Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:52:41 -0500
From: jlnich1-AT-service1.uky.edu (J.L. Nicholas)
Subject: Re: General Question


Ken writes:
>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

We don't have to know or understand that lang equals power.  All we have to
do is use it that way.  If our social practices are designed in such a way
that what we use lang for is power, then no understanding needs enter in.
I suppose I should have been more careful before.

Anyway, so what if understanding that lang = power implies that
understanding is possible.  IO ahve not anywhere said that understanding is
not possible.  Understanding may have arisen, and probably did so, as a
subsidiary function of lang after we progressed to a certain point.  This
does not mean that lang is essentially about understanding- which again
HAbermas must presuppose.  Rather, it means that lang developed a s a means
to survive in the world, and later we constructed a use for it- i.e.
reaching understanding.  All I need do is assert this, and Habermas use of
lang is defeated because for him. lang must be essentially about
understanding.

Jeffery