Language to reaching understanding
and language to success
II.1.1. Orientation toward success
In this orientation, according to our author, the actor uses of language in his act to influence the other, his interlocutor. A speaker who acts in this way is successful because he wants to bring the other to achieve what he wants. By entering into communication, it has the idea of what will come out.
It is known that according to our author, in this language is used in contrast to his real goal is mutual understanding. And that is why participants who are successful can do anything to influence others, this is how Habermas says: "(...) they will try to fulfill the purposes that motivate their actions by influencing, to do so, by external means, using the carrot and stick, threats, promises attractive on the terms that define the situation "[1]
It is in the same vein that extends political discourse. Propaganda during many candidates for the various positions are attractive promises to voters, just in order to get elected. Thus, Professor Onaotsho Kawende wrote, "the electoral discourse is one that is less concerned to convince its target emancipatory, to gain membership and public favor, pushing people to vote for their party" [ 2] In this sense, language is diverted from its function which is the agreement, it becomes a means of manipulation, seduction, an instrument.
In addition, language-oriented success is often the basis for disagreement in society. This use of language is moral, inhuman, objectionable. This is noticeable by its way of structuring the discourse of fear that his plan is foiled. With this in mind, Professor Onaotsho say, "this speech is open to discussion, but while deploying you so it is not debatable" [3] In this use of language, there is no consideration of the actors in their horizontal communication.
In addition, this type of language encourages the domination of some over others. This use plays a very important role in political power. And when the language is geared towards success, there is domination of one over the other. Therefore, "the enslavement of a class of participants is a logical consequence of a broken balance intersubjective". [4] In this sense, we understand that the success-oriented language results in the imbalance in society. For proper functioning of society, we must seek to establish mutual understanding through language.
II.1.2. Orientation to reaching understanding
It is important for us to note that this use is founded on our work. For a view of our author in a communicative actors must act only in order to achieve the common definition of their situation. In seeking all that is possible to reach an agreement accepted by all participants, the protagonists seek mutual understanding, a process that requires recognition of the validity of this or that act.
According to Habermas, communicative action can only succeed if it leads to understanding between different subjects. Thus he writes: "In communicative action, language acquires, beyond the function of mutual understanding, the role of coordinating the activities directed towards a goal, several issues of the action, and plays a role of a medium to socialize these subjects of the action themselves "[5]. From the above, the function of language is to socialize individuals, for mutual understanding.
We believe in daily life if all men do everything through dialogue to seek agreement among themselves, many unnecessary conflicts that are tearing our world no longer exist. In other words, communication requires that all players agree to grant their plans of action and move towards their respective goals provided that an agreement on the status and conditions are expected. Intercomprehension requires the satisfaction of all participants.
In the Habermasian sense, attitude oriented to reaching understanding must be elucidated almost always in terms of speech acts. Such use of language is central to the universal pragmatics which means the presence of a limited right unlimited, ideally exempt from any power of influence. Communication is understood as an action for harmony and understanding between the different participants and free membership.
According to Habermas, the process of reaching understanding are rationally motivated agreement. Because communication is only on the language that is his medium and does the agreement. On this subject he wrote: "mutual understanding (vestandigung) is inherent in human language as its telos" [6]. With that, we believe that the understanding between the different subjects should be the goal of communicative action.
It is interesting to note that the language-oriented research cooperation agreement intersubjective "the process of reaching understanding are an agreement that satisfies the conditions of an agreement (zustimmung) rationally motivated the content of expression" [7 ]. As a result, an agreement reached by the communication will be rational in the agreement free of each participant.
Language oriented to reaching understanding presupposes a dialogue that seeks to establish a consensus. Dialogue assumes the presence of at least two subjects. For man is not a monad through its path alone. Enter into dialogue, it is understood, because according to our author, the speaker's intention to run out in-understanding, so that in the process of understanding the other person to take a stand for or not. In the process of reaching understanding, knowing that such calls should not have to believe only the truth. Thus, "no one has a monopoly of meaning or truth, topics such as co-partners who only contribute to the advent of in-common, the dialogue of truth" [8].
