick Crews. But he is equally acute in his realization that such a questioning doesn't "solve" anything." where we keep alive the distance of questioning and are prepared to act decisively "here and now"--where we do not hide in bad faith from the double-blinds that we always confront. a permanent existence at stage center where it is to stay while being deconstructed. But aside from the fact that this program is inherently uninteresting. and decision "here and now" demand that we at least temporarily suspend constant questioning. p. THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY. which is as it should be. but deconstruction puts the matter the other way around: its emphasis is on debunking the old. p. It has been moderated. Furthermore. 1993. and thus ideas that deserve to die will not be allowed to do so. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. insists on this ever-dynamic character in her introduction to Of Grammatology). ed. The real way forward from a conservative viewpoint that needs revision is to go on from it--to find something better. We cannot assume a permanent frozen stance of an-arche. For this is another fixed metaphysical position. we cannot simply dismiss or ignore those ethical and political principles that are constitutive of our traditions. subverting signifieds." We cannot escape from the responsibilities and obligations that are thrust upon us--thrust upon us by the other. p. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. THE LAST INTELLECTUALS. p. New School for Social Research. not at all clear that it is possible. And in at least three respects. the ultimate bottomlessness of its readings. To toy with ideas in such an idle and self-vitiating fashion would seem to confess a lack of interest in bringing about salutary change in human affairs. the critical maneuvers of the more politically minded deconstructionists would appear to border on the delusional. Mallarme and Artaud. p. a necessarily immanent method. Gary Madison. University of California-Santa Cruz. 1994. ed. Interpretation forever on the move is not a bad description of the art of deconstruction (in fact. p. and the direction in which one must go is not at all obvious. however. p.219-20 Derrida has an acute sense that. In the first place. and signifiers as the stuff of interpretation. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. Eurocentric frameworks and modernist loyalties loom large in the work of Derrida and Foucault. deconstruction's generalized strategy is a very dangerous thing. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. English prof. Instead of slowly changing and relaxing with the passage of time. Professor of German. It is a uniquely disenchanted and crepuscular philosophy. This version of relentless skepticism toward logical consistency and theoretical coherence. doubt can only really arise from specific causes and anxieties. They are thrust upon us by the other. at the expense of others. "there is nothing outside the text" and "interpretation of any signifying chain is necessarily only another chain of signs. the deconstructionist denial that there are standards of evidence by which one critical judgment might be found more adequate than another effectively turns criticism into a mystery exclusively controlled by its high priests. AKH0458 DECONSTRUCTION REINFORCES CONSERVATISM John Ellis. not from the contemplation of the present state of knowledge taken only by itself." their philosophies are widely viewed as major examples of postmodern thought. and that something will not just oppose the older view but replace it. it is suddenly given new life as the legitimate alternative to the current excesses. AKH0459 DECONSTRUCTION WOULD FAVOR REACTIONARY IDEAS IF THEY BECAME MARGINALIZED John Ellis. . We must always be prepared to confront new unpredictable responsibilities. puzzle)--a raising of problems without offering any stable solutions. it operates as the euphoria of aporia.89 In general. AKH0457 DECONSTRUCTION UNDERMINES REFORM Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. signs. responsibility. Finding something better is a genuinely progressive move. They are made by people who. Given our radical contingency we can never know or control when we are called upon to respond. if deconstruction. 1989. the benefits they seek are conferred.G. p. They fail the first test of any revolutionary utterance. AKH0461 EVEN DERRIDA ADMITS QUESTIONING MUST SOMETIMES BE SUSPENDED IN ORDER TO ACT Richard Bernstein. No meaning escapes the hidden spell of its contrary. but upon themselves. Professor of German. then it only destabilizes logocentric readings through a cascade of reinterpretations `en abime'. To find a better. New School for Social Research. any wild and incoherent attack on conservatism always tends to strengthen it and to give it added legitimacy. `falls prey to its own work' by continuously inverting. in practice. 1989. their inability to creatively transform and build on the ambiguous legacy of the Age of Europe.80-1 The focus of any genuinely new piece of criticism or interpretation must be on the creative act of finding the new. may be symptomatic of the relative political impotence of marginal peoples. Insofar as this method. action. indeed partly promotes. running rings around a dying idea is neither original nor productive. first principles and archai. So when Derrida speaks of his "perpetual uneasiness" he is not merely expressing an idiosyncratic subjective state of mind but rather expressing a condition of undecidability which--to speak in a nonDerridean manner--is built into "the human condition. But to recognize this is to see both what the appeal of deconstruction is and why it is fruitless: deconstruction makes the next step easy but trivial. AKH0460 DECONSTRUCTIONIST DENIAL OF STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE ENTRENCHES ELITES Frederick Crews. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. 1993. as a result of feminist and left-wing efforts. which refuses to entertain or encourage novel reconstructions. We are compelled to question these. As an Algerian Jew in a French Catholic (and antiSemitic) society. Taken at face value as efforts to found a new social order. AKH0465 DERRIDA LEADS TO INFINITE REGRESS J. as we have seen. decision. such exclusivism has always thrived in the academic world. posits. For.. so that the end result of text-deciphering can but be aporetic (from the Greek apria. Derrida's deconstructionist version of poststructuralism accents the transgressive and disruptive aspects of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Derrida attacks the major philosophic traditions of the West in the form of fascinating though ultimately monotonous deconstructions. Professor of German. As with their fellow Frenchman Lyotard. Deconstruction's strategy seems focused but is really random. King's College. For they are surely attempting to identify particular omissions from the center and making specific proposals to change the consensus. To be sure. it is giving that view a privileged status. for as Charles Saunders Pierce argued against Descartes's recommendation that we should doubt all that we know. 1986. inspired by Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes. at least since the "rupture" we call Nietzsche. and choice." it both surrenders attention to a social or material context--or fails to appreciate its import--and encourages endless spirals of commentary. But of course we needn't take these efforts at face value. But in the case of deconstruction. but it is the conclusion to which we are committed by deconstruction's essentially random theory of the vitality and importance of that which has been marginalized. Harvard. University of California-Santa Cruz. U Cal-Berkeley. Merquior. Professor of Philosophy. there are added reasons to believe that it promotes rather than erodes conservatism. a "poststructuralism" that concentrates on texts. will that very fact make them suddenly intellectually respectable again? Surely that would be an unacceptable development. Professor of Philosophy. University of California. p. that it be understandable to people outside the revolutionary's immediate circle. and thought: it is not at all easy.236 Although both Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault reject the term "postmodernism. San Diego. to a significant extent. (Otherwise we would slip into inaction and noncommitment which are also modes action and commitment. male chauvinist and fascist voices become marginalized. in fact.118. when deconstruction puts such heavy emphasis on the undermining of the traditional view. p. We cannot escape responsibility.82 Deconstructionism in its pure form would seem to be an unlikely candidate for such popularity. One looks mechanically in the opposite direction. if.172-3 This new Marxism converges with. imagination. by a shared willingness to acknowledge that young critic A has said something new and important about Shakespeare or that young critic B has forced us to revise our understanding of The Red Badge of Courage. Gayatri Spivak. more complex interpretation needs skill.219 Nevertheless. Deconstruction has turned infinite regression from a philosophical vice into an interpretive virtue. Cornel West. Gary Madison." AKH0462 DERRIDA ENDORSES SIMULTANEOUSLY QUESTIONING AND ACTING Richard Bernstein..222 However.118. AKH0463 DECONSTRUCTION FAILS TO SUGGEST INTERESTING ALTERNATIVES John Ellis. we can no longer be content with self-satisfied appeals to moral and political foundations. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. Professor of Religion. London. 1987.

the deconstructionist is forced to attempt to represent its superiority. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. for example. London. then this. King's College. the logical objections to either one of these two positions are much the same. which he has never bothered to prove. a universe of possibilities. this means that deconstruction. If he can treat the features of a suitably redefined notion of writing as definitive of truth. London. Or when discussing the issue of certainty in knowledge. p. cannot be held outside. Merquior. etc. One could. For example. University of California-Santa Cruz. the poststructuralist critic reasonably hopes." for. of course. on to unsophisticated. 1986. for example. as a dangerous supplement to the masculine. This involves considerable loss. its axiological primacy. Texts. London. let along ditching. by appealing the logocentric values he tries to devalue. that every `embodied' meaning leads directly to what Of Grammatology spurns as the `transcendental signified'. characterizations of one conception or another as "good" or "bad" are not coherently understandable except as more fodder for deconstruction. like so many others. London. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. Professor of Philosophy. away from the most sophisticated thought achieved to date. Without the ability to discern differing degrees of importance and relevance in the potentially infinite variety of things around us.G. even the term `deconstruction' is itself a refraction of the Heideggerian `destruction' of metaphysics).138 Deconstructionist thinking shifts the context we begin with. p. subtle work of many decades that has made this view hardly worth bothering with any more in any reasonably sophisticated context." Each new understanding can be deconstructed with the very same vigor as the one it replaces. amounts to little more than a sweeping rhetoric of cavalier scepticism. but deconstruction may be less useful if applied where usage is already less bimodal. AKH0476 DECONSTRUCTION DICHOTOMIZES RATHER THAN SEEING A CONTINUUM OF THOUGHT Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. Deconstruction can open the way to new understandings and hence social change. a tiresome `demonstration' that everybody always says the very opposite of what they mean. Professor of German. deconstruction may obscure rather than clarify our situation vis-a-vis our own discourse. AKH0468 DECONSTRUCTION DECONSTRUCTS ITSELF John Searle. The `historical approach' cannot be dispatched in one page of unargued assertion in a cursory interview with the Master of Deconstruction. and anything can be deconstructed. and Husserl. p. in other words. Rather it seems motivated by his conviction that everything in logocentrism hinges on this issue. Professor of Philosophy. a reading according to which philosophers are supposed to be roundly condemning writing. AKH0470 DERRIDA MISUNDERSTANDS WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION John Searle.221 But the moral of the exercise is clear: the remedy for bad history is more. 1991. p. but. 1989. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. for all its stress on the text. Merquior. . AKH0469 THE DECONSTRUCTIONIST CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE FAILS J. Stanford and Harvard. 1986. from inside the deconstructive perspective. cares nothing for the textual context. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. or those who simply embrace and advocate ideas such as free play and textuality. This piece of Derrideanism.178 Derrida's eccentric reading of the history of Western philosophy. on the reckless a priori assumption that all historical narratives are equally unwarranted because they can be questioned. AKH0475 DECONSTRUCTION SIMPLY REPLACES PRIMITIVE IDEAS WITH MORE PRIMITIVE ONES John Ellis. and better. Merquior. By an aporetical Aufhebung. the jump from one extreme to another is not productive thinking whether one takes the second to have replaced the first or displaced it. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. University of California-Berkeley. Professor of German. it scarcely matters whether one takes the position of those deconstructionists who insist that logic is always controlling. It is good to put bimodal categories to the test where these exist in our discourse. Anything can be privileged. Derrida only discusses three major figures in any detail: Plato. King's College. p. and never forgotten. It follows that `there is nothing outside the text'--the saying that so infuriated Foucault. will help us stop privileging the masculine. London. rendering that thought into a bimodal categorical form. AKH0474 DECONSTRUCTION IGNORES RECENT THOUGHT IN ORDER TO ATTACK STRAW MEN John Ellis. to subvert the distinction between essential and inessential would have considerably more serious consequences. Professors of Law. Rousseau. AKH0472 DECONSTRUCTION'S REDUCTIONISM ROBS IT OF FRUITFULNESS J. while privileging spoken language. more "continuum-ized.G. invent a deconstruction of deconstructionism as follows: In the hierarchical opposition. Professors of Law. still more so in denouncing the snooty abstruseness of most deconstructionists. in order to establish the hierarchical superiority of deconstruction. p. So long as history refuses to be swallowed by `textuality'. Some of the conceptions we privilege may be good (in their places) and some may be bad.G. p. deconstruction deconstructs itself. Deconstruction as an "edifying" discourse has been used in the service of emancipatory social change. 1993.181 One sometimes gets the impression that deconstruction is a kind of game that anyone can play. Instead texts become mere pretexts for daring speculations based on rickety etymologies--a spurious habit introduced into continental philosophy by Heidegger (but then. simple notions. AKH0471 DECONSTRUCTION IGNORES TEXTUAL CONTEXT J. 1986. Stanford and Harvard. in reality. in his polemic with Derrida (for example his afterword to the second edition of Histoire de la Folie) singled out the `pedagogic authoritarianism' of the deconstructors as a model of `obscurantist terrorism' built on Derrida's resoundingly dogmatic dictum. and they are decisive. we should be completely lost in a meaningless world. Foucault was right in attacking the navel-gazing of the ideologues of the text.1053 If a strength of deconstruction is to disabuse us of rigid dichotomies. but there is nothing that could make deconstruction "by its nature" progressive. the privileged term "deconstruction" is in fact subordinate to the devalued term "logocentrism. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. In its obsessive reductionism. by argument and persuasion. are clusters of signs. But his efforts to do this are doomed to failure because of the internal inconsistency in the concept of deconstructionism itself. Professor of German. history--a far cry from wholesale distrust. but is always already inside the masculine. 1989.242 Michel Foucault. because of its very self-referential dependence on the authority of a prior logic. From our point of view. `there is nothing outside the text'. be completely disabled and unable to function intellectually." Deconstruction itself maps structure onto the thought it deconstructs. is not grounded on an actual reading of the texts of the leading figures in the philosophical tradition.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 40 AKH0466 DERRIDA'S FOCUS ON THE TEXT IS JUST NAVAL GAZING J. 1989. the odds are against our dispensing with the historical approach. King's College. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. Deconstructionists write as if to subvert this distinction would be to transfer attention from one idea to another. certain knowledge rather than the work in philosophy of science that abandoned that idea long ago. Merquior. King's College. Derrida infers. deconstruction/logocentrism (phono-phallo-logocentrism). p. p. but this is not something deconstruction can tell us. p. This distinction is one that allows us to focus our minds instead of letting them wander aimlessly. University of California-Santa Cruz. 1986. 1986. University of California-Berkeley. deconstruction invariably sounds pretty dull: a vastly repetitive and overpredictable strategy.G. AKH0467 DECONSTRUCTION PRODUCES AN INFINITE REGRESS Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. of the `historical approach'. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. Primitive ideas reversed produce more primitive ideas. p.139-40 The emotional weight of deconstructionist writings leans heavily to positions that reverse and stand on their head the naive beliefs from which the argument begins. University of California-Santa Cruz. deconstruction turns out to be a rather melancholy business--the dismal unscience of our time. 1991. deconstructionists develop their argument by stressing the naivete of that view. regardless of the claims for a "neither/nor and either/or" logic. let alone by epigonic pot-shots from his literary critical disciples.G.--then he thinks he can deconstruct these notions. AKH0473 DECONSTRUCTIONIST BLURRING OF ESSENTIAL AND INESSENTIAL PRODUCES INTELLECTUAL CHAOS John Ellis. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. 1993. in so doing avoiding the advanced. when it is shown that the feminine. Free play is an incoherent notion whether one takes it by itself or as a package together with the equally incoherent notion that was there before it. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. Merquior. the deconstructive approach is to focus immediately upon the simple belief that words refer directly to things.94 Focusing on what is central or essential for a given task or inquiry does not involve a choice between one set of things and another but instead of choice of a small number of things from a forbiddingly large number--in fact. but it cannot help to guide the direction of change or say whether change (however guided) will be for the "better" or "worse.1054 Another sort of incompletion to which poststructuralist practice is liable ends in skeptical loss of valuational focus or political direction. the general result belies the exaggerated claims of the whole current of thought. in fact. AKH0477 DERRIDA DISSOLVES REALITY INTO LANGUAGE J. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. Without it we should. a corresponding danger is to see (construct) rigid dichotomies in places where our discourse is saliently more complex.221 The roots of Derrida's mystique of the text lie in his pansemioticism--in which reality is engulfed by the sign. that `from the moment there is meaning there are nothing but signs'. From the assumption. however.236 Yet when all is said and done. p. When dealing with meaning. In some cases. For all its official Nietzschean alacrity. King's College. reality. in that same seminal book. deconstruction tends to begin with the naive belief in clear.219 In plain english.

as are the mental operations conditioned by linguistic habit. but because it is mystical to the point of being not only mysterious but also unintelligible. systematic and reassuring exposition risks exposing him to the charge that he is contributing to the recuperation and revitalization of deconstruction by the American critical establishment. Yet nobody bothers to prove the point. therefore. RATIONAL EXPOSITION John Ellis. p. But Derrida is unsuccessful in doing so. forever avoiding presence and identity. in Derrida. As a result. Such is the final consequence of the surrender of philosophy to the literary ideology forged by High Modernism.20 That he rejects epistemological relativism is especially apparent from his attack on Derrida's reading of Plato. crisis theory declares war on the rigours of critique. He does not hesitate to claim that there are truths about how people do understand themselves and what sort of life they esteem. not to be judged or discussed by rational argument and ordinary logic. AKH0485 DECONSTRUCTION ISN'T CONCERNED WITH TRUTH John Searle. Merquior. Thus. it becomes permissible for professors of English to inquire solemnly into what are by tradition (and in fact) trivial matters.10 The assumption here is evidently that rational analysis is inherently an inappropriate and unfair means of approaching deconstruction. just as others do. it manages to engulf his very language. p. or breech. University of California-Santa Cruz. . or historical truth than any other. Professor of philosophy. University of California-Berkeley. whether on the page or in our heads. and common sense. Foucault believes that the method of textual deconstruction tries incorrectly and unsuccessfully to bracket all questions about the truth claims of texts. the countercultural idea is no longer just a romantic vision)it is also an openly irrationalist idiom of thought. 1994. reason. In fact "reality" is itself a mere construct. Derrida's desire to transcend the aspirations of modern reason is in reality a frustrated desire for a return to the premodern traditions where reason has not yet undermined the mystery of hidden religious authority.13-4 During his much-publicized dispute with John Searle.76 Derrida's deep epistemological pessimism has infected his disciples as much as have his stylistic eccentricities.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 41 AKH0478 DECONSTRUCTION IMPROPERLY IGNORES TRUTH David Couzens Hoy. such as the distinction between reality and appearance. Merquior.G." no narrative tradition closer to ethical. On the contrary. rather he seeks to undermine. when he feels the need to replace a misstatement of his view with an adequate statement of it. Like the cosmic drama of Being repressed by being in Heidegger. not as a specific matter of the particular points Culler has misstated when he when he could and should have stated them properly (for no examples are given). or overcome. AKH0488 HABERMAS THINKS DERRIDA IS A NOSTALGIC MYSTIC David Couzens Hoy. or call in question. Professor of Philosophy. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. There is no reality outside the text. AKH0479 DERRIDA REJECTS OBJECTIVE REALITY Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. London. 1989. and to festoon those inquiries with the abundant neologisms of the postmodern lexicon. giving thereby further assurance that the subject at hand. King's College. then there are no grounds for regarding the traditional venues of humanist scholars)high literature and high art)as sacred ground. Similarly. ever fulminating against `Western logocentrism' in all forms. 1986. 1986. But there is a difference. University of California-Berkeley. London.G.233-4 Thus. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. Its growing spate of texts. Gary Madison. And the target is not just a set of philosophical and literary texts. p. Authors who are concerned with discovering the truth are concerned with evidence and reasons. irrationalism was a question of Nietzschean premisses and conclusions that did not affect the style of exposition. 1993. King's College. and his attempt at postmodernism is a failure. ed. 1989. that language is ultimately impotent. of course. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. AKH0489 DERRIDA'S THOUGHT IS THEOLOGICAL AND ANTIQUATED J. and between truth and fiction. Deconstructionism holds that truly meaningful utterance is impossible. the persistent but illusory remnant of the Western metaphysical tradition. But all of this is part of the apparatus of the very "logo-centricism" that deconstruction seeks to undermine. TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE J. These manichaean dichotomies)Being versus being. thus originating the ontology of absence whose latest versions are Heidegger's Being (always placed beyond all positive existence) and its semiotic child. Derrida clearly conceded the point at issue. Merquior.224 Dufrenne also reminds us that in the history of ancient thought this fascination with nothingness has been interpreted as a clash between Greek intellectualism and eastern theology. but the Western conception of rationality and the set of presuppositions that underlie our conceptions of language. deconstruction had already conquered a dominant position in post-structuralism. Professor of German. this whole family of concepts is part of the logocentrism he wants to overcome. Every concern with objective knowledge is thrown overboard: no more of truth. The verbal means by which we seek to represent the world are incapable. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. Merquior. with logical consequences. University of California-Santa Cruz. science. AKH0484 DECONSTRUCTION ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE RATIONALITY John Searle. 1993. p. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. verification and testability. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. but texts themselves are vertiginously unstable. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. . `writing' versus phone)betray a religious pattern of thought that leaves Derrida)for all his reticence regarding eschatology)infinitely closer to the prophet Levinas that to the cool-headed practitioners of philosophy as analysis. or disclose complicities. p. Believing that Searle's exposition of his position had been unfair to him. AKH0480 DECONSTRUCTION THOUGHT DESTROYS INTELLECTUAL STANDARDS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. Strings of words. AKH0483 DECONSTRUCTION REJECTS CLEAR. a post-structuralist without a proper structuralist background. p.226 Yet the tenor of Derridean philosophy shares with Heidegger's a dangerous proclivity towards the bombastic translation of problems of being and knowledge into strident moral dilemmas.235 Well before the death of Foucault. Professor of Philosophy. Derridean difference or `trace'. AKH0482 DERRIDA IS AN IRRATIONALIST NIHILIST J. even adding at one point that what he. to establish or confirm. And so the claim that deconstruction is a special case. While in Foucault.179 What are the results of deconstruction supposed to be? Characteristically the deconstructionist does not attempt to prove or refute. London. 1986. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. p. University of California-Santa Cruz. explanatory adequacy. But Greek thinkers were so wont to identify the real and the conceivable with what can be said that they dared not state there is an unintelligible reality.. p. what Habermas is objecting to is the vestige of Jewish mysticism (not because it is Jewish. Habermas's analysis is that Derrida is attempting to break with modernity. AKH0487 DERRIDA NEGLECTS PHILOSOPHIC ANALYSIS IN FAVOR OF RELIGIOUS PROPHESY J. Derrida's protest against phonocentrism sounds more like lay sermonizing than genuine analytical argument. at several points in his reply.G. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. Professor of Philosophy. Oriental religions had proposed the idea of a supreme Being beyond the grasp of language. that Searle had misunderstood him and misstated his views. p. University of California-Santa Cruz. aesthetic. the thoughtstructure of Derrida is a philosophical antique with a more theological than epistemological origin)something that may remain concealed to those who broach deconstruction theory as though it were just a conceptually sharpened semiotics. p. Since the quarrel is between the Enlightenment's faith in reason and the counter-Enlightenment rebellion against reason. . AKH0481 DECONSTRUCTION REJECTS REASON. then a purely textual analysis of the works that I have cited would show that is simply not the case.G. AKH0486 DECONSTRUCTION CAN BE ATTACKED BY RATIONAL ARGUMENT John Ellis. have at best a shadowy and unstable relation to reality. with consistency and inconsistency.187 The single most unplausible claim that Mackey makes is that "the deconstructionist is almost obsessively occupied with truth. This is indeed a very far cry from the claim that Derrida's essential position cannot be stated as others can (or that a reader should not try to grasp the author's intent!).238 Foucault and Derrida have not just transmuted the disillusionment of the structuralist world-view into nihilism)they have also directed nihilism against truth. 1986. they made it into a non-being. is a claim that is neither explicated nor really consistently believed and acted upon by those who make it.86 The role of the skepticism and relativism of the deconstructionists is also clear. and he is certainly not seeking the truth." And Rendall points to the issue of "distortions" and "simplifications" in Culler's exposition. for all the novelty of his terminology. 1994. and his desire is to be postmodern. Derrida. be it rap music or professional wrestling. King's College. constitutes a glaring confirmation that the chief commitment of recent French new thought is an onslaught on the critical rationalist ethos of the Enlightenment tradition. if no text is "privileged. evidence or reference)they were just ploys of a repressive civilization . Critical thinking is victimized by lofty proclamations of Kulturkrisis. I do not think the charge can be summarily dismissed. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. London. The usefulness of such comparisons is that they show that. inherently self-contradictory and self-canceling. Derrida could not resist saying. p. Professor of German. 1986. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. has deep implications for theory. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. 1993. it is said. King's College. Derrida thus abandons this position. but rather as a general issue of distortion and simplification that must be present whenever any clear and rational exposition occurs. of doing any such thing. had meant should have been clear enough and obvious to Searle. p. Steven Rendall has recently written that "Culler's measured." If he means to imply that they seek the truth.

