m of care – jan 12
Part 3. Roy Bhaskar’s Enlightened Common Sense and From Science to Emancipation – Reading Group
notes/quotes from 72 min video:
10 min – there are bits of brilliant common sense.. about how we can find ways of working and put social science back in a structure and implement changes
20 min – on real.. being something not apparent
21 min – max: i think bhaskar had an econ starting point
22 min – avi: on generative mechs.. any ie’s of what is meant.. seems key to understanding..
cory bradley (st louis): i’m familiar w that term.. normalization process theory.. he uses the 4 generative mechs gets process going w/o saying what is happening.. saying.. this is the energy that will result in whatever outcomes
24 min – avi: does it refer to something that continues over time even though it might be changing.. if ongoing interacting w known realm
25 min – michael: rusty metal.. gen mech is at lower level.. the oxidation of iron.. independent of whether it’s open/closed.. but when social .. hard to think of gen mech.. ie: this always happens.. bit of a trick to think thru gen mechs in social sciences
27 min – john: what do you guys think generative even means in this context..
avi: not in relation to regenerative.. ie: was going to use covid..but before that from doe.. the 3 freedoms.. a structuring revelation.. i was trying to work out if that is a generative mech.. for covid.. very predictable to a degree how govt would respond to pandemic..
need: mechanism simple enough et al
29 min – michael: that question might become more apparent if we continue on.. ie: transformation of social activity (tmsa)..
30 min – avi: i feel like there a lot of nuggets in there.. i only get flashes of understanding.. a lot of walking in philosophical language.. the idea that everything is history.. bio and social don’t matter.. they deposit and collect over time and then shift.. historical process
31 min – max: he talks about that in the asymmetry.. he starts off w structure and agency.. these models.. tmsa.. there’s a bit in these models that remind of doe.. dependent not only present activity but past.. this burdening of history sets the boundaries.. which i think doe is an attempt to bring to light
34 min – john: i saw tmsa as way to collapse duality of agency
avi: i thought the same.. but that doesn’t overcome the dualism.. a step in that direction..
35 min – michael: their agency is w/in a frame of reference.. ie: i can do whatever i want.. but if i don’t pay rent et al..
why we are still (always been) whales
37 min – michael: you can differentiate between agency and framework.. and over time framework changes.. marx: ‘we make our own history but not in choice of our own making’
38 min – julia: thinking about structure and agency.. if we are not able to disambiguate (remove uncertainty from) analytically structure and agency.. we can’t make sense of individual actions.. ie: by getting married we are perpetuating structure of institution.. when you don’t disambiguate.. you are then committed to saying.. every time i get married i am sustaining structure of marriage.. to intricate relationship.. we are not getting married to sustain the nuclear fam/institution.. we get married because we’re in love.. not to perpetuate the structures.. to me that’s how we can think of structure and agency separately.. ie: by having work with salary.. we’re not contributing to capitalism.. because we’re not purposefully doing it to sustain c.. we’re doing it for other reasons.. that’s how i’ve understood the significance of analytical duplicity and disambiguating
41 min – michael reading marx quote exact.. don’t make history separate from past
why we need to let go of all history ness.. let go.. and try something legit new/diff
42 min – julia: can’t blame people for having a car et al.. would have to live outside society to have socialist values
43 min – john: also w/in the agent.. all diff levels.. ie: at each level.. is almost like playing chess.. have rules.. but can choose w/in those constraints.. there’s up/downwards structure influencing
45 min – julia: i guess that’s a way of understanding stratification.. has anybody read disunity of science?.. fodo sees things in terms of levels.. at each level.. work way up.. from chemical.. to bio.. psych.. philosoph.. at each level you can say things about a subject you can’t say at another level.. this idea that there are diff levels of reality.. attributes you can ascribe to subjects at each stratum that you can’t at others.. not reducible to chem/math..
stratification/hierarchy.. et al.. oi
47 min – cory: on critical realism invites a pluralistic understanding
julia: depends what you mean by pluralism.. the thing w cr.. it does try to have the best of both worlds.. it keeps both thru this realational of stratification and emergence phenom at each diff stratum.. so have pluralism w/o de generating into relativism.. that’s how i understand cr
50 min – avi: on graeber using bhaskar.. on plural worlds.. on trying to pay attention to variations.. and power relations.. one of reasons i was drawn to bhaskar.. i felt there was an alt explanation to god.. if emergent.. but if gods conceptualized as same strata.. at the cosmo level.. what does bhaskar have to say about that
53 min – julia: i’ve had same thoughts.. and it’s driving me insane.. i don’t have faith dimension in my life.. people say bhaskar did go faith at end of his life.. one of my understandings of real.. is not that we can touch/feel it.. but because of the effects/inferences.. i think critical realist conception of real is like that.. if have effects/consequences.. for me the god thing is similar.. lots don’t believe in it.. but if defn of realism is that it has consequences.. then god exists and is real.. because we have churches and people who worship god.. so .. does that make god real.. i’ve never been able to make sense of it
from roy bhaskar
m of care – nov 8 – part 1
m of care – dec 8 – part 2
m of care – jan 12 – part 3