From: N.R.Romm-AT-msd.hull.ac.uk (Norma Romm)
Subject: Re: HAB: Re: Habermas and Social Action
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:07:15 +0000


Regarding the "encounter" between Rob and Ken, I would like to ask Rob if
he thinks that procedures for argumentation can still be sufficiently fluid
that the discoursers can work these out as they go along.  Maybe even - as
some postmodernists suggest the very idea of argumentation has to be
revisited - so that we  can think up different ways of engaging in
conversation. The conversation can be less argumentative and simply aimed
at allowing people to develop fresh insights. In such a process (of
developing insight), it does not really help to call other people names,
unless the name calling is an invitation for the people involved to cast
fresh light on the meaning of the name(s) being invoked. Then this allows
people to move beyond the stereotypes.

Can you not be a humanist without being a universalist? Here again, the
meaning of the terms can be regarded as symbols that invite further
discussion.

I think perhaps it is too stereotypical to say that postmodernists are
oriented (only) to the will to power. I think many of them recognise that
communication can be threatened by power play  and that it would be better
to set up different kinds of communication (that are less prone to exclude
the styles of certain players). Their view of communication as conversation
might differ from Habermas's view. I think it does no harm to try and
engage seriously with their alternative view of "communication".

Norma Romm




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