On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 Leslilake1 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 01-07-29 15:21:26 EDT, miles jackson writes:
>
> <<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.>>
>
> Here you seem to be saying that power differentials are what make
> communication possible.
>
> 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.>>
>
> Here you seem to be saying that communication/"language games" will be
> different (but no less possible) in a context where power differentials are
> decreased.
>
> Am I misunderstanding you? The two statements seem to contradict each other.
>
> Les
>
Sorry, to explicate: power is not a necessary precondition for communication (I'm not quite that Nietzschean). Under existing social and political arrangements, communication depends on power relations; but if those arrangements change, communication patterns will change.
Miles