Subject: Re: [HAB:] Commissive vs. perlocutionary speech
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 22:18:37 +0000


Antti,

Like Gary, glad you de-lurked. I have had *to problem* Habermas's take on 
Austin's & Searle's speech act theory out by myself, and always felt I 
misunderstood it. So, two months before I submit my dissertation I get it 
sorted out :-). Thanks.
------------------
>Having said all that, I think there is something to this idea. After
>all, the speech acts Habermas somewhat misleadingly calls "perlocutions"
>do not, according to him, raise validity claims, so that a fortiori
>their effect on the hearer cannot be mediated through her acceptance of
>the raised validity claims. Perhaps you cannot weigh reasons for or
>against accepting a creation fable - that is why its acceptance cannot
>be rational and takes a leap of faith instead.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. However, after your 
clarification of JH's use of *perlocutionary* it doesn't appear to be as 
applicable a reading. Whilst this IS applicable to a pre/post enlightenment 
dichotomy, the structural violence exerted on the lifeworld by the 
systemworld's steering media in _TCA_ (colonization) isn't characterized by 
Habermas in terms of the pervasion of perlocutions. This would be more in 
tune with *purer* forms of ideology critique, and perhaps more commensurate 
with Horkheimer and Adorno's "Culture Industry."

Anyway, thanks again for the correction:

regards

MattP.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp



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