Subject: Re: HAB: Communicative Communism
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:16:31 -0800


Hi all:

Ther sems to be a peristnet misreading of Habermas that recurrs in
discussion. I beleive that we should not use the ideal sppech situation as
the primary way to interpret Hbermas' postion on coimmunicaitve
rationaloity. It persnets a more idenalistic vew than habermas intends.

Bryce gets close to the issue in his discussion of the gneral will, in
Rousseau. This woul dbe an intersting topic for discusion in light of
postmodern discsuions which reject a unified will. I wonder if Bryce isn't
a bit too hasty in his dientificationof the main problem as identity. I
think that for Habermas its more the republican foundation of Rousseau's
postion than idnetity prorper. It s the question of popular soveignty and
the grounds of radical democracy. Rousseau can't get the common orientation
he deisres without refernce to a "lawgiver' who provides a kind of unity in
advance. Other types of republicanism find unity in the orintation to a
common good.

Doesn't habermas argue to some extenet that we have form of solidarity
based on justice and not on the common good that ROuseau can't
conceptualize. One based on procedural orinetiaons. (i.e we share in the
prusit of justice) The procuderual notion is wider (and more univerisal)
than the oreinteation provided by a common good.








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