"properly conducted and sampled polling" - arch Unfortunately, this livelihood fell into disfavor and ridicule shortly after the first selection of ‘W’ in the USA. For quite a while, it was ‘obvious’ that sciences such as polling were illegitimate …mainly exit polling….
On Jun 19, 6:11 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Habermas is almost impossible to read, which is a great shame. > Academic critique of his work actually ends up rather like Gabby's few > lines, extrapolated to ridiculous length. He was gazetted into the > Hitler Youth at the end of the war, something that only goes to show > we can all end up serving perverse human interests. Francis' notion of > what might happen through wider communication and the possible > differences new technologies might bring to 'argument' is probably key > to whether we have a future or not. There has been a debate around > legitimation portrayed in academe as between Habermas, Lyotard, > Derrida, Foucault and others. My own view is that the insularity of > this debate (most people have barely heard of it and its protagonists) > is itself part of the problem. Press in the UK has been ridiculing our > unworthy politicians through expense claims leaked to one newspaper. > Today, Parliament has "published" the details under so much black ink > that we would know less had we been left to rely on official > "transparency" and we will get much the same when the Iraq scandal is > hidden from us next year. What we lack is honesty and substantial > links between this and its use in day-to-day actions. Many people > believe it is childish to look at work like this because the real > world is so dirty. I suspect the real childishness lies in fear we all > have of standing up to the bullying system, which we see as holding > all the cards We know bosses and politicians are bad, but are > generally weak-kneed in the face of power and easy enough to buy off > with a few trinkets and the threat of poverty if we stray into telling > the truth. Much as I like Habermas, I'm sure these days that work > like his is pussy-footing pisswitter lamenting our lack of courage. > > His academic critics often referred to him as 'the Professor' as they > felt he was advocating a system that had to be followed to put the > system right - perhaps they feared yet another righteous theory as > potentially Nazi or Stalinist, even if Jurgen was a man of the left. > Academe was wet-through with cultural identity garbage back then and > still is. I just noticed he was weak on science, long on unnecessary > explanation and broadly right on the destruction of what others termed > organic links. I was looking for an explanation of why people choose > to follow such stupid ways or get caught up in them. My own view is > this happens and is a result of the way we promote lying in our > societies. The current situation in Iran would be a good example. We > don't know whether the election was fixed to favour the > Maddinnerjacket, but there are ways to find out (properly conducted > and sampled polling) and it ain't what Kameni is doing, even if he > might be right about miserable Western interference. It's too hard > anywhere for a populace to shift through the dross to get at truth > because of liars and what is so easily hidden or flashed in front of > us as the good. In our world, the child seeking to shout out that the > Emperor is naked is already silenced. > > On 18 June, 20:32, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jürgen Habermas is 80 today. He is one of the most influential > > contemporary thinkers in the areas of philosophy, sociology and > > cultural science:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habermas,_Jürgen > > > One of his most interesting works is "The Theory of Communicative > > Action." I find his analysis of the development of contemporary > > society interesting, particularly his analysis of the way modern > > society can be seen as an unequal dialectic between private, > > subjective "lifeworlds" and an ever more powerful "system." His > > thinking in this area is useful because it offers an explanation for > > some trends we observe in contemporary society, for example, our > > suspicions that we are being ever more disenfranchised, although, > > formally, we live in societies in which participation, representation > > and equality are established. Habermas sees the "system" as taking > > overweening power and thus becoming a source of alienation in the > > areas of the welfare state, corporate capitalism and the culture of > > mass consumption. The mass media plays a major role in this process. > > Political parties are also part of this "system." > > > The following passage is lifted from Wikipedia (the quotations are > > from TCA): > > > "In the end, systemic mechanisms suppress forms of social integration > > even in those areas where a consensus dependent co-ordination of > > action cannot be replaced, that is, where the symbolic reproduction of > > the lifeworld is at stake. In these areas, the mediatization of the > > lifeworld assumes the form of colonisation". > > Habermas argues that Horkheimer and Adorno, like Weber before them, > > confused system rationality with action rationality. This prevented > > them dissecting the effects of the intrusion of steering media into a > > differentiated lifeworld and the rationalisation of action > > orientations that follows. They could then only identify spontaneous > > communicative actions within areas of apparently 'non-rational' > > action, art and love on the one hand or the charisma of the leader on > > the other, as having any value. > > According to Habermas, lifeworlds become colonised by steering media > > when four things happen: > > 1. Traditional forms of life are dismantled. > > 2. Social roles are sufficiently differentiated. > > 3. There are adequate rewards of leisure and money for the alienated > > labour. > > 4. Hopes and dreams become individuated by state canalization of > > welfare and culture. > > These processses are institutionalised by developing global systems of > > jurisprudence. He here indicates the limits of an entirely juridified > > concept of legitimation and practically calls for more anarchistic > > 'will formation' by autonomous networks and groups. > > "Counterinstitutions are intended to dedifferentiate some parts of the > > formally organised domains of action, remove them from the clutches of > > the steering media, and return these 'liberated areas' to the action > > co-ordinating medium of reaching > > understanding".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Communicative_Action > > > I wonder how much the Internet (I'm thinking here of the burgeoning > > social networks like Facebook, as well as - in a very modest way - our > > group here and others like them, but also Wikipedia, search engines, > > etc.) are such "counterinstitutions." Certainly the nervous actions of > > the regimes in China and Iran in recent times would seem to reinforce > > such views. > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
