Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:16:55 EDT
Subject: [HAB:] Communicative Action in everyday contexts


 
In a message dated 8/26/2004 1:17:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
sue-AT-mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk writes:

a better subject line
 
Sue and all,
 
I think that the most critical issue for both the functionality and  
legitimation or justification of communicative action, and its criticism of  strategic 
action initiatives, is to discuss and understand how communicative  action 
works or can work in everyday contexts.  Whether CA can be  instituted in a 
particular situation or as an ongoing pattern may or may not  involve ascribed 
role characteristics of actors/speakers.  Whether it  does and why seems to me to 
be the crux of the matter.  Before we can  address autonomy, we have to 
address individuality and  individualization.  What is an individual, when is a 
body an individual,  and then whether or not said individual is autonomous as 
perceived through  her/his ethical actions.  I perceive attributes flying all 
over the place  and ascribing roles to bodies which either castigate their 
individualization  or their autonomy, entirely for the strategic gain.  At some 
point,  Habermas will have to address Darwinism and the intensified zero-sum locus 
of  interaction.  In an engagement where actors do not redeem or justify  
their claims validly, by for example mimicking the institutional authority of  
the nuclear family, it is not an option to retreat or close communication by  
the insisting on a redemption before communication resumes, this only puts the  
CA actor in the void, which does not even exist.
 
Fred Welfare



 


--- 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 ---