> I note a slippage here. 'Violent activity' begins with
words? No, I don't think so. Words might precede violent
activity.
Most violence begins with words. If we start with the idea that nothing escapes language, that we can't think outside of language, then it all starts with words... mere words.
> Further slippage. Words are no more the cause of violence
than violence is the cause of words. They are too distinct
modes of communication.
Strategic and communicative according to Habermas. For Habermas, all communication, in its essence, is an act of solidarity, an attempt to come to an understanding... Maeve Cooke points out that this isn't the case - strategic actions aren't parasitical on communicative any more than communicative or strategic... And I would add by saying that violence is a form of communication - an attempt to establish a space in the Other for ones identity.
> This is poetic, but untrue. It is not the words that move
anyone, but the social relations that lie behind the words.
Ok, but then what are these social relations constituted by? It seems to me that Habermas's point is well taken, that language is a steering mechanism for all social relations... something he picks up from Gadamer. But he also notes that money and power tend to replace language, in the same way that sacred images "cement" or "fixate" certain symbols together - and develop in an autonomous manner whereby no one person or collective can actually challenge their magic bullet quality. But, they are still steered communicatively, to some degree (albeit through force).
> If the words are out of the context of the necessary
social relation then they will not be accompanied by the
effects you outline.
Yes.
> It might be (it's hard to tell from your account). But I
don't recognise this strategy as bearing upon my own. I
don't want to end *hate speech* but end discrimination.
Challenging hate speech is a tactic in that struggle, but
challenging the existence of hate speech is not.
Ok... I should have made that clearer.
thanks, ken