reification and validity claims
- In a message dated 11/1/2005 3:10:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think I am mainly in agreement with you:
>To believe that aBeing pedantic, I'd probably scare quote "exists"...unless a *forestructure
>forestructure of behavior exists other than as conditions of possibility
>restraint is to posit competency levels far in advance of what is
of behavior* is understood physically... as an embodied cognitive (mainly)
> The problem [snip] is to call instrumental and strategic actors to taskThis "calling to task" is one of the main tasks of practical critical
>deeply in their customs and prejudices and in their algorithms/procedures
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 overAnother way of looking at this is the attempted diminuition of critical
>validity and justification which is the taking up a critical position in
>relation to lifeworld/system practice.
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 :-).