Date: 	Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:50:48 -0500
From: Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: General Question



> 
> >On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, J.L. Nicholas wrote:
> >
> >> Here's my point, and perhaps I need to read something more, but it seems
> >> that from an evolutionary perspective, lanbgauge need not have evolved as a
> >> means of understanidng, but as all things do, a means for survivial.  It
> >> does not follow that if I am using langauge to be controlling or strategic
> >> I must presume that langauage is aboiut understanding.  If we all have the
> >> same understanding of langauge, that is, that it is about strategy, then we
> >> all know we all are lying, anyway, and we just play a game with our lives
> >> trying to outmaneuver each other.  Even so, we don't all have to have the
> >> same understanding.  One great means of strategy is to convince most people
> >> that by using langauge I am trying to reach understanding.  This way, I can
> >> control with lanaguage and they won't realize it.  SO, I don't see that
> >> Habermas' argument works.  Rather, in pre-history we all used lnaguage to
> >> control.  Btu someone came along and revolutionized our values so that we
> >> are conjcerned aboutTruth and Justice.  What a power ploy!
> >
> >
> >I think you've missed his point.  It is because language is essentially
> >about coming to an understanding that allows for one to be strategic.
> >(Also understanding does  not necessarily lead to agreement.)  Language
> >is the medium that is used to convince people and therefore yes to have
> >control over them.  One of the main motivations for his work has been to
> >attempt to come to understand the phenomena of his country's past - Nazi
> >Germany.
> 
> 
> No, I din't miss his point, This is exactly to what I am responding, viz.,
> that languiage is essentially about coming to an understanding.  This is
> not the case, because I can still use language strategically- we all can-
> and not presuppose it is about understanding, but rather hold that
> languaage is just another tool in the power game.  We all know this and are
> just trying to move strategically as well as we can.  Whoever manipualtes
> lang. best comes out the winner.
> 
> Jeffery
> 
> 
a question - how does one come to understanding that language = power?  if this is 
true then it presupposes that understanding is possible - because we could all 
understand that language is strategic.  and if understanding doesn't lie beneath the 
 idea that language = power then we really don't know if language = power.  either 
way the idea is contradictory.

ken