privileging deconstruction. the technique of laying bare the metaphorical nature of all attempts to establish referential terms.235 As a widespread practice signalling the triumph of `text and theory')an appallingly uncritical mix of wild philosophizing. language must have an absolute foundation. which may generate a debilitating skepticism that is not useful to the feminist cause in the long run. . AKH0500 DECONSTRUCTION IS PHILOSOPHICALLY TRIVIAL John Searle. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. is at bottom just a disappointed absolutism. we should indeed see him as a crypto-absolutist.G. but under analysis often turn out be silly or trivial. but on the other hand. 1986. something must be privileged for deconstruction to take place. because that would remove the challenge. an unsupported contention that "differance. She can forget sometimes that. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. King's College. Like the skeptic who forgets to be skeptical about the "truth: of skepticism.233 To Norris. specific. "going deep" is an analytical action performed by philosophers and metacritics in the privacy of their seminars. but they are not truly intelligible. even if we fail to notice the selection happening. Professor of German. p. AKH0501 DECONSTRUCTIONIST JARGON CREATES A FALSE SENSE OF PROFUNDITY John Ellis. dichotomies. a belief in foundational meaning seems to have survived. London. Professors of Law. For one might say that. London. presence is a certain type of absence (106). This is an arguable position.g. Derrida offers a mirrorimage of it. King's College. London. AKH0495 DECONSTRUCTION ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR REAL WORLD PROBLEMS Stanley Fish. about meaning as about almost everything else. AKH0497 EVEN DECONSTRUCTION MUST MAKE SOME UNCHALLENGED ASSUMPTIONS Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 42 AKH0490 DECONSTRUCTION IS JUST INVERTED METAPHYSICS Frederick Crews. we get the following examples of knowledge and mastery: speech is a form of writing (passim). rationally trying to surpass the foundationalist stance in modern epistemology. truistic semiotics. Merquior. "How to do things with texts" (1979).170-1 Unfortunately. And the examples that Culler and Derrida provide are. 1989. particularly those associated with deconstruction. p." or the endless deferral of meaning. Thus in the end Derrida shares the belief that for determinate meanings to obtain. Stanford and Harvard.6-7 One problem with postmodern views.. the literal is metaphorical (148). In a remarkable article in Partisan Review. 1989. it is by no means clear that this is really so. we are told that the ideas inherent in deconstruction are challenging. whose "deconstructionist" viewpoint dominated vanguard opinion on both sides of the Atlantic throughout the Seventies. personal. p. University of California-Berkeley. and how their readers do the same as they read. FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE. p. precisely this charge was levelled at Derrida by an elder statesman of American criticism. Professors of Law. Abrams. Which is scarcely surprising. Derrida's philosophical merit lies in his Nietzschean surpassing of the `foundational' dreams of the Fregean. disturbing. Duke English and Law prof. Professor of Philosophy. and deconstruction is pre-eminently a scholastic way of spelling doom for enlightened culture under the pretext of making `theory'. not very convincing.101 I have not used deconstructive jargon here. poststructuralist cynicism is by no means the same thing as empirically based skepticism.1054-5 Of course. Professor of Philosophy. 1993. Texts may be legible. Merquior. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. since few things suit an apocalyptic prophet better than an all-or-nothing philosophical outlook. 1994. Apocalyptic visions make short shrift of relative truths. there were plenty of quite acceptable ordinary English words for the status of entrenched ideas and for the process of questioning and undermining them. "privileged ideas" or "demystify. This failing can extend to the privileging of the methodology itself. is that they tend to be better at destroying theories than at building the. University of California-Berkeley. Pragmatism also subscribes to a postmodern antiessentialist theory of human nature and knowledge. We can see that divergence quite clearly in the writings of Derrida. but in Derrida's hands it becomes an inverted metaphysics of its own. making it foundational.203).234 But mark: if Derrida is really a `rooted sceptic' with little time or taste for rational dialogue and the hardships of sustained argument.188 I believe that any one who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation.179 The trouble with this claim is that it requires us to have some way of distinguishing genuine knowledge from its counterfeits. 1991. which views law as a dynamic process of conflict resolution and focuses on the function of courts to analyze law and legal reasoning. reading is a form of misreading (176). e. p. Something must be privileged if we are to speak and understand each other. AKH0492 DECONSTRUCTION CAN CAUSE DEBILITATING SKEPTICISM Patricia Smith. As my text argues. in her own very act of writing. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. There is no slide to nihilism or relativism implied here. p. There is in deconstructive writing a constant straining of the prose to attain something that sounds profound by giving it the air of a paradox. To this it must be said that any challenge is by its nature sharp. holds that any use of language points only to further language and that the whole Western "metaphysics of presence" from Plato onward is erroneous. Poststructuralists are often ironically aware of how they willy-nilly reflect such selections as they write. in effect. and occasional bits of ill-digested social science)deconstruction is a drab neo-structuralist scholastics. the poststructuralist-minded critic may lapse rhetorically into implying that there is something good or right about deconstruction itself. the marginal is in fact central (140). In a curious negative way.G. p. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. he cannot bring himself to trust language games that do not have a bedrock of ultimate meanings. and man is a form of woman (171). In law it is associated with legal realist theory. AKH0498 DECONSTRUCTION COLLAPSES INTO FOUNDATIONALISM Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. says Abrams. outside those seminars they. p. derrida. In fact.G. AKH0491 DECONSTRUCTION IS A STERILE MIX OF DISPARATE ELEMENTS J. truth is a kind of fiction (181). yet one can turn the tables on such a claim. "constitutes the essence of life" (Derrida 1978. University of California-Santa Cruz. 1986. 1993. From the fact that language lacks an ultimate ground. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. p." because to do so would be to concede a crucial part of the issue: it would imply acceptance of the fact that this point is new and has its origin in this language. p. Stanford and Harvard. King's College. p. AKH0499 DECONSTRUCTION IS JUST PRETENTIOUS VERBOSITY John Searle. 1986. to say the least. In Culler's book. M. the same kind of privileging that she deconstructs in others must always already be going on in order to enable her to write)or even to be.1055 So. imperfect poststructuralist writing can tend to be self-privileging.. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. the wildly exaggerated claims. and common language must have some fixed points)some points we select (or have had selected for us) as fixed points. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical. 1991. 1993. we are also told. As so often. if we are to understand the deconstructer as saying something. Professor of Philosophy. the deliberate obscurantism of the prose. e.H. "truths are fictions whose fictionality has been forgotten" (181). AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. Unlike the later Wittgenstein. Derrida concludes that the work of meaning can only be deceptive. since meaning is `undecidable'. University of Kentucky. Merquior. sanity is a kind of neurosis (160). UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. provocative (and if there is one constant in all the descriptions of and claims for deconstruction. however. then Abrams is basically right. available vocabulary seems to me to be part and parcel of an attempt to create a feeling that something extraordinary and unusual is going on. it is this). radical scepticism. Deconstruction. 1986. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. One response to this skepticism has been a revitalization of pragmatism within feminism. in his thought. which coincides with feminist rejection of traditional abstract categories. AKH0496 THE CHALLENGE OF DECONSTRUCTION IS TOO VAGUE TO BE USEFUL John Ellis. and justified feelings of mastery from mere enthusiasms generated by a lot of pretentious verbosity. like the rest of us.g. `an absolutist without absolutes'. Professor of German. and clear: a challenge without a well-placed thrust is not a challenge at all. But these new coinages are completely unnecessary. Instead of viewing him as a Nietszchean Quine. the demise of the transcendental signified. Abrams points out that Derrida's urge to deconstruct meaning is based on a curious non sequitur. far from rejecting the foundationalist outlook. is `an absolutist without absolutes'. AKH0493 DERRIDA'S RADICAL SKEPTICISM IS JUST DISAPPOINTED ABSOLUTISM J. on the one hand. Feminists are drawn to the practical. and the conceptual pretensions of the logical analysis of law. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. We must assume a common language. contextual approach of pragmatism. University of California-Santa Cruz.18. unexamined Lacanese. The avoidance of this perfectly ordinary. Yet the imperfect poststructuralist may suppress this ever-present irony. move quite nicely on the very ground they have deconstructed. p. that the nature of the challenge cannot be precisely stated. Some readers may feel that such a list generates not so much feelings of mastery as of monotony. AKH0494 DERRIDA IS A CRYPTIC ABSOLUTIST J.149 But there is still another contradiction here.

239 Derrida did it in a subtler way. is a parasite of language: it wages war on meanings by means of a relentless technique of word-stretching. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. it is a "scandal.G. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. and that history and facts were on his side.G. we have our boa-deconstructor and are none the wiser for it. Panofsky said that Hegel's dialectic was a boa constrictor. 1989. Derrida and those closest to him sent forth a stream of polemic and vituperation that stupefied many of its readers by its unreason and its resort to special pleading.. comprehensible terms in order to discuss them: thus difficulty and obscurity are simply equated with complexity and profundity. Extremes of formulation are thus required. he deflates its pretensions and shows "just how far" it "can intrude on the reader's credulity without making concessions to common sense. far from insuring against this.183 But anyone who reads Kimball's book with an open mind will recognize the accuracy of many of his observations..G. .239-40 To claim. as though great and vexed questions of knowledge and signification could be settled by the obiter dicta of a wanton scepticism that increasingly substitutes verbal witticisms for argument and analysis. however. loose chains of conceptual jokes. University of California-Santa Cruz. Professor of History. reoriented French philosophy away from the last semblance of sustained argument. who seem to pun instead of thinking. 1989. Alas. p. this rush from one end of the spectrum to the other inevitably leaps over and avoids previous thought on these issues. Crucial words are put in quotation marks so as to suggest an ambivalence in the author's stance toward them. University of California-Santa Cruz. University of California-Santa Cruz. Professor of German.16 This obscurity itself is sometimes adduced as the reason why one should not try to state deconstruction's positions and arguments in direct. 1975). as a general rule makes it more. Professor of German. I have already pointed to the emotional component in the performance. HIGHER SUPERSTITION." But with these emotional gains come considerable intellectual losses. 1989. Since most of our experience is decidedly to the contrary)that is. 1986. a favorite word. which had loudly proclaimed the "death of the author" and had despised appeals to historical fact. AKH0512 DERRIDA IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY IN DEFENDING A DETERMINATE MEANING OF HIS OWN TEXTS Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. it has become increasingly quaint in style and apocalyptic in content. for their drama and shock. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION.186 Deconstructive prose tends to be systematically evasive. and the way in which it poses the question. University of California-Berkeley. that obscurity makes it difficult to make interpretive statements about them with confidence. AKH0508 DECONSTRUCTION REDUCES REAL ISSUES TO LANGUAGE GAMES Christopher Lasch. Between them." and. Denis Donoghue said of a foremost English critic (Christopher Ricks) that `he puns to think'. as does Richard Rorty in his influential books. . King's College. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. Hegel or Kant (as in `Economimesis'. in order to leave it behind not by reversal but by discarding its terms completely. In trying to defend de Man and Heidegger. was uniquely privileged to understand. p. then. endlessly commenting not only on the `hot' topicalities of Nietzsche or Freud (as in La Carte Postale. And once more. Merquior." He shows. Merquior. where it has a growing constituency. NOT A DEFENSE John Ellis. how Michael Fried can torture Courbet's painting The Quarry into a metaphorical representation of castration. have quite determinate meanings which he.ix. AKH0509 DECONSTRUCTION IS SIMPLY LINGUISTIC PARASITISM J." "challenges. explicitly appeals to his own obscurity as a defense in the exchange with Searle cited above. 1986. Deconstruction is "disturbing. and so this in one more factor that tends towards a primitive kind of notion as the counter to the initial commonsense starting point. p. as in "if truths are fictions whose fictionality has been forgotten . after all. Merquior.238 Deconstruction. London. "`sanity' is only a particular determination of neuroses.77 Derrida's declining prestige was not. and most scholars are loath to commit themselves in print when such confidence is lacking. AKH0507 DECONSTRUCTIONISTS PUN INSTEAD OF THINKING J. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. p.g. punishment and sexuality and remains abstract and theoretical. By keeping attention fixed on the initial simple view that is to be displaced and making the denunciation of that view a central aspect of the whole performance (rather than merely a starting point that is to be left behind and forgotten). p. one of iconoclasm. why not jettison the rites of careful analysis? AKH0510 DECONSTRUCTIONIST WRITINGS ARE EXCESSIVELY OBSCURE John Ellis. For the moment. 1993." Or central theses are imbedded in subordinate clauses and not stated directly. p. as the undoing of meaning. as author. we can sum up the situation of mainstream deconstruction by pointing out that while in literary criticism. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. the laborious cogitations of prior philosophers are to him little more than pretexts for embarking on long. not less. can reduce the whole controversy about de Man to a debate about language. University of Rochester." "subverts. there is heavy emphasis on moral terminology in deconstructive writings.141-2 How. This is essentially and inevitably dramatic and gives the production of the reversal a provocative quality. It cannot be assumed without argument. e. Thus. then." "exposes. perhaps even beautiful buildings". p. I wish I could say the same of the deconstructionists.' subverting `the logic of the wall. London. Professor of German." "dismantles. of the drama of intellectual confrontation. each age getting the Hegel it deserves. AKH0511 OBSCURITY IS A FAULT.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 43 AKH0502 DECONSTRUCTION IS SYSTEMATICALLY EVASIVE John Searle. not about building appropriate. This attack on the self-confidence of intellectual opponents has probably been assisted by the obscurity of many deconstructive writings. They made a vice out of a necessity: since mainstream continental philosophy had a pretty poor analytical performance. confronted with his wartime articles in support of the Nazis. Derrida and Foucault. likely. Accordingly. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. the two caudillos of post-structuralism. London. 1980) but also on the arduous ruminations of Husserl. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. the panic-stricken deconstructionists ran headlong from the implications of their own doctrine. for example. London. 1986. Derrida fell into the ironic position of insisting that texts. University of California-Santa Cruz. p. p.G. thought that had frequently explored what lies between the two ends of the spectrum with considerable subtlety. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS.140-1 A further typical feature of deconstructionist arguments can bee seen in its manner of introducing the idea that is the polar opposite of the initial naive belief. If an idea is to make a dramatic impact." his moving "in and out of philosophic seriousness". AKH0503 DECONSTRUCTION IS SIMPLY AN EXERCISE IN SELFDRAMATIZATION John Ellis. King's College. AKH0504 DECONSTRUCTION SACRIFICES INTELLECTUAL COMPLEXITY TO DRAMATIC FLARE John Ellis. how certain theorists of architecture "can pretend that architecture is really about `interrogating form. obscurity. Formulations are chosen not for their logical or intellectual appropriateness but. AKH0505 DERRIDA REPLACES ARGUMENT WITH WORDPLAY J. and this is part of what Culler calls the deconstructionist's "nimbleness. 1986. and of the exhilaration of provocativeness. that the difference between these two widely disparate styles of thought-writing is not also a difference in value)of cognitive power or at the very least of rational control)would imply too great a debasement of the standards we have a right to expect from skilled critical thinking. There is no room in this process for the gain in intellectual complexity that comes from looking carefully at the formulation of the commonsense notion. In most later essays by Derrida. King's College. deconstruction now operates basically as a technique for showing)for the umpteenth time)that all literature is self-subversive. they are not simply the product of intellectual inadequacy but an essential and required part of deconstruction. Professor of German. p. it needs to be demonstrated anew in each case claimed to be an exception to the general rule.' etc. Several of the examples that Mackey gives are typical of this evasiveness. does so unproductive a procedure manage to maintain a semblance of being exciting and complex nonetheless? Two factors seem to me important. Thus. in Derrida's hands. texts that are difficult and obscure are most usually confused and poorly thought out)this can never be an automatic assumption. AKH0506 DERRIDA SUBSTITUTES WORDPLAY FOR ARGUMENT OR ANALYSIS J. that Derrida's obscure style precludes any possibility of his ideas being infected with confusions and faulty inferences." In this way the deconstructionist can make unplausible assertions while appearing not to. Both sound decidedly `literary' compared to their Anglo-Saxon or German counterparts. serviceable. of the violence inflicted by the artist on nature. especially his own. 1994. and how apologists for Paul de Man." "disruptive. Merquior.228 We will say more about the theme of Kulturkrisis in our concluding pages. it needs to be simple and direct. . 1995. What is more. 1989." it "unmasks. p. instead. THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES. Professor of Philosophy. By translating the "overcharged verbiage" of deconstruction into plain English. He shuns the burning issues of insanity. He kept the genre or format of conventional philosophy only to subvert it from inside. deconstruction creates a sense of the excitement of intellectual progress beyond the commonplace. at a crucial point. merely a matter of guilt by association. Derrida. King's College. oracular assertion by dint of jocular or half-jocular pun-juggling has come to replace argument almost completely. however. Now.

AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. University of California-Santa Cruz. . but it elevates the subversion of conventional opinions into exactly such an extrinsic standard)one that is luckily met by every single text that the deconstructionist critic examines. Habermas is not alone in arguing that Derrida's approach has not been and cannot be applied to such a concrete issue.66 Derrida's rejection of logocentrism is not revolutionary. once again. by its psychological appeal. The conclusion of this discussion can therefore only be that Derrida's contribution to the debate on language and meaning is not substantial. My own view is that such a claim is. furthermore. it fails to establish any coherent new view of meaning or of the way language functions. as a result. Professor of German. 1989. and yet they are almost never alluded to in the voluminous literature on deconstruction. deconstructionism lays claim to knowledge of the ultimate order or equality of things)a knowledge. or convention. but with a polemical posture or a current of ideological enthusiasm. in 1966." AKH0516 DERRIDA HAS NO COHERENT VIEW OF MEANING John Ellis. by analytic philosophers such as Wittgenstein and others who have worked in his tradition. notes: "I suspect that this apparent compatibility may be implying to literary theorists that chaos is a validation of deconstruction. And in asserting that no form of discourse is more privileged than another. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. but also to the extent to which deconstruction is itself a social practice. and because the very heavy emphasis on iconoclastic denunciation of logocentrism. .and by countless others. Foucault believes that a text is not autonomous from the social practices to which it is tied both in its own time and in the time of its later interpretation. not to logocentrism. MacMurray College. Professor of German. and because it is incoherently formulated.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 44 AKH0513 DECONSTRUCTION IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY Frederick Crews. Furthermore. in fact. and because he thinks it is. University of California-Santa Cruz. but none who write without speaking (except when their physical capacity to produce speech is deficient). the program of decentering implies recognition of a center. Foucault suggests that deconstruction is blind not only to the ways in which the text reflects social practices. and its subsequent move is as much an emotional as an intellectual leap to a position that feels different as much in the one way as the other. This appears very like the undeveloped response of one who has just been surprised by the realization that real essences do not exist. 1989. p. there is a genuine question whether Derrida's method of dissemination or deconstruction can help. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. but none that are written without being spoken. Gary Madison. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Firth. p. revolutionary fervor. p. . AKH0517 DECONSTRUCTION'S EMPHASIS ON LANGUAGE STRUCTURES NEGLECTS INDIVIDUALITY Diane Michelfelder and Richard Palmer. AKH0514 DECONSTRUCTION RESTS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL NOT LOGICAL APPEALS John Ellis. Derrida began to denounce this kind of thinking as a universal error. Frank argues that in their perhaps necessary denial of subjectivity (in the name of language. are the results of this discussion of Derrida's ideas on language and meaning? Derrida's major thrust lies in (1) an attack on the essentialist view of meaning typified in logical positivism. DIALOGUE AND DECONSTRUCTION. for example.65-6 What. Alexander Argyos. and the mood of gleeful iconoclasm. 1986. Foucault also accuses Derrida of being overly preoccupied with texts and ignoring their social context. While it is certainly true that deconstruction and chaos are both interested in highlighting nonlinearity. p. 1989. because while using the terminology developed by Saussure. now surely unnecessary. with varying emphases. Professor of German. attacking a view of meaning that by now would have to be counted a very naive and uninformed one.116-7. 1993. by anthropological linguists working in the tradition of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. wrong . because it lacks the perspective of the many other prior attacks on this theory and thus does not learn from and build on them. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. Professor of German. AKH0519 DERRIDA'S THEORY OF LANGUAGE FAILS John Ellis. p. Taking his lead from Schleiermacher. for example.R. commenting on Hayles's work. Professor of German. but it graciously makes an exception for the propositions of its own theory. or tradition). Deconstructionism denies that propositions can be true. but also found in Platonism and many other sources and (2) the development of ideas that run counter to that view. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA.99 Even philosophers who see some parallels between deconstructive literary theory and the mathematics and physics of chaos theory are loath to push the comparison as far as does Hayles. p. University of California-Santa Cruz. he is unable to take advantage of the sophistication that the debate on essentialist thinking has already reached. he faults both hermeneutics and "neostructuralism" (which includes both Foucault and Derrida) for bypassing the importance of individuality in interpretation. to claim that they are fellow travellers is. which means that many obvious logical difficulties are ignored and equally obvious objections are not met by any argument. I say essential. p. In denying the primacy of authorial intentions. 2. AKH0521 DERRIDA'S FOCUS ON TEXTS IGNORES SOCIAL CONTEXT David Couzens Hoy. Precisely because hermeneutics and deconstruction have in common the denial of subjectivity and an affirmation of the priority of language. The second fails because its key points are not supported but simply asserted. ed. p. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. AKH0520 DERRIDA'S THEORY OF MEANING IS COMPLETELY UNORIGINAL John Ellis. infinite play of signs). deconstructionism behaves as if those elusive intentions were knowable after all. not with a fully considered epistemology. 1989.11 But Frank has another concern: individuality. University of California-Santa Cruz. because the naivete of the crowd is deconstruction's very starting point. or structures. There are large numbers of individuals who speak without writing. Here we must deal with a strange fact: these objections are so very obvious that they seem barely to need stating. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. by linguists such as J. University of California-Santa Cruz. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. These anomalies suggest to me that we are dealing here. 3. of having left behind the naivete of the crowd. prevents Derrida from facing the real task he had to face)developing an alternative.238-9 Given this problem. The first fails because Derrida allows it to become embroiled in an unnecessary and fallacious argument about the priority of writing and speech. instead. AKH0515 CHAOS THEORY DOESN'T SUPPORT DECONSTRUCTION Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. p. it has been dismembered in various ways.21 More important still are the obvious logical problems involved in asserting that writing is prior to speech. of operating on a more sophisticated intellectual plane than that crowd. When. he was demonstrating an extraordinary isolation from what had been happening for many years. There still exist in the world languages that are spoken but not written. It scorns the idea of extrinsic standards of value. I believe. Professor of philosophy.. neither hermeneutics nor deconstruction come to grips with the claims of individuality. Neither of these two aspects of his work is successful. University of California-Santa Cruz. as is the case where a substantial intellectual innovation really has taken place)is the sense of belonging to an intellectual elite. Deconstruction offers its followers much psychological satisfaction. Speech quite clearly existed long before the invention of writing. but to the alternatives that have already been developed by thinkers that he does not consider. 1989. Essential to its logic)not a by-product. Derrida misuses those terms without explaining why he is doing so and possibly without understanding that he is garbling them. AKH0518 DERRIDA MISUNDERSTANDS THE RELATION OF WRITING AND SPEECH John Ellis.151 It follows that deconstructive logic makes its way not by any genuinely logical means but. to make an unwarranted assumption. immutable concepts) to the other (meaning is a matter of indeterminate. for which the theory makes no provision. and avant-garde daring of the uniquely enlightened displayed by the followers of the deconstructionist banner contrasted strangely with the underlying reality that none of this could by now be considered remarkable or even unusual. 1994. AGAINST DECONSTRUCTION. then. 1989. Foucault suspects that Derrida's method tacitly claims authority for itself as a result of the authority and primacy it grants to the text. they also have in common the neglect of individuality. It is as if there were a belief abroad that any objections so simple as these must be beneath the level of sophistication required to make a contribution to this debate: 1.38 Derrida is. for the most part. he jumps from one extreme (meaning is a matter of fixed.

