Tran Van Doan on “Relations”
Chin Ken Pa
Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan
To be a philosopher, the primary task is to lay open the question and elaborate on the subject of enquiry. When contemporary continental philosopher turned to concern on the issue of “language/Linguistic”, regardless of taking it as instrument of “Communication” (Habermas), or “Language as Being” (Gadamer), Tran Van Doan, though did not dismiss it, did not think that the question/inquiry should not be a concern of the metaphysic. Thus, in his sociological studies, Tran discovered, that “relation” or “GuangXi” is more fundamental than that of “communication” or “Being”, or even that language necessarily considered itself within that of “relation” to make itself understood, even that of Habamas’s communicative theory will unavoidably situate itself within the existence of “relation”.
Habamas and Gadamar both have “Hermeneutics” as their point of departure, arguing all knowledge and actions, has its basis and rational (prejudices and interests) deliberated. But under the influence from Peter Winch’s The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, Tran approaches from the concept of sociology, dissociating from the existential hermeneutics (Habamas’s Knowledge and Human Interest did not overcome the limits of hermeneutics), rather takes “relation” as the object of analysis for philosophy and social science. This turn itself, is clearly related to Peter Winch’s sociological studies and reflection.
According to Habamas, on the fact that our actions are deeply related to our knowledge and interest. But it is not sufficient just to consider “interests”, the existence of “relation” is be taken into consideration. In other words, in Winch’s statement, “social relations are expressions of ideas about reality” (Peter Winch, 1958:23), interest and relation existed at the same time. There exist between them certain dialectical interaction. To put it generally, it is not certain dimensions of interest nor knowledge, but it is “relation” that is at play that caused the dynamics in our interest and interest changes as relation changed.
In such way, Tran takes it further than Habamas’s view and pointed out that there is a purpose in all actions, including praxis and emancipatory interest also considered the purpose of action-relation, therefore it is not only technical interest that can be considered a purpose action. There is also that interest is not a priori, rather the opposite, it evolves from interactive relations that reflects the outcome, and points toward the common purpose that resulted from the relation. Relation affects judgment of our action, and action implies the existence of certain relation, it is through these relational actions that interests are satisfied. It is under relation that makes possible knowledge and human nature, human lives in “homo relation”.
According to Winch’s analysis of social science, socio-action and motive all are related to reality, natural science has it wrong in their scope, mistakenly views empiricism as the method for social science.
It is naturally a mistake to engage method of natural science on social science studies, but Tran disagreed with Winch on separating natural science and social science completely. Broadly speaking, social science engages all human activities as object of studies, natural science should not detached itself from empirical social relation, Winch makes the very same mistake as Wilhelm Dilthey, materialized social science concept, turning it as some sort of Kantian a priori. On that, there lays the difference between Tran’s and Winch’s understanding of social science. Since no matter new or old concepts arisen out of our social experience, and that these experience changes as social environment changes, therefore there should not be a single universal unchanging static social principle to be grasped. Our social understanding changes due to certain changing elements, take philosophy for instance, that is to reflect on differences in logic and judging on the relation between that logic and the solution to resolve the conflict.
Based on the analysis on Peter Winch’s concept of social science, Tran Van Doan conceded that social science must reflect through philosophy in order to find its appropriate arena and scope, and that it has to be the experiential scope, being different from natural science that condition itself on the necessity of its general principle, though it has to be helpful on our scientific understanding of the society, having its scope of understanding being on “relation”.
Structuralism considered the natural existence of structure, not due to external elements (i.e., interest) that caused it’s changes. But in actual situation, it is not so. It is in our experience that it was discovered that it is not that there exist first the structure before there comes the interest, rather it is due to some interest that structure arises. But based on the scope of relation, structure and interest mutually interact with each other, at least structure is not external, objective, neither would interest is internal, subjective, the key to such rested at the very beginning that through relation, we can perceive the dialectical relation between structure and interest, except that the logic in-between is complicated, multi-facets, because the society that we exist consists of relation, and relation gave to complication, thus social structure and interest become more complicated.
