Talk:Stephen Bronner/Archive 1

Bronner's education

I see that several sources claim that Bronner completed his doctorate at UCBerkeley. However, interestingly, the UCBerkeley alumni database (http://cal.berkeley.edu) does not list his doctorate. It lists his master's degree (MA in Political Science, 1972), but no doctorate. I would think that if there is any organization that would know what Berkeley degrees a person has, it would be Berkeley itself. This is why I am going to remove mention of his doctorate until and unless this issue in the alumni database gets resolved. Sakhalinrf

• Information independently verified, if any questions. Further, you used as a source a database not open to the public for confirmation. Reverting removal of Ph.D. statement. — 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if you independently verified the information and are willing to take questions by email- Wikipedia must rely on documented, third party sources. They do not have to be "open to the public." The information must be documented, and I'm going to be adding a fact tag to that sentence. Wikipedia editors can trust Berkeley, but I'm sorry, we have no reason to trust you independently. I can say that I can verify that Bonner is an African bush hunter in his spare time, but that doesn't make it so. If he does have a doctorate from Berkeley, it should be easy to find a third party source which verifies this.76.182.88.254 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding ISBNs

Hi, when referencing books, always always always, provide the ISBN please? Sometimes dead tree format texts forget to provide a URL for electronic formats, but that doesn't mean we should retaliate! ;-) Kim Bruning 15:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I'll get some ISBNs up there by the end of the weekend. ExplorerCDT 22:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Jolly good show! Kim Bruning 02:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • ISBN's added 14NOV2004. Could not find ISBN for one of the 24 books listed. Will be adding more content discussing Prof. Bronner's theoretical contributions, &c., over the next week (as per discussion in VfD a few days ago). Any other requests? --ExplorerCDT 05:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion

VfD summary: 10 keep, nom by anon that didn't vote. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephen Bronner. Niteowlneils 21:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the deletion debate related to this article see Talk:Stephen Bronner/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The identity of political theory as philosophy

Elsewhere I've offered the following criteria for inclusion in the category of "philosopher":

"This article takes philosophy not in the more general sense of a system of belief or ideology but as a tradition that generally requires a degree of more or less formalized study (although autodidacts have not been excluded) and a degree of institutional recognition in the form of work incorporated into subsequent formalized teaching in university philosophical education. Articles referenced here are expected to substantiate standing by demonstrating either of the above criteria."

I'm not certain that this is the most philosophical of definitions, but it did suit the purpose of allowing me to trim out entries covering extremely influential thinkers who, although they may have influenced philosophy, have not produced a work, however theoretical, that would be considered philosophy per se. When I looked at the Bronner article, my thought process was something along the lines of asking myself whether I would, for example, offer that Carl Schmitt is a political theorist without being inclined to say that Schmitt is a political philosopher (or philosopher of any other sort). Whatever you want to say about Schmitt's politics, his work remains influential in political theory, and his work has an undeniable theoretical and concept ground. I might offer that Schmitt, however much he taps the philosophical tradition (e.g. Kant, Hegel, Boudin) and seeks a conceptual basis for his assertions, still seems to me entirely ultimately too common-sensical, however counter-intuitive his arguments may be to what is accepted as common sense — which is to say that I think something deeply non-philosophical informs his arguments, even if I cannot say that I am yet equipped to identify or isolate this other aspect of his work. I would add that Schmitt remains an important interlocutor for anyone who wants to do political philosophy, but I would remain reluctant to say that his theoretical work is philosophy. Just as problematically, I could refer to Hannah Arendt, who, in characterising herself as a political theorist, refused to identify herself as a philosopher. Since I cannot adequately formalise about either case, I resort to my previous, provisional criteria.

