Capítulo I: Marco Teórico
2. Calidad
2.2 La calidad del servicio
2.2.5 La calidad del servicio odontológico
Although the focus of the previous section has been CT as first developed by the FS, it is important to stress that, even though the work of the FS will be used as a frame of reference, CT is not limited to them. As Kellner puts it, “a critical theory of society is always a project underway, it is always partial, historical, and subject to revision. Thus, one
task, for Ariel, and Alianza also translated and published two of his books (see appendix one; see also 5.3.1). Hence, there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that the role it plays in relation to Marcuse is comparable to that of Taurus in relation to Adorno, Horkheimer, and Benjamin.
is always moving toward a critical theory, open to new historical experiences, phenomena, and discourses” (2001b: 32). It is based on this understanding of CT that I argue that it is possible to conceive that, in response to the specific socio-political circumstances of twentieth-century Spain, a form of CT has been developed by some Spanish thinkers. Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to provide evidence to argue that Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre, although idiosyncratically, all develop their thought in ways consistent with CT. Further research may show that other Spanish thinkers may also be considered Critical Theorists.
I will argue throughout the thesis that, as a result of the approach of Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre towards content, style, and methodology they can be considered Critical Theorists. I do not, however, suggest that Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre develop a co-ordinated line of research or form a cohesive school of thought. In fact, their interests, the specific focus of their thought, their form, and style are diverse, as we shall see. Nevertheless, it can be said that Aranguren and, although differently, also Aguirre develop a neo-Marxist critique of neo-capitalist society and its effect on the individual, whereas Zambrano, considerably influenced by Heidegger, focuses on the problem of being and its relationship with others and the world. What the three of them have in common, however, is the elaboration of a critique of instrumental reason which, as we have seen, lies at the very core of CT as developed by the FS. What is more, this critique forms the basis from which Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre develop the rest of their thought.
It is, of course, not my intention to argue that Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre deliberately follow the patterns of thought described above in order to accommodate their work within the parameters of CT. Nonetheless, it remains true that a parallel development to that of the FS can be observed. After the unreason involved in any war, especially in a civil war, after the incongruities and the injustices of totalitarian ideology, a new form of reason had to be sought. As Díaz explains, “opposition culture during the dictatorship was importantly engaged in what one could term the reconstruction of ‘reason’ (i.e. rational discourse/thought)” (1995: 285). This is precisely one of the key characteristics of the decade of the 1960s in Spain. In this sense, the thought of Aranguren and Aguirre is a reaction against the ideology of the regime. More importantly, it is the rejection of the rationality exercised by the regime as well as an attempt to develop a questioning, yet coherent, reason. They are, of course, not alone in this quest. What is specific about them, in contrast with Díaz’s statement, is that they consider the reconstruction of reason a counter-productive exercise, for it was reason – instrumental reason – that allowed for such irrational development of events and ideology in the first place. Zambrano, although in exile, takes the same stand, defending the role of delirium in contrast with the abuses of reason (1996b: 169). Hence, what they advocate is a much more radical project, not the
reconstruction of instrumental reason, but its rejection in favour of a more humane and holistic alternative: experiential reason, a concept which will be developed in Chapter Four. Despite their lack of awareness or will to develop a co-ordinated or systematized intellectual production, they do, however, share the defining characteristics of CT: besides offering a poignant critique of modern society and the rationality on which it is founded, their theoretical work is shaped by an interactive critique which is expected to exercise an emancipating effect. In turn, this is hoped to spark a qualitative process of transformation of society, as we shall see in the course of this thesis.
Their work, however, does not constitute a mere replication or reiteration of CT as developed by the School. In contrast with the mostly pessimistic conclusions drawn by the FS, these Spanish thinkers offer a more hopeful vision23. Partly informed by their highly developed sense of spirituality, they place their hopes for emancipation in a cyclical process of multilevelled change which can only start with the individual. For this reason, it is important to emphasize that all three of them share an interest in spirituality which they incorporate into their critique, and which becomes their distinctive contribution.
Religion is an inescapable fact of life for most Spaniards who are born during the first half of the 20th century; the strongly Catholic upbringing (both within the family circle and at school), the ubiquitous presence of the Church and the way in which religion has been absorbed culturally all translate into demands of public displays of piety, if not faith. This interest in spirituality results in a tradition that has incorporated spirituality and religion in general, and faith specifically, into its discourse as a conflicting aspect which, although it cannot be resolved, has to be addressed. What is more, Sebastian Faber considers that spirituality, as opposed to materialism, is the key feature of Hispanism, which suggests that the role of religion in these authors’s thought is, in fact, part of a long established defining trend of Hispanism (2002: 167, 175, 178-80, 183). As previously discussed, the long period of crisis and decline in which Spain is submerged results in the longing for a reinvention of Spanishness which gives way to a series of public debates and efforts aimed at the modernization and Europeanization of Spain. At the same time, there is a sense of pride or nostalgia regarding Spanish heritage and traditions (see Balfour, 1995: 415; see also 1.2). To add to the turmoil, these co-existing tendencies, the deep-rooted religiosity, and the keenness for progress and modernity are often considered incompatible, or, at the very least, conflicting. As a result of this confrontation, many pages have been devoted to this issue, some of them offering a conciliation of rationality and spirituality.
23 The main reason why the thought of FS is often described as pessimistic is because they do not clearly identify who the agent to bring about social change and personal emancipation will be (see García de la Serrana, 2004: 205). Moreover, without such an agent, the possibility of bringing this emancipation to fruition comes into question and the possibilities which they sketch in their writings remain confined to the realm of utopia.
Aranguren, Zambrano, and Aguirre are no exception. Taking their cue from such influential Spanish thinkers as Unamuno and Ortega, they offer a resolution, individual and indeterminate, to the problem of the relationship between spirituality and rationality. They strive to overcome the concept and practice of established Catholicism by opting for faith rather than religion as part of a personal and social project of collective growth.