Tran Van Doan take Robinson Crusoe as example. Under non-societal situation, Robinson relates to his body (basic bodily satisfaction and security), which follow that he needs to face the environment (utilizing natural resources and avoiding natural disasters), considering when someone comes into the scene then it is there is the need for communication (culture and language). Subject and self, nature, others, all into a kind of relation, concerning their knowledge, also discovered within the relations, and also noticed that they intertwine with each other, thus they are not unconcern with each other, neither individual, singularity, even under different condition, the subject and the self, nature and others do not stay static. Similarly, a city Robinson and a deserted island Robinson will have very different response and attitude concerning their own self, nature and others, within them it involves a broader scope of relational network. (ref. “Critical Theory and Education”).
Human activities is to fulfill human basic necessity, but activities given rise to further needs, and in order to resolve the requirement, different relationship will be developed, so that needs are being satisfied through these relations. Tran considered that in society, through various forms of social dynamics and interactivities, exchanged their activities and the effects and results of their objectivity, specific activity of individual also consist of commonness via relations. Therefore, in various social relations, human’s interactivity situate at a fix and definite point, will produce a practical need and the consciousness of need, economic interest and pursue, political attitude and ideal, will form practical ability and psychological condition, such as praxis, knowledge, aesthetic, self-discipline abilities, livelihood, value, moral, religious worldview, as well as mode of contemplation, emotion and will, etc.
According to Tran, relations changes as object changed, takes on different forms as purpose changes, due to different human activities it takes on different structure, but to be cautious: “relation” is not “structure”. Only when certain relation being established that it becomes certain structure, the unique structure kept as a constant condition, consists of certain harmonious relation, and will develop, its condition is reasonable and progressive. But structure cannot be forever stable, it may even become mandatory, harmony does not necessarily be the purpose and goal of the structure, human society does not take common-ness and necessity as its law. Relation does changes and transform, but unlike structure which takes on a series or sequence of transformation, relation may be partially changes. Relation is a kind of happening, while structuralism assumes certain fixation or definiteness, that structure is independent and outside of the subjective self, lack of consideration on the interactivity between the subject and object.
Tran Van Doan thinks David Hume perhaps was the first philosopher to notice “the relation between two events”, unfortunately, he only briefly considered that to be pure human psychological behaviour to explain what he has noticed as “relation” between two events, utilizing the cause and effect of psychology to explain human behaviour.
As the scope of “relation” in social science, our focus is on the “why” of its formation, under what sort of relation would it turn to its transformation; thus, the analysis of “relation” is the studies of human in society and its relation to happenings as genetic inquiry. Relative to natural science, that looks for the necessitate of general principles and taken that to be knowledge, social science on the other hand, considered the logic of its relation, discovering their commonality. Due to the continuous differing of relation in society, relation does not always legitimate, and because of its ever changing potential, the study of relation needs to consider not just its formation and transformation, it also requires to study under what sort of circumstances it si legitimate or otherwise; in other words, the scope of relation should be closely related and combined with the interest of critical theory.
In view of that, Tran Van Doan’s critique falls into the Husserl’s criticism of the a priori of the subject. Tran thinks that the analysis of phenomenology should be the action of the subject, and not the isolated subject, it is through the action of the subject that its being recognized, and therefore, not all action reveals the subject, more importantly is the process of the action, already point towards the society or others. Knowing the subject, irrespective to their motive or interest, we can only produce meanings through their actions. (ref. “An Exploration of the Social Noesis,”)
Any action is a relational activity, we can only understand human development in the relations between human and nature, human and others, as well as their togetherness and communication. Our understanding of human implies our understanding of their relation with certain object, the so called human relation points to their activity, so it is through their relations that we judge their reasonableness or unreasonable, regular or irregular condition. (ref. “Critical Theory and Education”) We can be certain of one point, the scope of relation can help us discover new issue, so that we can distinguish from different logic, and discover the internal logic of its dynamic structure, this then only meets the scientific concept.
