Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:14:59 EDT
Subject: Re: [HAB:] re: Getting ethical by getting highly self-identical


 
In a message dated 8/23/2004 9:12:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
sue-AT-mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk writes:

I have  read some of it, although some time ago.
I am particularly interested in  the theory of 
communicative action - about how people can
achieve  mutual communication even though they
come from different perspctives -  different world-views.

First of all, they have to want to. I don't know  if he says
anything about people who do not want to. It seems to  be
assumed this is the way people would be, if they only knew
about it  and though it could work.



Sue, 
 
Let's dissect the work into the empirical or reality system and the  
normative or legal/moral/ethical dimension.  What is happening in the  everyday or 
political perspective in the world, in each of our worlds, involves  an 
historical-psychological-social perspective which Habermas, and most other  social 
theorists, find problematic.  Basic problems dealing with conflict  and crime are 
obvious.  Habermas presents a theory that  addresses metaphysical and 
epistemological issues in philosophy related to  both ontology (our understanding of 
our purpose or being) and phylogeny (if  you'll permit the casting of an 
evolutionary dimension into our historical and  developmental experience).  The 
primary issue is the acceptability or  validity of actions as either specific 
movement events (actions on others  or on objects) or as speech acts.  Habermas 
then distinguishes between  communicative action which involves the 
perspective-taking of others, a  reciprocal (albeit too often asymmetrical) taking of the 
others perspective, the  offering of a claim (in act or speech), and the 
acceptance or rejection of the  validity of that claim by the other or hearer or 
interlocutor, or object acted  upon...  Strategic action, otoh, does not include 
any intersubjective  moment -- the response of the other only matters if the 
other follows the  dictate of the strategy, goes along and does not protest, 
or acts strategically  in response.  In SA there is no dialogue over the 
validity of the  communicative action, in fact, the issue of validity is 
disregarded.   Falling in line is a typical reaction to strategic action imperatives, 
whereas,  discussion over validity is the hallmark of communicative action 
orientations,  that is, there is an effort by both interlocutors, or within the 
community, to  reach agreement, or to strive to reach agreement without coercion.
 
Well, Sue, the next big issue is why communicative action often does not  
come to pass and that SA is the usual "norm."  One major reason why SA  seems to 
predominate is because of the communicative competency of most  individuals 
and then there is ideology.  Here on the list, we primarily try  to keep the 
conversation as rational as possible in terms of CA while increasing  each others 
awareness and knowledge.  But, I think everyone will agree that  in the 
reality system, SA predominates and CA politicizes.  The objecting  to invalid 
action or actions which are deceptive or impersonal (instrumental),  excluding or 
alienating, involves legal redress, political protest and social  movement, as 
well as juridical and legislative influence, not to mention  theoretical 
advances.  Effecting a change in the desired direction: towards  liberty, 
equality, a more stable everyday world, through communication (read  diplomacy) and 
thought has its enemies, not the least of which is ignorance and  incompetence.
 
Fred


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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