LAP & CHAT duke it out
Wow, this week has been very thought-provoking. I don’t even know how to synthesize my thoughts into words.
First, I’ve tried to think about how two theoretical frameworks: a language/action perspective (LAP) [which is based on Habermas' communication theories] and the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) [based explicitly, I believe in critical theory such as Paolo Freire] are different. Both rely on language & dialogue as a mediation of human thought and action. Since I cannot find a compelling difference, I am starting to think I don’t understand either of them sufficiently. It may be that the difference is that language/action perspective entails a study of pragmatics, as in the meanings of the discourse, not just the words themselves. But then, doesn’t CHAT also emphasize discourse?
Also both contain the word an element of “acting.” But what is the difference between action and activity? Are they the same thing, or is action fundamentally different from activity. It seems that action is more intentional where activity gives the sense of something that is imposed from without. It could be that the individual is less “active” in the CHAT model as foremost, their existence and experience is rooted in history and traditions that are part of society. However, any basis of a theory on Habermas’ work would have to also emphasize this external influence, but because Habermas views individuals as performing an action by communicating that is the difference. Though in Habermas’ view, the System clouds and obscures direct lines of responsibility and action in relation to each individuals’ Lifeworld (or perception of their existence or “being” in the world). So how is the different from a Freirian perspective of the “colonized mind.” It seems that from a critical theorist perspective, oppression is often interpreted as being from an economic perspective or the dominant culture dictating norms that forever creates false binaries of “otherness.” However, there might be the possibility in looking at Habermas that for the System to colonize the Lifeworld (as I believe he expresses it), it is not an issue of dominant culture oppressing, but an issue of the System obscuring each individuals’ ability to create in meaning in their Lifeworld–in other words the System, the “they” who tell us not to park there and to pay our taxes on time, can obscure our own introspection on what it means to lead an “authentic” life.
Or *I* could just think that.
