8/10/2019 Jj Hendricks
1/23
Discourse And Process Theories: Seyla Benhabib and Arnold
MindellJ.J. Hendricks
California State Uni ersity! StanislausDe"art#ent of Politics
and Public Ad#inistration
$ntroduction
This "a"er e%a#ines the "oints of a&ree#ent and difference
bet'een t'o theorists 'ho addresssi#ilar the#es in ery different
#ilieus! co#in& fro# different "ers"ecti es and disci"lines.
(neof the theorists! Arnold Mindell 'ould call this a bootstra"
"a"er discussin& t'o bootstra"theories.
Seyla Benhabib)s stated "hiloso"hical "ro*ect is +to situate
reason and the #oral self in conte%tsof &ender and co##unity !
'hile insistin& of the discursi e "o'er of indi iduals to
challen&esuch situatedness in the na#e of future identities and
co##unities! and uni ersalistic "rinci"les.,- A critical theorist!
Benhabib e%tends Haber#as) discourse theory by reconstitutin&
it
"heno#enolo&ically thou&h insi&hts &leaned fro#
Hannah Arendt and Carol illi&an. Sheintends to ca"ture a
"raatic! yet uto"ian ision of refle%i ity and radical
e&alitarianis#throu&h the #oral con ersation! and further!
she e%tends the o"tions for the #ar&inali/ed
inchallen&in& their situatedness as #entioned abo e. She
situates discourse theory! +bet'eenliberalis# and co##unitarianis#!
0antian uni ersalis# and He&elian Sittlihkeit., 1
Arnold Mindell)s is a theory of e#er&ence. 2 His stated
"sycholo&ical &oal is +to de elo" skillsand #ethods for
'orkin& 'ith the e#er&in& 'orld situation: a "lanet
'ith fi e thousand differentlan&ua&es and reli&ions
'hose inhabitants kno' #ore about launchin& s"aceshi"s than
about&ettin& alon& 'ith each other. This for# of
"rocess "sycholo&y is 'orld 'ork 3 aninterdisci"linary #ethod
that hel"s s#all and lar&e &rou"s of "eo"le to li e! 'ork
and &ro'
toðer 'ithin their en iron#ent. The challen&e is to
de elo" or&ani/ational and conflictresolution so that they
reflect de#ocratic "rinci"les and are 'idely a""licable. 4 Mindell
dra's on#odern "sycholo&y 3 +the Jun&ian #ethod of
follo'in& the unconscious! the estalt focus on
"rocess! Carl 5o&ers unconditional su""ort for the indi
idual! the trans"ersonal focus on thedi ine! and the syste#s
"rinci"les fro# econo#ics! "olitics and "hysics., 6 His
"ri#aryinfluences are Jun&! "hysics and the Tao. He too! is
interested in e%tendin& o"tions for e%"ressionof oices left out
of the discussion.
Throu&h an i#a&inary con ersation bet'een these
theorists! lar&ely usin& their o'n 'ords andaddin& con
ersational se&ues! $ intend to e%a#ine the "otential for
Benhabib)s discourse theoryto #o e into a third "otential
a""lication by e#bracin& "rocess theory. So#e authors ha
ea""lied Haber#as in #ediation and dis"ute resolution conte%ts.
Benhabib e%tends discourse
1 Benhabib! Seyla! Situating the Self Gender, Community and
Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (Routledge, New York !""#$,
p%&%2 $bid! ". ii.3 Michael Har#on and 5ichard Meyer! 'rgani
ation )heory for Pu*lic +dministration 78ittle! Bro'n and
Co#"any!Boston: -9 ;ue
Arny : (h yeah! e%cuse #e Seyla! so#eti#es $ *ust find 'hat
"eo"le do is so interestin&... $t tells#e a lot. ?ou kno'! $
&uess $ don)t talk so #uch 'ith 'ords any #ore! $ *ust sli""ed
into thekinesthetic channel. But $ try to a oid *ar&on Seyla!
