Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

Use Claude to put radically different theoretical approaches into dialogue with each other

This needs to be treated very carefully but there’s pedagogical potential here:

Let me try to draw some connections between Margaret Archer’s morphogenetic approach and Alain Badiou’s philosophy.

At first glance, Archer and Badiou might seem like an unlikely pairing. Archer is a sociologist working in the critical realist tradition, while Badiou is a philosopher drawing on mathematical ontology and continental philosophy. However, there are some interesting points of comparison.

Firstly, both thinkers emphasize the importance of change and transformation. Archer’s morphogenetic approach is all about understanding how social structures and human agency interact over time to generate social change. Similarly, Badiou’s concept of the event is about radical ruptures in the status quo that open up new possibilities for transformation.

We might see Archer’s morphogenetic cycle as a way of understanding the social conditions that make Badiouian events possible. The phase of structural conditioning in Archer’s model could be seen as the “situation” in Badiou’s terms – the existing order of things. The phase of social interaction is where the potential for an event emerges, as agents engage with and potentially challenge the existing structures. And the phase of structural elaboration is the aftermath of an event, where the new possibilities opened up by the event are worked out and solidified into new structures.

Another point of comparison is the role of human agency. For Archer, human reflexivity and intentionality are crucial in driving social change. Agents have the causal power to reflect on their social context and work to transform it. Similarly, Badiou emphasizes the role of the subject in recognizing and remaining faithful to the truth of an event. In both cases, human agency is seen as key to driving transformation, even if the forms this takes are quite different.

However, there are also significant differences. Archer is working within a realist ontology that emphasizes the causal powers of both structures and agents. Badiou, on the other hand, draws on a mathematical ontology of sets and multiplicities that is quite foreign to Archer’s approach. Badiou is also more focused on radical, revolutionary change, while Archer’s morphogenetic approach can account for more gradual, evolutionary transformations as well.

Additionally, Archer’s approach is more grounded in empirical social science, while Badiou’s is more purely philosophical and political. Archer aims to provide a framework for sociological analysis, while Badiou is more concerned with the philosophical foundations for radical politics.

Despite these differences, putting Archer and Badiou into dialogue could potentially yield some fruitful insights. Archer’s morphogenetic approach could provide a more concrete sociological grounding for understanding the conditions of possibility for Badiouian events. And Badiou’s emphasis on radical transformation and the role of the subject could push Archer’s approach in a more explicitly political direction.

These are just some initial thoughts on possible connections and contrasts between these two thinkers. Exploring the resonances and dissonances between their approaches in more depth could be a productive exercise in social and political theory.

, , , ,