Critique and Praxis from Bernard E Harcourt is a work that I will likely come back to many more times. Thought-provoking in a way that far too few books are, namely, toward making us as individuals and us as a society better, and where those acts should come together.

At the heart of the book is Harcourt's assertion that the question we must ask ourselves is not a collective "What is to be done?" but rather a personal "What more am I to do?" In formulating this viewpoint he walks us through the history of critical philosophy with an eye toward the inherent conflicts that gradually (or maybe not so gradually) turned a philosophy intent on changing the world for the better into a philosophy intent on arguing about what would be the best ways to understand (and maybe) change the world.

I think most readers who will be interested in this book have an idea of what they perceive critical philosophy to be and how best to bring theory and practice together. Yet it is the very idea of theory and practice being separate and distinct that Harcourt debates, making a case for more of a "field effect" where they collide and there is no real separation between them, they are always affecting each other.

One of the reasons I will be revisiting this book many more times is that I have not fully wrapped my mind around the difference between doing theoretical work, then applying that to action I can take, then doing more theoretical work, then, well, on and on. Very similar to what Foucault advocated. I'm not sure of where my cycles and Harcourt's always already colliding field effect differ. Though I do think that one difference is that he does not, if applied as he puts forth, argue for what others should do, only what he must do. But isn't sharing what others maybe should do helpful? Isn't that similar to the idea of standing on the shoulders of others to reach higher?

Aside from confronting the reader about how to do critical philosophy, the history of the area is sufficient reason to make this required reading. His overview along with his commentary and questions gives the reader no choice but to actively engage with this history, not simply take it in passively.

The last section, and particularly the last chapter, Harcourt mentions he considered leaving out. I am so thankful he didn't. I found the last chapter as chilling and accurate a statement of many of the ills of today's society as any I've read. If this last chapter isn't enough to make readers do something, whether a close adoption of Harcourt's approach or any approach that includes immediate action, then I don't know what will.

I highly recommend this book to those familiar with critical philosophy. The more you've read of the foundational texts the easier this volume will be to read. That said, Harcourt does a very good job of summarizing early works and someone with a casual background will, I think, still get quite a lot from the ideas. It will also offer some pointers on what to read if you are just getting into the topic. While not a particularly difficult read it is dense and assumes that the reader has some knowledge of many other thinkers in the area. I am not an expert in this area and while I have read most of the works analyzed, my thinking is not that of a professional or academic, so that will give you some guide to understanding what I took away from the book as well as what I might have misunderstood. Thus many more readings for me.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. ( )