HABERMAS' IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION

[kenneth.mackendrick@utoronto.ca]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:21:15 -0400 Ralph Dumain <rdumain@igc.org> wrote:

> I think I'm compelled to agree if the ultimate issue is translatability rather
than the communicative value of these forms themselves.  It's like saying that 
literature is permissible so long as literary criticism is always to hand as 
part of the conversation.

Yes, for instance, regarding religion. Habermas argues that the *political* 
claims of religious adherents are problematic (ie. private) insofar as they 
cannot be translated into a universalist (or universalizing) discourse. Of 
course, when theology does translate its claims into political discourse, it 
ceases to be theology... (which has lead to a 'new' project in theology --> 
"public theology" of which there are several important and prominent thinkers).


> There is then the strong claim that nothing substitutes for explicit logical
> discourse in democratic communications, and that metaphorical language can
> never do the job.  Is this because of the latter's inherent shortcomings,
> or is it more a matter of the indeterminacy of its reception?

I think so. Metaphorical language might illustrate an argument, but the 
validity of norms within a communicative community cannot, according to 
Habermas, be established on this basis alone. It is the force of the better 
argument that must win the day. We have to be able to agree with the reasons 
given, which means we have to understand one another. So I'd say it has to do 
with both, the inherent shortcomings of metaphorical language and the potential 
indeterminacy of its reception.

> I see many complications in this picture, but, with some reluctance, I 
suppose I will have to agree.  But consider the implications of what follows 
regarding aphorisms, poetry, fiction, drama, film, painting, cartoons, etc.  
How would one evaluate the use of proverbs in African legal argument?

All of these might (or might not) play an important role in a procedural 
discourse. But for Habermas the claims (interpretations) of each must be sorted 
out in line with the differentiations that modernity offers: truth (about 
objective states of affairs), rightness (concerning normativity) and 
truthfulness ('authenticity'). A proverb would hold as normative for a 
community only insofar as it remains uncontested. The moment it becomes 
problematic, then a procedural form of argumentation must be used to resolve 
whether or not it should be considered valid. Habermas leans toward two 
procedures which complete one another. First, procedures of justification 
(which determine whether the norm, proverb or aphorism is valid, justified or 
legitimate - or, in the case of truth claims - objective, correct... and so 
on). The second procedure has to do with application - what the normative 
claim, after its validity has been established, means within a given context. 
Both procedures (justification and application) are necessary for the full 
exhaustion of a moral discourse. In the former, the Habermas principle of 
discourse is relevant, in the latter, a principle of appropriateness is 
relevant. Habermas's work should be distinguished from casuistry (case-based 
reasoning). In casuistry, cases are held to be authoritative to some degree. 
For Habermas, there is no a priori authority - everything is suspect and 
subject to critique (this is Habermas's primary criticism against Gadamer's 
hermeneutics, although Gadamer isn't really arguing for casuistry... the 
orientation is similar).

> What becomes of zen koans?  Metaphorical expression need not be manipulative 
or fetishistic or even opaque, though its ritualistic uses are all too 
pervasive.

As long as it can be translated into public discourse, a discourse guided by 
reasons wherein which the force of the best argument wins the day... 

> Has anyone applied Habermas' ideas to the analysis of real-life scenarios?
> I take it he himself was moved to develop these ideas because of German
> circumstances?  He was born during the Nazi regime, was he not?

You might check out:
Habermas, Past as Future / A Berlin Republic / The New Conservatism
Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy
Johanna Meehan, Feminists Read Habermas
William Scheuerman and Max Pensky in Habermas: A Critical Reader (ed. Peter 
Dews).

Simone Chambers essay in Feminists Read Habermas is probably the closed 
'real-life' analysis of discursive experimentation - examining the practices 
and procedures adopted by the Women's Encampment for a Future of Peace and 
Justice - the vision being a "bold experiment in a communal life of 
non-violence where women cooperate and share decision-making through consensus."

An important idea here is that Habermas isn't arguing that his work can be 
"applied." His argument is that we've already *presupposed* a 'discourse ethic' 
... in short - it is already part of our 'lifeworld.'