Tran thinks that because relational scope gain command of the operational logic of things and society through the dynamic process, it thus provide for us a reflection, informing us why society unlike in natural science studies, can perceive mistake and able to avoid mistake, or we may not want to change the wrongs. Thus, relation is not just a descriptive but also a criticism.
In the study of human nature, scope of relation inform that it is not regulated according to the mode of metaphysic, but it is through scope of “relation”, analyze its mediation effect, only then the raises the possibility of various relations and what is reasonable or regular condition, follow with an elaborating on human nature. Therefore, it also reflects on the relation concerning the analysis of alienation and materialization, and not as the result of the violation of certain a priori or metaphysical principles. In sum, the concept of “reality is not on its nature or essence, it is what we can experience, good or bad, right or wrong, it is only in relation that it can be examined, at least it is in different relations that different realties being produced, this is the key critical materialized theory of Tran.
Human deals with various relation in their activities. The expansion of human activity and relation, regulates the realities of existence condition, its nature and natural ability as well as their development. Even living on an deserted island like that of Robinson, it will also relates to certain matters, for survival (relating to ownself), Robinson must face his relation with his outside world, dependent on its relation with certain object. There is no pure activity, all activity exist in relational process, and activity can only be understood in relation.
Tran points out that critical theory requires us to re-examine all our normative contents and things we take for granted, all understanding falls within relations, including all normal relations or inevitable event. Since all relations is never in static, ever changing, or neither it is just the effect of subjective consciousness, critical theory enforces a cautious re-examination of the objective world that exerted influence on relation, giving attention to the mediation, or the relation between subject and world, rather than subject and object, avoiding committing mistakes of empiricism or conceptual mistake.
In sum, what is most critical for Tran is that critical theory alarming us on the danger of any ideology, its danger lies precisely in their distortive effects on relations or disharmony, ideological criticism begins with the examination of relation, uncovering the distortion or mistakes in promoting certain preferred ideology. Critical theory stands out by its emphasis on human relation as foundational for human activity, as well as effects of all possibilities. Based on this, it does not cease at the negative criticism, but also reconstruct specification in human morality and legality, searching for a kind of appropriate and reasonable new relationship, so as to fulfill the basic necessity of human existence. (ref. “Critical Theory and Education”)
It is clear then based on Tran’s relation scope in understanding Habermas’ view. The so-called “crisis of legitimation” is in fact the crisis of relation, improper relation indeed. “Distorted” relation, infers the unreasonable and illegitimate communication in relation. “Criticism” is questioning the formation of relation, and how would relation be considering reasonable. Instrumental rational, that is certain way/mode of dealing with the subject matter, it displays within it certain “relation”, unfortunately, this sort of relation is a kind of restrained/constrained relation.
Apart from human activity, human relations cannot be understood, not even understanding human itself, even more so we cannot compare “why is it this way and not that,” or “why is this better than the other” etc. In sum, in human interactivity, the mutual happenings that connects and relates in its totality that constituted the system of relation, social science takes relation as its point of departure, from relation to activity onto development. Thus, Tran’s materialistic theory also position within “relation-activity-development” to raise his social critical theory.
Reference:
Peter Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, London: Routledge, 1958.
Tran Van Doan, The Poverty of Ideological Education, Washington D. C.: The Council for Research in Values Philosophy Press, 1993.
__________, Reason, Rationality and Reasonableness, New York: Lanham, 1989.
__________, “An Exploration of the Social Noesis,” in Analecta Husserliana, 1994.
__________, 〈理性與方法〉，《國立臺灣大學哲學論評》第十三期（1990）
__________, 〈批判理論與教育〉，《國立臺灣大學哲學論評》第十六期（1993）
__________, 〈社會能思之探究〉，《哲學雜誌》第六期（1993）
