ABSTRACTPatric Baert suggests that ‘encountering difference’, as we might when immersing ourselves in new cultural settings, allows us to redescribe and reconceptualise ourselves, our culture and our surroundings. By so doing, individuals can learn to see themselves, their own culture and their own presuppositions from a different point of view. They can then contrast their interpretations with alternative forms of life; and this is a requirement both for learning about themselves and coming to understand others. There is evidence that such (...) learning can reduce animosity towards others and encourage reciprocity. In this paper, I discuss the possibility that such an approach could also be useful if applied to the more-than-human world, as an antidote to nature’s exploitation by humans. I therefore argue that we need to ‘encounter difference’ with nature’s forms, which will allow us to learn from it. The meaning and implications of such ‘encountering difference’ will be developed in relation to Bhaskar’s philosophy of metaReality. (shrink)

This is a reply to R. P. Datta, J. Frauley and F. Pearce, ‘Situation critical: for a critical, reflexive, realist, emancipatory social science’ (Journal of Critical Realism 9(2) 2010: 229–48), which responded to my critique in ‘“Orthodox critical realism” and the critical realist embrace’ (Journal of Critical Realism 8(3): 233–57) of J. Frauley and F. Pearce, eds, Critical Realism and the Social Sciences: Heterodox Elaborations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

Uniquely among contemporary philosophies, Roy Bhaskar’s system of critical realism attempts to sublate (draw out the real strengths of and surpass) the philosophical discourse of modernity considered as a dialectically developing totality. This paper systematically expounds and comments on Bhaskar’s metacritique of that discourse and situates it briefly in relation to Jürgen Habermas’s earlier critique.

In this article I look at CR (critical realism)1 as chiefly exhibited in the seminal theory of Ron Bhaskar – in particular, his early theory of transcendental realism. I examine its mechanisms of thought and pick out some difficulties with the theorisation relative to its deployment by OS theorists and relative to recent attempts to deploy CR as a theory which can bridge the fork in the constructivist and realist areas known as a form of ‘divide’ in the discipline (fault (...) line). I also try and attempt a more in-depth philosophical analysis of the ideas of CR to gain an insight into its nature and what it can offer both as an apodictic system of philosophical insights with aspects of a belief system – but also relative to its realist-related claims towards veridical knowledge of kinds. I make comparisons with other theorists and philosophers including Kant, Derrida, Hume and Aristotle. I close with insights into how a closer scrutiny of CR thought as it is entering OS is necessary to understand the evolving nature of the inter-relationship of ontology and the ontic, in relation to the fault line described. (shrink)

This article initially discusses reasons why Freud researchers turn to critical realism since this is what led me to compare causality in the two traditions in the first place. Three arguments on causality follow. First, it is argued that Freud's analyses of unconscious processes merit closer attention by critical realists, focusing on the relation between causal unconscious processes and rationality, and causal unconscious processes and social change. It may be objected that this does not concern the discussion of causality proper, (...) to which I would reply that what we consider to be causally efficacious ultimately is relevant to our conception of causality. The second argument, which is the centrepiece, outlines Freud's conception of causality, his idea of overdetermination and his treatment of motives and reasons as causes. His notions of causality are compared to those of critical realism. Freud's idea of retroactive causality is discussed in relation to delayed causality in critical realism and the idea of disembedded space-time components. Finally, Freud's concept of determinism and the related concepts of repetition and chance are discussed and compared to ubiquity determinism in critical realism and the distinctions between causal and non-causal correlations and necessary and accidental sequences of events. While the first argument concerns presuppositions for the discussion of causality in psychoanalysis and its relevance for critical realism, the third concerns implications and/or applications of the two views on causality. It is my contention that the second argument needs to be placed in context of the other two in order for the two conceptions of causality to be understood adequately and most revealingly compared. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis is a response to Dominic Holland’s critique of Roy Bhaskar’s posthumous Enlightened Common Sense, which I edited. Holland claims that his critique is immanent, but I argue that it is not, on two interrelated counts: it fails to achieve hermeneutic adequacy; and criticizes Bhaskar’s arguments and positions using mainly transcendent, not immanent, criteria.

This paper articulates the commitments, contours and justifications for a pluralist but non-eclectic critical, realist, reflexive social science with emancipatory aims. In it, we stress that social science can and should be used to guide the conceptualization of desirable and viable forms of social organization and their conditions of realization. In this regard, we advocate explanatory theorizing as an ethical duty of social scientists and as a moral good in itself as well as being an inherent epistemological component of scientific (...) practice. This entails that we take seriously the research strategies apposite to our disciplinary, intertextual and interdiscursive locations to make a serious theoretical case and practical case for the kind of social science here advocated. In our view, such a social science must acknowledge the path-breaking work of Roy Bhaskar, but must also recognize that the arguments deployed in texts as a resource in intellectual work can never be treated as the axiomatic grounds for further thought, but must be interrogated thoroughly and in each case what is to be retained must be defensible. No position has a monopoly of relevant insights and the development of science often involves syntheses. Syntheses must not be syncretic but reflexively interrogated to assess epistemological, ontological and conceptual coherence to avoid eclecticism. Development in critical realist philosophy will, we believe, continue to confront and offer plausible resolutions to a range of battles within and pertinent to philosophy and social-scientific metatheory. However, realists must recognize the continuing importance and discursive effects of a variety of critical and realist work in being able to defend, sustain and develop rigorous social-scientific research with emancipatory commitments. (shrink)