"eo"le don)t relate to that lan&ua&e.Couldn)t 'e be #ore
do'n to earth e)d ha e a lar&er audience for 'hat 'e)re
sayin&....Don)t you a&ree that 'e need to do #ore than read
te%tbooks about one another e need "laces'here 'e can #eet! debate!
ha e it out! &et into e#otional states and use our a'areness. e
needa "lace to drea# toðer! to &et into 'hat has been
ke"t unkno'n. Drea#in& #eans flo'in&'ith the unkno'n ri er
of co##unity. 7@ire! 126ual "hysical! "sycholo&ical or social
"o'er.7@ire! -I=ued. $f $ do thate%tensi ely! it beco#es a lecture
or a book. $ dra' fro# Haber#as #ainly. $ 'ant to sal
a&e#odernity 'hile de elo"in& a "heno#enolo&ical
a""roach.
Arny : hy! 'hat)s &ood about it Modernity! that is.
Pheno#enolo&y is su"er.
Seyla : 5eason and the #oral self are under attack fro# a ariety
of "hiloso"hical criti>ues. $think they can be defended and #ade
useful e en on the basis of &ender and co##unity! 'herethey) e
been under attack. Modernity)s le&acies are not tri ial. They
are #oral and "oliticaluni ersalis#! the tenets of 'hich are ideals
of uni ersal res"ect for each hu#an! the #oralautono#y of the indi
idual! econo#ic and social *ustice and e>uality! de#ocratic
"artici"ation!
6
8/10/2019 Jj Hendricks
6/23
ci il and "ersonal liberties co#"atible 'ith *ustice! and the
for#ation of solidaristic hu#anassociations.
Arny : Those are 'onderful thin&s. But $ 'ork in 'ays that
don)t de"end on reasonableness.Peo"le #ay try to be reasonable and
#i&ht be &ood hearted! and conflict resolution
techni>ues
are #ost effecti e 'ith rational! intentional "eo"le. Ho'e er!
techni>ues are needed for 'orkin&'ith turbulent states 'here
there is no #oti ation to be reasonable. More and #ore! ti#es
areturbulent.
e ha e #ore de#ocracy as a le&al institution! but 'e #ust
not &et drunk on our hi&h drea#s!Seyla. $ssues and "roble#s
ha e chan&ed! but the #anner in 'hich 'e &et alon& has
not. herea'areness and consciousness are concerned! e en re
olutions ha e only been refor#s. They'ere directed at chan&e in
social "olicy and had too little effect on sustainable
co##unity
"rocess. 7@ire! 11;< Gothin& less than a re olution in
consciousness 'ill chan&e the 'ay 'e &etalon&
toðer. 7@ire! 119ualifier capa*le . e can)t lea e any oices
out. The'orld situation is e erybody)s task. 78eaders! ;< eryone
is needed to re"resent reality.78eaders! -66< 5ank is e eryone)s
"roble# in a de#ocracy. 7@ire! 6 < $)# 'orried about debatetoo!
as a "rocess. But these thin&s! ca"ability and rank! 'ill be
taken care of! you kno'! if 'ereali/e that 'e e%ist in a field.
0no'in& 'e are 'orkin& 'ithin a field 'ill or&ani/e the
'ay 'edeal 'ith turbulence. 78eaders! 2I< rou" fields "er#eate
the 'orld in 'hich 'e li e. 78eaders!--< $n any &rou" there
are al'ays in isible influences! 'hich a""ear in #oods! #oti
ations!&rou" "roble#s! inflations! de"ressions! illusions! and
drea#s of #e#bers. 78eaders! -2< Theseare described as shado'
ener&ies in "hysics! the collecti e unconscious in Jun&ian
"sycholo&y!#or"ho&enic #a&netic fields in
Sheldrake.
Seyla: Ho' can you establish nor#s of discourse for a field
Arny : 5e>uire#ents for "rocess 'ork are si#"le to describe
and hard to carry out. But! $ can saythe follo'in&.
All "arts of the field #ust be encoura&ed to e%"ress the#sel
es co#"letely.-. All "arts #ust be identified.1. e #ust allo' the#
to s"eak. 78eaders 722uires. Haber#as) condition 7D< states that
only those nor#scan clai# to be alid that #eet 7or could #eet<
'ith the a""ro al of all concerned in theirca"acity as "artici"ants
in the "rocess. Haber#as) theory assu#es consensus. $ do not. $
considerthat consent #ust be treated not as an end3&oal! but as
a process for the co3o"erati e &enerationof truth or alidity.
