File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2000/habermas.0002, message 6


Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Vedr: Re: HAB: Coercion in Drug Treatment


Jan:

Good questions, and important ones. It seems to me
that you've got a good sense of the theoretical
dilemma-condition of the conscientious social worker.

Establishing good communication in the first place is
not a matter of attempting to reach discourse (which
is metacommunicative or reflective). Rather, one does
what commonsense calls for in empathic interaction:
good listening, sensitivity to the stance of the
other, genuineness in one's own expression, timeliness
of focus, and care in making oneself understood. And
teaching this, inasmuch as time and the other's
openness allows. The extent to which mutual
understanding can become sufficient for what needs to
be accomplished is, of course, the ongoing question,
which only the scenes of interaction and the
relationship can assess (mutually, one hopes).

Discourse pertains mostly to professional interchanges
(case consults and conferencing)--and academic
projects *about* good communicative practice.

Good luck with yours!

Gary Davis

--- jan.jaap.rothuizen-AT-jydskpaedsem.dk wrote:
> 
> 
> Gary D wrote:
> <Rehabilitation is based in
> habilitation: (re)making a good lifeworld that
> prevents regression, and of course a good lifeworld
> is
> communicatively good.>
> 
> Its interesting to take a look at Habermas theory
> for "treatment" or better,
> for
> how to re-establish the communicative action thats
> constitutive for social
> integration.
> The original question was about the relevance of
> analyzing the treatment as
> (partly) a symptom of colonisation. You can make
> that analysis.
> The next question is about if it is true, even when
> you work with (treat) people
> who are not able / willing to honour the
> validity-claims, people with whom you
> can't start a discourse, that one can work on
> establishing communicative
> coordination of action  -.instead of coercion. Is it
> possible to reach a level
> of mutual understanding that can bear the conflicts
> that are necessary for
> getting through a developmental proces?  Is it
> possible to make a pedagogical
> relationship?
> I try to make some empirical studies on that
> subject, not concerning
> drug-abusers, but mentally retarded and mentally ill
> people living in the
> community.
> Anyway, what is the alternative? Coercion? I think
> the conception of majority
> (Mndigkeit) implies that you only can attain it by
> experience and "exercise",
> by participation.  Can you imagine anyone can grow
> into majority as a
> consequence of being oppressed?
> 
> Jan Jaap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005