Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:42:04 -0400
Subject: HAB: Oral Dialectics & Intercourse Ethics


Everyone, David,

This is an old post made by Mr. David Hawkes regarding a thread back 
in April on the topic of Habermas's Discourse Ethics (reproduced in 
part below). I'm bringing it up again because it highlights -an 
essential conflict- between the Marxist fixation on -point of view- 
and the aural/oral (hearing and speaking) sensory nature of 
intersubjectivity presented by Habermas's communicative justification 
(which Marxists mistake for 'transcendentalism' due to their 
-preference- for the -visual- sense and it's objectifying ability).

Mr. Hawkes states that Habermas's Discourse Ethics "assumes a reified 
parody of authentic subjectivity and shows a complete lack of respect 
for dialectics".

This statement simply demonstrates the hyper-literate/literal/visual 
-bias- of the 19th century mind 'in the face' of 21st century 
aural/oral culture which threatens to 'close in' on his '-private- 
point of view' (a private point of view being the visual 
sense-construction of 'private space'). This shifting of sensory 
preference (or shifting -sense ratios-) is the cause of such hysteria 
over loss of "authentic subjectivity." The 'authentic subjectivity' 
that Mr. Hawkes speaks of is in fact -nothing substantial-, nothing 
but -a preference- for -the visual sense- against the aural sense 
(because *aural/oral space is necessarily intersubjective*).

As far as "lack of respect of dialectics" one has to be very 
suspicious of what Mr. Hawkes takes dialectics to be since 
'discourse' is dialectic by definition. Perhaps it would be better to 
say 'lack of respect for -my- inner, monological dialectic'. For the 
dialogic of -actual- aural speaker/hearer discourse would present the 
possibility of -dialectical negation- or -disrecognition- by 
an-other-to-Hawkes. For highly literate/literal people the potential 
of having our 'visual/private space' with it's illusion of a 'private 
self' invaded by the -repressed- intersubjectivity of the aural/oral 
sense (becoming resensitized to aural space) can be frightening 
indeed.

Thought for food.

Cheers,

Tom

Mr. Hawkes wrote:
>  Jerry Shepperd has already made this point in a rather pithy manner, but
>  this reads exactly like the Ms. magazine guidelines for "consciousness
>  raising" from 1972.  Or, less charitably, the overt totalitarianism of
>  12-step programs.  In any case, it assumes a reified parody of authentic
>  subjectivity and shows a complete lack of respect for dialectics.  I am
>  surprised that even Habermas would sink so low.

Thomas McDonald wrote:
>  For those interested, here's an outline of rules for argumentation from
>  Habermas's Discourse Ethics:
>
>  1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act must be allowed to
>  take part in discourse.
>
>  2. (a) Everyone can question any assertion whatever.
>      (b) Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever.
>      (c) Everyone is allowed to assert his attitudes, desires, and needs.
>
>  3. No speaker may be coerced in any way (internally or externally) from
>  exercising their rights set out in 1 and 2.
>
>  ("Discourse Ethics", 89.)
>
>  There is also his principle of discourse ethics:
>
>  "Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with
>  the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in
>  practical discourse."
>
>  (Ibid., 93.)
>
>  --Tom


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