We are doomed to provincialism by the overpowering background of the arche-writing. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER.' they believe they have to tear philosophy away from the madness of expounding a theory that has the last word. a long time ago." Despite their protests to the contrary. for that matter. But what he fails to see is that this doesn't threaten science." Their failure. Placing Derrida in constellation with Habermas helps to pinpoint this. in a series of perceptive analyses ranging from Kant through Heidegger. Nor. p. Adorno. p. "should not be separable from [the] politico-institutional problematic and should seek a new investigation of responsibility. 1994. there is a certain "abstractness" in his understanding of politics. the belief that unless there are foundations something is lost or threatened or undermined or put in question. he showed some concern about how his ideas might be interpreted: "I am indeed worried by a certain use .. based on sovereignty/obedience. totality. But to make this one's basic axiom for the examination of modern power as such leaves out too much. congratulate. Once a postmodern critic has at hand a license to read every proposition as its opposite when it suits his convenience. but rather the belief that somehow or other such foundations were necessary. as earlier anarchists did. as they are for that reason to so many Russians (like Solzhenitsyn).82-3. 1993. to express their feelings and attitudes. Men and women are always social creations.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 45 AKH0522 DERRIDA DOESN'T OFFER A COHERENT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THEORY Richard Bernstein. ed. and completed theory which belong to the past. etc." and that it may be "too political" for some. But Derrida never quite rises to the level of necessary generality (as he does in telling us what he means by a "text") where we can gain some perspective. They still feel the need to battle against those `strong' concepts of system. does he give us any way of knowing what `better' might mean. and Derrida is that they still write in the "shadow of the `last' philosopher. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA.'" Ironically. they are still entrapped in the aporias and cul-de-sacs of what Habermas calls "The Philosophy of Subjectivity. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. As Wittgenstein says. there is for him no such thing as a free human subject. AKH0529 FOUCAULT NIHILISTIC Michael Walzer.180-1 Derrida correctly sees that there aren't any such foundations. that the narrative of science holds no privileges over the narratives of superstition. University of California-Berkeley. At this last passage suggest. p. p.210-1 Habermas is a thoroughgoing fallibilist who rejects classical foundationalist and transcendental arguments. which makes us see politics as war carried on by other means. Derrida's view is blind to the social learning processes through which we change and improve our understanding of ourselves and our world..'" But. there is no univocal answer to this question. kind and loving. p. who characterizes Foucault's politics as infantile leftism. that it is a way of taking an ethical-political "position. AKH0525 DERRIDA FALSELY ASSUMES THAT THE LACK OF PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS MATTERS John Searle. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. language. Once it has been decided that determinate meaning is chimerical and not worthy of slightest deference from the wellhoned poststructuralist postmodernist. 1994. and Foucault gives us no reason to expect that these will be any better than the ones we now live with. to thank. 1993. 1993. To abolish power systems is to abolish both moral and scientific categories: away with them all! But what will be left? Foucault does not believe. and the new one based on domination/subjugation leaves out everything in Western history which has been animated by civic humanism or analogous movements. 1986. ed. It is a heaven-sent device for avoiding close argument and the analysis of particulars. their image of philosophy is still that of the Absolute System)the philosophy of "the last word. that language has or needs is that people are biologically. Professor of philosophy. Professor of Philosophy.85 Everything by which that civilization contrives to hold itself in high regard)Shakespeare and Dante. University of California-Santa Cruz. so long as Foucault rejected the possibility of individual freedom. p. AKH0527 DERRIDA FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE IS ANTI-FOUNDATIONALIST Richard Bernstein.230. 1993. And so Foucault's radical abolitionism. AKH0523 DECONSTRUCTION ELEVATES WISHFUL THINKING OVER SOCIAL FACT Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. AKH0528 FOUCAULT'S THEORY IS BANKRUPT)IT CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STALINISM AND DEMOCRACY Christina Sommers. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. deconstruction implies that we are stuck in our context." Derrida has shown. and caught fatalistically in the forces of textual production. Rather. analytic skills of the more traditional sort are expendable and logic is effaced in the swirling tide of rhetoric. apologize. Foucault's opposition between the old model of power. . which consists in saying. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. wants to keep philosophy or thinking "pure")pure from any contamination by empirical social scientific research. in our cities. In a 1977 interview. warmly sociable. or new codes and disciplines will be produced. One of his criticisms of thinkers like Heidegger. the newly minted cultural critic can actually revel in his ignorance of deep scientific ideas. AKH0526 ANTI-FOUNDATIONALISM DOESN'T DESTROY KNOWLEDGE John Searle. "they still think that they have to arouse philosophy from what Derrida calls `the dream of its heart. Deconstruction.. He has developed a sharp and incisive critique of university institutions and practices. no matter how much it seems to elevate wishful thinking over hard social fact. much of the pathos of their writings gains its force from the specter of The Grand System. the entire edifice of hard-won truth becomes a house of cards. psychologically. For on his own arguments. nothing visibly human. And that means a massive amount of what is specific to our civilization. p. How seriously can one take Foucault's theory? Not very. or common sense in the least. The real mistake of the classical metaphysician was not the belief that there were metaphysical foundations. Professor of Philosophy. Princeton. Mozart and Beethoven)wilts under the deconstructive gaze (at least in the minds of those doing the gazing). McGill philosopher. Without this in one's conceptual armoury Western history and societies become incomprehensible. he tells us. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. our prisons. University of California-Berkeley. AKH0530 FOUCAULT'S UNDERSTANDING OF POWER VASTLY OVERSIMPLIFIED)MAKES COMPREHENSION IMPOSSIBLE Charles Taylor. `Everyone has their own Gulag. WHO STOLE FEMINISM?. when Foucault is an anarchist. naturally good. how their discourses about the university cannot be separated from their discourses about the institutional structure of the modern university. In seeming to deny that validity claims can be redeemed or proved. . but he then makes the mistake that marks him as a classical metaphysician. according to Habermas. and socially constituted so that they succeed in using it to state truths. ed. Gary Madison. as Walzer points out. Clark University philosopher.226 Nevertheless. can open insights in certain situations. 1986. Foucault's attraction is partly that of a terrible simplificateur. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. p. that the free human subject is a subject of a certain sort.181 Derrida sees that the Husserlian project of a transcendental grounding for science. Descartes and Kant." for example. if it is serious. New School for Social Research. His espousal of the reversal of Clausewitz's aphorism. We will simply not find in his writings anything resembling a social and political theory)as we do find in Habermas. Professor of Philosophy. says Princeton political philosopher Michael Walzer. AKH0524 HABERMAS THINKS DERRIDA FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF SOCIAL LEARNING David Couzens Hoy. truth. Newton and Einstein. 1993. New School for Social Research. Gary Madison. It is this belief which Derrida shares with the tradition he seeks to destruct.240 The philosophical issues separating them is Habermas's charge that Derrida's aesthetic contextualism ignores how the idealization procedures built into the communicative action of everyday practices require us to redeem and prove the validity of our claims. which is the moral basis for liberal democracy. he is a moral as well as a political anarchist. what does Derrida mean by a "politico-institutional structure"? Of course.613. it leaves everything exactly as it is. Gary Madison. either there will be nothing left at all. p. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. the products of codes and disciplines. is not anarchist so much as nihilist." When they declare that philosophy or metaphysics is over. warn. no natural man or woman. as did the first generation of Hegelian disciples. For him morality and politics go together. That this is a canny political act is accepted as an article of faith. it's here in our heads. Guilt and innocence are the products of law just as normality and abnormality are the products of discipline. in his way. is not to realize and fully appreciate that the "fallibilist consciousness of the sciences caught up with philosophy too. Locke and Jefferson. to give and obey orders. some overview of the complex dynamics of institutional structures that shape politics and society in the contemporary world. our hospitals. Professor of Philosophy. The only "foundation." Each. it was unclear how he could sustain the distinction between the real Gulag and the one inside the heads of bourgeois citizens. language. and common sense is a failure. the Gulag is here at our door. Foucault was aware that he was equating modern democracies with repressively brutal systems like the Soviet prison camps in the Gulag. But suppose we step back and ask. for all Derrida's affirmation that deconstruction intervenes. Because of this blindness. . Once it has been affirmed that one discursive community is as good as another.

the face-to-face encounters of guard and prisoner. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. 1989. as Jana Sawicki notes. and finally. is necessary to the (unspecified) large-scale features of contemporary social and economic life. Nor. and in fact. Colorado. AKH0532 FOUCAULT'S THEORIES AREN'T GROUNDED IN EVIDENCE Frederick Crews. It is a truism of the civic humanist tradition of political theory that free participatory institutions require some commonly accepted self-disciplines. This is not a new discovery. University of California-Santa Cruz. But if. styles. if no less effective methods? AKH0534 FOUCAULT MAKES RESISTANCE IMPOSSIBLE H. they have not only served to feed a system of control. how can discipline be resisted in the first place? (Unless it comes about as an inevitable moment in the march of . In this way. free institutions cannot exist. In The History of Sexuality. he was interested in the forces that keep citizens of democracies law-abiding and obedient. 1994. Without this. represented in ideal-typical fashion by the cellular structure of the prison. Philosophy Prof. the carceral continuum is validated by the knowledge of human subjects that it makes possible. his thesis that individuals "with his identity and characteristics [are] the product of a relation of power exercised over bodies. the finely meshed network. religion and science as well as formal universal claims put forward by philosophers? From Habermas's point of view.226 The last prophetic pragmatist criticism of foucault's project is that he devalues moral discourse. does he give us any way of knowing what "better" might mean. Asst. mutually reinforcing carceral continuum extending across society. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. nothing visibly human.113 But. Professors of Philosophy and anthropology. Given all this ) leave aside for the moment whether it adds up to a fully satisfactory account of our social life ) how can Foucault expect anything more than a small reform here or there. p. then it would make no sense to talk about resistance to discipline. Physical disciplines and intellectual disciplines are radically entangled. 4. p. given his strategic knowledge? Consider: 1. Indeed. If the subject is "constituted through practices of subjugation. but a nihilistic. such as it was. and sometimes totalizes. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. and not only as captives or victims. by no means entailed a belief in regulating his ideas according to the evidence he encountered. the result of theories which deconstruct subjects is to deny the marginalized to participate in defining their interests. or new codes and disciplines will be produced. p. Foucault is said to disavow any political structure but also any human nature that could persist without social systems. Clark U. legitimate state power and a rational rule of law. AKH0537 FOUCAULT'S PERSPECTIVE IS NIHILISTIC David Couzens Hoy." AKH0536 FOUCAULT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC Christina Sommers. that the prison is only one small part of a highly articulated." then what sense can we make of the claim that it is also constituted "through practices of liberation. Philosopher. an easing of disciplinary rigour. . FOUCAULT LACKS ANY MORAL BASIS FOR HIS POLITICS Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. has given us powerful reasons to suppose practices of "liberation" and "freedom")even if these are liberations from one power regime to another)are impossible. equality. 1986. movements. AKH0539 FOUCAULT DEVALUES MORAL DISCOURSE Cornel West. desires. the local power relation. Haber.60. this is a very unfoucauldian thesis. p. on one hand. U. when they repudiate consensus and community. Foucault had little love for the modern democratic state.' AKH0538 IN REJECTING UNIVERSALISM. p. Professor of Philosophy. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. Therefore. ed. .171. Foucault characterizes confessional practices which aim at self-disclosure and self-discovery as aiding the interests of domination and social control. WHO STOLE FEMINISM?. But what other victories can he think possible. As Sandra Lee Bartky notes. The free citizen has the virtu to give willingly the contribution which otherwise the despot would coerce from him. and which thus permit of and call for the participatory action of equals. and conventions that are found in the culture"? This grossly begs the question: how does one start from the rules. THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY. and the multiplicity of kinds of society which require chains of command based on unquestionable authority on the other. individuals are wholly constituted by the power/knowledge regime Foucault describes. forces" must leave us skeptical about the possibility of alternative vocabularies. and conventions of a disciplinary and normalizing culture and end up with practices of liberation and freedom? Foucault never provides us with the missing steps. 1986. Indeed. fatalistic one. Yet by failing to articulate and elaborate ideals of democracy. Foucault emphasizes. Denver. .1994. goals. p. Denver. AKH0533 DISCIPLINE PERVADES ALL SOCIETY)SMALL REFORMS ONLY POSSIBILITY Michael Walzer.108. Thus Walzer interprets Foucault as a functionalist who presupposes that society is a whole governed by an invisible hand rather than by an accountable.) If individuals are wholly constituted by the power/knowledge regime. from a certain number of rules. and Foucault gives us no reason to expect that these will be any better than the ones we now live with. 2. it can be argued that their postmodern theories merely reproduce the effects of enlightenment theories.81-2.10 By denying the possibility of an independent standpoint.. But Foucault has missed the ambivalence of these new disciplines. that this kind of control requires the micro-setting. p. AKH0535 FOUCAULT PRESERVES PATRIARCHY . He rightly suspects the self-authorizing and self-privileging aims of "universal" intellectuals who put forward such ideals. His book Discipline and Punish. of freedom . As an anarchist. and freedom. But Walzer thinks that this radical abolitionism is nihilistic because `either there will be nothing left at all.101-2. Michel Foucault. he replaces reform or revolution with revolt and rebellion. Philosophy Prof. Foucault seems sometimes on the verge of depriving us of a vocabulary in which to conceptualize the nature and meaning of resistance. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. Foucault appears to such critics to be not simply a functionalist. a professor of philosophy at the distinguished College de France and an irreverent social thinker who felt deeply alienated from the society in which he lived. Foucault provides solely negative conceptions of critique and resistance. styles. There is a tremendous difference between societies which find their cohesion through such common disciplines grounded on a public identity. the introduction of more humane. Colorado. it haunts many revolutionary proponents of poststructuralist politics. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. p. 3. The point is.. yet he mistakenly holds that any attempt to posit these ideals as guides to political action and social reconstruction must fall prey to new modes of subjection and disciplinary control. The difficulty of finding the possibility of a revolutionary vocabulary is not a problem peculiar to Foucault. 1994. and this deemphasis on liberatory practices makes him suspect from the perspective of the disempowered. And where he suggests the possibility of an alternative vocabulary. "Foucault was suspicious of most efforts to tell the truth about one-self. 1986. McGill philosopher. that discipline-in-detail. they have also taken the form of genuine selfdisciplines which have made possible new kinds of collective action characterized by more egalitarian forms of participation. But Foucault's concreteness. Haber. introduced his theory of interior disciplines in 1975. for that matter. So Foucault seems to believe that social improvement is impossible short of abolishing modern society altogether. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. in which all of us are implicated. University of California Berkeley. the daily timetable of prison events. the prepressive effects of power (critique or theory) at the expense of its potential for liberation (construction). .229. Harvard.F. Asst. p. to which I will return.F. David Couzens Hoy. Princeton. with its novel explanation of how large groups of people could be controlled without the need of exterior controllers. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. of course.. his epistemological pronouncements appear to rule out the very concept of a fact. took intellectual Paris by storm. 1986. though his historical works attach portentous significance to certain developments and details. Professor of Religion. as this thesis implies. multiplicities. Like Marx. . the extra-legal penalties inflicted by prison authorities. that the complex of disciplinary mechanisms and institutions constitutes and is constituted by the contemporary human sciences)an argument that runs though all of Foucault's work. perhaps in some other form.PREVENTS EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN H. When Lyotard and Foucault deny the possibility of coherent subjects. Habermas asks how can Foucault legitimately make such normative judgements once he has defined maturity as the relinquishing of dependence on the authority of law. but no.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 46 AKH0531 DISCIPLINE ENHANCES FREEDOM TO SOCIETY Charles Taylor. starting. 1986. desires)to construct a new voice. His fervent anti-utopianism)again in reaction to Hegelian and Marxist teleogical utopianisms)rejects all forms of ends and aims for political struggle. U. Foucault tends to reduce left ethics to a bold and defiant Great Refusal addressed to the dominant powers that be. the precise control of behaviour. Foucault's propounding a political theory without justification must be pure decisionism.

Foucault desensitizes his readers to the importance of politics. draws from that book and the related interviews the extraordinary conclusion that the Russian Revolution failed because it `left intact the social hierarchies and in no way inhibited the functioning of the disciplinary techniques'. are right to insist that power is chronically and inevitably involved in all social processes. 1982. This loss occurs because Foucault is both a `crypto-normativist' and an `irrationalist'. AKH0545 FOUCAULT BLURS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TYPES OF SOCIAL CONTROL David Couzens Hoy. There is no doubt that prisons were in part consciously looked to as models by some employers in the early years of capitalism in their search for the consolidation of labour discipline. there a ascertainable changes stemming from who holds power and who dominates whom. But there are two essential differences between the prison and the factory. nihilism within a span of only two decades. it is related to the very ubiquity of power as discipline. And they did this from the heart of the social system and not from what Foucault likes to call the capillaries. that "might makes right" if that means that "in the absence of a perspective independent of interpretation some interpretive perspective will always rule by having won out over its competitors.10-1 Steven Lukes thinks that Foucault treats power exclusively as an impersonal. 1991. that hovers everywhere. according to which isolated and atomistic individual actions fully account for humans' societies and histories.225 Edward Said perceptively states regarding Foucault: Yet despite the extraordinary worldliness of this work. or that meanings and norms can be explicated as congealed or mystified power. It is what I have drawn attention to earlier: an account of the state. `Why is struggle preferable to submission? Why ought domination to be resisted? Only with the introduction of normative notions of some kind could Foucault begin to answer this question. He drifted from Stalinism to Maoism to a life-style anarchism . and its result is the least convincing aspect of his work . Unfree labour was actually sometimes used. AKH0549 FOUCAULT FALSELY GENERALIZES FROM PRISON TO SOCIETY AT LARGE Anthony Giddens. or between being in a carceral yet social democratic society and being in a Gulag. I think. Only with the introduction of normative notions could he begin to tell us what is wrong with the modern power/knowledge regime and why we ought to oppose it. as I have commented. and held onto. Ignatieff's work on the origins of prisons is in this respect a useful counterbalance to Foucault. Professor of Philosophy. The `docile bodies' which Foucault says discipline produces turn out very often to be not so docile at all.more properly. human agency remains central)all we have in human societies and histories are structured and unstructured human social practices over time and space. But the development of prisons. or anonymas and autonomous discourses. AKH0544 FOUCAULT MISTAKENLY DISCOUNTS ALL HUMAN AGENCY Cornel West. p.63. For the capitalistic workplace is not. Professor of Religion. and techniques. More important. p. analysed interestingly by Pollard among others. p. Stanford and Harvard. the disciplinary matrix that oversees the others. There can be little doubt that Foucault was a humane man. 1982. Professor of Philosophy. p. . For prophetic pragmatists. there indeed are multiple unintended consequences and unacknowledged antecedent conditions of human actions that both produce and are produced by institutions and structures. `discipline'. University of California-Santa Cruz. AKH0548 THE STATE IS THE SOURCE OF POWER Anthony Giddens. Foucault is said to underestimate the difference between being in prison and being out of it in a carceral society. Professor of Sociology. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY. where the sanctioning procedures of the local community could no longer apply. which elevates it to the prime position in action and in discourse.190 When the end of ideology failed to materialize. 1986. and those influenced in a more uninhibited way by Nietzsche. IT ALSO MAPS REALITY Margaret Radin and Frank Michelman. deterministic structure and thereby fails to explain how power is exercised by individuals who bear the responsibility for their actions. It is as a defining thinker of poststructuralism and postmodernism that his basic ideas are of concern here. Professor of Philosophy. at least in some of its forms)serves to reopen the possibility of subjecting moral and political issues to serious discussion and of refuting those who deny the possibility of intelligently defending any moral or political position." Geertz argues. 1982. is to acknowledge that power and freedom are not inimical. transcendental entities. 1986. methodological individualism in social theory. it was easy to conclude.226-7 Power is a secondary phenomenon. Walzer begins by accusing Foucault's account of being inadequate on empirical grounds. and that power cannot be identified with either coercion or constraint. disciplines. Harvard. At the same time.' AKH0542 FOUCAULT'S VIEW OF POWER IS A REDUCTIONISTIC EXPLANATION FOR EVERYTHING Anthony Giddens. To accept this. I consider it very important to reject the idea that power has primacy over truth. In Marx.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 47 AKH0540 FOUCAULT'S PHILOSOPHY ENDS IN INEFFECTUAL NIHILISM Murray Bookchin. Princeton. But the alternative is not the exclusive ascription of agency to impersonal forces. and underlies everything.8 Habermas contends that Foucault's critique of modernity fails because Foucault loses his sense of direction. it opens the way for forms of worker resistance (especially unionisation and the threat of collective withdrawal of labour) that are not part of the normal enactment of prison discipline. but of how and why power is gained. not only the end of God but the end of man. Cambridge. along with Nietzsche. p.10 Michael Walzer's article is a good place to start for the reader who wants a clear and incisive representation of the social and political issues more from an Anglo-American perspective. NOT JUST AN EFFECT OF POWER Anthony Giddens. 1995. In Foucault. But he offers no basic philosophy for his actions and in many ways vitiates the emergence of one. and frequently prepared to act militancy in defense of human rights. His explicit antihumanism. A reductionism of power is as faulty as economic or normative reductionisms are.225 By downplaying human agency)both individual and collective human actions)Foucault surreptitiously ascribes agency to discourses. Cambridge.222 This first objection has concrete implications for the analysis that Foucault has produced of the prison and the clinic. in Goffman's term. or were their inmates.223-4 There is a surprising `absence' at the heart of Foucault's analyses)thus far at any rate)an absence shared with Marxism. viscerally concerned about the injustices that existed in the world. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. Harvard. . p. Foucault. As a critic of power he in fact leaves us quite powerless to change our fate. and his treatment of truth as a 'regime' of domination are too debilitating in their social effects to support the image of the engaged French intellectual. 1986. p. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. 1989. the author of a very intelligent essay on Discipline and Punish. of the daily life of individuals outside prisons. AKH0541 FOUCAULT'S CRITIQUE FAILS BECAUSE HE LACKS NORMATIVE STANDARDS David Couzens Hoy. Institute for Social Ecology co-founder. However else power may be a kind of indirect bureaucratic discipline and control. that a given ideology prevails in the struggle with other ideologies not because its advocates have the power to silence opposition but because it provides a better "map" of reality. p. p. Exactly wrong: the Bolsheviks created a new regime that overwhelmed the old hierarchies and enormously expanded and intensified the use of disciplinary techniques. AKH0543 FOUCAULT NEGLECTS THE VITAL ISSUE OF WHO HOLDS POWER Cornel West. the worker is not forcibly incarcerated in the factory or office. The former label applies because Foucault cannot explain the standards Habermas thinks must be presupposed in any condemnation of the present. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY.222-3 Foucault draws too close an association between the prison and the factory. Professor of Sociology. a more reliable guide to action. but politics matters. . University of California-Santa Cruz. `Punishment'. from the centre and not the extremities. as prisons are. Professor of Sociology. One of Foucault's followers. This is the most dangerous consequence of his disagreement with Marxism. helped to build them.185-6. as Stanley Fish puts it. `Work' only makes up one sector. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY. The state is what Foucault describes as the `calculated technology of subjection' writ large. and clinics and hospitals may be. Habermas cites Nancy Fraser's pointed questions. Cambridge. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY. AKH0547 KNOWLEDGE ISN'T SIMPLY POWER. 1982. albeit normally the most time consuming one. Professors of Law. University of California-Santa Cruz. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. The reorganisation and expansion of the prison system in the nineteenth century was closely bound up with the perceived needs of state authorities to construct new modes of controlling miscreants in large urban spaces. THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY. AKH0546 FOUCAULT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE INDIVIDUAL NATURE OF POWER David Couzens Hoy. Cambridge. Professor of Sociology. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW. his ahistoricism. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. the critique of foundationalism. on the other hand. But I also think it quite wrong to be thereby seduced by a Nietzschean radicalisation of power. This gives rise to the historically peculiar problems of the `management' of a labour force that is formally `free'. to be added in at second reserve. by extension. that knowledge of any kind is purely a function of power or. and foresees. 1989. clinics and hospitals was not a phenomenon that merely appeared `behind the backs' of those who designed them. but enters the gates of the work-place as `free wage-labour'. Power then becomes a mysterious phenomenon. AKH0550 THE PRISON DEVELOPED AS A CONSCIOUS SOCIAL CHOICE. one suspects. a `total institution'. Foucault takes a curiously passive and sterile view not so much of the uses of power. His rehabilitation of ideology)and. used. p. his rejection of the potentialities opened by the Enlightenment. p. AKH0551 FOUCAULT IGNORES THE REALITY OF CENTRALIZED POWER Michael Walzer. with Foucault and Derrida. and especially `power' itself. p. this lack is in some part to be traced to his involvement with political economy. are characteristically spoken of by him as though they were agents)indeed the real agents of history. THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY. Professor of Religion. 1986. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY. will not suffice.