$t is not the result of the "rocess of #oral *udent that counts!
but the
process for the attainment of such *udent. Co##unicati e ethics
is the processual generation of reasonable a&ree#ent about
#oral "rinci"les ia an o"en3ended #oral con ersation. Thee#"hasis
shifts to e%a#ine the nor#ati e "ractices and #oral relationshi"s
'ithin 'hichreasoned a&ree#ent as a 'ay of life can flourish
and continue. 7". 2 < The fairness of #oral
=
8/10/2019 Jj Hendricks
8/23
nor#s! and the inte&rity of #oral alues can only be
established throu&h a "rocess of "racticalar&u#entation!
'hich allo's its "artici"ants full e>uality in initiatin&
and continuin& the debateand su&&estin& ne' sub*ect
#atters for con ersation. 7=2uires tea#'ork around the "rocess of
a'areness. 7@ire! -96uire rationality throu&h contin&ent
"rocesses of sociali/ationand identity for#ation. 76Iuately ans'er
that >uestion. $t)s a "rocess >uestion. $ can reco##end se
eral of #y books.@or no'! $)ll *ust say that co##unications bet'een
nations! &rou"s! institutions and indi idualsre>uires
a'areness of double si&nals. 7@ire! 66< e #ust ha e the
coura&e to #ake "o'er isibleand stand for it. Then others can
acce"t or co#bat it! and best of all! a'areness 'ill
su&&est that'e can lea e our "osition 'hen others arise 'ho
'ill do it better. 78eaders! -69< So har#ony isnot nearly so
"o'erful as a'areness. 78eaders! 41uires us to ie' each and e ery
rational bein& as an indi/idual with a concrete history !
identity, and affecti/e:emoti/e constitution . eabstract fro# 'hat
constitutes our co##onality! and focus on indi/iduality . e seek
toco#"rehend the needs of the other! his or her #oti ations! 'hat
she searches for! and 'hat shedesires. (ur relation to each other
is &o erned by the nor#s of e.uity and complementaryreciprocity
. (ur differences co#"le#ent rather than e%clude each other. The
nor#s of interactionare nor#s of friendshi"! lo e! and care. The
#oral cate&ories are res"onsibility! bondin&
andsharin&. The corres"ondin& #oral feelin&s are lo e!
care! sy#"athy and solidarity. 7-69uickly create a sense of
co##unity and alastin& or&ani/ation. 7@ire! -=< Chaos
and turbulence in &rou"s! disorder and dise>uilibriu#
are#ore difficult because they #o e so far fro# consensus
reality.
Seyla: ell! do they #eet the condition of #y #odel that a
reasonable ar&u#ent #ust be arri edat under the conditions of
fair debate
Arny: Go 'ayF ?ou ha e to be re#o ed fro# the i##ediate conte%t
to see the dyna#ic asorderly. Disorder and dise>uilibriu# dealt
'ith in "hysics 'ithin the conte%t of chaos theory! bythe science
of 'holeness. This science sees all thin&s as interconnected
and stands o""osed toreductionist a""roaches that atte#"t to
understand e ents as the su# of causes and effects.78eaders! =6<
Chaos at the ed&e is un"redictable only fro# the ie'"oint of
the ori&inal identity.78eaders! =;< Conflict and chaos are
"redictable oscillations bet'een definiti e "atterns! anddisorder
is a #atter of ie'"oint. hat at first see#s chaotic or turbulent
is! once &i en thechance to unfold itself! an e%citin& ne'
"attern. 78eaders! ==< Process 'ork is based on theassu#"tion
that e%"erience is impermanent and non:a*solute . 78eaders! =-ues
the internali/ed dualistic conce"tion of a 'orld! 'hich s"lit
bet'een the 'orld of a""earance and the 'orld of essence. $n this
ersion! the +conce"t,i#"oses ho#o&eneity on a hetero&eneous
'orld. 7Giet/sche! Heide&&er! Adorno! Horkhei#erue!
lan&ua&e re"laces the conce"t or consciousness as the
central si&nifier of#eanin&. The focus is on the "ublic
si&nifyin& acti ities of a collection of sub*ects. $n
thise"iste#olo&y! the bearer of the si&n 7sentence!<
cannot be isolated! there is no "ri ate lan&ua&e.
-9