Bronner seemed to fall under the same rubric as Schmitt as characterised in the current article. I did not do remove categorisations without some hesitation; I noted that Bronner has collaborated with Douglas Kellner, whose work is somewhat familiar to me, and I would be very ambivalent about tagging Kellner as a philosopher without examining his work further. If anyone would like to argue the criteria I've offered on the Category Talk:20th Century philosophers page, please do. My decisions were made on assessing the entry as it stood, not on some larger claim about its subject matter that is not addressed by the entry or my ability to improve the entry to address the matter. I have laid out (in a manner I still find rather more provisional than philosophical) why I would not include a political theorist as a philosopher simply by virtue of the former characterisation. This is not to say that a political theorist cannot be characterised in such a way that would make him recognisable as a philosopher. In this case, I should think it requires expansion of the article. Buffyg 17:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Kant, Marx and Hegel are considered philosophers, despite their works being heavily influential in the realms of economic, political and historical theory. The problem being that the philosophy taught in America is almost always "analytical philosophy" and I have yet to find a department that covers continental philosophy (which you'll see in every philosophy department in every University in Europe) is unfortunate. Continental Philosophy (including critical theory, psychoanalytical stuff, the political theory, the historical theory, and cultural theory, etc.) is treated poorly in the U.S., divided up into various other departments, and thus barely viable. I wish more American philosophy departments would cover the "Philosophy of History" (which, ironically was the title of a Hegel work) among other things. None cover it adequately...not Harvard, Berkeley, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. Heck, at most of these places I have yet to find a critical theorist who covers the stuff that isn't squirreled away in the corner of a political science department. Most critical theorists don't actually teach courses on critical theory. They're stuck with banal topics, rarely getting more riskier than teaching about Marxist theory (which is usually no more than critical theory lite...lacking all the heavy stuff that makes critical theory so great). So, If you're going to place Kant (who wrote immense amounts of political theory) as just a "philosopher" you are short-sighted. Likewise, if you think Marx and Hegel are privileged enough to earn the categorization as "philosophers," you should consider Bronner in the same league because his writing not only builds upon their works, but is the modern-day successor to it and carries forth the tradition (which seems to be part of your criteria). I think your criteria is short-sighted, and lacks the broad cosmopolitanism that is sorely lacking in the American worldview. Thus, I will continue to revert your attempts at applying your faulty criteria on this article. While I strongly disagree with the limitations of your criteria, I am unfortunately limited in time due to travelling abroad (in many places that lack internet access, but more importantly lack shelter and sufficient food) and cannot argue its finer points. I recommend you read Bronner's work (in addition to that of other theorists) before you make so rash an action from a category which they obviouisly belong in. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if you were in Europe. Barring any future attempts to remove him from these categories, I will forgive your myopic ignorance in this matter.

If you want to remove Bronner from the list, you might as well remove Bloch, Ortega y Gasset, Lenin, Buber, von Mises, Lukacs, Mao, Strauss, Gadamer, Popper, Adorno, Rand, Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus, Althusser, Foucault, Derrida, Habermas, Trotsky, Spengler, Gramsci, Benjamin, Rawls, Appiah, and a little over half the list for the same reasons. But, as that would devalue the the list—rendering it incomplete drivel—it is all the more reason to add Bronner into it.

But then again, if you don't think "provisionally" (not "philosophically") that political theory shouldn't be a part of a philosopy article, then we might as well remove Plato, Socrates and Aristotle from any list of "philosophers" while we're at it.

What a nice way of rendering a list (and thus a category) ineffectively uncomprehensive! —ExplorerCDT 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm having quite a laugh about your shot in the dark remark that "we wouldn't be having this remark if you were in Europe," as I live in Europe. You fail to note what you can readily determine: that I do contribute to entries on "continental philosophy" (e.g. I wrote most of the entry on Derrida in its current form) and its institutions. Furthermore I think one can easily make too much antagonism of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophers, as you have here. Your further resort to condescension and ad hominem attack throughout your response is without therefore without justification and deserves retraction.

This problem with offering generalities that you cannot hope to support is unfortunately recurring and more prevalent: the series of reducta ad aburdum you offer about continental vs. analytic philosophy in the United States does nothing to clarify matters but does indicate that you've manifestly not bothered to read the faculty home pages, course listings, and degree requirements for the institutions you've haphazardly cited as examples (although I don't see where I insisted upon the qualification that only work taught in American philosophy departments should be classified as philosophy, which seems to motivate the polemic about critical theory and philosophy). (A closer look at the example of UC-Berkeley, which has for some decades been quite influential in the reception of continental philosophy in the States, would reveal that the distinction as you've advanced it is massively exaggerated.) As I see the polemic about analytic influence as being not only poorly constructed (which is not to say that I'd necessarily deny predominance of analytic philosophy in American philosophy departments, even if I reject utterly the simplism of your account of it) but entirely beside the point given that I've not imposed the arbitrary criteria of working only from American examples (necessary to your rude remarks about my lack of cosmopolitanism), I'll leave all argument limited in validity to the United States aside for the time being.