innocent-criminal. Ultimately. University of Wales.76-7. 190))in other words.189. critic and historian. in the political world where I grew up and learned to talk. I won't insist upon them. Professor of English and Law. perhaps since 1848. AKH0557 SOVEREIGN POWER IS CRITICAL Michael Walzer. Of course. p. CULTURE OF COMPLAINT. p. it is that power is never concentrated in one place (or person) but is distributed everywhere throughout a system. his response to `events') May '68. that is. In his ruminations about Jeremy Bentham's theory of the Panopticon. 177-211/135-159). no doubt. Authoritarian and totalitarian states. If we have learned anything from Foucault. University of Iowa. by speaking of strategy. or minefields" that would "self-destruct after use" (quoted by Megill.240-1. AKH0561 FOUCAULT FAILED TO CONSULT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE Robert Hughes. Foucault's American admirers fail to see what an authoritarian he was. My concern here is not primarily with Michel Foucault's political positions.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 48 AKH0552 FOUCAULT FAILS TO MEANINGFULLY LOCATE POWER Alan Megill. AKH0558 FOUCAULT'S THEORY OF POWER REFLECTS 60'S PARANOIA Frederick Crews. 1985. As I have put it elsewhere (Doing What Comes Naturally). but often with momentous consequences . a horizon of understanding is not a monolithic unity of which one asks. that is. to extend their reach and augment their discretionary power. AKH0556 POST-STRUCTURALISM CAN'T EXPLAIN HOW CHANGE OCCURS Christopher Norris. pursued and tested. The agents of every disciplinary institution strive. 1986. by contrast. But it is an error to try to derive from Foucault such propositions as. p. all-powerful oppressors whom he never attempted to identify. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. But did Vaclav Havel and his fellow playwrights. an agonistic play of resistances or power/knowledge effects where the subject is just a ghost in the linguistic machine. punishment into repression. to remain unbound by any norms of evidence and logic. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. cuckoo-clock self-referentiality of his own theoretical constructs. Foucault's own delicate mission was to trace the origins of that mania without at the same time enlarging its dominion. and so on. and his statements and articles have a fairly consistent character. or meanings happen to constitute the current range of ideological structures-in-dominance.91. 1994. their own included. The attractive new ingredient in Foucault's thought was Sixties paranoia toward the hidden. override those limits. it was immediately after 1968 that Foucault switched from his quasistructuralist "archaeologies" of Western "epistemes" to more drastic Nietzschean "genealogies" reducing all truth claims to exercises of power. AKH0553 FOUCAULT DOESN'T OFFER A VALID HISTORY OF THE PRISON Alan Megill. Princeton. ideas. thrillingly than at any moment since 1917. In the late 80s. lest it disturb the autocratic.(or more) way traffic in relation to which the action of one person is effective only insofar as some other persons affirm its scope and thereby maintain a balance that can always be altered at almost any point. Outside its perimeter. against naive readings of Foucault. Foucault is best treated as an animator--not as an authority. the prison revolts of the early seventies. New Historicism inherits this dead-end predicament without the least sign of acknowledging its problematic character. evoking the Romantic anti-rationalism of May 1968." Rather. widely. by making liberal use of reflexive verbs. and so they could have saved themselves the trouble of facing the tanks in Tiananmen Square. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. a two. p. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH. Every act of local resistance is an appeal for political or legal intervention from the centre. real language and real communication go on. This is why post-structuralism and its New Historicist offshoot are so utterly lacking in conceptual and ethical resources when it comes to explaining how changes have occurred--fitfully. or total-surveillance prison. 1986. how can it change'? Rather. a passive receptacle for whatever impressions. The same anonymity surrounds the related conception of "biopower" in The Will to Knowledge (VS. judgment and ethics to the level of an intra-discursive force-field. 1994. hardly even bother to consult evidence about it. less an endorsement than an outrunning of the most radical argument in any political struggle. The guerrilla imagery. for example. and prisons into concentration camps. p. p. no room for the interpretive maneuvering that produces change.125. it is only state power that can stop them. I only want to suggest the enormous importance of the political regime. 1986. Foucault contrived to do exactly what he blamed the State for doing in real life: ignore the experience of prisoners themselves. deep in the closet. it is itself an engine of change. For it is the state that establishes the general framework within which all other radically shuts down the possibility of local resistance. perspectives that. University of Iowa. 1985. I am arguing. asylums into prisons. and the impersonal French on--the anonymous "one". SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. the longing for freedom and humanistic culture was demolishing the very pillars of European tyranny. and the like without indicating whose strategy or tactics it is. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. intellectuals and poets free Czechoslovakia by quoting Derrida or Lyotard on the inscrutability of texts? Assuredly not: they did it by placing their faith in the transforming power of thought--by putting their shoulders to the immense wheel of the word. The historian Jacques Leonard makes a similar point. For there is a similar problem with Foucault: how to overcome the deep-laid conflict that exists between a thoroughgoing determinism as applied to the body and its various disciplinary-discursive regimes. Such a feat called for a determination not just to "escape the grasp of categories" but to "play the game of truth and error badly" (Foucault. It is hard in any case to attach positive significance to the replacement of one revered master by another. with the question of whether this was its significance for the historical actors themselves not really confronted.246. pregnant hints for further work and investigation.41-2. What I found useless. AKH0560 FOUCAULT'S ANTI-EMPIRICISM MAKES HIS WORK AUTHORITARIAN Frederick Crews. 1993. there are innumerable nodal junctures at which a shift in emphasis and pressure can lead to a systemwide readjustment or even to a systemwide breakdown. Foucault could only hope that his books might serve as "Molotov cocktails. and the American academic left keeps fretting about how phallocentricity is inscribed in Dickens's portrayal of Little Nell. These are crude definitions. such as Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. by contrast. the spheres of human moral and political awareness. `infantile leftism'. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. or any other game whose rules the rest of us might know). was the abstract theorizing about prison and power in texts that became sacred in American academe in the early 80s. infinitives. when the very appetite for unquestioning belief is the heart of the problem. Professor of the History of Ideas. p. the Iranian revolution.66. CULTURE OF COMPLAINT. and by telling us that such and such an historical reality "can be viewed as" having such and such a significance. U Cal-Berkeley English prof. 243). Duke. sane-insane. critic and historian.51. the statements he has made. Though he insists that he doesn't have a political position and doesn't want to be situated on the chessboard of available positions (he doesn't play chess. Princeton. . since the structure of any situation or of any system of ideas is one of layered dependencies and coordinations.177. AKH0555 THE DISPERSION OF POWER PERMITS REFORM Stanley Fish. p. What this means is that there is never a situation in which there is "no room for hermeneutics" (Dallmayr. For Foucault the whole Enlightenment was a continuing nightmare of ever-harsher social control)a movement to draw "reasonable" distinctions (rational-irrational. what one can usefully find in Foucault's writings on the prison are suggestions. normal-abnormal) so as to stigmatize and punish behavior that threatens bourgeois self-regard. AKH0559 FOUCAULT'S METHOD JUST INFANTILE LEFTISM Michael Walzer. if the Chinese students had read their Foucault they would have known that repression is inscribed in all language. the sovereign state. They are of the sort I was taught to call. tactics. University of Wales. AKH0554 THE CONTINUING MOVE TO DEMOCRACY DENIES FOUCAULT'S THEORIES Robert Hughes. A liberal state is one that maintains the limits of its constituent disciplines and disciplinary institutions and that enforces their intrinsic principles.171-2. he does indeed respond to events. while American academics were emptily theorizing that language and the thinking subject were dead. turning education into indoctrination. 1994. quoting Gadamer). the articles he has written.pp. may allow us to see more clearly the world in which we live--and may perhaps help us in any attempts to alter that world. an epiphenomenon of discourse. 1986. points not only to the wellsprings of the continuing Foucault cult but also to the common denominator of all theoreticism: a refusal to credit one's audience with the right to challenge one's ideas on dispassionate grounds. a complex mechanism whose every exertion is simultaneously a self-alteration. Not coincidentally. The world changes more deeply. SKEPTICAL ENGAGEMENTS. "the prison exists in order to foster delinquency and thus to provide a rationale for strengthening the instruments of repression. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. of course. Any resistance to those structures can only be attributed to a reflex tendency for power to generate some counter-discourse likewise complicit with the omnipresent workings of power/knowledge. however. p. If we understand criticism as the possibility of correction and reform (a word that should be read with a literal emphasis). then it is a possibility that can never be foreclosed. 1993. p. noting how vague Foucault is when it comes to specifying exactly who is exercising the power that is so ubiquitous in Discipline and Punish Foucault manages to evade the question of agency in a number of ways: for example. there is a temptation to derive from Foucault's history of the prison true propositions regarding the actual institution within society that we know as the prison. and the necessary margin of free-will required to envisage any ethics or politics worth the name. Professor of the History of Ideas. AKH0562 FOUCAULT'S DETERMINISM LEAVES NO SCOPE FOR EFFECTIVE MORAL OR POLITICAL ACTION Christopher Norris. so that its exercise is always reciprocal. For example. All that they can offer is a textualist (discourse-theoretical) variant on the old empiricist notion of the subject as a tabula rasa. it follows Foucault in reducing all questions of knowledge. amend them as you will. Nor is it in any way fortuitous that in drawing out the aporias of Foucault's position one is led to invoke these Cartesian metaphors and echoes of Gilbert Ryle on Descartes. That is to say. real life.

Cambridge. reasoned and principled) grounds on which to mount his otherwise passionate case as regards the great legacy of suffering. and that Foucault's political epistemology is simply incoherent. absolutism or totalitarianism. freedom of contract and freedom to organize politically have helped generate the rise of labour movements that have been both a challenge to. p.82 For its part. University of Wales. you've had it ." The intellectual.83 Though less disdainful of Foucault. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. puts it in a nutshell: 'today the intellectual's challenge is not the Enlightenment one of furthering knowledge to advance freedom: the challenge now is to spread suspicion. Foucauldian analysis. influential political scientist and cochairman of the Democratic Socialists of America: "Politics of identity and mechanical imports of French intellectual fashions have trivialized and decentered attempts to build genuinely broad coalitions that could provide an arena for a resurgent left. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER.e. 1986. the reverse Whiggish narrative has a decided moral or practical disadvantage when contrasted to the progressive narrative. .42. AKH0573 FOUCAULT'S METHOD OF EXPLANATION REINFORCES STATUS QUO David Couzens Hoy. and human waste brought about by such specific perversions of the rationalist project. is thought to be as helpless against power and control as a salmon in a polluted stream. prophetic pragmatists take seriously moral discourse)revisable means and ends of political action. Professor of Philosophy.and so minimal a conception of the subject . But American departments of literature. yet his rejection of even tentative aims and provisional ends results in existential rebellion or micropolitical revolt rather than concerted political praxis informed by moral vision and systemic (though flexible) analysis. no possibility for the development of critical principles.223 Foucault says of the prison that `prison reform' is born together with the prison itself: it is part of its very programme. . p. Lentricchia is in the end disenchanted with that thinker's beatification: "Foucault's theory of power. which make social criticism pointless since individual agents are helpless to rectify the resented social practices and institutions. provides for a means of resistance but no real goal for resistance . . AKH0568 FOUCAULT'S VIEW OF POWER UNDERMINES POLITICAL REFORM Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. under these conditions. the "I" of every sentence--was an illusion: all you had left was language. Thus. . We hold it true that truth is unknowable. and hence that we might as well abandon any hope of achieving progress through the exercise of reason in its enlightened (critical-emancipatory) role.instrumental (problem-solving). In short. injustice. . The influence French poststructuralism enjoys in American academic life .or more authoritarian--dead end than this. AKH0567 FOUCAULT'S SKEPTICISM UNDERMINES EFFECTIVE POLITICAL PRACTICE Cornel West. Foucauldians. ethico political. and principled ethical choice. . Once there were writers. Since each part of the social system thus appears indispensable. in The Rise and Fall of the American Left. but no means of overcoming it. with Habermas. his use of the rhetoric of negative or dystopian functionalism is paradoxical. single agent. but now there is only what Foucault derisively called "the author function. are increasingly perceived as vain and trivial in the face of the model itself.that there seems no alternative to the power/knowledge nexus that defines every aspect of human social interaction. Insofar as the theorist wins.75-6. CULTURE OF COMPLAINT. In this version. Harvard. 1993. and a powerful force for change within. . Professor of Sociology. pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace Michel Foucault. 1994. Functionalist explanations may imply either that the whole is so powerful that attempts to bring about social improvements by particular reforms will inevitably fail..and hence fails to see how encroachments by the first on to the others' domain may result in just the kinds of large-scale abuse that his texts so persistently denounce. critic and historian. teleological philosophy of history. by constructing an increasingly closed and terrifying machine. In Habermasian terms he fails to distinguish between the various spheres of reason . Professor of Philosophy. University of California-Santa Cruz. p. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. If consciousness is such a prisoner of power)and Foucault seems much more gloomy than Marx in this respect)then hopes for a break with the oppressive past must be futile indeed.7-8 The use of functional rather than causal explanation standardly leads to consequences Foucault himself would not accept. New Historicists and others) has fallen in so readily with this current counter-enlightenment trend. not to speak of those of social transformation. Foucault's model for analysing `systems' of thought seems to borrow from sociological functionalism. ethical. Taken together. . AKH0572 FOUCAULT'S DIAGNOSIS MAKES RESISTANCE FUTILE David Couzens Hoy. 1989. Professor of Religion. they are equally as mistaken as the utopian stories if the goal is to avoid all stories about where history as a whole is going. we are not in control of our own history and never can be. 1982. because it gives power to anyone. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. Liberalism is not the same as despotism. AKH0566 REFORM CAN BE MEANINGFUL Anthony Giddens. reflective. not mentality: frustration with pervasive systems of repressive undecidability written everywhere in the surrounding culture. the economic version of exploitation seems insignificant. Fredric Jameson argues that Foucault is trapped in a rhetorical strategy that Jameson identifies as a `"winner loses" logic': What happens is that the more powerful the vision of some increasingly total system or logic)the Foucault of the prisons book is the obvious example)the more powerless the reader comes to feel.factual. From Foucault comes the Nietzsche-inspired (but ultimately Hobbesian) notion that 'subjectivity' end 'subjection' are synonymous terms. for instance. Professor of Philosophy. 1986. University of California-Santa Cruz. University of California-Santa Cruz. But the same point could be made. Professor of the History of Ideas. Professor of the History of Ideas. history. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. and the impulses of negation and revolt. In stark contrast. we must suspect all utterances. 1986. . We are now better placed to understand why 'theory' (or the version of it promoted by post-structuralists. p. The story of the inevitable slide into catastrophe evokes attitudes of fatalism and quietism. or that the existent social institutions must be preserved since they are at least better than the social chaos that might result from efforts at social transformation. 'To this was joined the belief of French poststructuralism.for bringing that history to book (so to speak) as an instance of certain determinate abuses in the discourse of oppressive instrumental rationality. p. Professor of Philosophy. unlike the fish. Foucault calls for resistance but offers no account of what would constitute good reasons both for criticising that which is to be resisted and for explaining how it should be resisted: `Foucault believes that truth is relative to its sanctions and knowledge to the constraints that produce it. For he is working with so impoverished a notion of 'reason' . p. By reducing 'reason' to its lowest common denominator (instrumental rationality) Foucault in effect closes off any prospect of progressive or emancipatory change. and the bourgeois ethos of rational.10 but finally Walzer maintains that the problem is more serious. John Diggins. p. 1994. or principled reasons . University of California-Santa Cruz. despite the tender-heartedness of some of its instincts. therefore. AKH0564 FOUCAULT'S PERSPECTIVE UNDERMINES ANY HOPE OF PROGRESS Christopher Norris. But his case appears much less convincing if one asks. and are in a mess. about various of the political and economic transformations introduced with the collapse of feudalism. know the water is poisoned." An even more sweeping uneasiness is expressed by Bogdan Denitch.108-9. While dystopian stories can be told to counter the belief in utopias. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Foucault deprives himself of any normative (i. Princeton professor of politics: It is. . that the "subject"--the thinking. 1994. p. University of Wales. such that change in any part affects every other part and reconfigures the whole. let alone Jacques Derrida. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. and in less ironic vein. By 'decentring' the subject to the point of non-existence -reducing it to a mere position within discourse or a figment of the humanist Imaginary-post-structuralism has removed the very possibility of reasoned. p. answers a deep need. the integrity and character of those engaged.' AKH0571 FOUCAULT'S THEORY OF POWER LEADS TO PASSIVITY David Couzens Hoy. p. by the theory.11 Yet Cliffort Geertz believes that in reading Discipline and Punish `we seemed to be faced with a kind of Whig history in reverse)a history. everywhere. seems equally to lead to resignation and quietism.11 Other critics have noted that Foucault's rhetoric often conflicts with his more considered articulation of his method. It would be difficult to find a worse-. There would appear to be no independent standpoint. what reasons Foucault can offer . p.are reducible to effects of power/knowledge. the only difference being that we. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. the political and economic orders of capitalism. if only the need to rationalize failure. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY. to that very degree he loses.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 49 AKH0563 FOUCAULT'S VIEW OF REASON UNDERMINES CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE Christopher Norris. AKH0569 FOUCAULT'S THEORIES UNDERMINE RADICAL ACTION Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.226 Foucault rightly wants to safeguard relentless criticism and healthy skepticism. since the critical capacity of his work is thereby paralyzed. that all truth-claims . Furthermore. AKH0565 FOUCAULT'S THEORY OF POWER IS A POLITICAL DEAD END Robert Hughes. 1994. except the axiom that all utterances are suspect. Notes Alan Ryan. which sees social life as systematically interconnected. The minority view was always that power could be undermined by truth . of the Rise of Unfreedom'. etc. 1986. With this major difference: prisoners are denied just those rights which the remainder of the population formally possess. exemplified by Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. and sociology contain large numbers of self-described leftists who have confused radical doubts about objectivity with political radicalism. Once you read Foucault as saying that truth is simply an effect of power. functionalism can lead to political conservatism.including ethico-political ideas of reason . and the precious ideals of participatory democracy and the flowering of the uniqueness of different human individualities. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. THE AMERICAN EVASION OF PHILOSOPHY. universalised justice has the same double-edged character as prisons and their reform. in spite of itself." AKH0570 FOUCAULT HAS NO COHERENT BASIS FOR POLITICAL RESISTANCE David Couzens Hoy. If Foucault's project is to do social criticism without appealing to a utopian. aesthetic or 'world-disclosive'.

U-Cal Berkeley English prof. But. members of ethnic minorities)tend on the whole to be wary of doctrines that conceive of society as a seamless fabric of undifferentiated and mystified oppression. p. its token allegiance to all things "marginalized" by the capitalistic West. if seriously adopted by feminists. that the existence of power "depends on a multiplicity of points of resistance. This is true. If women work. epistemological. Classical Marxists. for example.F. would make any semblance of a feminist politics impossible)to the extent that feminist politics is bound up with a specific constituency or subject. Haber. for to refer to an identity is not just to refer to a social category. he does not do much to explain how such self-consciousness is possible. more can be produced. We see this co-opting of resistance all the time. Colorado. often fault poststructuralism for its neglect of "uneven development" among different underclasses at any given historical moment." but as "sub-individuals" always at war with their own values. AKH0575 FOUCAULT PRODUCES HELPLESSNESS Frederick Crews. and even more problematic from the standpoint of oppositional politics. At the same time. it should be emphasized. . government has not taken on the responsibility of making day care available to all. which results from his insistence on the proliferation of localized power struggles)not only intersubjectively. it would not then be surprising if these women "chose" to go back to being housewives. Philosophy Prof. U Colorado-Denver." Since the individual is nothing but the effects of power. AKH0576 FOUCAULT'S THEORY JUST A REFUSE FOR LEFTIST FAILURES Frederick Crews. too. he thinks. the resister who would refuse to be part of that regime is left with the difficult personal. As John Patrick Diggins has recently argued. Haber.xix-xx. and its vision of interpretation without ground or end fostered a clannish leftism-of-the-library that promised immunity from further rude surprises.xx. . From Roland Barthes through Jacques Derrida to Foucault himself. to speak of the subjects of struggle not as "individuals. psychological. At his worst. p. THE CRITICS BEAR IT AWAY. Without a subject there can be no locus of resistance and without subjects coherent enough to form coalitions there can be no force to resistance. Since we are formed by strategies of power we may well identify our interests with the interest of that very power which was formulated to oppress us. Haber. as if a carnival of unconstrained textuality could somehow serve as a proxy for the actual release of oppressed social groups from neglect and exploitation. its private jargon.xix. you can't be a very effective spokesman for freedom when your philosophy tells you that it doesn't exist.104-5.100." Foucault's analysis of power forces all marginalized voices to be alert to the possible co-opting of their particular consciousness. in all its multifaceted 'deployment' (to continue the Foucauldian motif). 1994. p. oppositional self.. We see this again in Foucault's commitment to the confrontational omnipresence of power and its concomitant destabilizing effect of the subject. Foucault states in the passage quoted above. evident in such passages as "there aren't any immediately given subjects of the struggle . U Colorado-Denver. U. Philosophy Prof. women are still not given equal pay for equal work. Taking its cues from such thoroughgoing enemies of democracy as Nietzsche and Heidegger. Obviously. Philosophy Prof. the key feature of poststructuralist criticism is its downgrading of what Michel Foucault belittled as "the author function. Foucault's analysis of power might lead the disadvantaged to want to formulate alternatives to the subjugating power regime. critics are free to "liberate" signifiers from the signified")that is. it is better. if women are forced to go back to being housewives. 1992. and is evidence of the fact that resistance need not result in transformation. . Or one could take the example of how resistances are used as a target to strengthen the hold of the dominant powers by unifying the people against a common enemy. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. So even if being alerted to the productive effects of power could result in attempts to oppose the hegemony of the dominant power regime. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. or why resistance would result in the transformation of power)and it is not enough of an excuse to say that this is a function of his unwillingness to prescribe what ought to be done. AKH0579 FOUCAULT FAILS TO EXPLAIN RESISTANCE H. and two-income families are able to spend more in an inflationary age than a single-income family would. it has not sufficiently altered the workplace to accommodate demands for maternity (much less demands for paternity) leave. U Colorado-Denver. it is not coincidental that poststructuralism took hold in Western universities immediately after the theatrical student revolutionism of 1968 came crashing down. Resistance is also made problematic at the level of desire. As many observers have noted. As the social ineffectuality of Foucault's world view becomes more generally apparent. THE CRITICS BEAR IT AWAY. U-Cal Berkeley English prof. U-Cal Berkeley English prof.F. the phenomenon of women in the workplace has served to strengthen it. Asst. what hope can the rest of us entertain for taking some control over our lives? AKH0578 FOUCAULT STOPS COMMUNITY RESISTANCE H.98. Either way the dominant power regime is able both to benefit from. but it also implies the impossibility of this. Asst. p.104. But if the very self is thus fragmented into antagonistic sites of power." But this means that resistance is co-opted for the purposes of disciplinary and normalizing regimes of power. poststructuralism projects a deep negativity about the possibilities of both knowledge and social progress)a negativity so unrelenting that it decomposes the individual human "subject" into a helpless vector of forces that typically cannot even be located. however. have ensnared themselves in these debilitating contradictions. This is why Susan Bordo argues that a Foucauldian analysis of the strategic uses of power force us to question the integrity of our understanding of our oppositional realities. 1992. 1994. THE CRITICS BEAR IT AWAY. If even major authors are to be regarded as altogether "socially constructed" from the "discourses of power" surrounding them. p.xix. And there is always within each of us something that fights something else. Asst. then he is no better able to admit consensus and community than was Lyotard. the patriarchal power regime wins by having its values reinforced. New Americanism will surely evolve toward a less quixotic critical style. p. to be disadvantageous for oppositional struggles: The postmodern project. U. 1994. AKH0581 RESISTANCE IS CO-OPTED H. I find in Foucault no reason for revolting against oneself. Haber. 1992. far from changing the basic power structure. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. but to a felt sense of self. Philosophy Prof. While Foucault does mean to leave open the possibility for seeing self-conscious subjects as necessary to resistance. Denver. Denver.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 50 AKH0574 FOUCAULT'S PHILOSOPHY SOCIALLY INEFFECTUAL Frederick Crews. Methodologically. the Foucauldian model of social action)now the leading paradigm for New Americanists among other theorists on the academic left)is rigidly deterministic. Enough white middle-class women objected to being confined to the role of housewife for it to have become the norm for those women to find jobs outside of the home. Foucault is not wrong. p. resistance. Poststructuralist fatalism toward established power served a consoling function.. And in fact. but also interpersonally)keeps him from allowing for a subject sufficiently coherent to form communities of active resistance and transformation.F. 1994. poststructuralism has conflated such quasi-libidinal linguistic play with political liberty.. now be operating in the service of the reproduction of white male knowledge/power?" We must be on the lookout to recognize the ways even defiant alternatives are co-opted. Those who have personally experienced marginalization)feminists..F." that resistance "can only exist in the strategic field of power relations. Asst. 1992. U-Cal Berkeley English prof. Haber. the postmodernist prohibition against subject-centered inquiry and theory undermines the legitimacy of a broad-based organized movement dedicated to articulating and implementing the goals of such a constituency. Not all New Americanists. We saw this in Lyotard's paralogistic and agonistic model of politics. since the question of being a woman-or any unco-opted. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. etc... Foucault's pluralism. much less stemmed. of some feminists who consider Foucault." Once writers have been discounted as the primary shapers of their works. namely women. 1994. It is this kind of conclusion that leads those engaged in oppositional struggles to repudiate the viability of postmodern politics. She is right to argue that Foucault "constantly reminds us that the results of individual interest and desire do not always lead where imagined and may often sustain unintended and unwanted configurations of power. THE CRITICS BEAR IT AWAY. Philosophy Prof. AKH0577 FOUCAULT DETERMINIST)DENIES POTENTIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTROL Frederick Crews. and deflect. lesbians and gays. The dominant power regime assures a no-win situation. and also the difficult political question of who she might be. no strategy for recovering an empowered. p. Colorado. AKH0582 DESIRE SUBVERTS RESISTANCE H. AKH0580 FOUCAULT NOT EMPOWERING H. On the other hand. Bordo asks the question Foucauldian analysis makes worrisome: "Could feminist gender-skepticism. "deviant" identity-has been made more difficult by Foucault than we might have originally thought. p. Asst. to make a text mean anything or nothing according to whim. who fights against whom? We all fight each other. and postmodernism in general. assuring the disillusioned survivors of the New Left that the collapse of their emancipatory dreams was built into the nature of things.F.99-100. The male-dominated society hasn't given much up-women are still responsible for the household.

