Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: April 26, 2002
Latest Update: April 26, 2002
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Theory and Practice

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individaul Authors, April 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

Ken's explanation here makes a lot of sense. We'll discuss this in relation to theory, policy, practice. jeanne April 26, 2002. More when I get a minute free. From: Jeanne:

Ken says he's a theorist, not an activist. I have lots of thoughts on = that, amongst which, someone said, and I think it was Ken again, that = it doesn't matter what Habermas thinks of these issues, for he is a = theorist who offers a structure for addressing the issues. It isn't his = thought on the topic we seek, but how we might successfully think it = out. But then Habermas and Ken leave the praxis to us, the ordinary = folks.

From Ken:

** I think theory is praxis, and I think theorists are ordinary folks. = There is nothing extraordinary about a teacher or a professor as such. = And Habemas doesn't just leave it, he writes for popular journals and = newspapers, and he's occassionally signed petitions and engaged in = protest actions. But that isn't the point. There is a division between = theorizing and strategic action. Protests, boycotts and so on are = strategic plans which aim at success. Theory aims at truth, and = communicative action aims at understanding and agreement. It is = important, at least for Habermas, to keeep these things distinguished = (we wouldn't want to confuse a successful protest with consensus! nor = truth with success and so on). I'd be foolin' myself if I said I was an = activist. I'm not the best person to organize complicated strategies, = although I enjoy coming up with entertaining ways of clowning, and I'm = definitely not the best person to raise money for a legal defence = fund... although I don't mind standing on a street corner with a sign. = Many of these are personal decisions, which means they aren't really all = that open to any kind moral justification, although perhaps ethical in = the Habermasian sense. And all this, for some reason, often arrives back = in my face with the charge of being elitist. What is a good response to = this? "No, I'm not, but I still think you're wrong?" I enjoy what I do - = things that are fairly limited to reading and writing and teaching - and = I try to give reasoned responses, with the odd exception of clowning = which I also take very seriously (and yes, I complain about the grunt = work of administriva, something I think everyone is justified in = doing!). I fear the charge of elitism arrives with a kind of = anti-intellectualism, some sort of prejudice against people who, in the = end, would rather be reading by a campfire than anything else (which is = likely where a good many peole would rather 'intellectuals' be). What = else can be said, in my utopian imagination there is room for dorks, = debutantes and dancers.

Wow! It's kind of hard to sit through dinner with you guys. Well, = nevermind. Ralph, I guess you can just fuss at me. I'm probably = irrational, and I'm sure I'm volkisch, but I'm glad Habermas said that = we need to recognize each others' human faces. I'm gonna stand firm with = my position, at least for a while. That's because I learned from Freud, = via Jonathan Lear, that we aren't always rational.

** Right, we aren't always rational, and that's a problem we encounter = when thinking with Habermas. And, surprisingly enough, I do think that = sometimes there are 'irrational' reconciliations. I'm a creature of the = enlightenment, but enough of an old soul to think that sometimes we = encounter reason through the very things that are currently deemed = irrational.

ken

---

---