Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 13:23:37 +0800
From: rgeeland-AT-cc.curtin.edu.au (David Geelan)
Subject: HAB: Communicative Action and Strategic Action


Two questions:

1. I raised this earlier, but perhaps it disappeared in the other stuff in
that posting.

Would it be incorrect, in your opinion, to identify oneself as operating
>from a 'Habermasian perspective' if one is primarily using the
technical/practical/emancipatory scheme described in 'Knowledge and Human
Interests'? To put it another way, do you see the work on 'communicative
action' and 'system and lifeworld' as a logical evolution growing out of
Hab's earlier work, or is there some kind of philosophic discontinuity
between these projects?

2. Habermas makes a distinction between 'communicative action' and
'strategic action'. Is there a value stance implied in this (communicative
= good, strategic = bad)? Or are BOTH forms of action seen as necessary?


Answers to both of these questions, either to the whole group of to
mepersonally, would be a great help to me in developing my understanding of
Hab's later work.

Thanx,

David Geelan

PS I'm very pleased that the Habermas list has survived!