for the moment. and classist society. But it is one thing to allow for the formation of communities.97-8.' " There is. as a theorist Foucault gives us reason not to be optimistic about the possibility of resistance and transformation. p. It is uncalled for since it encourages intrusion on other people's private poems and it is unnecessary. however. In part. it is always more than a personal question. U. he failed in his goal insofar as he can also be said to participate in the patriarchal. AKH0584 FOUCAULT DOESN'T ALLOW POLITICAL ACTION H. p. At its worst. p. I suggest that this failure is at least partially explained by his deemphasis on the importance of community for the formation of the subject of resistance. but how forms of rationality and formations of the subject rest upon a foundation of human practices. then. the possibility for self-consciousness remains problematic. Philosophy Prof. can both respect his refusal to shape those struggles while at the same time refusing to thereby be put off from ' demanding a more constructive (or even coherent) notion of resistance and transformation from a power regime to which we are subjected. However. Asst. Foucault does not do more than merely state the relation of resistance to power as one of logical entailment. Given that subjectivity is constituted through disciplinary practices and rationalizing discourses and is an effect of patriarchal. Foucault's thesis is no less mystifying than Lyotard's.. Given Foucault's analysis of the subject as the effect of power. 1994. this boils down to a contest between champions of the tradition and its dominated opponents. p. though not perhaps consistently. rather than people. Haber.Haber. there will also be resistance. and this motivates much of the criticism against him. Asst. of Colorado-Denver. Despite his opening up the political space.F. the possibility of this community formation is significantly absent from his theory. while his analysis may enable us to see ourselves as the objects of those relations of power which have made us what we are (and have made the world what it is). U. however. U. whether Foucault fails to identify himself with any particular community. it seems as if power/resistance follows an inevitable kind of materialist logic: wherever there is power. At best it could be argued that while he did not exclude the possibility of the formation of community. Rorty criticizes Foucault for failing to appeal to any "we. and another to specify the form these communities must take. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS.. that since one's identity is always already the prime effect of power. (This is a point to which I will be returning later in this chapter. he never adequately opened up a space for this "questioning us. once we know how these are made. even if possible. Haber.89.. However. Philosophy Prof. AKH0587 FOUCAULT GENEALOGY UNCALLED FOR H. In short. and the voicing of marginalized voices. p. Haber. a tendency found totalized in Lyotard and present also in Foucault. at least. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. Foucault's genealogical deconstruction of the public/private is. both uncalled for and unnecessary. His understanding of the self as an effect of disciplinary and normalizing power regimes forces one to he skeptical about the viability of a Foncauldian politics.F.Haber. Foucault misses this point because he does not do enough to differentiate between effects of power. "no 'we' to be found in Foucault's writings. Asst. But it is not obvious that resistance will follow upon awareness of the effects of power. racist. But I want to ask.. Haber. this is simply the logic of the situation. the thesis that ''we cannot abandon our own order. revitalize one's identity in community with others. 1994. This is rather like a political application of Newton's third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Foucault thinks that resistance requires subjects capable of acting in self-conscious and regulatory ways-the hoped-for practical application of his genealogical analyses of power presupposes the belief that because human practices are made they can be unmade.107. AKH0590 FOUCAULT DOESN'T HELP OPPOSITIONAL DISCOURSE H. but whether there is anything inherent in his work-as I argued there was in Lyotard-to preclude the possibility of a ''we": of consensus or community. he concludes. This possibility rests upon subjects becoming aware of the multiple effects of power. Philosophy Prof. This is a problem which comes about with the tendency to equate power with terror. radical critiques may in fact be seen as the threat to be resisted. But it is true that he does not attempt to specify the form future communities must take. even where we would attack it. Though he did indeed work to help dissonant communities resist or revolt. an open question. and freeing "us" to ask correspondingly new and provoking questions of it.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 51 AKH0583 NO POTENTIAL FOR RESISTANCE H. Philosophy Prof." In fact. what does this make of resistance? Can we get from resistance to purposive transformation? In fact. it could be said that Foucault cannot account for the fact that oppositional discourses do. AKH0589 FOUCAULT DOESN'T FURTHER OPPOSITIONAL POLITICS. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. and an evaluator of Foucault interested in the formation of oppositional struggles. U. U. his thesis that resistance only exists in strategic fields of power relations where those relations of power are conceived of as disciplinary and normalizing. Foucault's poststructuralism keeps him from allowing for subjects sufficiently coherent to form communities of active resistance and transformation. And since he placed the formation of self-identity within the disciplinary and normalizing structure of power. Philosophy Prof. 1994. order. Foucault makes an important mistake-and an important political mistake. though in informal discussions and interviews Foucault speaks as a revolutionary. Furthermore. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. It is time to assess this failure and its implications for an oppositional politics. But can this law be applied to people? What reason does Foucault give for believing it can ? And even if resistance is logically entailed by power. He did not explain where the self-conscious voice of the Other could come from or how it could speak or assert itself for the purposes of resistance. On the negative side. makes it unlikely that there can be regulatory or even self-conscious subjects of resistance. If our personal identity is bound up with the interests of domination. neither did he take into account the seminal role of self-disclosure in community and community formation for the possibility of oppositional politics. p. of Colorado-Denver." renders Foucault's theory of power problematic for the possibility of resistance.F. p. "of course. BEYOND MODERN POLITICS. 1994. AKH0586 INTEREST IN OPPOSITIONAL STRUGGLE DOESN'T LEAD TO ABANDONING EXISTING ORDER H. any communication". Haber.F. p. in fact. I will argue that Foucault's thesis of power/knowledge leaves no room for subjects of oppositional resistance. AKH0588 FOUCAULT FAILS AS A MODEL FOR OPPOSITIONAL POLITICS H. Asst. Whether or not Foucault's analysis precludes the formation of community will remain." The question is not. of Colorado-Denver.F. In failing to insist on this. This leaves Foucault open to the charge that his is a world in which things move. it is doubtful that such reflection.77-8. all the proponents of poststructural and postmodern politics I have been examining fail to provide a viable politics for oppositional struggles.F. When speaking of his role. Asst. would result in resistance. despite his active role in prison reform and gay liberation. U Colorado-Denver. for in the formation of resistance. Poststrutural and postmodern politics has yet to be seen to offer a constructive political model. H. of Colorado-Denver.F. Asst. it is arguable that in itself. For while on the one hand." He argues that the "rhetoric of emancipation is absent from Foucault's work. colonizing.. And the inference is even more unlikely if we take seriously the thesis that the subject and her or his identity is entirely a product of disciplinary and normalizing discourse. "How exactly is this possible?" And on the face of it. 1994. Asst. Philosophy Prof. Asst. of Colorado-Denver. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. since the public humanist values of liberal societies allow for the greatest freedom of private expressions coincident with the greatest good for the greatest number. Philosophy Prof.78. to one we control. BEYOND MODERN POLITICS. appear. nor in those of many of his French contemporaries. Foucault says that by uncovering the multiple effects of power he thereby aids the formation of multiple points of resistance-once we see not just that. Asst.Haber. I would argue that it is necessary to seek others out: to reconstruct. U. assuming we know how they were made"-on the other hand. he "forbids himself the tone of the liberal sort of thinker who says to his fellow citizens: 'we know that there must be a better way to do things than this. AKH0591 FOUCAULT'S THESIS DOESN'T HELP OPPOSITIONAL POLITICS H.111-2. he believes it then becomes possible for them to be unmade. let us look for it together. For the worry behind Rorty's criticism is valid: without some form of community there cannot be an effective politics. 1994. But how much does this description really tell us? It seems to hold out hope for the possibility of meaningful resistance even though resistance itself is always inscribed within those very relations of power it opposes. Foucault's thesis is further muddied if we consider passages like the one quoted above in which he seems to be implying that the necessary and sufficient catalyst for resistance is self-conscious subjects. of Colorado-Denver. of Colorado-Denver.103. on Rorty's view. recreated as passive subjects. AKH0585 FOUCAULT DOESN'T OFFER A POLITICAL MODEL H. For various reasons. a world in which subjects become obliterated or.F.F.99.. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. Philosophy Prof.." This. p. U. Foucault's insights regarding the omnipresence of power should have led him to insist. 1994. U. This gives us a summary of Foucault's theory of resistance in its relation to power. Philosophy Prof. 1994. in a way that he unfortunately did not. rather. Foucault's work "lacks an identification with any social context. of oppositional consciousness.Haber.83. it does not help us to see how we can be the makers of new histories-how Foucault can begin with resistance and end up with self-conscious transformation.) . 1994. of Colorado-Denver..

A trivial penalty (say. there would be no likelihood of our predictions ever being successful. Second. and so to reject the monistic doctrine which denies their legitimacy. habermas thinks that Foucault fails to see clearly that the real problem is that the legal means for securing freedom also endanger it.53. Haber. 1994. Professor of Sociology. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. How? By preventing private vengeance. Their legal rights should be fully protected. On this point Lacanian theory proves instructive. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE. Princeton philosopher. THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY. Foucault cannot advance a single proposition . be "permanent" [sic]. he says. maim. these agents are "subjects" in an uncomfortably familiar sense of the word. 1973. where he allows for agents of struggle.82. and prohibitions without penalties are ineffective in the face of temptation. 1946. adequately reflect how we come to achieve the self-consciousness necessary for oppositional political struggle. humanities will remain isolated and irrelevant. and a general breakdown of order. GW govt prof.47. We have. inasmuch as it denies the possibility of natural science. lest people be subject to serial killers. all communities require the hand of public authorities. University of Wales. There are (even if he doesn't say how)and this points to tensions which can be said to exist between Foucault's modern and postmodern tendencies) times in Foucault's writings where he posits the existence of subjects coherent enough to form coalitions. then can science escape being labeled willful and coercive? Can business be anything other than rapacious? Can either science or business continue to function in a political culture that assumes them to be oppressive. 1994. that 'all concepts are metaphors' (all truth-claims rhetorical. Philosophy Prof. this signifies yet another of those totalizing impulses which mask the viewpoint of the bourgeois male. But if power is the essence of all human endeavors. p. people have to prohibit some kinds of conduct. Unfortunately. might have taken the law into their own hands. as he sees it. U. some of which coalitions will even. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. 1973. . University College. among many others who have begun to ask this question: Those attempting to ignore Post-modernism are many: for example. 1993. p. wilding gangs out to torture. 1993. or at least to minimize. the law would cease to deter men. the first and last components of these coalitions will be "individuals. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. Galston argues that it is insufficient merely to express unequivocally society's moral opinion.53. AKH0593 FOUCAULT'S CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY FAILS David Couzens Hoy. GW govt prof. the Other. But crimes occur in spite of all this. have turned out to be very real freedoms in the light of the twentieth-century experience of totalitarian societies in which they are absent or radically curtailed. THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY.151. p. but there are good empirical grounds for rejecting it. 1986. Professor of the History of Ideas. in the absence of a penal code. a sign of the forbidden and irrecoverable maternal body. The paternal law which Lacanian psychoanalysis takes to be the ground of all kinship and all cultural relations not only sanctions male subjects. for example.191. women are variously. University of California-Santa Cruz. LANGUAGE. and the right to organise politically. London. but otherwise there is no denying that when it comes to hard-core criminals and dangerous mental patients. and the kind of conduct that we sought to prevent would flourish. 1982. It helps feminist theory articulate the ways in which the very notion of the subject is a masculine prerogative within the terms of culture. while a severe penalty conveys the sense that the crime for which it is decreed is grave.222 But the `mere' bourgeois freedoms of freedom of movement. p. that in order to determine whether it will rain tomorrow I need not take into account the present state of mind of the Emperor of Manchukuo. in every society. or national service is a fairy tale.the conceptual resources . Professor of Philosophy. To suggest that these people can be reached by involving them in positive community work. For it is plain that in making any given prediction we are able to consider only a limited set of data. It also does not. but a legitimate.a 'performative contradiction'. 1994. we assume that we are entitled to ignore as irrelevant. But. p. formal equality before the law. It is also clear that Foucault sees himself as participating in the formation of oppositional consciousness)in the formation of the consciousness of oppositional subjects)and that he sees such subjects as necessary for the project of the instantiation of new regimes of power formed from the standpoint of subjugated knowledges. Princeton philosopher. Also.10-1. As Judith Butler notes. all philosophy just a 'kind of writing' and so forth) if one thereby deprives criticism of the analytic means . p. AKH0597 LAWS PROPERLY EXPRESS MORAL VALUES Amitai Etzioni. Denver. with breezy assurance. laws do represent. a five cent fine) suggests that an offense is trivial. There is a hard core of psychopaths and criminals that the most dedicated parents. p. And yet he doesn't always go this far. to adopt the Habermasian term . The fact that our predictions are very often successful gives us reason to believe that some at least of our judgements of irrelevance are correct. GW govt prof. and classist power regimes.105-6. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE. p.required to make good such an argument. p. p.without necessarily falling back into the forms of rational argumentation. FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER. To cope with them.. AKH0601 THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS NEEDED TO PREVENT VIGILANTISM Walter Kaufmann.J. "Mandatory declarations)laws with teeth)are typically needed to convince citizens that the community is serious about its professed standards of responsibility." AKH0599 ONLY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS CAN CONTROL CERTAIN PEOPLE Amitai Etzioni. racist. To live together. AKH0603 FOUCAULT'S REJECTION OF REASON IS A DISABLING CONTRADICTION Christopher Norris. A penal code deters people from committing crimes not only (1) by engendering fear but also (2) by inculcating a moral sense. by ignoring the progress achieved through the modern guarantees of liberty and legality. Professor of Philosophy. Finally. AKH0594 BOURGEOIS FREEDOMS ARE REAL AND MEANINGFUL Anthony Giddens. hence. for example. but institutes their very possibility through the denial of the feminine. 1973. and despite his advances over Rorty. AKH0598 CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ARE NEEDED TO CHECK HARMFUL BEHAVIOR Amitai Etzioni." and this doesn't get us away from the bourgeois individualism which has dominated modern patriarchal. They are the proper subjects for police. Cambridge. jail sentences. judgments. and the penalties are intended to undo. PROFILES AND CRITIQUES IN SOCIAL THEORY. therefore. Nevertheless I have argued that we need to retain the institution of punishment for futureoriented reasons. Asst. far from being subjects. a proper method of expressing social and moral values and of signaling conduct that the community considers proper or abhorrent)even when these laws are rarely enforced through fines. Colorado. 1993. yet essentially harmless. Ayer. If we were not entitled to make such assumptions. and the most attentive and caring neighborhoods cannot reach. p.let alone a whole book of inter-articulated statements. public authorities are not only essential. morally appropriate way to protect the public. I assume.9 From Habermas's perspective Foucault's belittling of the progressive character of modern enlightenment and rationality is mistaken. p. WITHOUT GUILT AND JUSTICE.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 52 AKH0592 FOUCAULT PATRIARCHAL . the natural sciences and business departments often hope that the affected. vigorous enforcement backed by sanctions has proved essential in changing behavior.132. TRUTH AND LOGIC. Often the offense injured others who. indeed no a priori ground either for accepting or for rejecting the doctrine that every event is causally connected with every other. AKH0595 BELIEVING POWER SATURATES ALL RELATIONS UNDERMINES SCIENCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. what we do not take into account.F. and truth-claims . and kill for kicks. the most effective schools. Here again there is a self-disabling paradox . for we should always be ignoring the greater part of the relevant data. or some unsavory mixture of the above. BEYOND POSTMODERN POLITICS. or other coercive means. AKH0600 THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DETERS BY INCULCATING MORAL SENSE Walter Kaufmann. Foucault's attacks on the human sciences for being unconsciously manipulative and thus uncritically co-opted are out-of-date since for Habermas these fields are genuinely hermeneutical and critical by the 1970s. a mysterious and irrecoverable lack. It is the same point that Derrida raises against Foucault with regard to certain passages in the latter's book Madness and Civilization. Princeton philosopher. If we always waived all penalties. meaningful creative work.236 We worry for the reason articulated by Arthur Potynen. the damage. lynchings. From drunk driving to racial discrimination. AKH0602 SOCIAL LIFE REQUIRES PUNISHMENT Walter Kaufmann. The code may also deter people simply (3) by informing them of what is forbidden. child abusers and arsonists. inferences. Thus there is no point saying. He thinks Foucault's generalization of panoptical or conformist forces to the entire process of the modernization of society is false.HURT WOMEN'S STRUGGLE H. THE SPIRIT OF Foucault's strictly exorbitant claim to be somehow speaking from a position outside the very discourse of Western (post-Cartesian) reason on behalf of those oppressed or deviant voices which that discourse has sedulously kept off bounds. AKH0596 OUR ABILITY TO MAKE LOCALIZED PREDICTIONS DENIES "THE INDISSOLUBLE CONTINUUM OF FORCES" A.

