From: N.R.Romm-AT-msd.hull.ac.uk (Norma Romm)
Subject: Re: HAB: Habermas and Social Action
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 14:20:22 +0000


>> In response to the statement (forgotten whose) that  there is little
>>difference between continously deferring to the authority of a consensus,
>>and setting up a life style of reciprocity and respect, I would like to
>>suggest that we can still seek to preserve a difference between the two,
>>in some sense. This would allow us to preserve the tension between
>>Habermas's statements that we need to be oriented  towards reaching
>>consensus, and the postmodern concern that such an orientation might
>>diminish our appreciation of "discourse" that ensues without this
>>orientation. The  parties to a conversation might not have all to be
>>attributing the same meaning to the purpose of the discourse, for it to
>>qualify as genuine discourse. Of course, Habermas does not equate
>>consensus with unitary thinking, but he does set some ideas for what
>>genuine discourse (oriented to consensus) involves. Perhaps the
>>postmodern insistence that reciprocity can be a symbol that is used to
>>orient us to "the other" (without necessarily believing that this
>>orientation should involve us trying to reach consensus) should be
>>treated seriously. We might not even have to agree what the orientation
>>to reciprocity  implies. But we still can engage in "good"  conversation
>>by each of us imparting some meaning to the term (and practice) of
>>reciprocity. So I can see some point in taking seriously the postmodern
>>critique of the idea of "orientation to consensus". This in any case
>>allows us to set up conversations where we consider, as part of the
>>conversation, whether we need to orient to some (hoped for) consensus. Do
>>we need any clear-cut tacit consensus to engage in such a conversation?
>>Perhaps not. Perhaps we do just need to have a sense that somehow we are
>>engaged in a relationship of reciprocity - and the meaning of this is
>>continuously to be worked through ( by the conversers).
>>
If we treat the symbol "anarchy" as simply being a term that alerts us to
the danger of deferring to seemingly obvious principles and trying to
persuade others to accept these (as part of our orientation to reaching
consensus), then perhaps the term is a good one to have in our vocabulary.
Seen in this light, "anarchy" might evoke something important for different
ways of defining "reciprocity".

Norma Romm
>>
>>




     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---