hooray for philosopher friends
in my cry for help with Habermasian theory a good friend and masters student of Habermasian Philosophy here at UVic Mr. Jester (Jesse) McConnell sent me this... It's bang on what I was looking for, and damn good piece of philisophical explanation. I would bet that if everyone could access great ideas like this in language as clear as Jesse uses, we'd have a much more enlightened society... Thanks again to Jess for this; enjoy, engage and drink beer!
I hope that this blurp isn't too late, but here it goes: Habermas holds that all subjects are constituted through language, what he calls the "linguistic turn". In other words, instead of the subject coming to recognize themselves as a knowing individual (think of Descartes Cogito) the subject instead recognizes himself as an individual when he encounter another human. That is not the end of the story though. Language is required in order for this sort of recognition. Namely, when I address an 'other': "hand me the salt" they respond, "here you go". Our actions become coordinated, or oriented toward understanding, via language. Thats the beginning, the recognition that you are like the other, while at the same time distinct from them because you can place a linguistic demand upon them "pass the salt" and they can respond in a way that demonstrates an understanding. Even if they don't understand, the fact that it seems to me 'as if' they understand begins to create intersubjective meaning and avoids the silly Cartesian dilemma where one can never REALLY REALLY know what the other person means because maybe by salt they have a picture of an elephant in their mind. (The inverted spectrum thought experiment is an example of this.)
From this minimal sense of self-understanding, not at as a ego-identity but merely as a unique individual that is differentiated from others, we can begin to understand identity formation.
It is futile to label salt, salt if no one else understands what that word represents. So, INTERSUBJECTIVE meaning is required in order for communication to possible and therefore understanding to be possible. The community agrees (so to speak) to label this white grainy substance 'salt' so that we can all refer to it and understand one another when we do. So, when the individual considers what the concept salt means to him, he CANNOT do so entirely from the perspective of an individual. He necessarily considers this concept via an intersubjective (read: language) understanding of it since he can only know via the linguistic medium. This relates to identity how?
In coming to understand oneself and constitute oneself one utilizes concepts: I am a kind person, serious, occassionally selfish, ridiculously good-looking, and so on. But, the individual cannot consider these concepts in isolation from a community. They would be meaningless. What is it to consider yourself kind, if there is not agreement on what "kind" means? Language is the medium that enables agreement and thereby stabilizes the meaning of concepts themselves. If I (isolated) thought I was kind, the next day I wake up and think to myself I'm kind, or an I using that word correctly, maybe the feeling I am trying to describe is better represented by the word asshole. Shit, can't remember what word I used yesterday. Better check my memory to see what word it was. Was this the sensation that I felt when I used that word yesterday? You see, there is no criterion for the application of a concept without a community to affirm that you are using it correctly.
When you say to yourself (as a member of a community) I am kind. When you check that in fact you are using the word correctly members of the community will either agree with you: yes you are kind. Or disagree, no you are a fucking asshole. You can only understand yourself (remember understanding is basically the employment of concepts) via language and language requires an intersubjective approach. A community of language users is necessary for meaning to be stabilized.
Once this is clear, we can then begin to stabilize our own egos by the give and take of communication. We form and ground our identities by the linguistic demands we place on others and the responses we here back from them. Think of this thought experiment: If you thought you were a wonderful guy, but the whole community has decided to conduct an experiment on you. They too think you are great, but for the next three months have decided to respond to all you communicative demands as if you were a total dickhead. How long do you think you could maintain your current idenity as a wonderful guy? How long until you would start seeing yourself as a schmuck? Your idenity (since it is not an essential thing but is only a network of conceptual relationships) is held together by the bonds within your community. By the back and forth of communicative action.
One futher note, when Habermas uses the term language, this is meant to be broadly conceived so as not to exclude mutes, the deaf and so on. Communication is the key here, just that linguistic communication is by far and way the pridominant form of communication and the most accurate.
"Subjectivity, being what makes the human body a soul-possessing receptacle of the spirit, IS ITSELF CONSTITUTED THROUGH INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS TO OTHERS. THE INDIVIDUAL SELF WILL ONLY EMERGE THROUGH THE COURSE OF SOCIAL EXTERNALIZATION, AND CAN ONLY BE STABILIZED WITHIN THE NETWORK OF UNDAMAGED RELATIONS OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION." Habermas, "The future of human nature" p34
I hope that this blurp isn't too late, but here it goes: Habermas holds that all subjects are constituted through language, what he calls the "linguistic turn". In other words, instead of the subject coming to recognize themselves as a knowing individual (think of Descartes Cogito) the subject instead recognizes himself as an individual when he encounter another human. That is not the end of the story though. Language is required in order for this sort of recognition. Namely, when I address an 'other': "hand me the salt" they respond, "here you go". Our actions become coordinated, or oriented toward understanding, via language. Thats the beginning, the recognition that you are like the other, while at the same time distinct from them because you can place a linguistic demand upon them "pass the salt" and they can respond in a way that demonstrates an understanding. Even if they don't understand, the fact that it seems to me 'as if' they understand begins to create intersubjective meaning and avoids the silly Cartesian dilemma where one can never REALLY REALLY know what the other person means because maybe by salt they have a picture of an elephant in their mind. (The inverted spectrum thought experiment is an example of this.)
