From: "Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: HAB: Re: The "fruits" of Habermas
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:49:06 -0700


Very interesting point regarding motivations, one that Agnes Heller stressed
in her 1982 article "Habermas and Marxism" in Habermas: Critical Debate;.
Ed. John B. Thompson and David Held (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press); 21-41.
Habermas' theory does not imply that we must choose rationality, only that
if we do choose rationality that we must pursue it in such-and-such a way.

It strikes me that such motivation is often determined by the perceived
identity of the other. Hence 'rational' argumentation is often restricted to
others with whom we can identity. In this respect one could say that
identity has a key role to play in any actual practice of Habermasian
critical theory. This would seem to undermine in actual practice the
theoretical distinction Antii drew between Rawlsian and Habermasian theory
with respect to the cultural boundedness of discourse.

In other words Habermas' UP seems to represent a detailed account of how to
"treat equals as equals", but it neglects to tell us *who* to treat as
equals - and it simply cannot provide us with motivation to treat everyone
as an equal. Recourse to definitions of linguistic competency merely
displaces the issue without resolving it. Some on this list have no doubt
already come to the conclusion that either Raul or Fred (for instance) is
'incompetent (hopelessly biased) and one may therefore dismiss what that
person has to say. Who is to decide? How does one decide? It is at this
point it seems to me that identity (not in the simple or trivial sense of
ascribed demographics) plays a pivotal - yet in Habermas' UP, an
undertheorized - role in the pursuit of rational discourse.

Ken, would it be accurate to say (in your terms) that the 'pathology of
reason' that you find manifest in Habermas' work hinders us from recognizing
the overriding importance of the choice *to* reason?

Best wishes,

-Tom Murphy

----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Ryan <philip_ryan-AT-carleton.ca>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 7:32 AM
Subject: HAB: The "fruits" of Habermas, anti-Semitism, and other matters


> September 21, 2001
>
> 1. In his ^Varieties of Religious Experience,^ William James comments:
>
> ^In the end it had to come to our empiricist criterion: By their fruits
> ye
> shall know them, not by their roots.^
>
> Much of the book tries to assess the ^fruits^ of religious experience,
> and
> ignore speculation on the ^organic antecedents^ or metaphysical validity
>
> thereof.
>
> Do we have the courage to apply this test to ^Habermasism^ [forgive the
> neologism]?  To assess not Habermas^s work directly, but the fruits it
> does
> or does not bear upon those who claim to be grounded in his thought?
>
> If we do so, then Gary^s guilt-by-association attack on Argentinians is
> quite sobering.  Perhaps it should remind us of something that Habermas
> himself has stressed repeatedly: discourse ethics does not address the
> problem of motivation (Justification, 75): it can give pointers to the
> procedure that must be followed <if> people "want to solve moral
> problems" (Justification, 128) through reason and dialogue.
>
> Habermas never claimed to offer reasons for being reasonable.  Many of
> the exchanges of this week ^and particularly the lamentable email for
> which Gary has, more or less, apologized^ remind us that we will have to
>
> look elsewhere for that motivation. [Habermas himself steers us towards
> literature and common sense.]
>
> 2. On the substance of Argentinian anti-Semitism, which, once raised,
> should be addressed: despite the large Jewish population to which Raul
> points in his ^Estimado amigos^ email, there have been significant anti-
>
> Semitic currents in Argentinian history. [Raul: favor de echar una
> ojeada al
> libro de Jacobo Timmerman antes de contestarme!]
>
> There have also been significant anti-Semitic currents in Canadian
> history,
> and in particular in Quebec, where I grew up.  And in the U.S., and
> probably in every country represented on this listserve.  In that
> respect, the
> guilt-by-association slur relied less on ignorance of Argentinian
> reality
> than on ignorance of reality everywhere else!
>
> 3. On the more general relation between critique of Israel, defence of
> Palestinian rights, and anti-Semitism: as someone who thinks we cannot
> get out of the present crisis without a full implementation of UN
> resolution
> 242, I do find the association made between defence of Palestine and
> anti-
> Semitism quite unfair.   BUT: I cannot ignore the strong strand of
> repellant
> anti-Semitism that many advocates of a Palestinian state continue to
> manifest. [Recall Assad^s little speech to the Pope upon the latter^s
> visit to
> Syria.] Were I Israeli, I guess I would find it hard to believe in the
> possibility of peaceful coexistence so long as that anti-Semitism
> continued
> to enjoy such currency in the region.
>
> Yes, I know: I have also seen Israelis on television jumping up and down
>
> and shouting ^Death to the Arabs.^  That^s the other side of this messy
> picture.
>
> So when we speak out on this issue, we enter a situation profoundly
> marked by hatred and racism.  Discourses, as Foucault reminds us, enjoy
> (or suffer from) ^tactical polyvalence,^ with ^displacements and
> reemployment of identical formulae for opposed objectives.^  What can we
>
> do to decrease the probability that our statements on the Palestinian
> situation do not contribute to that racism and hatred?  I^m not sure.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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