Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 11:13:55 +0800
From: rgeeland-AT-cc.curtin.edu.au (David Geelan)
Subject: HAB: Comments on Dr Schomberg's Response


Dr Rene von Schomberg wrote:

>I appreciate Dr. David Geelan's response to my paper and I
>would like to respond to one of his objections to my "solution"
>offered in my paper.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments: the following 
discussion makes me much more comfortable with your suggested solution.

>Habermas would also say that one should not "institutionalise" types
>of discourses held in the public domain, because their very vivid, and
>power-transcending nature has come about precisely because they
>are not "organised" and formally constrained. In a certain sense,
>any kind of bureaucratic arrangement would involve some distortion or
>oppression of discourses of free citizens.

>However, I think one has to distinguish between some kind of
>bureacratic organisation of discourses or even setting discourses in
>scene (what happens occasionally in the mass media) or reflecting on
>the conditions and constraints of actual public discourse and
>their "constrained" impact on decision making. If one could critizise
>these constraints, which can actually be part of public debate itself,
>the boundaries of public debate may be trangressed into the fields of
>institutionalized policy debate and making these debates more
>receptive for critical voices and participation of citizens. Trying
>to redefine these boundaries and reflecting on the conditions under
>which such discourses could take place and or be initiated is a job
>for a critical theorists. Their "institutionalization" would then be part 
of our >evolution of society; in other words trying to
>make things better. "New institutions" would then of course also be
>subjected to criticism in the public domain and therefore subject of
>continuing change.

Yes, the openness of such institutions to critique and change is crucial, 
and if they are truly open then they have the potential to fulfil the 
function envisaged by Dr Schomberg. My concern was, and remains, that the 
hegemony of instrumental reason is an implicit feature of ALL institutions, 
and would tend to re-assert itself despite our best efforts. But vigilance 
and dialectical reason may be sufficient armour against this influence: 
perhaps it is necessary to 'try it and see'?

Once again, I am indebted to Dr Schomberg for stimulating my thinking in 
ways which have proved fruitful for me.

David



David R Geelan, Science & Maths Ed Centre,Curtin Uni of Technology
GPO U1987, Perth 6001, ph +619 351 3594, fax +619 351 2503.
"You chose your life, as do we all, in a million tiny valuings." - David Geelan
"the boundaries of reality are in fact movable" - Jurgen Habermas