From this minimal sense of self-understanding, not at as a ego-identity but merely as a unique individual that is differentiated from others, we can begin to understand identity formation.
It is futile to label salt, salt if no one else understands what that word represents. So, INTERSUBJECTIVE meaning is required in order for communication to possible and therefore understanding to be possible. The community agrees (so to speak) to label this white grainy substance 'salt' so that we can all refer to it and understand one another when we do. So, when the individual considers what the concept salt means to him, he CANNOT do so entirely from the perspective of an individual. He necessarily considers this concept via an intersubjective (read: language) understanding of it since he can only know via the linguistic medium. This relates to identity how?
In coming to understand oneself and constitute oneself one utilizes concepts: I am a kind person, serious, occassionally selfish, ridiculously good-looking, and so on. But, the individual cannot consider these concepts in isolation from a community. They would be meaningless. What is it to consider yourself kind, if there is not agreement on what "kind" means? Language is the medium that enables agreement and thereby stabilizes the meaning of concepts themselves. If I (isolated) thought I was kind, the next day I wake up and think to myself I'm kind, or an I using that word correctly, maybe the feeling I am trying to describe is better represented by the word asshole. Shit, can't remember what word I used yesterday. Better check my memory to see what word it was. Was this the sensation that I felt when I used that word yesterday? You see, there is no criterion for the application of a concept without a community to affirm that you are using it correctly.
When you say to yourself (as a member of a community) I am kind. When you check that in fact you are using the word correctly members of the community will either agree with you: yes you are kind. Or disagree, no you are a fucking asshole. You can only understand yourself (remember understanding is basically the employment of concepts) via language and language requires an intersubjective approach. A community of language users is necessary for meaning to be stabilized.
Once this is clear, we can then begin to stabilize our own egos by the give and take of communication. We form and ground our identities by the linguistic demands we place on others and the responses we here back from them. Think of this thought experiment: If you thought you were a wonderful guy, but the whole community has decided to conduct an experiment on you. They too think you are great, but for the next three months have decided to respond to all you communicative demands as if you were a total dickhead. How long do you think you could maintain your current idenity as a wonderful guy? How long until you would start seeing yourself as a schmuck? Your idenity (since it is not an essential thing but is only a network of conceptual relationships) is held together by the bonds within your community. By the back and forth of communicative action.
One futher note, when Habermas uses the term language, this is meant to be broadly conceived so as not to exclude mutes, the deaf and so on. Communication is the key here, just that linguistic communication is by far and way the pridominant form of communication and the most accurate.
"Subjectivity, being what makes the human body a soul-possessing receptacle of the spirit, IS ITSELF CONSTITUTED THROUGH INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS TO OTHERS. THE INDIVIDUAL SELF WILL ONLY EMERGE THROUGH THE COURSE OF SOCIAL EXTERNALIZATION, AND CAN ONLY BE STABILIZED WITHIN THE NETWORK OF UNDAMAGED RELATIONS OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION." Habermas, "The future of human nature" p34
posted by kalen at 7:38 PM
2 Comments:
Ok, to begin I'll fully admit - my brain hurts post-conference so I skimmed what looked to be a great response by someone way more in tune with Habermas than I (ever intend to be). But another, related, idea is the construction and fluidity of identity itself - not through language but by its nature.
The Allan's notes version: People hold numerous identities simultaneously. In any given context, they choose which identity represents them. At the same time, 'others' choose what identity represents that person as well. Context, subjectivity and choice collide (with a healthy dose of stereotypes & preconcieved notions of cultural identities). These identities also change in time.
What this means for you is people could hold the 'developing' 'underdeveloped' 'tribal' 'modern' identities simultaneously. Given the development context, when an outsider comes in viewing them as in need of development, people choose this identity.
I could probably think of citations if you want. But for now free food (for me, sorry).
J
interesting points Jen. However, behind your argument is the assumption that there is a self outside of society. I have trouble agreeing that without a community there would be any concept of individuality; there would be just 'being.' Also, there would be no referent point to decide which identity is which, or decide what each identity entails.
Post a Comment
<< Home