Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

reification and validity claims

Expand Messages
  • fredwelfare@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/1/2005 3:10:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, habermas@yahoogroups.com writes: We have to resist the tendency to reify theoretical constructs
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 11/1/2005 3:10:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      habermas@yahoogroups.com writes:

      We have to resist the
      tendency to reify theoretical constructs into "real" things -



      We cannot impute intent to either speech or behavior. When a person
      requests from or confronts another over the validity basis of their speech act or
      action (behavior), the ball of justification starts rolling. To believe that a
      forestructure of behavior exists other than as conditions of possibility or
      restraint is to posit competency levels far in advance of what is reasonable.
      The problem is not as simple as calling liars, pretenders, and deceivers to
      task; it is to call instrumental and strategic actors to task who believe
      deeply in their customs and prejudices and in their algorithms/procedures of
      decision-making. In effect, we are interpretting and then measuring the
      response. But, in terms of communicative action, we enter in to an argument over
      validity and justification which is the taking up a critical position in
      relation to lifeworld/system practice.

      FredW


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • matthew piscioneri
      Fred, ... Being pedantic, I d probably scare quote exists ...unless a *forestructure of behavior* is understood physically... as an embodied cognitive
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Fred,

        I think I am mainly in agreement with you:

        >To believe that a
        >forestructure of behavior exists other than as conditions of possibility
        >or
        >restraint is to posit competency levels far in advance of what is
        >reasonable.

        Being pedantic, I'd probably scare quote "exists"...unless a *forestructure
        of behavior* is understood physically... as an embodied cognitive (mainly)
        competency.

        > The problem [snip] is to call instrumental and strategic actors to task
        >who believe
        >deeply in their customs and prejudices and in their algorithms/procedures
        >of
        >decision-making.

        This "calling to task" is one of the main tasks of practical critical
        theory. But, I think this needs a little more realistic qualification
        perhaps. Perhaps the addition of "too deeply" or "overly deeply" or "to the
        exclusion or intolerance of others' customs and prejudices."

        Anyway, I think I know what you mean, and I agree.

        >in terms of communicative action, we enter in to an argument over
        >validity and justification which is the taking up a critical position in
        >relation to lifeworld/system practice.

        Another way of looking at this is the attempted diminuition of critical
        voices within the lifeworld. One of the reasons for the *success* of "our"
        way of life has been the institutionalization of critical feedback
        mechanisms in the public administration, higher education and the media. The
        powers-that-be obviously don't like it, but IMO transparent and critical
        public discourse is almost the lifeblood of the lifeworld. Isn't this
        Habermas's primary critical point? If only the dullards understood that
        critical theorists sweat critical blood to maintain and improve our shared
        way of life. Don't talk to me about Intelligent Design...what a joke. Just
        an extra 20% cognitive capacity distributed over the species and we'd all be
        living in boogie wonderland :-).

        best,

        MattP
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.