Link to What's New This Week Illocutionary Discourse on Teaching for Peace and Social Justice

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site



Lecture Notes:
Summary after Class

Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives
Practice Module on This File

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: September 25, 2002
Latest Update: September 25, 2002

E-Mail Icon jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Site Teaching Modules Lecture Notes: September 24, 2002:
Illocutionary Discourse on Teaching for Peace and Social Justice

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, September 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

The objective of teaching for peace and social justice is to create a general awareness in the populace, through both community teaching and involvement, and through liberal arts education, of the harm we inflict on Others through our denial that there is harm, through our denial of any complicity in that harm, and through our unstated assumptions that privilege comes to us through "rights" that need not be questioned in terms of justice and fairness.

The review of literature of this Interim Evalution Report on Fostering Illocutionary Discussions will cover John Rawls' Justice as Fairness, supplemented by his later Political Liberalism. Rawl's conception of justice as fairness is pretty well spread through the dominant discourse. i.e. Most people think we should be fair. It's defining fair that gives us problems. Robert Nozick's libertarian insistence that allowing no limitations on the indiviudal is in hte best interest of humans in general, for it is the creative individual who will take us to new heights of understanding and achievement.

Tuesday afternoon, as I described Nozick's position, Celestina nodded in affirmation. She has obmiouvly seen the individual held back in the interest of the group, and believes that we must not place unneccessary limits on individuals, for they, in their individuality will lead with creativity, and those who can create and produce most effectively must receive rewards appropriate to their achievement. Our dominant diiscourse idea of success is pretty much money these days. He who owns the most toys wins, and he get the most toys who has the most moeny.

Ay, but there's a catch. If Enroe and Tyco and Microsoft have the most toys, the most money, does it truly follow that they are the most successful? What about when Enroe defrauds and falsifies its accounting, when Tyco defrauds and dispenses the loot before it's caught, when microsoft gets away with what has been identified as anti-trust behavior? Do those "successes" benefit the people, the species as a whole, more than might a system which clamped down with some effective limits on such behavior? But wouldn't that be interfering with the creative individual? Hmmm. . . We need to think on these things . . .

Sorry. Got to run, or I'll be late for school. More soon. jeanne