What seems to me most important is that the logic of your reply is so non-responsive as to offer no counter-argument. I remarked that "I have laid out (in a manner I still find rather more provisional than philosophical) why I would not include a political theorist as a philosopher simply by virtue of the former characterisation. This is not to say that a political theorist cannot be characterised in such a way that would make him recognisable as a philosopher." You reply by saying that "Kant, Marx and Hegel are considered philosophers, despite their works being heavily influential in the realms of economic, political and historical theory." This is misconceived from at least the word "despite" (and arguably from "Kant," as I clearly cited him as philosopher in taking up the example of Schmitt), as I've neither said nor implied that being a political theorist in any way necessarily excludes one from being a philosopher. I will, however, attempt to render more philosophical what I've said already in the hope that it might help you understand what I've already said.

This can be understood as an argument about sillogisms. I've excluded the sillogism "political theorists are philosophers; Stephen Bronner is a political theorist; therefore Stephen Bronner is a philosopher" because the first statement is a contigent (some) rather than an inherent (all) identity. I've said nothing that resembles: "political theorists are not philosophers; Stephen Bronner is a political theorist; therefore Stephen Bronner is not a philosopher," which is what you evidently mistake me for saying. Your remark about removing people from categorisation on the basis of such a assertion is nonsense of your invention and is not an objection material to anything I've said or otherwise at stake, explicitly or implicitly — it is extremely difficult to pronounce my criteria as faulty when you've entirely misapprehended them. Consistent with this argument about contigency I've offered that "Schmitt, however much he taps the philosophical tradition (e.g. Kant, Hegel, Boudin) and seeks a conceptual basis for his assertions, still seems to me entirely ultimately [sic] too common-sensical, however counter-intuitive his arguments may be to what is accepted as common sense — which is to say that I think something deeply non-philosophical informs his arguments, even if I cannot say that I am yet equipped to identify or isolate this other aspect of his work."

I would generalise this to offer that theoretical or critical study is not the same thing as philosophy and therefore requires additional characterisation, accordingly arguing that it is not unreasonable to say that various disciplines of the social sciences and humanities ought to have distinct theoretical components taught within their departments by their faculty, distinct from philosophy instruction. The theoretical discourse of these disciplines may nonetheless be in constant dialogue with philosophy but such a dialogue does not confer on all its content the status of philosophy. I take this logic to underlie both the formation of two more or less continental, more or less philosophical institutions: the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the International College of Philosophy. If I'm not mistaken, this is part of the argument that Derrida advances in "Titles" about displacing that "paradoxically indissociable couple: the death/hegemony of philosophy," quite reasonably said to find quintessential expression in Kant Conflict of the Faculties. One could also find a comparable argument in Lyotard's claims in The Postmodern Condition about Hegel's encyclopedic system and its influence on the German and some American models of the university, particularly in the conclusion that philosophy is no longer recognised as a master discipline capable of eventually rendering all university disciplines into an ultimately coherent system.

Now, you can reasonably reply that Bronner is carrying forward the work of Hegel and Marx not simply as political theorist but as a philosopher, but given that you're going to face a good deal of readers who think that Marxism is a pile of dust, people should understand what survives of these traditions in Bronner, which is why I'd immediately question any claim that he's doing "the same thing", particularly given that philosophies of history are supposedly at stake. My abiding objection remains most simply expressed in my original observation: "status as philosopher not substantiated by article". It is for the benefit of every reader briefly to explain why Bronner isn't simply a practioner of theoretical political science writing about philosophers as, say, intellectual history but, further, a philosopher, yet nothing of the sort appears in the article, which makes categorisation a bit beside the point for a reader. Berate me if you like for not yet having read Bronner so as to be able to clarify the article so myself, but the point is that someone's got to put content about philosophy in the article other than the category inclusion. The fact that you've missed this basic premise and proceeded to abuse me, logic, and more than a few facts by way of indefensible generalisations doesn't go any distance toward this goal. I should also think that you'll find that this gives people more reason to read his work in offering such clarification. Absent such clarifications, one should either concede that the philosophical content of the article is at stub level and employ the philosophy stub template or make a more definitive characterisation. Buffyg 22:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW: if you are looking for United States philosophy programs that teach "critical theory" and have strong continental components to their faculties, I'd have a look at Northwestern, the New School for Social Research, UC-Irvine, and Johns Hopkins (Department of Philosophy or the Humanities Program). Buffyg 01:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've not seen any rebuttal to my comments. I know X has been away from a terminal for quite some time, so I've held off. There are, however, others who can contribute to the article to substantiate the categorisation or otherwise offer clarifications. If there is no reply, I will again remove the category entries from the article. Also, there's been discussion recently on the Marx talk page as to whether Marx would have accepted such a categorisation (his acceptance and its validity being distinct matters), but I would encourage people to Buffyg 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Bronner as philosopher

