Subject: HAB: Re: Re: Citizens and Communication
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:55:32 -0400


Hi all:

I'm not sure Tim's remark gets to the heart of the issue. It seems to
confuse the social and the political and in another sense the public and the
private. Whatever else it is the realm of the citizens seems to be that of
public discussion about matters of concern to the entire populace. Society
on the other hand could encompass "private" concerns. so it seems to me that
'society' encompasses broader concerns. Habermas argues if I understand him
correctly in the essays in Inclusion of the Other that political and social
freedom and  public and private freedom are co-constitutive.

However, in response to Harry's point the claim that Habermas conception of
deliberation is primarily or exclusive political has found it way into the
scholarly debate. No less than Axel Honneth has made this claim in a recent
article in Political Theory which is primarily devoted to Dewey as an
alternative to Habermas' excessively "political" conception of discourse.
(Democracy as Reflexive Cooperation: John Dewey and the Theory of Democracy
Today) in Political Theory vol. 26 no 6 December 1988) I think Honneth's
thesis is not well founded partly for reasons I allude above, and partly in
agreement with Harry's notion that communicative freedom has to apply to all
aspects of social life. However, if anyone wants to look at the Honneth
article and discuss it perhaps it might prove interesting. perhaps some of
you will see aspects I missed.

Brian Caterino


----- Original Message -----
From: tim dunlop <tinota-AT-ozemail.com.au>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 3:22 AM
Subject: HAB: Re: Citizens and Communication


Sender: owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu (lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[128.143.200.198])
by hpamgaab.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.3) with ESMTP id DAA15699;
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from domo-AT-localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6)
id DAA197834 for habermas-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:08:04 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to
owner-habermas-AT-localhost using -f
Received: from fep9.mail.ozemail.net (fep9.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.103])
by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA220357 for
<habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:07:55 -0400
Received: from default (slcan51p10.ozemail.com.au [203.108.176.74]) by
fep9.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA00457 for
<habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:06:46 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <013901be8c19$c39d75a0$a2a86ccb-AT-default>
From: "tim dunlop" <tinota-AT-ozemail.com.au>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: HAB: Re: Citizens and Communication
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:09:02 -0000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Harry answers his own question about Rob's distinction between 'humans' and
'citizens'.  He says: "Communicative action is  ultimately oriented toward
'social' decision making. It is the means through which members of a society
come to organize their society by 'rational' means for rational ends."

"members of a society" sounds to me like a pretty good definition of
'citizens'.

So Robs question seems quite reasonable: "Does Habermas confine
'communicative action' to the scope of 'citizens' (eg rather than 'humans')
as a way of trying to approximate 'those who might reasonably be expected to
share communicative competence in the context of any particular
communicative episode'?"

So does he?  I'd like to hear some views on this too.

Incidentally, does it ever worry anyone - even given the specialist nature
of a list like this - that discussion that is essentially about theories of
effective communication would be 100 percent incomprehensible to anyone
without a couple of years specialist study under their belts?  Does this
strike anybody as odd?  Or can these ideas only be expressed within the
jargons they create?

Cheers, Tim.


>I'd like to reply to Rob. I just joined the list so I don't know what Vic
said, but regarding Rob's remark. I ask, what does he mean by 'humans' as
opposed to 'citizens'? Communicative action is  ultimately oriented toward
'social' decision making. It is the means through which members of a society
come to organize their society by 'rational' means for rational ends.
Rational here means something that permits freedom without violence. Or
freedom not bought at the expense of suffering. Perhaps one could learn from
Habermas's thesis on communicative competence, and practice it in personal
human relationships. But Habermas is a political and social philosopher, not
a marriage consultant.
>
>Regards, Harry
>
>__
>http://www.go.com
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________ ____
>Get your Free GO Network Email address at http://mail.go.com
>
>
>
>     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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








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