Skip to main content

The Fetish of Communication

Minima Moralia, German edition.jpg

Raymond Guess, a philosopher affiliated with the University of Cambridge, recently wrote about the evolution of the Frankfurt School of social philosophers. 
Guess observes that Adorno, in 1951, questioned the "liberal fiction which holds that any and every thought must be universally communicable to anyone whatsoever." We shouldn't make a fetish of communication or communicability, making it too fundamental an organizing principle. 
Guess adds that the Frankfurt school soon fell into the trap Adorno had warned about. Jurgen Habermas, in the early 1970s, introduced what Guess calls a "normatively highly charged concept of 'discourse'" and "communicative action" that does exactly this -- in the hope of reinvigorating a Kantian liberalism.
What d I think about all this? I will let you ... Guess. 




Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryJuly 27, 2019 at 6:01 AM

    Christopher,

    You don't say what Guess's view of this "liberal fiction" is, but, the lack of clarity of his language that you quote and paraphrase suggests that he disagrees with it. What does "normatively highly charged" mean? I suppose that it means "highly controversial." I suppose that he uses "communicative action" (which I assume should have an opening quotation mark) rather than "communication," because, whereas a communication communicates, a communicative action need not. Or maybe it too must communicate, but Guess prefers to use two words where one will due. I believe that "in the hope of reinvigorating a Kantian liberalism" means that Habermas thinks that discussing Kantian liberalism lucidly would reinvigorate it.

    I actually have some sympathy for Adorno's attack on the "liberal fiction." My sympathy derives from his use of the word "anyone" in "must be universally communicable to anyone whatsoever." (Note that his use of "anyone" makes "universally" redundant.) I am one who finds most continental philosophy incomprehensible (Heideggar, for example), not only because of its writing style but because of the apparent emptiness of its concepts, when someone who writes well explains them to me. I am therefore tempted to dismiss most continental philosophy as nonsense and its followers as people who claim that the naked emperor is wearing clothes. But I don't dismiss it, because too many people, including some whom I respect, such as Richard Rorty, take continental philosophy seriously. I conclude, instead, that continental philosophy is just not communicable to everyone, and that I am one of those to whom it is not communicable. Our brains are all different; some are more analytical, and some are more "continental" (I don't know what positive word to give them; "unanalytical" would be disparaging, and I am attempting not to disparage them.

    What do you think about all this? I'd rather not Guess.

    ReplyDelete
  2. HenryJuly 27, 2019 at 6:19 AM

    I meant "where one will do" in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph. That was a typo, not an attempt at cleverness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ChristopherJuly 27, 2019 at 8:19 AM

    Henry,

    Not only does "universal" make "anyone" redundant, but once you've put them together, it is really gilding the lily to end the sentence with "whatsoever."

    BTW, I took this from Leiter's blog, a June 24 post.

    As for "communicative action," the phrase reminded me of Skinner's "verbal behavior." And although I'd have to check out the dates, and I'm too lazy, the evocation might be deliberate. Skinner called language "verbal behavior" because he wanted psychology, and his sort of psychology, to swallow linguistics. Habermas in effect wanted them both to be swallowed by political philosophy. "Action" sounds more political than "behavior," does it not?

    There is lots more that I could say. I'm tempted to create a paleolithic psychodrama involving the creation of language. When Fred and Barney are out walking, and Fred is the first to see the saber toothed tiger, he wants to shout something at Barney that would roughly translate "watch out!" or "Let's run!" The pragma of language. But I continue to be reluctant to carry this further, so I'll still leaving you Guessing. This time with a little more material.

    Yabba Dabba Do!

    ReplyDelete
  4. HenryJuly 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM

    "Communicative action" might also be intended to evoke "speech act."

    ReplyDelete
  5. ChristopherJuly 27, 2019 at 9:36 AM

    Possibly, but I don't think so. Isn't a "speech act" supposed to be something like "I now pronounce you man and wife"? It seems a limited realm of "discourse" compared to what Habermas is trying to get at.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more