In short, the use of language for understanding is the fact that "Ego" seeks to link his actions with "Alter Ego". Here participants are illocutionary goals. The reciprocal relationship between the subjects is the basis for the Coordination of Social Action. Subjects seeking intersubjective cooperation, to establish the agreement.
II.3. OBSTACLES AND CONDITIONS OF COMMUNICATION
In this section, our concern is to show the obstacles and conditions established by Habermas to the success of linguistic communication. It is worth recalling that the act of language succeeds only if the other position is yes or no. That is a communication language within the meaning of our author succeeds to the extent that it leads to its purpose, which is understanding. Thus, Jean-Marc Ferry defines this activity as "human activity specifically oriented to mutual understanding" [9].
From this perspective, it is important to speak briefly of the agreement before addressing the obstacles and conditions that block or make it possible. The understanding is the same condition of a company. This statement is possible since the company was founded by communication. The participating in a communicative activity must promote understanding between them. [10]
In addition, the intersubjective understanding is as common ground between those who act communicatively. In other words, it is a communication to a valid agreement between the participants. This term has a policy to include the actions of an "Ego" to those of a "Alter Ego". And this addition in the words of Habermas does not stress here the paradigm is "the intersubjective relation qu'instaurent individuals capable of speaking to act when they agree among themselves on anything" [11]
The agreement process is used to coordinate actions of several subjects in communicative practice. Those who act in action, that is to say the players must advance reasons to justify the support of each other. Thus Habermas believes that mutual understanding is a "mutual process of persuasion, which coordinates the actions of several parties on the basis of a motivated". [12] Thus, the agreement resulting rational motivations is valid. Besides this agreement, there are things that are obstacles to the success of a communicative activity.
II.3.1. Some obstacles of language communication
There are several barriers to communication. We can not address them all in this work. The key for us is to talk briefly about what impedes this activity in the Habermasian perspective. We'll be focusing more on the conditions for the success of linguistic communication.
II.3.1.1. Psychological variables
Our concern here is to show that any participant in the communication is like a body subject to a set of external or internal forces related to its history. In this sense, it may have consideration or contempt for other participants. In case of contempt these variables are a barrier to successful communication. In this regard Habermas writes: "the art of dominating unconscious conflicts that psychoanalysis explains from defense strategies lead to communication disturbances affecting simultaneously intrapsychic and interpersonal levels" [13]. For as soon as a participant suffers from a superiority complex or inferiority, it is difficult to promote understanding between the players in action.
These psychological effects can manifest in many forms. These include the mechanism which consists of projective assimuler thought the other to his own or to lend to each other's feelings, and the defense mechanism in which the participant does not adhere to the view that goes against his own position. What constitutes an obstacle for communication worthy the name.
II.3.1.2. Polysemous words and pathological problems
For polysemous words is what led Habermas to emphasize the context, because one word can have several different meanings. These words constitute a wall to the success of a speech act, in that dialogue in two subjects learned the same code in different contexts.
As an illustration, we take the concept of "star" for the one next to a river where the stars are the towers, he had the idea of this word as a means of transport. As an actor who knows nothing of "star" as a means of transport, it will have the idea of a star. Intersubjective understanding and would be difficult to achieve.
In addition, barriers to communication of a pathological condition is caused by somatic psyho-offering or receiver. Thus, Habermas proposes "a self-reflective treatment on the explicit model of psychoanalysis in contemporary society, in order to find the true cognitive and practical interests and liberate the public space of social-ideological interference that disrupts communication among its members" [14].
In the sense of Habermas, the pathological manifestations can affect communication. Dominance caused by a participant disrupts communication, since it can lead to a defense mechanism. [15] Here the applicant is no longer acting for an agreement valid and rational, but to defend themselves .
In this same sense, Candide Moix think you also add the disruption of communications caused by the failure to meet human and moral values which sometimes lead to self-centeredness, the refusal of the other, and by the light consideration of relationships between subjects. [16] In short, the main cause of communication barriers must be at Habermasian sense, the assignment of one of the negative factors that make up the communication.
