Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:23:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: HAB: comm. action, Honneth, jargon


On the thread re communicative action, I think Habermas means for it to be
part of a general theory of human action as such.  So people in Togo (or
even Australia, I guess), insofar as they act cooperatively through the
use of language, and despite all the very real cultural variations, are
committed to the same idealizations--and it's the basic task of discourse
theory to figure out what these are.  This makes intercultural
communication possible (without prejudging the question of reaching
agreement), and it provides the basis for a procedure for testing validity
claims whose meaning includes a demand for universal recognition.  (Uh-oh,
I'm getting pedantic again.)  So I think communicative action is cast at a
more basic and universal level and is not limited to citizens within a
single polity or even form of life.

Thanks for the Honneth cite and for where to find Steve's comments--this
is exactly the sort of thing I for one would love to see more of on this
list: sort of a show and tell, where we can inform each other of new stuff
that many of us might be interested in.  This is one of a lot of things we
can do with the list.  I mean, people should just post whetever they think
is relevant, and if others respond, great.  Attempts to organize a
discussion of BFN always broke down, and I think the only way something
like that can happen is if it just does spontaneously, in a completely
unorganized way, with people posting when and on whatever they want.  If
the subject-lines of the posts are descriptive, those uninterested in a
post can simply skip it--as I hope people have if not into my recent long
posts. 

On a related point: I think the list is properly anarchic in the sense in
which Habermas describes the networks of communication in the (wide)
public sphere.  To me that means that hopefully everyone will feel free to
contribute in just about whatever form (subject to self-imposed norms of
politeness, except maybe where rudeness is called for--whatever) and at
any level of sophistication and/or familiarity with Habermas's works.  As
one of the biggest recent users of Habermasian jargon, I have a couple of
responses (which aren't entirely consistent).  There are a lot of
technical terms in Habermas's writings, and they save time and promote
clarity and permit analysis, etc.  And those of us who have been immersed
in his stuff for a long time sometimes don't even notice when we use the
jargon (we each tend to notice other people's jargon, wile the terms we're
familiar with are taken to be generally accessible).  Excessive use of
jargon can be exclusionary and downright undiscursive, so we should try to
watch it, but at the same time it's to a great degree unavoidable and even
defensible to use and debate the terms in the texts we're discussing.
After all, the opposite extreme from domination of discussion by an
intimidatingly high-level in-group is (equally stereotyped) view that
hard-earned familiarity with Habermas's writings is completely
unnecessary.  I sense and would like to further encourage a real diversity
of viewpoints and levels of familiarity here, and I hope specialists and
neophytes alike are comfortable participating, knowing that some rather
robust argumentation (always in a cooperative spirit of learning, of
course!) goes on here.

Vic Peterson



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