Date: 	Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:40:52 -0500
From: Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: General Question




> > 
> > I think you really miss answering my question here.  You write that
> > "Language is a medium for understandning - understanding is an action
> > coordinating event."  But my whole question is just about this basic,
> > fundamental proposition: how do I know that language is a medium for
> > understanding rather than a medium for control.  What I think is the
> > penultimate criticism of the theory of communicative action is that
> > Habermas needs langauge to be essentially about understanding, and there is
> > no reason evolutionarily or otherwise why one should argue that it is
> > ESSENTIALLY about understanding.  It could be about understanding, but it
> > could as much be about decpetion.  The whole discussion you have at the
> > begginning of your reply here does not face that criticism.
> > 
> > Jeffery
> 
> Greetings from Finland to everyone,

greetings.

> Jeffery brings very important point: "how do I konow that language is
> medium for understandimg rather than a medium for control". Habermas
> believes that we know because understanding is the inheret telos of the
> speech. But there is no ground for that belief. The opposite could be
> true as well. Control and domination could be both the telos and the
> genesis of communication. We have no way from fact ("understanding is
> inherent telos of communication") to norm ("communicative action is
> right"). What we have is practical knowledge (Kant's practical reason or
> Vico's common sensus) what might tells us that is right in interaction
> to orientate to understanding rather than success. Our practical
> knowledge is shape by history and community. But still in the end is our
> own choice either we act according to communicative or strategical
> maxims.
> 
> 
> Rauno Huttunen

I think this is a position derrida more or less takes - language simply expresses 
difference - signs pointing all over the place.  To interpret language as 
communicative makes little sense given its actual difference.  The funny thing is - 
Habermas in his own way acknowledges this: "The presupposition that linguistic 
expressions are used with identical meanings can often turn out to be false from an 
observer's perspective, and perhaps this is always the case under the 
ethnomethodologist's microscope.  But even as counterfactual, this presupposition 
remains necessary for every communicative use of language." (BFN, 19).  derrida 
is that microcopse. the idea of communicative reason is a hypothesis - but as 
bryce weber noted - a powerful argument does not guarantee reality.  if you refute 
the idea that language coordinates understanding then it must be demonstrated - 
that actual understanding does not exist - which, if demonstrated, would indicate 
that understanding does exist.  see the problem?  only a consistent nihilist 
perspective can refute what habermas is talking about.  eg.  if you stick a gun in my 
face and ask for my wallet - i may not understanding EVERYTHING but i do 
understand that i'm going to get shot if i don't produce some $$$.  Even in this 
strategic context - understanding, via experience, is made possible.  This event 
occurs in language as well - it is the "essence" of language if the term hasn't fallen 
into total disrepair.
ken "trying to understand" mackendrick