Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 07:49:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [HAB:] Colonization Thesis


**Throughout the discussion the concept of the state being used is a ‘pure negativity’. State can ‘repress’, ‘colonise’, hinder etc. There seems to be no conception of state as positivity as an entity that creates, enhances, 
and dissiminate rather than simply represses. The conception of state as pure negativity always misses the creative aspect of the monster we call modern state.

I agree Ali, the concept of state is too amorphous and future remarks should clarify the specific aspects or agency of the State in question.

***·Through most of the emails I get the impression that lifeworld is considered as a ‘blanket’ concept which does not have its own internal malaise. Lifeworld is always good, great, it is colonised from the above, outside etc. [Although Fred is exception on this point.]. Positive explanation of malaises of lifeworld is largely lacking.

The lifeworld consists of two primary elements: the tacit background assumptions which include but arenot limited to customs and traditions and which Habermas argued with Gadamer's too positive defense since the traditions do contain the problem of authoritarianism. Secondly, the lifeworld contains the problem of the comparison to the ideal, a reflective mechanism which can all too often be instrumentally used in a hegemonic fashion.  I could not determine what your reference to me was about, Ali.

·**In both cases any lessons from Foucault’s ‘repressive’ hypothesis are lacking.·***These exciting emails also bring forth this sad fact that in order to be a good Habermasian you must totally misunderstand Foucault. Foucault as an 
ideology theorist!! That is height!! [with all due respect for James’ wonderful grip on Habermas].

It is difficult not to see a parallel between Habermas' fact-norm or strategic rationality-communicative action differences and Foucault's power-resistance duality.

·***And all too familiar invoking of the spectre of violence and anarchy. But what about the perpetual violence which the state and its allied institutions on permanent basis?? In any case the protection from violence enjoyed through these institutions cover only tiny (and perpetually) diminishing minority.

If you consider that most violence is the result of agents of the State by the State which controls the means of force, that is, violence, then the expectation that the State should protect the people from others and from itself is a fundamental contradiction.

FredWelfare


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