Week Twelve Blog

Are there any aspects of critical theory that especially interest you as a budding researcher? Why? Why not?

Critical theory is social theories that critique the traditional theory about society a whole. On the contrary, traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Traditional epistemology claimed foundation for all knowledge. Pragmatists, postmodernists and feminists all reject the notion that knowledge can be firmly anchored in a set of premises of conditions. Some women philosophers believe that a naturalized epistemology as described by Dewey or Quine is entirely adequate for feminist purposes.

Critical theories in general interpret and analyze past historical trends and current events of capitalism and Marxism in political philosophy. In more specific term it refers to new-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School in Germany in 1930s. It designates several generations of German philosophers specifically Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Jürgen Habermas, and Herbert Marcuse and other social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer 1982, 244).

I am not yet enough knowledgeable to make any analogy about the political philosophical aspect of critical theories. As a budding researcher I am interested to know the aspect of critical theories in regard to academic field. In this globalization era it is critical to me to understand the critical theory of communication and technology and how it affects the human society. Fuchs (2009) defines “critical studies of information, communication, and media as studies that focus ontologically on the analysis of information, media, communication, culture, technology in the context of domination, asymmetrical power relations, exploitation, oppression, and control by employing at the epistemological level all theoretical and/or empirical means that are necessary for doing so in order to contribute at the praxeological level to the establishment of a participatory, co-operative society.” One of the reasons why critical theory is important for analyzing media, technology, and information is that it allows to question and provide alternatives to technological determinism and to explain the causal relationship of media and technology on the one hand and society on the other hand in a balanced way that avoids one-dimensionality and one-sidedness.

A critical theory of media and technology is based on dialectical reasoning.  It permits understanding of the complex causal relationship of media/technology and society as multidimensional. This has multiple potential effects on society and social systems that can co-exist or stand in contradiction to each other. The above discussions motivated me to learn more about critical theories as a budding researcher in the future.

References:

Fuchs, Christian. (2009). Information and communication technologies & society: A contribution to the critique of the political economy of the Internet. European Journal of Communication 24 (1): 69-87.

Hollis, M. (1997). The philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge university Press. London.

Horkheimer, M., 1982. Critical Theory, New York: Seabury Press.

Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital Volume I. London: Penguin.

Week Eleven Blog

Week 11 class discussion on Ethics and Social Philosophy

In our class discussions, our group was diverse. It was interesting to know that we both commonly shared the same value of some ethical and moral philosophy even though we both have totally two different social and educational backgrounds. My group mate is an English literature teacher grows up in western culture. On the other hand, I am a math and computer science major and grow up in a south Asian culture. I would like to discuss here how we feel about different philosophers’ beliefs on ethics and moral in education and society.

I would like to reflect on what Aristotle’s approach to ethic is. Aristotle described ethic as “virtue is central to the good life because virtuous persons-persons of good character-exhibit virtues in every aspect of their lives, children should be trained to respond virtuously to life’s demands.” We feel the same way that one becomes virtuous by behaving virtue in life. I also support Aristotle’s notion that human beings persistently seek better ways than their ancestors have bequeathed them. The characteristic of a good society’s exemplars is that they go beyond their traditions and seek fuller, richer descriptions of the good. I am an example of this notion. I left my ancestors and flew 13000 miles to come to this country for better and richer of good life. My group mate liked the argument against virtue is that it leads to elitism. She liked MacIntyre’s analogy is that different practices demand different excellences and even different virtues.

Kant ethical approach emphasizes human rationality. It enhances the notion of autonomy and individualism. It guides ethics on logic. Kant believed that certain types of actions such as stealing, lying and murder etc were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative.  Kant’s theory is an example of a ‘deontological ethics’–according to these theories, ethics emphasize duty and attempt to describe its scope and its relation to other ethical concepts. The rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.

On the contrary to Kantianism, utilitarianism believes that a vision of the good must precede determination of what is right. For them, happiness is the greatest and most obvious human good, and ethic should guide us toward producing as much happiness as possible. It speaks to both individual behavior and the moral behavior of whole societies. Instead of defining the duty of ethical agents in terms of doing what is right, utilitarian’s define the right in terms of optimizing this ratio of happiness to pain.

Dewey’s pragmatic ethics is consequentialist-an act is judged ethically acceptable or unacceptable according to the consequences it produces. He thought that “it was an error to posit one greatest good, even one so obvious and desirable as happiness.” He objected to the calculation inherent in utilitarianism. Because human events and needs are dynamic, changing events bring new needs and interests. He put more emphasis on the responsibility of individuals and institutions than is usual utilitarianism. According to him the primary criterion of ethical behavior is willing to accept responsibility for the full range of anticipated outcomes.

References:

Hollis, M. (1997). The philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge university Press. London.

Noddings, N. (2007). Philosophy of Education. Westview press. USA.