But this is to mistake the peculiar character of Descartes' 'hyperbolical' thought experiment for an instance of what Derrida calls 'reason in general'. it does so in a dangerous way. following from this. They act. For on the other hand . Princeton. AKH0605 FOUCAULT ATTACKS AN OVERLY NARROW CONCEPT OF REASON Christopher Norris. p.without undermining his own professed objective at every turn. that all rhetorics are coercive. And some version of this position. then. p.18-9. University of Iowa. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. p. 1985." The "true rhetorician ' in Weaver's reading.251-2. and ethical accountability.deployed with a view to discrediting the values of reason and truth. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. Princeton.e. AKH0611 IF KNOWLEDGE IS SIMPLY POWER. the truth that all truth is subject to the will to power? Kaufmann observes that "by including truth within the confines of this theory of the will to power." AKH0610 FOUCAULT'S CRITIQUE OF TRUTH MEANS THERE'S NO REASON WE SHOULD BELIEVE HIM Alan Megill." The same objection--if objection it is--applies to Foucault. AKH0609 FOUCAULT'S THEORIES UNDERMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF TRUTH Alan Megill. MULTICULTURALISM. By its internal logic. It does not stand up to evidence or reasoned argument. . It is particularly evident in Foucault's case. for his claims are infinitely more radical than those of Weaver's "true rhetorician. some language on the far side of truth. But what is Nietzsche's project if not the articulation of a truth--namely. University of Wales. 1994. Quite simply. and critical argumentation) which his book avowedly disowns." Thus. AKH0613 GOOD ARGUMENTS DON'T SIMPLY REFLECT THE WILL TO POWER Amy Gutmann. One is the idea that Descartes can be taken as having somehow inaugurated the 'age of reason' and. critique of historical source-texts. MULTICULTURALISM. What Foucault fails to recognise is the flat contradiction involved in presenting an elaborately argued and documented case against the very same standards (of rational. 1994. Professor of the History of Ideas. THE LESS POWERFUL COULD NEVER WIN. Deconstructionism is also impractical.Foucault is constrained to abide by the ground-rules of reasoned critical argument even in the act of denouncing them with all the rhetorical means at his disposal. admits the legitimacy of a counterpart to rhetoric--namely.33. along with it.should itself make sense according to criteria of logic. surest. p. like Descartes. 1985. or whatever. AKH0607 FOUCAULT HOLDS A REDUCTIONIST OF REASON Christopher Norris. p. Professor of Politics. University of Wales. 1994.19. Or are they? We can hardly be sure. as if they believed that the university curriculum should include works by and about disadvantaged groups. those various forms of repressive institutional regime from the asylum to psychiatric medicine .245. not the arguments offered by politicians but the most careful and compelling philosophical arguments. But we have not yet fathomed the full extent of the difficulty that Nietzsche and Foucault raise for us. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. Foucault excludes the establishment of truth in this sense. University of Iowa." In contrast. or revealing their complicity with the will-to-power over minds and bodies alike. to which even the search for truth is subject. is to undermine every last standard of scholarly. rational argument. Amy Gutmann.which (so it is argued) represent the dark side of enlightened thought. That Foucault imagines such a break to be possible is a sign of his labouring under a twofold confusion. if consistently pursued. 1994. both logically and practically. especially if their academic spokespersons publicize the view that intellectual standards are nothing more than assertions or reflections of the will to power. should we believe Foucault? All Cretans are liars. it ignores the inescapable requirement that a work like Foucault's . Why. At any rate it offers a more promising option than those other (post-structuralist or textualist) theories which count 'reality' a world well lost and 'truth' just a cover-term to mask the operations of an all-pervasive epistemic will-to-power. as having a rhetorical significance and no other kind. deconstructionism has nothing more to say for the view that intellectual standards are masks for the will to political power than that it too reflects the will to power of deconstructionists. If intellectual standards are political in the sense of reflecting the antagonistic interests and will to power of particular groups. Professor of the History of Ideas. simply reflect the will to power. Professor of the History of the strictest order of discursive necessity . that all rhetorics are subject to the play of power. by his exclusion of representation. MULTICULTURALISM. But why then bother with intellectual life at all. University of Wales. 1994. is his treatment of 'reason' as a monolithic discourse. Derrida makes the same point about Foucault . Foucault tells us that there is no such thing as a "genuine" rhetoric. AKH0608 CONFLATING KNOWLEDGE AND POWER UNDERMINES ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY Christopher Norris. dialectic.doubtless for strategic purposes . As Kaufmann points out. The move that seemed to get us outside discourse finishes by enclosing us even more deeply within it. This is what Habermas means when he writes of the 'performative contradiction' involved in all such wholesale sceptical assaults on the philosophic discourse of modernity. AKH0612 IF KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.33-4. This is precisely his point about Foucault: that the latter falls into manifest absurdity when he claims that Madness and Civilization is not only a book about the history of 'madness' but one that is written in the very language and from the deepest interior of the discourse of insanity itself. Dialectic is here defined in the Aristotelian rather than in the Hegelian sense as (in Weaver's words) "a method of investigation whose object is the establishment of truth about doubtful propositions. Thus '(t)o all appearances it is reason that he [Foucault] interns.34-5. p. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. On the one hand . THOUGHT IS WORTHLESS Amy Gutmann. University of Wales. Princeton. he chooses the reason of yesterday as his target and not the possibility of meaning in general'. AKH0606 FOUCAULT'S CRITIQUE OF REASON IS SELF-UNDERMINING Christopher Norris. scholarly. The argument is self-undermining. class and gender interests of their proponents.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 53 AKH0604 FOUCAULT'S WORK EMBODIES A PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION Christopher Norris. and often speak. For it is because he holds such a reductive. p. etc.19. p. but. But this is not to exempt Foucault from criticism. then disadvantaged groups have no choice but to accept the hegemonic standards that society imposes on the academy and the academy in turn imposes on them. Deconstructionists do not act as if they believed that common standards are impossible. And the second confusion. as we have seen. Nietzsche considers the will to power an absolutely universal principle. For the result of such thinking. Foucault could not have advanced a single proposition on the subject let alone an entire work of sophisticated argument and erudite scholarship . is defensible on universalistic grounds. The deconstructionist outlook on the academy not only deconstructs itself. p. since here one finds all the resources of classical scholarship and criticism . 'logocentric' thinking. [Nietzsche] has perhaps called in a Trojan Horse that threatens his entire philosophy with ruin.when he shows how impossible is the latter's claim (in his book Madness and Civilization) to be speaking the very language of madness as against the tyrannizing discourse of post-Cartesian reason. we can call into question. or even most satisfying path to political power. which is not the fastest.not to mention those of philosophic argument and textual exegesis .a discourse on or of madness . Foucault speaks not of truth but of "truth ' understanding this term in the same way that Nietzsche understands it in "On Truth and Lie. p. That is to subtler and more telling effect . 1994.35. But the reduction of all intellectual disagreements to conflicts of group interests is not. if it is political power that one is really after. 1994. University of Wales. But he does so in a rhetoric that by this very argument cannot be genuine. Professor of Politics. Foucault's claim that he is engaged in "fictioning" a history "on the basis of a political reality that makes it true. reason is not an option in the sense that one could leave it behind (or opt out of it) for the sake of promoting some radically 'other' kind of discourse. 1994.Foucault narrows his genealogical sights to equate 'reason' with just that singular episode (the Cartesian cogito) and just that arguably consequent history (the 'great confinement') which together allow him to press the case for condemning rationality and all its works. Anyone who doubts this conclusion might try to demonstrate in a nontautological way that the strongest arguments for and against legalizing abortion. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. always on the side of instituted power and repressive (instrumental) rationality. The less powerful cannot possibly hope to have their standards win out. quasi-Hobbesian conception of 'power/knowledge' that Foucault is thus driven to discount all appeals to reason in its other (i. Professor of the History of Ideas. critical. normativity. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. critical-emancipatory) role. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. Professor of the History of Ideas. Professor of Politics.

Heidegger. 1994. politicizing threat it poses is nonetheless real. University of Iowa. lacunae within each language can be pointed out. of erotic and ethical conduct. it is 'what allows one to step back from this way of acting or reacting. But taken together with his other late works it shows just how far Foucault had travelled from the idea of truth as nothing more than a ruse in the service of an epistemic will-to-power over minds and bodies alike.19-20. more informed or adequate sense of that formative prehistory. intellectual dialogue. What does seem clear. and its goals'. a morality that concerns the search for the truth and the relation to the other'. understanding.265. As we have seen. in Berki's sense. If indeed it is the case that all truth-claims and subject-positions are inscribed within a pre-existent discourse. University of Wales.124. 1985.on the set of assumptions that had characterized Foucault's previous work. p. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. 1994. scientific.35. and their latter-day demythologizing heirs. Indeed . Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. p. in his critique of History of Madness Derrida points out that Foucault is. University of will be evident to those with a knowledge of the relevant background history -it is this tradition that is tacitly invoked by critics and theorists who eagerly proclaim the eclipse of 'grand narratives'. as in Les mots et les choses. For whatever his claims to be resurrecting the silent language of an oppressed madness. and his related rejection of the visual. 'How are we constituted as subjects of our own knowledge? How are we constituted as subjects who exercise or submit to power relations? How are we constituted as moral subjects of our own actions? No longer can such issues be consigned. its conditions. educational. It is essential that I say something about this term now. Professor of the History of Ideas. he suggests. religious. Such critical reflection would be strictly inconceivable . AKH0619 FOUCAULT OFFERS NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE WESTERN TRADITION Alan Megill. A major problem with his attack on the tradition. p. 1994.' AKH0622 EVEN THE LATE FOUCAULT SAW KNOWLEDGE AS DISTINCT FROM POWER Christopher Norris. depends upon dialogue among reasonable people who disagree on the answers to some fundamental questions about the value of various literary.124. especially in the humanities and the "soft" social sciences. University of Wales. University of Wales.' Rather. 1994. At best. Professor of the History of Ideas. to Freudian psychiatry and other such modes of sexual knowledge-production. p. p. Princeton. Most striking in this regard is the essay 'What Is Enlightenment?'. and enlightened self-knowledge. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. economic. AKH0620 FOUCAULT'S LANGUAGE IS INCOMMENSURATE WITH THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH Alan Megill. is that Foucault's denial of the objectivity of science cannot be logically refuted: having adopted the language of power-knowledge.yet another figment of the obsolete humanist imaginary . by his own argument. Professor of the History of Ideas. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. Professor of the History of Ideas. rather than that of philosophical critique. most of his work to date is best summed up under the dual headings of utopianism and crisis. and the pursuit of reasoned argument in the many directions that it may lead. 1994. p. through the Christian confessional. as some critics claim. It is still .of the excluded or marginalized 'other' . each language speaks about certain things while failing to speak about certain other things. which will trace the 'history of the present' from Greek and Roman antiquity. and aesthetic understandings and achievements. p. All that is left. Spinoza. In his final interview with Paul Rabinow in May 1984 Foucault makes it clear just why he had abandoned the position taken up in both his early ('archaeological') and his middle period ('genealogical') writings. and also . criminology.I should add . the demise of the 'transcendental signified'. Colleges and universities are the only major social institutions dedicated to fostering knowledge. It is a project carried on in the deconstructive questioning of 'logocentric' values and truth-claims. Foucault is perhaps best regarded as the exponent of an unaccustomed form of utopianism. By utopian I mean an orientation that carries idealism. and (2) it reduces every answer to an exercise of political power. The alienation of Nietzsche. THE POLITICS OF BEING. acknowledges its debt whether wittingly or not . trapped within "logocentrism." within the general historical guilt borne by Western language. unitary Truth. But in subsequent volumes . University of Wales. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. 1985. AKH0618 FOUCAULT CAN'T EVADE THE LOGICAL ORDER HE SEEKS TO TRANSCEND Richard Wolin. confessional practices. Radical dereliction and radical utopianism go together. as several commentators have noted.126. I have used the term utopian before. its conditions. gender-role enforcement.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 54 AKH0614 EQUALING KNOWLEDGE WITH POWER DESTROYS REASONED ARGUMENT Amy Gutmann. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. in the effort to redeem those marginalized voices that have suffered the violence of colonial rule or the enormous condescension of posterity. he has taken up residence within a self-consistent rhetoric. AKH0617 FOUCAULT OFFERS NO ALTERNATIVE MORAL STANDARD Christopher Norris. that is to say. AKH0624 FOUCAULT RELIES ON THE LOGIC OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT Christopher Norris. 1994. Professor of Politics. What he now discovers in the Kantian project is a moment whose uniqueness in the history of thought has to do with its opening a wholly new space for critical reflection on the scope and limits of our freedom.The Use of Pleasure and The Care of the Self--Foucault modifies this position at least to the extent of acknowledging that we need to reconstruct a more truthful genealogy of morals. A great deal of intellectual Foucault's genealogies of power/knowledge. the post-structuralist view of language (or 'discourse') as the absolute horizon and condition of possibility for thought in general. representational metaphor. from deconstruction to New Historicism. THE POLITICS OF BEING. University of Iowa.250. Thus. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. And looking at things from the other direction. AKH0621 THE LATE FOUCAULT RECONCILES HIMSELF WITH HUMANISM Christopher Norris. he is still caught within the all-powerful order that he is seeking to evade. 'a whole morality is at stake. In these late writings. p. In short. Reductionism of intellect and argument to political interest threatens to politicize the university more profoundly and destructively than ever before.233. and so forth. Art best exercises its ex nihilo creativity where there is a nullity out of which this creation can emerge. . the obsolescence of any absolute.especially the truth-claims of revealed religion carried on by thinkers from Erasmus to Montaigne. they all want to make a leap into a utopia that radically negates this reality. one that sets out to shift argumentative terrain by pairing Kant (improbably enough) with a poet like Baudelaire. And this can be achieved only in so far as we recognize first the claims of accurate (truth-seeking) scholarship. and its goals. AKH0623 THE LATE FOUCAULT MOVED AWAY FROM THE EQUATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND POWER Christopher Norris. political. PROPHETS OF EXTREMITY. Foucault continues to speak the language of the very reason that carried out the oppression in the first place. is an ill-defined notion of absolute alterity . In this sense one could argue that just about every school of present-day critical thought. in relation to both Nietzsche and Heidegger.a heterodox reading. Rice. Hence. as in Madness and Civilization.256. p. a text that not only borrows its title from Kant but finds Foucault adopting a very different attitude to the Kantian values of truth autonomy. to the status of pseudoproblems thrown up by a mere local perturbation in the sovereign order of discourse. The threat of deconstructionism to intellectual life in the academy is twofold: (1) it denies a priori that there are any reasonable answers to fundamental questions. In view of his rejection of the present in all its forms. AKH0616 FOUCAULT IS A RADICAL UTOPIAN Alan Megill. and second our shared human interest in dispelling the sources of imaginary misrecognition and attaining a better. as Foucault says. Professor of the History of Ideas.despite his anti-enlightenment rhetoric . Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. Western tradition. Rice. especially since the utopian moment is much more obvious in Foucault than it is in either of his predecessors. TRUTH AND THE ETHICS OF CRITICISM. There is nothing to prevent Foucault from moving off in a different direction in the future. however. 1990. the notion of an objective science--to which many others besides Marx have adhered--cannot be convincingly established for those who have rejected the language within which this notion exists. University of Iowa. then clearly one cannot 'step back' from that discourse in order to criticize its 'meaning. 'Thought is not what inhabits a certain conduct and gives it meaning. Kant. 1985. p. But the anti-intellectual. and so forth.32-3. p. penal institutions. 1990. MULTICULTURALISM. the radicalism of Foucault's critique of psychiatry is called into question. and thus re-defining 'modernity' in relation to the discourse of aesthetic self-fashioning. however.whose locus shifts successively from text to text as Foucault engages the various 'discourses' of psychiatry. to the furthest degree. and Foucault from "the modern age" is beyond question: in one way or another. This would make 'enlightenment' a term more or less synonymous with the critique of unwarranted doctrinal impositions . AKH0615 FOUCAULT'S THOUGHT IS ULTIMATELY UTOPIAN Richard Wolin. Still. to present it to oneself as an object of thought and question it as to its meaning. He is clearly an enemy of the the legacy of Enlightenment critique. I say "threatens" because deconstructionism has not actually "taken over" the academy. the curious conjunction in Foucault's work of a passionate address to issues of social injustice with a flat refusal to provide that work with any normative basis for judgments of truth and falsehood (or right and wrong) beyond the idea of localized strategic intervention. is his inability to specify what we have outside it.

not to speak of the multitude of 'establishments' human beings require simply to have a society. 1995. as Foucault calls them. how Heidegger accommodated to the rhetoric of the vulgar and to that of the academic community depending upon the occasion. p. 1990. 1990. was committed to episodic events: to demonstrations.22. is integral to social life as such. to discontinuous occurrences. It began with the relationship between humanism and the (modern) metaphysics of subjectivity established by Heidegger and became a hyperbolic antihumanism that. 1990. let alone a universalistic one. AKH0634 POST-HUMANISM IS BASED ON HEIDEGGER Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY. Nevertheless. Foucault. AKH0635 HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM DERIVED FROM HIS VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE Stanley Rosen. then everyone's other becomes "wholly other. is destroyed by the accusations brought against subjectivity: When only exaggerated individual differences survive. 1990. power itself is not something whose elimination is actually possible. p. The reader is left with only the impoverished relativism of a fixed time and place. p.217 Humanism)post-Enlightenment Western humanism)has created. FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF THE SIXTIES. is structurally incapable of taking up. Moreover. p. It seems inconceivable that people could have a free society. philosopher. p. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY. but a radical breach with the established order and its replacement with a truly liberated one is precluded by the premise that social life and its indispensable institutionalization is essentially a system of subordination and domination that we merely "reinscribe" when we try to replace one social form with another. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY. unless it is a free-wheeling mass of individuals who somehow congeal into 'functional' bodies like the September crowds. be they families. not as a developing continuum. vacuously abstract. Foucault's statements on the profoundly important issue of just treatment for criminal behavior are completely reckless and only seemingly radical. Institute for Social Ecology co-founder. The 'regimes of truth' do depend to one degree or another on each other. because it is necessarily an antihumanism that leads inevitably to seeing in the democratic project. Lacking any searching theoretical or historical contextuality. of abstract man and of instrumental (or technical) reason. His pseudo-libertarian approach is ultimately so sweeping as to verge on extreme individualism. of thought. and perceived necessities of daily life with a swiftness that far outspeeds the traditional pace of historical process. AKH0630 FROM FOUCAULT'S PERSPECTIVE. One of the most useful attempts by a student of the period. 1995. history attests to the value of the humanistic view in tokens that go far beyond sentiment. Foucault offers no remedies for social change beyond the impact of incidents .184. History appears as 'data' organized into 'regimes of truth'. FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF THE SIXTIES. AKH0636 HUMANISM HAS PRODUCED MAJOR HISTORICAL ADVANCE Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. the total critique of the modern world. is indispensable for creating a society based on self-management and the need for social responsibility . battles with the police . 1969. Foucault's opposition to institutions as such significantly impairs his critique of power. That the two major critiques of modern humanism have proven to be linked with totalitarian adventures is most significant: Whether conducted in the name of a radiant future or a traditionalist reaction. social freedom is essentially impossible because power. We can defy protest. FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF THE SIXTIES. twenty years later. the prototype of ideology or of the metaphysical illusion. AKH0626 FOUCAULT'S FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS UNDERMINES HIS POLITICS Murray Bookchin. as exercised by these 'regimes'. as almost everyone has. Carried to its logical conclusion. protests. Western culture converts that knowledge into the instruments. can be seen to have had some difficulty accommodating itself to the newly rediscovered reference to human rights. extends. a political activist in his own way. The least one can say is that the ease with which Heidegger succeeded in accommodating the teaching of Being and Time to the resolute choice of Hitler and the Nazi party provides us with an essential clue to the political philosophy implicit in his ontological analysis of human existence. FRENCH PHILOSOPHY OF THE SIXTIES. an ethic of universal justice and universal tolerance. AKH0632 POST-HUMANISM LEADS TO BARBARISM Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut. Since the (recent) collapse of the Marxist dream of a radiant future. Institute for Social Ecology short. the promises that are also those of modernity.xii. for example.xv-xvi. AKH0631 POST-HUMANISM IS TOTALITARIAN AND REJECTS DEMOCRACY Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut. strike a blow against the all-embracing authority of "regimes of truth". p. Institute for Social Ecology co-founder. No distinction is made between power held by state institutions and power claimed by popular institutions or between institutions that lead to tyranny and those that lead to freedom. to a depth unimaginable in prior civilizations. Thus. NO SOCIETY CAN EXIST WITHOUT DOMINATION Murray Bookchin.120-1. 1995. and classes can and should be eliminated. AKH0628 INSTITUTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL TO HUMAN FREEDOM Murray Bookchin. Faye.185. p. in the face of all the narrow particularism and dogmatic absolutism that has eternally plagued our species. Hierarchy. Penn State. Institute for Social Ecology co-founder. French philosophers. but only in the defensive actions of "local insurrections". as should the use of power to force people to act against their will. HIGHER SUPERSTITION. But the liberatory use of power. free institutions.185. We may resist the social order perhaps. for example in human rights.182-3. the gesture of radicalizing the critique of humanism is what constitutes French philosophy of the sixties (in this case what we call French Heidegerianism). conveniences. is as simplistic as it is misleading. except insincerely and seemingly in spite of itself. J-P. p. Given these specific 'regimes of truth'. and least of all of short. which is to say. The Western culture that grows from. it is the neoconservative critique of the Heideggerian type that is in turn being politically compromised. each of which is essentially hermetic and self-enclosed. which had been open to thinking of their differences on the basis of identity. even in its strictly functional and ad hoc forms. Not surprisingly. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY." The link between the critique of subjectivity and the expulsion of the problematics of communication (from the re-public) is so close that we see once again in someone like Lyotard the same hostility and incomprehension toward the question of intersubjectivity: "Consensus obtained through discussion as Habermas believes? It violates the heterogeneity of language games. It is on the basis of this twofold critique. .121-2. The antihumanism of '68 philosophy opens onto "barbarism. More specifically. escalates Nietzsche's own perspectivism without adding any dialectic of truth." If we think for a moment of the political implications of this type of statement (in terms of the representation of the community) in Lyotard. 1995.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 55 AKH0625 FOUCAULT OFFERS AN IMPOVERISHED RELATIVISM Murray Bookchin. AKH0629 FOUCAULT'S VIEW DENIES THE POSSIBILITY OF AUTHENTIC SOCIAL LIBERATION Murray Bookchin. of power in all its 'masks'. without claiming power. we should logically congratulate ourselves that the authors of these statements have so ardently cultivated inconsistency and have fortunately also been able to defend human rights and the values of the republic." not because it leads to unleashing all kinds of violence but insofar as all possibility of a real dialogue between consciousnesses." the "barbarian. p. domination. 1995. and intervening in the natural world to meet rational needs. Institutions are part of even the simplest of human affiliations. institutionalization in all forms is so integrally related to the exercise of power that his critique is completely reductionist. institutionalizing it for common and rationally guided ends. Foucault exhibits little or no concern about the nature of power. and how his own rhetoric permitted him to introduce revolutionary and demagogic political idion into theoretical speeches. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY. Faye shows. in effect. French philosophers. that come and go in the flux of mere events and never lead to the formation of broad social movements. p. To see an 'embryonic' state power in institutionalized human interaction. as well as in Foucault. AKH0627 FOUCAULT'S OPPOSITION TO ALL INSTITUTIONS UNDERMINES HIS CRITIQUE OF POWER Murray Bookchin. Advancing no constructive structural analysis of power as such. French philosophers. French philosophers. AKH0633 POST-HUMANISM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut. the empowerment of the disempowered. and intensifies the Enlightenment proves itself and displays its uniqueness most impressively by its ability to fathom nature and nature's regularities.183-4. local situations that are entirely ephemeral. Institute for Social Ecology co-founder. Foucault's view essentially excludes the possibility that any kind of society can exist without domination. Foucault. to demonstrate this point seems to be virtually unnoticed by English writers. that the Heideggerian deconstruction of the metaphysics of subjectivity could join Marxism in a common rejection of humanism.tumultuous at best and passive at worst. Institute for Social Ecology co-founder. p. tribes. 1994. NIHILISM. 1995. There is enough in Foucault's often equivocal and cryptic writings to suggest that he denies the possibility that we can actually attain social liberation. p. of knowledge.183. or municipalities of one kind or another. in the form of shredded 'hand-me-downs'. RE-ENCHANTING HUMANITY. In his analysis of Heidegger's language. clans. he delivered a number of speeches and official pronouncements which may fairly be described as an effort to justify national socialism by assimilating the terms of his own philosophy to those of the popular Nazi vocabulary. from Heidegger to Derrida. Not only does the substantial and formal exercise of power vex him. both as social and personal beings. University of Virginia Professor of Life Sciences and Rutgers University Professor of Mathematics. During Heidegger's brief tenure as rector of Freiburg University.

DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. despite the reference to time in the title of his main work and his insistence that he had illuminated the temporality of human existence. In his desire not to do violence to Being. with the danger it brings of the destruction of the human race. and as the title of his last book explicitly asserts. But both claimed that they had found such a method. HEIDEGGER. no philosophical position. has led to. yet man is the agent of nihilism. Heidegger secularized Christian preaching about guilt. Princeton philosopher. commonplaces dressed up in an imposing but confusing jargon. Princeton philosopher. it is utterly astonishing how little he learned from them and how unaffected he remained by their central intentions. living so near the beginning of Western thought. in short. 1980." AKH0646 HEIDEGGER'S REJECTION OF LOGIC INVITES FANATICISM Walter Kaufmann." He was a great performer who took in large numbers of highly intelligent men and women and perhaps even himself. AKH0641 HEIDEGGER HAS NO VALID ALTERNATIVE TO REASON Walter Kaufmann. 1980. 1980. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. So was empirical research as a matter of principle. Heidegger began his journey as a student of Christian theology and Aristotle's metaphysics. Greek philosophy. more often than not. AND BUBER. His philosophy is like a castle that. 1969." making use of elements from Christianity. are expressions of confusion rather than profundity. though certainly not beautiful. HEIDEGGER. for nihilism is the will to will. p. This mandate. is: Being guilty does not result only from becoming guilty.234. and purchased the semblance of it through extreme obscurity. He proceeds exactly like a theologian who cites Scripture. Section 58. like the great poet. p. and stupidity. led him to a reinterpretation of Nietzsche. p. It may be objected that the final quotation is merely a pleasant stylistic device. (2) at different stages in history. did not admit hypotheses into philosophy. begins with four pages that are devoid of any description of relevant phenomena as well as anything that one could call an argument. This is the ontological conclusion of the long revolt against Platonism. Having identified action with radical destruction. however. or were still seeing)something that seemed to them to belong to a higher order than all mere analysis. also from Goethe. Heidegger has no doctrine. Any appeal to evidence or rival observations and interpretations was discounted in advance. of course. His teaching that "human Being as such is guilty" is a secularized version of the Christian doctrine of original sin. or might be used as a steppingstone: it can never become a substitute for vision any more than criticism can take the place of poetry. but also as temporal process which. HEIDEGGER. AND BUBER. 1980. in completing each stage. or a purifying self-laceration. But does Heidegger ever entertain the possibility that Holderlin or Sophocles. in the deepest sense. "Language is the house of Being. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. Heraclitus or Parmendides might be mistaken about anything? His attitude toward these men is invariably one of humility before authority. and so to perpetuate nihilism. To attempt to accelerate by political action the demise or completion of our present parlous stage would be to surrender to its intrinsic nihilism. AKH0638 HEIDEGGER USES OBSCURE LANGUAGE TO MASK HIS CONFUSION Walter Kaufmann. AKH0642 HEIDEGGER FAILED TO RECOGNIZE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Walter Kaufman. but in truth his language is the house in which he hides. has a vision. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. What I mean by calling Heidegger's anthropology "dogmatic" is that he put forward apodictically. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. Penn State philosopher. His insistence that he was engaged in existential ontology or fundamental ontology as well as the proliferation of strange labels helped to immunize his discourse against the obvious charge that it was absurdly dogmatic and apodictic.356-7. he gives us a translation of the wonderful second chorus from Sophocles' Antigone and then interprets it. p.209. p. without considering negative evidence or alternatives. DISCOVERING THE MIND. no positive teaching. NIHILISM.339. German thought. Penn State philosopher. can only wait. AKH0645 HEIDEGGER SIMPLY SECULARIZED CHRISTIANITY Walter Kaufmann.190.360. in his long discussion of "Being-toward-death" it never seems to have occurred to him to ask whether human attitudes toward death might differ (1) according to one's age and the stage one has reached in one's development. Princeton philosopher." says Heidegger. "clears the stage" for new possibilities for which man. in the version given its decisive shape by Nietzsche and Heidegger. the book is as oblivious of development and possible differences in time and place as Kant was in his Critique of Pure Reason.228. 1969. 1980. like Kafka's K. p." In my opinion. AND BUBER. As he himself always emphasized. man is violated by Being. His intention was to overcome European nihilism by setting the stage for a new understanding of "the question of Being. NIETZSCHE. AKH0640 HEIDEGGER FAILS TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES Walter Kaufmann. the ontological nihilist retreats into total inaction.101. But Heidegger fails to see that his disparagement of logical scrutiny and his scorn of "the cheap acid of mere logical acumen" open the floodgates to fanaticism.101. p.135-6. "a philosophical Cagliostro and pied piper. Although Heidegger later wrote extensively on Nietzsche and also an article on Hegel and has often been linked with both. which deals with guilt. Precisely the greatest philosophers have often sold carefulness short because it mattered less to them than did the spirit's fight. Analysis might come afterward. 1980. His response to the nihilism of post-Nietzschean Europe. It is assumed that they. It reveals the sense of Being as presence-and-absence. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. although tangentially illuminating. Secondly. Heidegger's thinking is deeply authoritarian. despite its parious and even nihilistic character. Princeton philosopher. p. Any criticism of the pre-Socratics is out of the question. HEIDEGGER. like Kant. but it is the other way around: the latter becomes possible only `on the basis of' an original Being guilty. p. NIHILISM. Neither Heidegger nor Scheler has come up with any alternative method that could replace the use of hypotheses and the patient weighing of objections and alternatives.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 56 AKH0637 HEIDEGGER HAS NO POSITIVE TEACHING Stanley Rosen. AKH0647 HEIDEGGER'S PHILOSOPHY LEADS TO NIHILISTIC PASSIVITY Stanley Rosen. nihilism is both man's forgetting of Being and the gift of Being. AND BUBER. Princeton philosopher. and his Gothic terminology is like a row of towers that frightens us away while it gives him a feeling of security. The great philosopher. superstition. and in a sense always been within. . and specifically to the political situation following the First World War. All this is as different from Nietzsche as can be and. and (3) in different cultures. Some images that recur in Nietzsche's writings seem to me to fit Heidegger beautifully. it is clear that the development of an ontology of historicity was conditioned by Heidegger's response to the political and social events of 1919 and thereafter. his thought has been from the beginning "on the way toward speech. HEIDEGGER. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. NIHILISM. Hence the strange conclusion that to act against nihilism is to act against Being. and as long as they were saying things that their audience had "been unconsciously [or for that matter consciously] hoping to hear from someone who could assert them with authority" they were naturally not found out. p. stands out from a generally dull landscape and catches the eye. a seducer. AKH0644 HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT IS ESSENTIALLY AUTHORITARIAN Walter Kaufmann. Heidegger. 1980. AND BUBER. I see him as a magician or wizard. also reveals the sense of Being as Historicity. AND BUBER. Princeton philosopher. Heidegger radicalized the significance of Zarathustra's revelation that ''God is dead.189. Then we are told: "What lies in this. Although Heidegger suggests at the end of the Introduction that he is condemned to endure in perplexity and that this is the human condition in our time he really ends by "proving" this point with a quotation from Holderlin. dread. and the exemplary authentic thinker. Once again put bluntly. AKH0639 HEIDEGGER WAS SIMPLY AN INTELLECTUAL PERFORMER Walter Kaufmann. 1980. p. he seems to have looked for timeless truths that are absolutely certain and his tone frequently gives the impression that he has found such truths. Princeton philosopher. and the spiritual despair of the decades culminating in the Nazi rise to power. knew what we do not know and would like to know. the will to dominate Being instead of letting it be." There is no need to repeat the argument of Chapter 2: the way toward speech. Princeton philosopher.. We should not dream of settling down beneath it to spend our lives. 1969. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. demanded certainty. AKH0648 HEIDEGGER'S ATTEMPT TO OVERCOME NIHILISM LED ULTIMATELY TO ITS ACCEPTANCE Stanley Rosen. To give a single example. in futile efforts to penetrate the mysteries that. Philosophy is not all analysis and scrutiny and intellectual anatomy. Being gives man nihilism. p. 1980. HEIDEGGER. Princeton philosopher. When Heidegger explores the nature of man. In more concrete terms.189. Penn State philosopher. AKH0643 HEIDEGGER WAS AN INTELLECTUAL AUTHORITARIAN Walter Kaufmann. They were concerned above all else with something they had seen. and death but claimed to break with two thousand years of Western thought. the heart of darkness.

1946. University College. in our language. Ayer. German philosopher. 1980. If this is a defect of speech. This is certainly not due to the age we live in. raises political dangers of so great a magnitude as to cast a shadow on the wisdom of unmitigated hybris. AKH0661 BEING IS AN EMPTY FICTION Friedrich Nietzsche. AKH0659 THE CONCEPT OF BEING IS A LINGUISTIC CONFUSION A.43. Similarly." because of the eternal presence of an eternal judge. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. 1980. that. 1888. and the significance of speech is in the deepest and final sense relative to silence. Heidegger does not even offer penetrating insights apropos of his questions. who bases his metaphysics on the assumption that "Nothing" is a name which is used to denote something peculiarly mysterious. Penn State philosopher. but also the prevalence of such problems as those concerning the reality of propositions and universals whose senselessness. I have been arguing that ontological speech. ready for dread. lies in the fact that. is in fact silence. not only the utterances of a Heidegger." Kierkegaard's critics. we covertly assert that it exists: so that if existence were itself an attribute. although there is equally no reason to keep silent. when unaccompanied by justice or moderation. Thus the fundamental contrast is between indecisive ambiguity and chatter on one side and resoluteness on the other.347-8. and is still unable to do it. "the meaning of Being"? [Editor's Note: S&Z = Heidegger. AND BUBER.366-7. A simpler and clearer instance of the way in which a consideration of grammar leads to metaphysics is the case of the metaphysical concept of Being. He denied repeatedly that his contrast of these two modes of Being had anything at all to do with moralizing and insisted that his descriptions were value-free. The whole enterprise of S&Z is ill considered. But even if his "anthropology" were better. HEIDEGGER. and all negative existential propositions self-contradictory. LANGUAGE. NIHILISM. p.J.481. His account of inauthenticity is extremely sarcastic. "doctrinal" content to his analysis of the existential process of authenticity. AND BUBER. AKH0651 HEIDEGGER'S ANALYSIS OF AUTHENTICITY IS FLAWED Walter Kaufmann. 1969. though less obvious. The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie. to every word or phrase that can be the grammatical subject of a sentence. 1980. Princeton philosopher. For. as Kant pointed out. existence is not an attribute. Professor of Philosophy.143. there must somewhere be a real entity corresponding. The Christian may say. Princeton philosopher. no one can say anything to anyone about what constitutes genuine choice in a specific situation. into one's most authentic being guilty)is what we call resoluteness. 1946. AKH0657 EMPHASIS ON BEING UNDERMINES EFFECTIVE POLITICS Stanley Rosen. except as a human. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. which no conceivable experience would enable us to answer. So that those who raise questions about Being which are based on the assumption that existence is an attribute are guilty of following grammar beyond the boundaries of sense. heidegger's reliance on the same old Kierkegaardian notions of silence. p. Nietzsche's Zarathustra said in the chapter "On the Afterwordly": "The belly of Being does not speak to humans at all. HEIDEGGER. but it also reveals the necessarily nihilistic implications of his thought. The result is absurdism or nihilism. Princeton philosopher. HEIDEGGER. London. the postulation of real non-existent entities results from the superstition. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. that he was unable to improve on Kierkegaard." because part of the Christian doctrine has been wedded to a resolute self-reliance in the absence of all gods. Heidegger was led to mistake madness for courage in 1933 and to identify the destiny of the Third Reich with that of Being. p. HEIDEGGER. Heidegger's silence in this respect is consistent.201. It therefore becomes impossible to prevent total suspension of judgment. p. and guilt suggests. it would follow that all positive existential propositions were tautologies. and closer examination bears out." They are exciting but utterly vague)not really questions at all in the ordinary sense. 1946. Therefore no reason can be given which would justify our falling into such desperate straits. then there is no reason for what we say or for whether we speak at all. how could it possibly reveal. Princeton philosopher. TRUTH AND LOGIC. Heidegger himself undermines his own "fundamental question" about "the meaning of Being" as well as his repeated insistence that "the purpose of the interpretation is purely ontological" and that his ultimate concern is not with human existence but with the meaning of Being. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction.42. The questions he poses are questions in the same sense in which we speak of a "Jewish question" or "the question of homosexuality. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM. Heidegger finds no answers to his questions because he does not ask answerable questions. for the practical effects of his speech). Ontologists of this type wish to talk about Being as distinct from beings. even as Kant allegedly laid the foundation for a new metaphysics by first offering a critique of reason. p. and hence of divine madness. Verily. I among them. Princeton philosopher. 1969. p." Nietzsche suggests that the concern with Being and metaphysics and the concern with God and theology ("the afterworldly" is intended as a literal translation of "metaphysicians") are variations of a single attitude. Heidegger begins by first offering an analysis of "human Being" and of its two dichotomy and his accounts of both modes are utterly inadequate and impede the discovery of the mind. The whole account of inauthenticity is a mere foil for authenticity. For as there is no place in the empirical world for many of these "entities. is no less complete. London. Sein und Zeit: Erste Halfte] AKH0656 HEIDEGGER'S CONCERN WITH BEING IS JUST PSEUDO-THEOLOGY Walter Kaufmann. Professor of Philosophy. p. p. unfortunately. Heidegger's "fundamental question" about "the meaning of Being" simply ignores Hegel's and Nietzsche's critical discussions of "Being" and assumes that "Being" has a meaning. This mistake would seem to be consequent upon the elimination of the divine.188. FROM SHAKESPEARE TO EXISTENTIALISM.188-9. who says that "everything is allowed. The least one may say is that the courageous turn to Being. p. p. p. In his Introduction Heidegger would still like to unravel Being. University College. all being is hard to prove and hard to induce to speak. The origin of our temptation to raise questions about Being. "judge not. AKH0658 HEIDEGGER'S CATEGORIES ARE BASED ON LINGUISTIC CONFUSIONS A. Penn State philosopher. 1980. Every fundamental ontological speech of the type in question is not just self-refuting but self-canceling. Heidegger's analysis of authenticity and inauthenticity is shallow and Manichaean.43-4. It is exactly as if the fundamental ontologist had never spoken (except. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. just now referred to. while authenticity is romanticized. To this error must be attributed. have never been satisfied that he succeeded in Fear and Trembling in establishing sufficient safeguards against inhumane and brutal commitments. LANGUAGE. but labels for vast complexes of problems that must be distinguished before any answers can be attempted. 1980. or provide the indispensable foundation for a revelation of. and this is not the case. sentences which express existential propositions and sentences which express attributive propositions may be of the same grammatical form. Ayer. Then Heidegger suggests that in order to discover this meaning we must first lay the foundation by analyzing "human Being" and above all the two allegedly basic modes of that: authenticity and inauthenticity. In other words. AKH0654 EVEN HEIDEGGER ADMITS ONLY HUMAN BEING CAN HAVE MEANING Walter Kaufmann. For these reasons it would be a contradiction in terms if Heidegger were to give a positive. when he admits)and the emphasis is his own: "Only human Being can therefore be meaningful or meaningless'. .197-8. TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS (in THE PORTABLE NIETZSCHE)." a special non-empirical world is invoked to house them. AKH0652 IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TALK MEANINGFULLY ABOUT BEING Stanley Rosen. in the sense attributed to it by those who follow Heidegger's distinction between the ontological and ontic. but this may well be the most incredible claim in the whole book. Princeton philosopher. readiness for dread. London. and we shall return to this theme later when comparing Heidegger's approach with that of theologians. TRUTH AND LOGIC. Ayer. AND BUBER. AKH0655 HEIDEGGER'S CONCEPT OF BEING IS INCOHERENT Walter Kaufmann. and that does not have three characteristics but only one: resoluteness. p. lest ye be judged.100.45. 1969. and speech will simply not permit this. TRUTH AND LOGIC. University College. AKH0660 STATEMENTS ABOUT BEING ARE UNVERIFIABLE A.J. NIHILISM. AND BUBER. Put bluntly. In general. Finally. Penn State philosopher. when we ascribe an attribute to a thing. LANGUAGE. 1980. But. AKH0653 HEIDEGGER'S QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING ARE FUNDAMENTALLY INCOHERENT Walter Kaufmann. Professor of Philosophy. But the Heideggerian becomes indistinguishable from the nihilist. p. AKH0650 HEIDEGGER'S CONCEPT OF AUTHENTICITY PRODUCES BRUTALITY Walter Kaufmann. other than the mere fact. NIHILISM.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 57 AKH0649 HEIDEGGER'S VIEW OF AUTHENTICITY IS NIHILISTIC Stanley Rosen. Heidegger's definition of resoluteness is emphasized in print: "this taciturn self-projection. The shallowness is due in no small measure to the Manichaeism.J.

as Heidegger's admirers inconsistently and (from his viewpoint) superficially maintain. Yet I still hold that the Western humanistic faith is not perverse. this doctrine gives a special importance to practice. AKH0665 HEIDEGGER ACTIVELY SUPPORTED THE NAZIS Stanley Rosen. It has brought finer possibilities of life to masses of men who in the past could invest their hope only in a hypothetical life to come. he remained ensnared in the cautious.122-4. It is a strange consequence of Heidegger's doctrine that the dominant political configuration of the day must be taken as a sign of the character of the revelation of Being in the given epoch. and the specious freedom. NIHILISM.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 58 AKH0662 AUTHENTIC UNDERSTANDING OF BEING IS POSSIBLE M. for the "new" attitude. . in the first as well as the last stages of his thought. especially when it asks men to put humanity above the tribe)something they have never succeeded in doing under the fatherhood of God. The prophet-shepherd of Being is in fact a plaything of the absent gods. THE USES OF THE PAST. the students and a large segment of the American public refused their spontaneous consent to its discursive principles. Therefore." Thus authenticity required a vote for the Fuhrer! AKH0668 FROM HEIDEGGER'S PERSPECTIVE.134-5. AKH0666 HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT REQUIRED THE IDENTIFICATION OF BEING WITH NAZISM Stanley Rosen. nor were they altogether superseded by later developments in his thought. with the One as a mask of the Same. with his 'pagan' peasant roots. The only way to save a true respect for the other(s) is to insist on ethics. Toynbee attacks it as peculiar enough)it has not had the chance of religion. alternatively.C. Humanism. AKH0667 HEIDEGGER REGARDED HITLER AS THE ONLY AUTHENTIC CHOICE FOR GERMANS Walter Kaufmann. . at this historical conjuncture. It is the gift of Being. p. Similarly. Indiana U govt prof.119. The same cannot be said of Heidegger. whereas Heidegger sought "to destroy the traditional content of ancient ontology" in order to retrieve "those primordial experiences in which we achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being. London. with national elections impending.225. the process could be modified by man's will or choice. It could be said. 1952. SUNY-Binghamton. p. that this effort to discredit Heidegger's antihumanist discourse and that of the posthumanists it enabled allies itself with that interpretation of the events of 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe that represents them in the global terms of the Cold War narrative: the "fall of communism" or. AKH0664 HEIDEGGER'S PURSUIT OF BEING NEGLECTS ETHICAL DUTY TOWARD OTHERS J. when. both direct and in the form of literary parables. or the religion of humanity. p. Merquior. may not do either. p. in the face of the overt complicity of the institutions of knowledge production (especially the university) in the conduct of the state's colonial war against the Vietnamese people. Hitler was described as the leader not simply of the state or people. and not the ontic judgment of Martin Heidegger. when interpreted at the ontological or genuine level insisted upon by Heidegger himself. and therefore had no grasp of the value of infinite alterity so strong in Jewish piety and in the Jew's long experience of exile and outsiderness. . p. The openness of Sein and the openness of Da-sein are one and the same. the realm of duty towards others. Penn State philosopher. p. the soldier. NIHILISM. . 1969. however he may have assisted indirectly the Nazi rise to power. Such is the result of Heidegger's adaptation of Parmenides' dictum that "thinking and Being are the same" to a teaching of radical Historicity. AKH0670 REJECTING HUMANISM WOULD BE HISTORY'S GREATEST TRAGEDY Herbert Muller. NIHILISM. but an acceptance of their historical inevitability. but of the next epoch of world history. HEIDEGGER. Learn to know ever more deeply: Henceforth everything demands decision . AKH0669 HEIDEGGER'S PHILOSOPHY CAUSED HIM TO ACCEPT HITLER Stanley Rosen. the "triumph of democracy.189. They follow from Heidegger's peculiar identification of Being with Time (which I capitalize to indicate its ontological sense) or Historicity. it could be argued that the recently renewed effort to delegitimize Heidegger's (as well as Paul de Man's) "antihumanist" discourse is implicated in the present massive multisituated effort to recuperate the authority humanism lost in the Vietnam decade. NAZISM WAS INEVITABLE Stanley Rosen. " And on November 10: "The German people has been summoned by the Fuhrer to vote. the process by which Being reveals itself in history (as historicity) was regarded as a consequence of human activity. Instead he gives the people the most immediate possibility of highest free decision: whether it)the whole people)wills its own Dasein or whether it does not want this . the notion that there is a retrievable domain of primordial experience upon which an authentic understanding of Being could be founded. But. but ontological. but they are not. In a sense peculiar to Heidegger. But the Fuhrer does not beg anything from the people. which remind us of the previously studied assertions of Junger and scarcely conform with Heidegger's own account of his professional activities under the Nazi regime. and political journalist.131. 1993. professor of philosophy. FROM PRAGUE TO PARIS. both because it is 'theory' and because it deals with 'being'. SUNY-Binghamton English prof. the only thinker of the first rank to join the Nazi Party and to speak out. instead of pursuing ontology-a point missed by Heidegger because. 1969. for every ontology brings about a tyranny of sameness. exactly was the case in 1933. Gary Madison. AKH0671 HUMANISM SUPPORTS THE NEW WORLD ORDER William Spanos."' Derrida challenges the core notion of phenomenology. AKH0663 QUESTIONS OF BEING SHOULDN'T INFLUENCE ORDINARY ACTIONS Anthony Giddens. Penn State philosopher. p. German students were told by him that "the Fuhrer himself and alone is the present and future German reality and its law. further. is capable of resisting the planetary hegemony of the United States? I mean the (neo-)imperialism that now masks itself in the language of the Pax Americana: the "end of history" and the "coming of the new world order. the dominance of political nihilism in the actions of man is identical with the selfconcealing "gift" of Being to and through man. 1969. AND BUBER. According to Levinas." It is not possible to read this mounting campaign to delegitimize Heidegger's interrogation of humanism as the closure at the site of ontology of the dominant culture's effort to annul the only critical discourse that. In a rather Hegelian sense. and so too credit if credit is due. all theory of being is violent. never became a member of the party and from a rather early period (1930) began a process of increasing criticism. science. 1980.. he cannot err in the human sense because his "errance" is not human or ontic. 1990. that must assume responsibility. 1933. academic or otherwise. and not so pathological as historic religion has often been. Philosophers pose questions about the nature of being. . albeit for a brief period. WORKING THROUGH DERRIDA. The utter defeat of this cause would be the worst tragedy in history.G. Professor of Sociology. ed. have never been repudiated by him. Princeton philosopher. that is. As Heidegger expounds its theoretical sense in his philosophical writings.366. the ontological oblivion of technological civilization: one should also stop looking for being as such. At least in the early period of Heidegger's thought. For this reason. and indeed would have to be so modified in order to continue to occur. 1986. Adherence to the Nazi party in 1933. King's College. war hero. I have given a brief summary of some aspects of Junger's teaching as a prelude to the discussion of the connection between historicity and political nihilism in Heidegger. by many good works. 1969. Indeed. 1993.224. Cambridge. Penn State philosopher. These practical translations of Heidegger's teaching. Ostensibly beyond theory and practice. regularly and with great force on its and the Fuhrer's behalf." . p. we may suppose. Dillon. p. cannot be understood as an act of naivete. DISCOVERING THE MIND: NIETZSCHE. It has proved itself in many good men. HEIDEGGER AND CRITICISM. The Fuhrer himself and alone is the present and future actuality and its law." The will of the Fuhrer as the expression of the historical destiny of the German people thus replaces Ideas. by which an objective rationalism duped the west.9-10. ontologically insecure in their ordinary actions and in this outlook they are in accord with the mass of the population. like Heidegger. Heidegger published this summons: ". possessive love for sameness characteristic of agrarian culture. the practical stance of 1934 and thereafter is not a moral condemnation of the Nazis. his negative attitude toward the party after 1934 cannot be understood as he himself explains it in his statement to the Allied authorities of 1945. NIHILISM. It is interesting to observe that Junger. The fate of Being in the west was said to be dependent upon the authentic and profound resolution with which Germany responded to its historical situation. Penn State philosopher. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODERNITY. On November 3. No doubt it makes too heavy demands on human nature in its present state.93. It was not enough to condemn. p. . merely as the recognition of a political miscalculation while in the service of man's philosophical spirit.

