Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:57:34 +0200
From: Iver Orstavik <iver.orstavik-AT-svt.uib.no>
Subject: Re: HAB: Stereotypes [AKA the 'fruits' of Habermas]



I think this was a good analysis. But I also think it is time to let Gary off
hook. He has apaologized, and should not be humiliated. A point that could be
added tPhil's analysis lis that reinforcement of a similar kind takes place
also when we make good arguments, and only seldom do even good arguments
justify the suggestive effect they produce. The odd case in which it such
effects are justified would be when we make arguments justiifying reinforcement
effects, which then justify their own reinforcement effect. Unfortunately, in
that case we remain in pragmatically consistent but nevertheless rather
convoluted communication. Also arguments from dubious authority, which may be
what Gary accidentally ended up making, is so normal we cannot pretend to rise
above it any of us. Lets try to be conscious about how we communicate, but lets
not fool ourselves into believing we can avoid questionable side effects just
because we succeed in making good arguments from time to time. 

Iver

At 20:41 24.09.01 -0400, you wrote:
>September 24, 2001
>
>Gary E Davis wrote:
>
>> No, Phil, I made no attack on Argentinians; it's the problem of my
>> Latino friend's understanding of the whole situation (Middle East
>> problems vis-a-vis recent terrorism), which I uncritically passed on
>> to Fred and accidently passed on to the list.
>
>...
>
>> As I said in my accidental email, I was "amazed" to hear her say what
>she
>> did about Raul.
>
>Gary:
>
>When you uncritically transmit the words of another, they become your
>words, words for which you are responsible.
>
>The I was amazed business really doesnt take you off the hook here
>[You might want to read Achebes critique of Conrads use of distancing
>mechanisms... quite pertinent.]
>
>So we can leave your translator friend out of this.
>
>Do you really think you are innocent of any attack on Argentinians in
>general?
>
>Your original statement was of the form:
>
>(i) this writer is anti-Semitic.
>
>(ii) there's a big problem in Argentina, due to its fascist history...
>
>
>This has the same structure as:
>
>
>
>(i) he sure loves his liquor
>
>(ii) hes Irish you know
>
>
>Or:
>
>(i) Hes quite patronizing of Latin Americans
>
>(ii) Of course hes N. American.
>
>
>I always have the impression with these sorts of statements that theres
>a
>noxious reinforcement taking place:
>
>In each case:
>
>(ii) has the effect of dampening any uncertainty over (i).  So instead of
>I
>think hes anti-Semitic, but thats a pretty heavy claim, so I better
>look at
>the matter more closely, (ii) is dragged in to enhance the credibility
>of (i):
>you may not believe that Raul is anti-Semitic, but let me tell you about
>Argentina...
>
>And, of course, (i) reinforces (ii): I had heard that there was a lot of
>anti-
>Semitism in Argentina, and I guess this just goes to show...
>
>Neither of these mutual reinforcements is logically entailed, of course,
>but I
>think this is one of the psychological mechanisms by which stereotypes
>are
>sustained.
>
>
>
>Phil Ryan
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ph. D. Candidate/Research Assistant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senter for vitskapsteori
University of Bergen
Allégaten 32
N- 5020 Bergen
Norway
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: iver.orstavik-AT-svt.uib.no
Telephone: (+47) 55 582978/ 55 367763/ 90 833923
Web site: http://www.uib.no/svt/io.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML VERSION: