RADICAL MIDDLE

Eric Arnould (EARNOULD@BSN01.BSN.USF.EDU)
Thu, 2 Mar 1995 16:29:29 EDT

I'VE BEEN THINKING MORE ABOUT RICK WILK'S DECLARATION FOR THE RADICAL
MIDDLE. MIDDLE IMPLIES A CONTINUUM, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM RICK'S
POSTING WHAT CONTINUUM OR, MORE INTERESTINGLY CONTINUA, HE WANTS TO
POSITION HIMSELF, AND RETROACTIVELY THE LATE (AND INCREDIBLY MUCH
MISSED BY ME AND OTHERS!) BOB NETTING.

SOME POSSIBILITIES: MODERNISM-POSTMODERNISM?, CATERTESIAN DUALISM-
HABERMASIAN-WITTGENSTEINIAN CONSTRUCTIVISM?, HUMANISM-SCIENTISM?
ETHNOGRAPHIC REALISM-LITERARY INTERPRETIVISM? NICE GAL(GUY)ISM-MEAN
GUY(GAL)ISM? ITS JUST NOT CLEAR.

WHICH RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS MIDDLE

WHICH RAISES THE USUAL AND WORTWHILE ISSUES OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND
ONTOLOGY, WHICH IS WHERE I THINK THE DEBATE REALLY LIES.

THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF ACRIMONIOUS DEBATE, AND SOME MORE
THOUGHTFUL DEBATE AS WELL AS REPRESENTED BY THE "GREAT THINKERS
THINKING IN PUBLIC" (sic) SESSION (ABULUGHOD, GEERTZ, SAHLINS [in
absentia], ETC) AT THE TRIPLE A MEETINGS IN ATLANTA RECENTLY, ABOUT
WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT AND UNFORTUNATELY WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM THE
MORAL-SCIENTIFIC HIGHGROUND. I THINK THIS MISCASTES THE PROBLEM
FUNDAMENTALLY, AND IN VERY MODERNIST TERMS. INTERESTINGLY THE SAME
DEBATES GO ON IN MANY FIELDS. AS A CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGIST WORKING
IN A CONSUMER BEHAVIOR/MARKETING ACADEMIC COMMUNITY THE DEBATE IS
STILL COUCHED IN POSITIVIST VS. NON-POSITIVIST TERMS
ANACHRONISTICALLY.

IN ANY CASE THE FACT IS WE ARE FACED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH
MULTIPLE INCOMMENSURATE PARADIGMATIC VOICES ARE BEING RAISED LOUDLY
AND INSISTENTLY. IT SEEMS TO ME THE WAY FORWARD (YES, I RECOGNIZE
THE MODERNISM HERE) IS TO WORK TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIALOGUE
ABOUT THE TERMS OF OUR DISAGREEMENTS, A SORT OF META-ANALYSIS IF YOU
WILL ABOUT THE MEANING AND NATURE OF THE DISAGREEMENTS, THEIR
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN OUR TIMES, AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY
HOW THESE INCOMMENSURABILITIES CAN INFORM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE
WORLD (ASSUMING WE CAN AGREE THAT THINGS EXIST). OBVIOUSLY WHAT I AM
CALLING FOR IS A SORT OF UPDATED VERSION OF PHILOSOPHICAL SOPHISTRY,
A MOVEMENT THAT WOIULDNT HAVE NECESSARILY HAVE GOTTEN SUCH A BAD RAP
IF PLATO HAD DONE MORE THAT SIMPLY RECORD THE DEBATES THAT SOCRATES
WON. THE SOPHISTS WERE MORE INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF USEFUL AND INTERESTING AND COMPELLING ARGUMENTS THAN
THE DISCOVERY OF "THE GOOD" (I.E., TRUTH). PERHAPS WITH THE NATURAL
LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHERS AND THE NEW MORAL PHILOSOPHERS THIS WOULD BE AN
INTERESTING PATH FOR ANTHROPPOLOGISTS, WHO AT LEAST MAKE A TOKEN NOD
IN THE DIRECTION OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM TO PURSUE. WHY NOT
PARADIGMATIC RELATIVISM?

CHEERS, ERIC ARNOULD