Lichtblau, Klaus

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

aus:  Theory.  The  newsletter of the Research Cornrnittee  on Social Theory  1  (1992),  S.  3 Soci(ologic)al Theory between Universiali~m  and Cu1 tural Relativism The recent debate between Hans Joas and Nikolai  Genov  touches  on  some fundamental problems of  contemporary theorizing  in  the  field  of  the  social sciences.  With  the  breakdown  of  the integrative function of the Parsonian and Neo-Marxist  world-views in  the sixties and  seventies  and  the emergence of  a variety of  "minor" discourses like post- structuralism*  feminism  arid P~~~~~~~~~~~~.  arid  the  em~hasis  On specific cultural traditions of knowledge. international sociology has re-entered a which alrad~  m~ed  the inteilectud debates  in  European  social  thought between  1890 and  1933. The renaissance of historicism and cultunl relativism in  the present.  therefore. represents a lasting ex~enence  of modernit~*  which  Only be abandoned at the price of reintroducing new kinds of  ideolcgical fundamentalism that  should  te more  characteristic  of religious  movernents than  a  scientific activity.  Nevenheless,  the  desire for a rnathesis  universalis and a  universal grammar  be  as  'Onstant  motive in European intellectual history, since the collapse of a coherent-system of  cutural integrarion in  the Reformation, to control and channel that multitude of intellectual and  scientific  discourse  tliat  Genov characterizes  as  "subjectivistic"  and "litenry". Indeed. the present  "state of  the  an" in social and sociological theory seenls to be more like that of  an "aesthetic cuiturew, than  a  monolithic  etliical or religious oriented  Iife-style,  as  Kierkegaard described this antagonism 150 years ago. Where is the problem? The insistence on tlie  fundamental  relativism  and perspectivism  of  all  forms  of  socinl knowledge  does  not  exclude  the possibility of  at, international reception and  "translation" of  a specific cultural tradition. In  this sense the contemporary world-wide infiltration of  such German "master-thinkers"  as Nietzsclie,  Freud, Simmel, Max  Weber and  I-leidegger, is riiore than striking. Does there not actually exist a new kind of "cultural synthesis" which nowadays is no ionger  based  on  the  primacy  of  the thinking of  Hegel, Marx  and the young  i Wittgenstein, as was the case 25  years ago,  but  on  that of  the successors. as described  by  Lucas in study  Desmiction of Reason,,? Perhaps the main  in  the funire will be  these  theMetical  differentes are in principle not dispensiblc in favour of wobjectified  arid ,,empirically  restable  exptanatory Because the question of what A istobepmvedempiricallyitselfdepend~ on our  theoreticsl  arid  methodolgical presuppositions, as  the  Neo-Kantian tradition in the humanities arid mechanics in physics have demonsmte& The penetnting  cntique made by feminism  arid  the sociologists of  the ,,.Phird  World" against the basic features  of woccidental  rationalismw  seems  to be funher argument in this direction. All that social nnd sociological theory  can do in this  is to analyze this present ,,state of  in  to reflect upon  its own capacities for genuine sociological wenlightenment ,,  arid  udiagnosis of This is something which takes into account the insights of those discourses on arid experiences of Mmodernityw  described in  v~ety  of contempow  theonzing in philosophy,  the natural sciences, aesthetics arid  Perhaps then the lack of an  sociological theoryn may weil reopen the interdisiplinary  dialogue that  modern social theory  so ofted has fruitfully undenaken. Klaus Lichtblau GIiK Kassel, Germany 

Soci(ologic)al theory between universialism and cultural relativism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main