Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 00:33:00 EDT
Subject: Re: HAB: (U) and (D)


In a message dated 3/17/99 4:16:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bridges-AT-civsoc.com writes:

> Must we not conclude, as Vic does, that the legitimating
>  force of (D) depends on the competencies, attitudes and communicative
>  virtues of those who have been shaped by this very particularistic
>  form of culture? Must we not conclude that (D) already privileges
>  those competencies, attitudes and virtues?

The critique of our norms, particularly the illegitimate ones, would require 
a certain competency.  I do not think that any particular attitude is 
'required.'  As for communicative virtue, isn't the theory of communicative 
action presupposing that communicators will be evaluated in everyday or 
formal contexts of communication upon the validity aspects of their 
arguments.  Go ahead and call it virtue, if you wish.
The necessary competency is not by any means a function of our culture, that 
is, we should absolutely not presume that the communicative competency we are 
discussing is somehow a function of high-brow manners nor a cultural capital 
that masks socio-economic status.  The point of (D) is over the form of the 
argument and not over the cultural background of the speakers!

Fred Welfare


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