To be Fuhrer [Fuhrersein] is a fate and therefore finite Being. "Of course it is clear that no non-Aryans should appear on the signature page. March 1991. THE POLITICS OF BEING." That is.85. 1990. that the philosopher Martin Heidegger. To counter this increasingly reactionary momentum. a work. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. This representation of contemporary global history has already gone far in effacing the memory of the Vietnam War. Krieck. as the emergence of a "new world order" determined by the relay deontological principles subsuming the discourse of Man and the Western liberal democratic tradition.20.85. Rice. 1990. "The Self-Affirmation of the German University". because Hitler stands on the side of Being." whose true nature the philosopher himself is best able to discern. For were this dimension to be omitted from the picture. THE POLITICS OF BEING. p. ATLANTIC MONTHLY. whom Jacques Derrida has called the intellectual progenitor of deconstruction. This imperative is underscored by recent history. if finally abortive. 1990.xxiii. as in the past. their overall presence. P. Whereas from a metaphysical standpoint. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. and racism).The Anti-Kritik Handbook 59 AKH0672 HUMANISM SUPPORTS THE NEW WORLD ORDER William Spanos. In actuality. Heidegger wrote. Here. p. Rice. in his book Heidegger and Nazism. AKH0678 HEIDEGGER'S SPEECHES MADE HITLER SEEM LIKE THE CONSUMMATION OF HISTORY Richard Wolin. the same unrestricted organization of the average man"--Germany alone. a world-view that. above all. Hitler's discovery . and he alone. today and in the future. its thinkers. it is precisely the innovative mixture of existential categories and Nazi oratory that prevents the address from degenerating into one of the standard professions of faith--so fashionable at the time--in the virtues of the National Revolution. in the very structure of its language--possessed the capacity to deliver European destiny from the specter of perpetual spiritual decline. because of a more primordial relation to the thought of Being--a spiritual superiority that was for Heidegger evinced in the incomparable greatness of its poets. his appointment was widely perceived as an instance of political Gleichschaltung. an appreciation of the work's so-called "ideological" dimension will prove essential. Rice." AKH0681 HEIDEGGER SAW HITLER AS A DEMIGOD Richard Wolin. In 1989 deconstructionists became alarmed when it was confirmed by Victor Farias. Heidegger's acceptance of the rectorship in May 1933 was a far from innocent affair. Heidegger's "existential decision" for National Socialism in 1933 would be explicable solely as a leap of faith." His correspondence was frequently signed "Heil Hitler. From a contemporary political standpoint. rely either on a Marxist critique that continues to be determined by the base/superstructure model or on a poststructuralist critique that is vestigially disciplinary." Heidegger said in 1933. AKH0673 HUMANIST DISCOURSE UPHOLDS THE NEW WORLD ORDER William Spanos. from the ontological (the anthropologos) through the cultural (the discourse of Man) to the economic and socio-political (the practices of consumer capitalism. Thus. In a letter requesting endorsements for a speech of his the: praised Hitler. . 1990. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. AKH0675 HEIDEGGER'S RECTORAL ADDRESS WAS INTENSELY PRO-NAZI Richard Wolin." AKH0680 HEIDEGGER EQUATED HITLER WITH BEING Richard Wolin. in an allusion to the contemporary German political situation (1934-1935). p.xxiii-iv. an oppositional discourse and practice can no longer. The task contemporary history has assigned oppositional intellectuals is that of thinking contemporary power relations in terms of a relay extending throughout the indissoluble continuum of being.. THE POLITICS OF BEING." . As J. Potentially. Despite his own repeated claims that he took on the position only in order to prevent the politicization of university life (a fact that can now be easily refuted on the basis of the evidence compiled by Farias and Ott). it is the same seamless interlacing of philosophical and political motifs that creates the impression that the categorial framework of Being and Time had found its consummate historical embodiment in the total state of Adolf Hitler. The extent to which Heidegger may have consciously or unconsciously incorporated such putatively "ideological elements" into the philosophical framework of Being and Time is contestable." Because the modern humanist university is. p. On the one hand. a forgetting synecdochically suggested by the reduction of the healthy crisis of the American cultural identity (defined by its self-ordained global "errand in the wilderness") precipitated by the United States' brutally executed. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. AKH0679 HEIDEGGER SAW HITLER AS THE EMBODIMENT OF AUTHENTICITY Richard Wolin.105. THE END OF EDUCATION.98. Only such a mode of critical thinking can enable effective resistance to and subversion of the neoimperialism that masks itself in the hegemonic discourse of the "new world order. intervention in Vietnam to the "Vietnam Syndrome": a collective psychological sickness that the decisive defeat of Saddam Hussein cured (what President George Bush announced in the wake of victory as "kicking the Vietnam Syndrome". p. On the other hand. p." moreover. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History.107. Rosenberg). Russia and America are the same--they exhibit "the same dreary technological frenzy.86. A. pedagogy. "The Fuhrer. 1990. SUNY-Binghampton English prof. THE POLITICS OF BEING." AKH0682 HEIDEGGER FREQUENTLY HAILED HITLER Dinesh D'Souza. and A. and the curriculum-I will provisionally articulate in this book becomes an imperative of our contemporary occasion. according to one commentator. a commitment possessing only the most adventitious and ephemeral connection with his philosophical standpoint of the late 1920s. SUNY-Binghampton English prof. It provided a tacit semblance of cultural respectability for the fledgling Nazi dictatorship: Heidegger. For a full understanding of the overall cultural significance of Being and Time.. THE POLITICS OF BEING. most notably in the United States. laid the intellectual foundations for Hitler's rise to power. its ultimate philosophical "truth and greatness" has been perverted by epigones and pretenders--by Heidegger's philosophical opponents (E. harbored strong Nazi sympathies until (and probably during) the Second World War. p. Rice. however. Stern reminds us: "[Hitler's] originality consists in a deliberate reversal of the functions normally attributed to personal-existential values on the one hand and social-political values on the other. patriarchy.126-7. Heidegger comes to view the movement in terms of a dialectic of "appearance" and "essence. was then at the very crest of his renown. the locus of production of the hegemonic discourse overdetermined by the new world context. THE POLITICS OF BEING. THE END OF EDUCATION. AKH0674 HEIDEGGER ENDORSED "THE INNER TRUTH AND GREATNESS" OF NAZISM Richard Wolin. And thus. is astonishingly simple: it is to introduce a conception of personal authenticity into the public sphere and proclaim it as the chief value and sanction of politics. the movement contains the prospect of the "radical overcoming of Western nihilism" that had been prophesied by Nietzsche. The collapse of Stalinist Marxism and the decisive defeat of a tyrannical dictator have been interpreted by the agencies of knowledge production and the information media in the Western capitalist nations. AKH0677 EVEN BEING AND TIME DISPLAYS A PROTO-NAZI PERSPECTIVE Richard Wolin. American enterprise institute. Rice. Heidegger believed that "Philosophy is for Hitler. as the "fall of Communism" or "the triumph of democracy": indeed. Rice. The key to comprehending Heidegger's political judgments in his postrectorship phase is a distinction he makes toward the conclusion of An Introduction to Metaphysics (1935) between "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" as opposed to the "works that are being peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism. p. .78. Heidegger's portrayal of the Hitler regime as an embodiment of "authenticity. Rice. whose interweaving of Nazi rhetoric with the language of classical philosophy was so extreme that at the end "the listener was in doubt as to whether he should start reading the pre-Socratics or enlist in the SS. THE POLITICS OF BEING. 1990. 1990. in many crucial respects. its most prestigious convert to date from the world of letters. p. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. Heidegger illustrates how his theory of demigods might gain concrete historical application: "The true and only Fuhrer points by virtue of his Being toward the realm of the demigods. Rice. specifically the events in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989 and the Gulf War in 1991. who threaten to banish this potential for greatness back to the nether world of everydayness. p. the educational project-vis-a-vis the intellectual. according to Lowith. betrays a profound." AKH0676 HEIDEGGER'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECTORSHIP ENDORSED THE NAZIS Richard Wolin. THE POLITICS OF BEING. The consummate fusion of the conservative revolutionary and metaphysical dimensions of Heidegger's thought may be found in the 1933 Rectoral Address. Baumler. I am referring to various components of the so-called conservative revolutionary world-view that became so influential among the German mandarin intelligentsia in the middle to late 1920s. philosophically grounded affinity with the political self-understanding of the regime itself. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. is not. is the sole German reality and law. p. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. 1990.

AKH0689 HEIDEGGER'S EXISTENTIALISM VENERATES POWER Richard Wolin. there was the real danger that "the many" would remain immobilized in their inauthentic torpor. 1990. the theory represents carte blanche for authoritarian licentiousness. subaltern component. complained in May 1933 to Heidegger's predecessor as Rector." Even then. AKH0686 HEIDEGGER EXTOLLED A NEW RULING CLASS Richard Wolin. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. THE POLITICS OF BEING. And in consequence of the a priori divide between authentic and inauthentic natures." as it were--and the National Socialist rhetoric of Sturm und Kampf. THE POLITICS OF BEING. philosophy. Nowadays. AKH0692 NEW BIOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH SHOWS HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM WASN'T INCIDENTAL Richard Wolin. Instead. that Heidegger saw himself as the greatest philosopher since Heraclitus and that he aspired to become the "spiritual Fuhrer" of the new movement. continued to haunt his thinking at least until the mid-1940s--it has become increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that Heidegger's Nazi experience stood in an "essential" relation to his philosophical project as a whole. Instead. as we have already noted. the economist Walter Eucken. .125." AKH0684 HEIDEGGER SAW FASCISM AS THE ONLY POLITICAL OPTION Richard Wolin. The political philosophy that corresponds to this ontological dualism suggests that human beings are divided by nature into leaders and followers. been realized. not the idea of the Holy Roman Empire. requiring . it is far from mere chance that in the mid-1930s. Rice.56. the nihilism of the indigent historical present can only be vanquished via the iconoclastic heroism of a creative elite. . p.108-9.123-4. 1990. Therefore. p. Indeed. Rice. The authentic metaphysical realm of Nietzsche has not yet. was still an effective transcendental solipsism. the modern conception of popular sovereignty becomes a sheer non sequitur: for those who dwell in the public sphere of everydayness are viewed as essentially incapable of self-rule. it is justified in building the new order. thinkers. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History." remarks Heidegger. that is. Hitler and Mussolini. it is an essential means possessed by the Fuhrer elite to combat the forces of everydayness and routine. . Joseph Sauer (then pro-rector). Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. THE POLITICS OF BEING. 1990. Indeed. violence takes on the character of an ontological imperative. a new ruling caste which can lay the foundations for the coming of a new kind of man. However. this theory of a creative elite who are "apolis" and "without statute" cannot help but strike one as a fanciful but crude. Heidegger attempts to formalize the notion of an elite cadre of poets. this was the explicit political conclusion drawn by Heidegger in 1933. p. Heidegger's glorified image of a Fuhrerstuat zealously underwrites the totalitarian claims of the ruling elite. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. 1990. The political philosophical implications of this theory are as unequivocal as they are distasteful to a democratic sensibility. introduced a countermovement to nihilism. THE POLITICS OF BEING. AKH0688 HEIDEGGER EMBRACED POLITICAL ELITISM AS A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF BEING Richard Wolin.127.126. 1990. Germany lies in the center. post festum justification of the Nazi Fuhrerprinzip and its train of illegalities. far from being an expendable. far from being an episodic phenomenon in the philosopher's life. took on the role of a sine qua non. p. The de facto separation of human natures into authentic and inauthentic is radically undemocratic. Rice. AKH0691 HEIDEGGER ASPIRED TO BE THE SPIRITUAL FUHRER OF NAZI GERMANY Richard Wolin. p. each in essentially different ways. AKH0687 HEIDEGGER REJECTED DEMOCRACY Richard Wolin. THE POLITICS OF BEING. his pupil constructs a national solipsism. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. AKH0685 HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND AUTHORITARIAN Richard Wolin. THE POLITICS OF BEING. the Fuhrerprinzip. 1990. however. But given the results of the new biographical researches into Heidegger's past--which have established that Heidegger's National Socialist sentiments. whose predominance prevents the posing of the question of Being. As devoid of any underlying moral or legal restraints.98. 1990. the rudiments of a "collectivist" interpretation of the social ontology of Being and Time are to a certain extent confirmed by the category of resolve. what comes through unmistakably in this philosophical glorification of violence are the patent affinities between Heidegger's Gewalt-tatige--the "shock-troops of Being. who have. THE POLITICS OF BEING. a little too much fuss is made over the Greek polis. Rice. p. as it manifested itself in Heidegger's own philosophical theory. 1990. the Greek polis as the historical origin of the democratic idea. Hence. Rice. Only the Reich itself remains. the superman. Rice. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. The elevated metaphysical terms of discussion cannot mask the ease with which his approach lends itself to abuse: despite Heidegger's qualification that "rulers alone" must rule. failing to recognize the prospects for historical greatness awaiting them. p. referred to by Heidegger as the "great creators" (die grosser Schaffende). p. and certainly not some democratic nonsense like popular sovereignty or self-determination. It is its own justification. On the basis of the philosophical anthropology outlined by Heidegger. Given his philosophical self-understanding as someone in possession of privileged access to the mysteries of Being. for Heidegger. The Fuhrerprinzip--refunctioned as an existential theory of authentic leadership--thus serves as the essential ground for Heidegger's thinking about the way in which politics. Toward the end of a long discussion of the intellectual origins of Nazi imperialist geopolitical doctrines. existentialism argues that power and might are true: power is a sufficient theoretical base for more power." the traces of that same Fuhrerprinzip he wishes to see transposed to the modern political context. Heidegger's political thought moves precariously in the direction of the "Fuhrerprinzip" or "leadership principle. Rice. p. and statesmen--a cadre of authentic "leader-types"--who stand in a more immediate proximity to Being." The statement itself is a reaffirmation of Heidegger's conviction that the fascist movements of the 1920s and early 1930s represent the only real historical alternatives ("countermovements") to the darkness of European nihilism so presciently diagnosed by Nietzsche. THE POLITICS OF BEING. Whatever its intrinsic philosophical merit.8. Neumann offers the following observations: What is left as justification for the [Grossdeutsche] Reich? Not racism. have both learned from Nietzsche. the political implications of this social ontology are anything but benign given the unabashedly elitist motifs that inform the existential analytic." AKH0690 HEIDEGGER GLORIFIED VIOLENCE Richard Wolin. THE POLITICS OF BEING. their only hope for "redemption" lies in the imposition of a "higher spiritual mission" from above. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. "The authentic idea of the state must necessarily be antiliberal. However. all Heidegger can find to admire about the polis as a political entity is the primacy of "rank and domination. whether they have learned enough from Nietzsche is by no means clear. An acute critic has remarked about [Christoph] Steding [author of the 1938 work. Rice. and whose historical responsibility it is to lead the unenlightened many into the vicinity of such "nearness" (Nahe). By celebrating this division between human types and their capacities. the indispensable key to the authentic unfolding of history as the "history of Being. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. In point of fact. Thus. in Heidegger's metaphysical schema. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. Transferred to the realm of politics. the only viable political philosophy that follows from this standpoint would be brazenly elitist: since the majority of citizens remain incapable of leading meaningful lives when left to their own devices. of course. Consequently. 1990. Thus.46. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. this authoritarian conviction was a longstanding precept of the German mandarin intelligentsia and was well reflected in the traditional class divisions of German (especially Prussian) social structure. However. THE POLITICS OF BEING. p. In this way. and poetic creation should become historically actualized. The philosophical roots of the argument are to be found in the existential philosophy of Heidegger.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 60 AKH0683 HEIDEGGER'S REJECTION OF DEMOCRACY IS BRAZENLY ELITIST Richard Wolin. Rice. it is in the hands of this clique of superior human types that the destiny of Being rests. 1990. Heidegger in effect merely codified in ontological form a time-honored commonplace of German authoritarian political thought. The Reich and the Sickness of European Culture]: "From the remains of what. In vintage Nietzschean fashion. it is well on its way toward becoming the mightiest state. The same differentiation between the appearance and essence of the movement is implicit in his 1936 claim that "These two men. since the "authentic metaphysical realm" that would embody the true epochal overcoming of nihilism has yet to be realized.188. Rice. with Heidegger. one of Heidegger's colleagues.

85-6. THE POLITICS OF BEING. passes over from the language of conservative revolutionary cultural criticism to the Sturm and Kampf vocabulary of National Socialism proper. military service. parliament suspended. Rice. etc. 1990. It does suggest. a fact that is evident above all in the "pragmatic" point of departure of the analytic of Dasein: "Being in-the-world" rather than the Cartesian "thinking substance. Karl Lowith expressed his disagreement with recent reports alleging that there was no intrinsic connection between Heidegger's philosophy and his political option for National Socialism. Only because so many "depth-dimensions" in Heidegger's thought--in Being and Time and then in his investigation of the "history of Being"--were related to those of the National Socialist worldview could Heidegger fall victim to the illusion that National Socialism was something greater and larger than it was in fact. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. THE POLITICS OF BEING. neither is it entirely separable therefrom. and competing value-claims--can be resolved only by recourse to a total state. Heidegger's commitment to the National Socialist program of radical social reform as articulated in the Rectoral Address can be seen in both his future conduct as Rector as well as in the numerous political articles and speeches he composed during his year in office. p. THE POLITICS OF BEING. p. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. This claim in no way entails the assumption that Nazism is somehow a necessary and inevitable outgrowth of the philosophy of Being and Time. Rice.--and predisposes Heidegger toward a choice of "extreme" solutions: since bourgeois life-forms--represented by the Existenzialien of "everydayness"--are discounted in advance as degraded and profane. Since Heidegger fully shares the conservative revolutionary critique of liberal democracy. between National Socialist ideology and Heidegger's philosophy. AKH0701 HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM WAS GROUNDED IN PHILOSOPHICAL CONVICTION Richard Wolin." but also as a work of its time. THE POLITICS OF BEING. The multiple fragmentations and divisions of bourgeois society--those of political parties. And while the strategy of his apologists has been to dissociate the philosophy from the empirical person. 1990. it was rooted in the innermost tendencies of his thought. for example.66." "decisiveness. AKH0696 THE SINCERITY OF HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM IS UNDENIABLE Richard Wolin. 1990. and service in knowledge--aim at the creation of an all-encompassing. The aporetic nature of Heideggerian decisionism is thus indicated by its "negative" and "positive" dispositions. Heidegger went to great lengths to justify his partisanship for National Socialism in categories explicitly culled from the theoretical framework of Being and Time. To begin with. p. . Professor of Modern European Intellectual History.." Some of these terms. that specifically accounts for his "engagement" on be half of the National Socialist cause. parliamentarianism." hidden and manifest. there can little doubt concerning the sincerity of his support for the policies of the new regime. academic disciplines. The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law. this would suggest the necessity of submitting the work to a "double reading. 1990. AKH0697 HEIDEGGER'S POLITICS WERE INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN Richard Wolin. And thus. Though direct appeals to the theme of "race" are absent from the speech. "the forces of earth and blood" (erd. were they to appear in a different historical and cultural context. In truth. Instead. would present no great cause for alarm. however. p. traditional philosophical separation between thought and action. that the politics of the Nazi movement emphatically satisfied the desiderata of authentic historical commitment adumbrated in that work." There are detailed discussions of "will. THE POLITICS OF BEING. moreover. categories such as "decision. AKH0699 HEIDEGGER HIMSELF SAW A PROFOUND LINK BETWEEN NAZISM AND HIS PHILOSOPHY Richard Wolin. Rice. followers and leaders. as we have just seen. It is this side as well that mandates the a priori rejection of "bourgeois" political forms--liberalism. AKH0695 HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM WASN'T AN INCIDENTAL MISTAKE Richard Wolin. it is the concept of "historicity.. Rice. classes. Although an understanding of Heidegger's political thought should in no way be reduced to the concrete political choices made by the philosopher in the 1930s. much of Being and Time is concerned with overcoming the conventional philosophical division between theoretical and practical reason. thereby suggesting that Heidegger's Nazism was an unessential aberration in the hope of exempting the philosophy from political taint.' ' Lowith's description of his "last meeting with Heidegger" is fascinating not only for the crucial information it supplies toward a proper understanding of the philosopher's political biography. the trade-unions broken. 1990." "authenticity.89. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. In a 1936 conversation with Heidegger outside of Rome. However." "affliction. THE POLITICS OF BEING. the existential framework of Being and Time may have provided a type of "transcendental grounding" for Heidegger's political conduct in the 1930s? If our preliminary reflections concerning the essential interrelatedness of the philosophical and ideological components of Being and Time are valid." "mission. Heidegger's partisanship for the National Socialist cause." What Marcuse found incomprehensible about this and similar claims was how this matchless interpreter of the Western philosophical tradition could come to view the National Socialist movement as the positive culmination of this intellectual heritage. "The National Socialist Revolution brings the total transformation of our German Dasein. p.91-2. there is one interpretation that seems to recommend itself above all others.The Anti-Kritik Handbook 61 AKH0693 HEIDEGGER JUSTIFIED NAZISM IN TERMS OF HIS BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL CATEGORIES Richard Wolin. The content of the address revolves around categories such as Volk." More importantly. only radical alternatives to this thoroughly prosaic order of life will suffice.75. Both determined. in the fact that knowledge is shorn of essential ties to the Volksgemeinschaft--can only be radically overcome via the wholesale integration of life in a society of total mobilization. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. It also contains a striking confirmation by Heidegger himself that his political convictions evolved directly from his philosophy. Let not propositions and 'ideas' be the rules of your Being."As his former student. the most cursory glance at his political speeches and writings from this period readily confirms this impression. merely biographical episode. was the basis of his political 'engagement. The "negative" side lies. Herbert Marcuse. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. As he says at one point. how was this possible? Could it be that in a qualified sense.95. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. deutsches Volk. Instead. For this was a partisanship that was carefully grounded in premeditated philosophical conviction. the Reichstag in ruins. p. Lowith suggested that his former mentor's "partisanship for National Socialism lay in the essence of his philosophy. Rice. In this respect. in a nihilistic historical opportunism that promotes unprincipled conformity with what ever-choices are presented under given historical conditions. p. The political object of Heidegger's speech is clear." "resolve. AKH0698 HEIDEGGER RELIED HEAVILY ON BASIC NAZI CONCEPTS Richard Wolin. and that. Rice.21. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. what is perhaps the central category of Heidegger's existential ontology--the category of "authenticity"--automatically precludes such a facile separation between philosophical outlook and concrete life-choices. would later comment about these lines: such a claim is "actually the betrayal of philosophy as such and of everything it stands for. Indeed. 1990.. Rice. AKH0700 HIS NAZISM REFLECTED THE INNERMOST TENDENCIES OF HEIDEGGER'S THOUGHT Richard Wolin." the "essential will. total state in which the (modern) specialization of competences is abolished and all pursuits are integrated by a common goal: the realization of the historical-spiritual destiny of the German Volk." as elaborated in Being and Time. constitutionalism. While Heidegger's claim is far from unambiguous. Heidegger's involvement with National Socialism has often been described as a misunderstanding or an error that had little to do with his basic philosophical orientation. Rice. and the first Jewish boycotts of the previous month fresh in memory--the stakes were of an entirely different order. THE POLITICS OF BEING. 1990. From a purely rhetorical standpoint. Given the fact that Heidegger himself sought to ground and justify his participation in the National Socialist movement on the basis of his early philosophy of existence. in a complementary manner." and "power.." One would have to understand it not only as a work of "first philosophy. he in face perceives the latter as a form of political deliverance. THE POLITICS OF BEING. p.33. But as Franzen observes: Such a misunderstanding and error were only possible because of those "consonances. AKH0694 HEIDEGGER HIMSELF STRESSED THAT THOUGHT CAN'T BE DIVORCED FROM ACTION Richard Wolin. p. Professor of Modern European Intellectual History. Rice. the posing of a quasi-Kantian question would seem to be in order.65-6. The various Bindungen he emphasizes in the address--labor service. there is hardly an additional Nazi shibboleth that Heidegger fails to invoke. existential commitment--was far from being an adventitious. 1990. "fate. Heidegger's philosophy itself would seem to rule out the artificial. not only does he have no reservations concerning a totalitarian alternative. in 1933 Germany--with the nation swarming with Brown Shirts. in his public utterances. It is with the 1933 Rectoral Address that Heidegger. The shallowness of bourgeois life--evident." and so forth.und bluthaftigen Krafte). Heidegger's involvement with National Socialism--which was of the order of deep-seated. Volksgemeinschaft. Volklich.." "fate.. 1990. this strategy will not wash for several reasons. We know that during the years 1933-1934. and added that his concept of 'historicity. the evidence is telling enough. though." and "hardness." Heidegger agreed with Lowith "without reservation. THE POLITICS OF BEING.

The Anti-Kritik Handbook 62
AKH0702 HEIDEGGER'S EMBRACE OF NAZISM REFLECTS HIS MORAL NIHILISM Richard Wolin, Professor of Modern European Intellectual History, Rice, THE POLITICS OF BEING, 1990, p.65. The consequences of this decisionistic "ethical vacuum," coupled with the prejudicial nature of Heidegger's conservative revolutionary degradation of the modern life-world, suggests an undeniable theoretical cogency behind Heidegger's ignominious life-choice of 1933. In its rejection of "moral convention"--which qua convention, proves inimical to acts of heroic bravado--decisionism shows itself to be distinctly nihilistic vis-a-vis the totality of inherited ethical paradigms." For this reason, the implicit political theory of Being and Time--and in this respect, it proves a classical instance of the German conservative-authoritarian mentality of the period--remains devoid of fundamental "liberal convictions&qu