> To put it bluntly, I think JH has it completely
>backward: it is via domination and power that we are able to
>communicate with each other. If/when we succeed in overcoming
>capitalist domination, we will not be "closer" to some sort of
>ideal communicative situation; rather, we will be engaged in different
>language games as appropriate to that context as existing forms
>of communication are appropriate to the existing context.
>
>Miles
Now, this is an interesting point, and it follows Lacan's idea that understanding is unsuccessful communication (I'm assuming that you aren't following Lacan here... but Lacan has developed this idea in detail). I don't know where I sit on this. I certainly think that in most cases we entertain the fantasy of understanding when we speak with others... at the same time I'm intrigued by the idea that understanding and communication move in oppsing directions: understanding ends communication, and communication seeks to avoid understanding so as to reproduce itself.... and again, I'm not sure if these are at odds with one another...
However, Habermas argues that there are different kinds of power: communicative and instrumental. Instrumental power destroys the capacity to communicate, whereas communicative power comes out of agreements that have already taken place and is, in this way, dependent upon communicative structures for its own legitimacy and renewal...
ken