>
>firstly, H uses analytical ideal types. like weber did. they're tools
The question is how usefuk they are.
>secondly, the conversation here is instrumental action, not communicative
>action.
>
>communicative action involves people trying to understand one another in a
>disagreement.
>
Then my point is that it isn't particularly necesasry for understanding of meaning. We can, and mostly do, get by without communicative action. But theven when we try to engage it in it, we can do sow ithout approaching Habermasian conditions.
"What's going on here, slave? Why isn't work on the pyramids moving along?" "Well, master, we slaves are unhappy. We're Jews, and don't like to have to work on Saturdays, it's agin our religion." "Hm, I can see that. Well, you'll have to work twice as hard on Sunday to make up for taking Saturday off." "We won't like taht either, but it's better than nothing."
>is the master trying to understand the point of view of the slave? no.
>
Maybe to the extent necessary to get the work done. But in fact, as feminists hould know, lots of people in relations of dominations do what to understand the pov of the subordinate person, as long as it doesn't conflicy with the continuation of domination.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp