Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:54:40 -0800
Subject: HAB: Fairness in language-centric understanding


Brian, you indicate today that interpretation of Habermas’ position on
communicative rationality has been persistently more idealistic than
Habermas intended, inasmuch as the ideal speaking situation (ISS) has
been used as the primary way to interpret Habermas’ position.

Too much idealism *is* an impractical thing, but I don’t know what or
who you have in mind. It’s indisputable that the ISS is constructive for
action, and it has been plausibly unclear what place the ISS has in
Habermas’ thinking after 1980 or so. Addressing this has been the
leitmotif of March, maybe.

Finding a sense of balance seems very important--and elusive, something
that “Remarks on Discourse Ethics” (J&A) seems to focus.

“Bryce gets close to the issue in his discussion of the gneral will, in
Rousseau,” in the sense, I guess, that focusing on the character and
conditions of solidarity is more important to Habermas’ project. “I
wonder if Bryce isn't a bit too hasty in his dientificationof the main
problem as identity,” you write hastily. The point, I guess, might be
that a focus on solidarity is not only occluded by too much idealism,
but also by ready generalization.

I thought Bryce was tacitly defending Habermas relative to Ken’s
projective misreading that associated from Castoriadis, which seemed to
Bryce to derive from the Identity-political strain of Rousseauian
*consciousness* that Habermas’ sense of language-based sense of
understanding counters (perhaps, to Bryce, too rationalistically, which
I would disagree with).

Bryce’s point related to the counter-Identical tendencies of Habermas’
thought, which you also want to emphasize, but in the posture of
countering Bryce. Though your points complement Bryce’s, you appear in
the rhetorical guise of a contrarian.

Why would complementarity appear as critical corrective? I’m curious
here about how reading takes place. A more differentiated sense of
Rousseau is constructively recommended today by way of differentiating
yourself from the Other’s alleged hastiness, excessive idealism, etc.,
when *actually* the Other was making an essentially complementary point.

Misrepresentation of the Other serves to constructively motivate a more
differentiated view of the Object (Rousseau). This is the kind of thing
Harold Bloom (the Yale literary theorist) pursued years ago as “poetic
misprision” or that Derrida pursues in _Of Grammatology_, in his own
reading of Rousseau.

An alternative approach to Bryce’s posting would be to see it for what
it is--in its own terms--and *still* make the important, additional
point you make, but in a stance of collaborativeness and advancement of
topic, which your posting really is anyway (at the expense of Bryce’s
intent).

Given your point that the republican foundation of Rousseau’s position
is nearer to Habermas’ intentions than tendencies toward Identity
politics (suggested by too much focus on ISS?), how does this relate to
Bryce’s point that a language-based approach to understanding (beyond
the philosophy of consciousness) is central to Habermas’ project?

Isn’t a notion of “popular sovereignty” and “radical democracy” just as
susceptible to Identity-politics of consciousness (subject-centered
reason) as is the romantic Rousseau that Bryce reads in Castoriadis?
This was a theme I suggested--passingly, to be sure--in my response to
Bryce and James last week (<HAB: On Intersubjectivity>), a point too
embedded in too many themes, I guess, to have been noticed (which is
really OK: simply, here’s the point again).

In any case, it's important to locate the roots of Identity politics, if
only because the implications of Identity politics have been so tragic.

Inasmuch as those roots are richer than what leads to one
branch--inasmuch as Rousseau not only expressed subject-centered reason,
but also, as you note, “can’t get the common orientation he desires
without reference to a ‘lawgiver,’” then Habermas’ rigorously
language-based approach to understanding, developed into a theory of
democratic jurisprudence (_Between Facts & Norms_), advances an aspect
of Rousseau that, perhaps, the Castoriadisians (?) have missed. But
inasmuch as Rousseau’s lawgiver “provides a kind of unity in advance,”
then Habermas’ ISS becomes all the more important as a corrective to
such Identity-political tendencies, a corrective which is premised on
openness to the *difference* that the other may contribute--the
decentrational importance of The Marginal.

But does Habermas do this at the expense of the Good? An upshot of my
extended exchange with Ken last fall was that Habermas does not promote
the notion of justice at the expense of the Good; rather, he *focuses*
on a theory of justice, but one based in an approach to ethical
understanding that insists upon a balanced sense of the lifeworld.

You want to emphasize Habermas’ focus on justice, but not at the expense
of the Good, I trust, as such an expense would suit misunderstanding of
Habermas just fine, for it bolsters a rationalist misreading of Habermas
(which suits Ken just fine).

You ask “doesn’t Habermas argue to some extent that we have form[s] of
solidarity based on justice and not on the common good that Rousseau
can’t conceptualize[?]” Yes, I think he does, given that we also have
complementary forms of solidarity based on the common good that *can* be
conceptualized to some extent, though not constructively in accord with
a philosophy of consciousness that can entail a politics of the mass or
exclusive Identity politics (militant ethnic -isms).

*     *     *     *

In a an earlier recent posting, you expressed frustration regarding “the
inability to find some common grounds for discussion. We don't have to
agree but we have to have some sort of common starting point. Without
that at times we tend to go around the same issues” (<HAB: Re: An Open
Letter>, 27 March).

I agree. This kind of point seems basic to an "ethics of discussion"
(the subject-line of some recent postings). I think that an attention to
an ethics of discussion is as common a ground as is possible in a
communicative context that, in principle, is open to all and to
everything belonging to its gathering Point, which, for us, is Habermas.
Integral to any ethics of discussion is fairness to the subject matter
and fairness to the subjectivity of others (which is nevertheless
culpable for being unfair to the subject matter, as I’ve often claimed
of Ken’s attitude toward Habermas’ work--without anger, I might
add--with much amusement toward the predicted tone of his “Open Letter”
last week).

But a given ethics of discussion--a given sense of fairness, in
short--only applies with respect to *substantive* common grounds; in our
case: an interest in Habermas. Thus, the value of a substantive common
ground is a good reason to shape discussion as much as possible with
respect to the topic of this list: Habermas, for this is the broadest
common ground among subscribers to this list.

Not only is it good to make claims about Habermas relative to specifics
of his works (news to some, sometimes) for argumentative reasons; this
also makes a sense of common ground easier for others.

Obviously (to me), though, one doesn't want scholasticism; one's own
perspectives give life to interpretation--and critique can't always be
strictly textual (immanent or deconstructive), so other perspectives are
vital! But it helps to pay close attention to the topic-at-hand (which I
think everyone here does!).

It's also good to keep in mind that understanding precedes critique. If
you don't understand what a writer is *intending* to do, your critique
is likely a "straw man" critique.

And there's *so* much more to learning from a writer than finding an
occasion for attack (contrary to the commonly implied ethic of some
activity here). People are unbelievably prone to "critique" as quickly
as imaginable, as if self-assertion (a hallmark of subject-centered
reason) is the primary intent (and the writer--Habermas, in this
case--is a foil for one's own grand stand). No doubt, I'm guilty of that
sometimes.

Another proposed tactic in the promotion of common ground: If one is
going in a new direction, in response to a posting, it can be helpful to
give the posting an appropriate subject line, with indication at the
beginning as to which posting you're responding to. The practice of
replying with the same subject line as belonged to an initial posting
several exchanges back can make reference to “your” posting later
impractical and can make appreciation of your current main focus or
intent less likely.

Another tactic: Avoid large blocks of quotation that are unrelated to
the specific point you wish to make; take the time to indicate the
specific point of the previous posting you’re responding to. Lazy
quotation practices contribute to bloated mailboxes.

Next: When “you” go off in your own direction, be compassionate toward
the situation of your reader (Advice *I* need to keep in mind!). It's
good to rein in unexplicated free association, as far as assertoric
language goes. If your point is worth a reader's time, it's worth a
little explication of special senses of terms, exact context of previous
posting that the free association associates to, and what (if anything)
you want back from a reader (other than basking in your own opinion).

I've written to Spoon that they should archive postings with the date in
the gopher-link line, so that persons can refer to previous postings
easily (since so many have the almost-same subject line, in a given
month's folder), otherwise making reference to past good postings
difficult without quoting large chunks of month-old or earlier postings,
in order to restore a sense of context--not that people *do* that,
because (I suppose) people aren't disposed toward cumulative
discussions.

But, the main value of easy reference to past postings is not primarily
to save volume in one’s mailboxes. To me, it’s the possibility of
avoiding repetition of the same kinds of points in the inevitably
recurring topics of a listserv. With a reference convention, it is
possible to avoid redundancy (for those who recall previous postings or
can find them) when new subscribers come into the commons; and easy
archive referencing also makes much more possible a consideration of
one's own efforts as part of a cumulative archive, not just
one-in-a-batch of  postings that might as well be largely impulsive.

If you are online through a second- or third-generation browser, it’s
possible to take advantage of public conferencing software that allows
hotlinking to other postings (and, in a couple of venues I’ve worked
with, hotlinking to specific places in other postings).

A lot of evolution is possible. But why should Spoon bother to upgrade?
*This* list may be increasingly a good reason.

Gary



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