Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 12:53:10 -0600 (CST)
From: KERRY <MACDONAK-AT-Meena.CC.URegina.CA>
Subject: Re: HAB: norms


Dear Philip;

:	Lenny Moss says, "Habermas seeks to draw upon the norms which
:are implicit in discourse itself.  That doesn't place any contraints upon
:the substantive content of discourse so long as it remains 
:discourse." I was arguing that Marxist discourse lacks the norms which, 
:according to Habermas, would enable Marxist to resist Stalinism. Clearly 
:Marxist discourse remains a discourse. What's more, I believe that 
:Habermas faults postmodern discourse for failing to preserve the norms 
:which foster a critical self-consciousness. In other words, the norms 
:which Habermas attributes to discourse are not necessarily features of 
:discourse but stem, I believe, from Kantian theory. That's why I claimed 
:that these norms are absolute. Do I go too far?

IMO, Habermas sees that it is the type of rationality that undelies the
discourse of Marxims which enables Stalinism to arise.  Marxism collapses both
abnormal and normal discourse together which allows for any abnormal
development.

As for the posties, he sees that they are "'young conservatives' insofar as
they have abandoned any hopes of conscious social change.  Indeed the word
'emancipation' seems to have been stricken from their vocabulary."  (H, 1990,
xxv).  They allow for the frustration felt by the alienating results of the
colonization of the life-world a release in a depoliticized manner.

The norms of discours arise  out of the intersubjective space that exists as a
result of discourse.  Granted the Kantian trifucation of reasons informs
Habermas, espcially Kant's view of reason and it's promise, however, the norms
need to exist in order that communication can occur.