II.4. CONDITIONS FOR THE SUCCESS OF A COMMUNICATION
For Habermas, as we have said, communication is a business seeking intersubjective agreement. Felix and Guy Duportail, commenting on Habermas says, "any communication would be real interested to the very success of mutual updating of a counterfactual ideal speech situation anticipated by the speakers". [17] For our author, some conditions must be met to achieve this noble end that is the understanding.
II.4.1. The moral foundation of communication
He comes to know that according to our author, the notion of mutual immediately excludes that of imperialism. It is understood as cooperative interaction, this implies openness and recognition between participants in the communication as autonomous subjects and similar, that is to say free. Requires that subjects comply with ethical standards. These standards are intended to guide rational subjects in dialogue. As Habermas believes these standards advocate the rejection of coercion and the intersubjective recognition of subjects endowed with reason able to speak and act.
In this sense, we say that mutual understanding is possible only if the subjects in dialogue obey ethical standards that protect the communication of violence to the interests of some individuals. The idea of violence is worth its weight in gold to the extent that those acting communicatively issue, each one special requirements. Hence the communication must be based on morality, leading to a noble purpose is the establishment of the agreement.
The moral of accuracy and truth advocated by our author finds meaning in the confrontation line and the validity claims made by the actors. In short, the agreement which ended a rational communication is only possible if the parties agree that their activity is regulated by moral norms. The moral integrity of the speaker and listener is a necessary condition for the success of communicative action.
II.4.2. The use of standards and context
The standards are what is supposed to be known to all. According to Habermas, to achieve mutual understanding requires that the applicant may consider other participants using what is known to all. Thus, he wrote: "he who wants to get along with others is forced to assume common standards against which participants can find out if a consensus takes place". [18] Thus, one can say that standards are one of the conditions for a successful speech act.
In addition, Habermas attaches great importance to the context. For him, it is necessary that the situation context is set correctly in any communication. The players must register in the same context of utterance of speech. Thus, Habermas writes, "for each type of speech acts, must be complied with the terms and conditions of the context for the speaker to obtain a successful illocutionary". [19]
With this in mind that our author incorporates the agenda of pragmatics, speech acts not only direct but also indirect, figurative, ambiguous, in the background that gives accurate contextual meanings. The meaning of a speech act can not happen outside the contextual conditions.
II.4.3. The communicative actions
Here it is question of the attitude of the speaker or participant. It must not be strategic, it must act as an "Ego" that wants to coordinate its actions with a "Alter", so they can agree on something.
According to Habermas, participants should ask that actions that will enable them to reach agreement as partners. For the understanding of a speech act depends on who made that it is acceptable. [20] As a result, we realize that the participants must take part to understand. The Offeror shall not act requirement to coordinate its action directed towards a goal with that of other immediate participants.
In other words, one who takes part in a process of communication must always act in order to establish relationships. In this process, participants are asked to adopt the attitude of dialogue and listening, to a mutual understanding. In other words, by listening and dialogue, the actors act for intersubjective cooperation. For this, that the requirement for us to call for tolerance.
II.4.4. Tolerance
The idea of tolerance is very significant in the Habermasian thought. Indeed, to our author, who is involved in a communication to that of others can come up with something good. In other words, anyone participating in a trial agreement must be prepared to accept that the prospect of another is as good. Participants must also accept criticism, "each based on a consensus recognition intersubjective criticism claims to truth, and thus it is assumed that those who act communicatively capable of mutual criticism" [21].
Tolerance also requires the other to be considered as such because it is said he can contribute to the establishment of the search for understanding. Being tolerant means a self desabsolutisation because "it may be the other who is right". [22] This leaves us to say that to reach a valid agreement in communication, the actor must be willing to listen the comments of others. Thus we set the tolerance as a prerequisite for the success of linguistic communication.
KALONDA HERITIER
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire