Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:09:15 -0600
From: Scott Johnson <sjohn-AT-cp.duluth.mn.us>
Subject: Re: General Question


J. Nichols wrote:

> e don't have to know or understand that lang equals power.  All we have to
> do is use it that way.  

If we don't know or understand that language equals power, how can it be
an issue for us now?

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.

And how does a social practice come into existence without understanding
and language?

> 
> 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
> 

First of all, Habermas does considerably more than "presuppose" that
"language is about understanding". That aside, when you assert that
language primarily a tool of power, do you have some alternative
means--aside from language--to get me to understand what you mean to
communicate? I wouln't argue that language didn't develope as a means to
survive in the world, but I would argue that it was a means for
humans--social creatures who understand each other--to work in concert
in order to survive TOGETHER.

Scott