In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 Problematization plus reconstruction Genealogy, Pragmatism & Critical Theory Reconciling Problematizers and Reconstructors throughout this book i have been working toward a conception of critical inquiry that brings together the methodological orientations of problematization and reconstruction . it is time to more tightly tie together these two elements of my proposed form of critical inquiry. in this concluding chapter i detail how what i have been calling problematization and reconstruction fit together quite naturally to form a broad-based conception of critique, in the capacious Kantian sense of critique i outlined in the introduction. Kant initiated a project in modern philosophical practice that remains of ineliminable value for the traditions of genealogy, pragmatism, and critical theory. i am not referring to Kant’s projects of an architectonic of reason and a legislation of the moral will. that in Kant which lasts for us today is his project of critique—the severe work by which we inquire into second -order conditions of possibility of our first-order practical doings. in placing genealogy, pragmatism, and critical theory in the lineage of Kant, i aim to call attention to Kant’s best achievements for us moderns. these achievements may not be dependent upon more textbook stories we are too often taught about Kant. indeed , i can freely admit that Kant may not recognize himself in the critical methodologies i am discussing. But that is not my point. rather my claim is that we can recognize enough of Kant in ourselves. What i seek, then, are connections on their own terms between Foucault’s Kantian project of problematization on the 218 Genealogy as Critique one hand and the Kantian projects of reconstruction featured in the work of pragmatism and critical theory on the other. one way of approaching this dual-aspect conception of critical inquiry is through seyla Benhabib’s description of the two dimensions of critical theory essential for any rigorous form of critique: “First is the explanatory-diagnostic aspect through which the findings and methods of the social sciences are appropriated in such a way as to develop an empirically fruitful analysis of the crisis potential of the present . . . the second dimension of critical theory is its anticipatory-utopian one; this constitutes the more properly normative aspect of critique. When explicating the dysfunctionalities of the present, a critical social theory should always do so in the name of a better future and a more humane society.” At the core of Benhabib’s two-dimensional model of critique is the idea that any successful practice of critical inquiry must work along both of these dimensions in reciprocal fashion : “Without an explanatory dimension, critical theory dissolves into mere normative philosophy; if it excludes the dimension of anticipatory-utopian critique, however, it cannot be distinguished from other mainstream social theories that attempt to gain value-free knowledge of the social world.”1 Benhabib’s distinction between two necessary aspects of critical inquiry helps me specify the terms in which i want to hold together genealogy and pragmatist critical theory (for i here appropriate Benhabib’s distinction for my own purposes moreso than i attempt to deliver on exactly what she aims for). my suggestion is that the need for what Benhabib calls “diagnosis” (i prefer to de-emphasize the “explanatory”) can be supplied by genealogical problematization, while the need for what she calls “anticipation ” (i prefer to de-emphasize the “utopian”) can be filled in through pragmatic critical theoretic reconstruction. Benhabib’s model resonates surprisingly well with Foucault’s sketch in “What is enlightenment?” of the two aspects of a viable critical ethos for our present. Foucault there wrote, “the critique of what we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them.”2 this two-dimensional project must, urged Foucault , give rise to “the labor of diverse inquiries” oriented by the genealogical and archaeological methodologies characteristic of his work. that Foucault’s two dimensions of the “historico-critical” and “experimental” attitudes map well to Benhabib ’s “diagnostic” and “anticipatory” critique is confirmed earlier in his essay. the first dimension of Foucault’s ethos consists of “a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and to recognize ourselves as subjects of what we are doing, thinking, saying.” in short, this is what Foucault practiced as genealogical and archaeological problematization: a historical diag- [18.221.208.183] Project MUSE (2024-04-25 07:59 GMT...

Share