I'm sure I'm not the one most familiar with Bronner's work over here, but let me address your concerns.

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that for political theory to be philosophical in nature it has to address its concerns using the methodological and conceptual toolbox of philosophy, which doesn't seem too bad a definition. In that light, I'd argue that Bronner's "Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists" is certainly written from a speculative-theoretical POV familiar to readers of earlier critical theorists, whose status as philosophers is not under discussion. Interpretation of history and its relation to epistemological issues, as pursued in that text, is a task that clearly draws on philosophy for methods and inspiration, not on history or empirically-oriented social theory. Other works employ resources that may nowadays be considered part of literary criticism, but that certainly were in the repertoire used by classical German thinkers. On those grounds, I'd certainly argue from Bronner's categorization to remain as present.

I'm aware that your main concern is with these not being represented in the article as it currently stands; I find that line of reasoning faulty, however. What would you do with a well-categorized but meagrely written stub? Remove most categories because they are not substantiated in the text? That would be rather counter-productive, in my opinion. If, on the other hand, you're areguing that Bronner may not be a philosopher on firmer grounds, I'd like to know what they are (and, now that we are at it, why you wouldn't consider Kellner a philosopher; he may not be a very solid one, but lesser men have used the title). Taragui 18:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I have allowed for categorisations to stand where stub status is acknowledged: "Absent such clarifications, one should either concede that the philosophical content of the article is at stub level and employ the philosophy stub template or make a more definitive characterisation."

I'm not sure if talking about the "toolbox" of philosophy introduces adequate distinctions. "Applied philosophy" may be theoretical, but I wouldn't say that it's necessarily philosophy. Thus I am skeptical that much of "critical theory," with the possible exception of the strict sense of the term used to describe the Frankfurt School, is philosophy, just as I am skeptical that literary theory, for all its ties to philosophy, is philosophy, even if it some of it does merit that name. Again: I'm not saying that it isn't at all but that it isn't inherently so.

Philosophy is a non-dogmatic tradition: one needs thoroughly to understand one's antecedents even as one is obliged to demonstrate one's fidelity to them both by strong interpretation and interminable criticism. These demands inevitably cause one to reassess and reinvent the tradition. Where I have tried to advance a definition of philosophy, I have said that generally formal study of the tradition is necessary, as is some form of acceptance as a member, generally being taught as part of the tradition. Accordingly I'd reckon much of what goes on in academic philosophy departments is scholarship of philosophy rather than philosophy per se. In other words, I'd say that philosophy departments produce a lot of secondary literature about philosophy that is used to teach the tradition but not a lot of it ends up confusing the distinction between primary and secondary literature. In short: not only is it entirely possible to write a lot about philosophers and philosophy without producing a work of philosophy in its own right, but that happens most of the time, even among academics who call themselves philosophers.

I didn't say that I didn't think Kellner was a philosopher — I said I am ambivalent about whether he's a philosopher but that the reference to him still gave me pause. In short: I'm undecided but somewhat aware of evidence that points in either direction; I just don't have enough of it to make up my mind. Buffyg 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

All said and done, I think I have nothing to object to tagging the article as a philosophy stub. I'm wary of any clear-cut divisions between "philosophy" and "scholarship of philosophy" (or "philosophical philology", as my PhD tutor used to call it); such things are inherent to an academic system and, if one is to believe Latour & Woolgar, happen outside philosophy as well. I'd concede that Bronner is in a grey area in this regard. Nevertheless, I believe that the appropriate thing for Wikipedia is to call "philosopher" anyone who would, for a layman, be labeled one, and this includes most of the grey cases. We are not a primary source. But this is now idle chatter, isn't it? I'll place the philo-stub tag myself. Taragui 09:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)