Habermas and Public Debate

This essay grows out of a discussion of real-world deliberations on Hab list. My own interest in this is an understanding of how we can actually engage ordinary folks in public discourse without intimidating them, while listening to them in good faith, and without putting prerequisite rules in the way. To this end I am fascinated by the discussion on Hab list of discourse ethics and how to handle the intervention of strategic action into a communicative action setting.

In the real world I inhabit at California State University, Dominguez Hills, I don't think I can set up prerequisite rules for the discussion of real-world issues. Some students and community participants are going to be motivated by strategic action. Others are motivated by communicative action. (I think I know what that means, but will try a clarification later. Any learned comments welcome. See the Hab list.) For me, it matters more that people begin to bring issues to an awareness level, that they begin to remove the taboos that make some subjects "inappropriate." At that early stage of discourse, I don't want to erect barriers based on communicative and strategic action.

If I am trying to figure out my motivation to speak, and limiting myself to communicative action, I am likely to censor my voice. I do this all the time. I worry that if I comment, my comment will show a lack of expertise, or will be "inappropriate" in some other way. That chills speech, or so I was taught in law school, and so I find for myself. And it seems to me that removing the chill from speech is a large part of stimulating public discourse.

Now, I'll go back and try to relate some of this to Andrew Scott's thread on the Hab list. Are there rules to such discourse? Should there be? Am I missing something, misleading my students, if I don't enforce discourse rules?

This also goes back to our discussion of religion. When the purposes of introducing religion into discourse are to convince, proselytize, is that not strategic action? But when the equally firm belief is introduced to explain one's validity claim, is that not communicative? I need to study more on this. But to close out the strategic introduction of religion seems to me to shut out the voice which has not learned to express that validity claim in terms of communicative action. Is it not then better to relax the rules, and hear the validity claim in good faith? Again, I do not know the answers. We will search for them, especially in Soc. 395, Transforming Discourse.

---

---

I came across this site, but have not had time to make notes. Nag me. But, meanwhile, check it out:

Slashdot and the Public Sphere By Andrew O. Baioill.

---

---