WPC FM‚%Jl\˾F8FHC/egd =p^3s!#:P:v[ƔإLO">My߰}$iH̨7u(y R`.N\p` XI.o|Hiw7';%kFi&vMI%볉&29_E,vKo^qe1}:J8r'q!k/sL}ztCqTýɮ} ·t}sGV|hܰ< GFd, OG>\۬EӳL/ӗ}Wuks$EU]pZa}XknZ:Tn ~~2Xq]Bx>&ʗC(#O|n^$cMWxp-3oȟ=N6lc?4.d 0,\&8F%:# UN %! 0:' 0~aU>^  0D) 1 umNNN 72NN 72 72P 0 U 0 0 0 72NNNN 1s 0w4? 0 0y 0@! 0" 0" 0m# 0N\$$p% 0DA()K*++, 1 _c- 72- 72- 0&. 0. 0/ 0?0 0c0 0wI1 01 0J2 722.3 723 14 724N&5N(5N*5N,5 0.5 05 06 0e7 08 08 0l9 0 : 0:N=;N?;NA;NC;NE;NG;NI;NK;NM;NO;NQ;NS; 72U; B9; 72; 72; 72<E:< 72<< 72n< 72< 72<= AS>f> 0V?FA@BB 0B 0%C mCCFbG 0VJ 0DqJJ 72WL 72LNL D5LL 0M 0M4NS 0RT 0T 0U 0>V 0V 0hW 0W 0X 0}Y 0>Z 0Z 0[ 0o\ 0$] 0H] 0^ 0n^ 1U]_ 0U_ B-` 724` 72f` 1U` 7 ` D+` A$a Ba 72a-bk Af{oN'q'q'q'q'q>ut1vvv%w y y y y y yfzazzzzzzz|||||||||||||||||||||||||||iˀˀˀˀˀˀˀq 4f BaċU,؋؋؋؋M(N0 7222222222222 72ddddddddddddddddddddddddddd$faU,HP DeskJet 830C Series Printer0(,,,,0(0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  \  `&Times New Roman{, (#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)/)  i)/) *+ (_2623  ..( ^$  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   .3  :. 0x*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,   i)337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` Cu,(8(#A 5 ($USUS.,    2    _Iassumethereaderisfamiliarwiththesequenceofmoralreasoningstagesdevelopedby  LawrenceKohlberg(Kohlberg1981,1984;Colby&Kohlberg1987)andwiththegeneral  geneticepistemologicalperspectiveofJeanPiaget(Flavell1963).Averycondensed | explanationandpresentationofthesecanbefoundinChilton(1988a).Ialsoassumesome b familiaritywithFishkin(1984).  ($USUS.,    8    _U.S.policytowardpostrevolutionaryCubaisanexampleofthis.Ontheonehand,the  U.S.governmentdemandsthatCubaprovetheadequacyofitssocialistregime,whileonthe  otherhanditusesitspoliticalpowertocreatedifficultiesforthatregime.(Seealsothe | discussionofCubain4  &O  5  SomeProblemsofCircularReasoninginSocialScience6&O  7 .)($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#(7V$   .II  .ۀ   ( q^H$  0  0` (#(#   .E  ..ہ 0d ({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(O$ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  ($USUS.,    9    _Colby&Kohlberg(1987)providenoscoringcriteriaforStage6,becauseKohlberg  couldnotgetenoughcasestoproveitslongitudinalformationafterStage5.Sometheorists  believeitcannotbestructurallydescribedwellenoughtocodeit;sometheoristsevenholdthat | Stage6doesnotexistatall.ObviouslyIdontagree,butIwanttoacknowledgethatIhaveno b c empiricalevidenceofthevalidityofmyclaims,onlywhatIbelievetobeacleargraspofthe ^ logicalstructureofsuchastage.(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# قLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5WOREssay #Header3Header4Header5Header66789 !"%s+t37;?CGKOS-*+x i)/) *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#1)0!?HeadOfFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a);i)0vCHeadOfSecFor the outline I give beneath the title of IA1(a)(i)1)a)=*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x    i) d/)  i)/)  i)/)  i)/)   ($USUS.,    18    _Ihavetosaythatspringingthequestiononmyparentsatdinnerinfrontofmysiblings  wasnotconducivetoawellthoughtoutresponse.+eopuE<<C { ($USUS.,    1    _ApreviousversionofthefirstsectionofthisessayappearedinEgipndevidrio:  Revistadefilosofia(Chilton2000b).Theessaysoddformattingcomesfromitsbeingoneof  severalessaysinChilton(forthcoming:Chapter6).(.3$ !USUS.,   < ($USUS.,    *    _Theterm reflectsisdeliberatelyambiguous.Itcouldmeanthatanexistingpower  configurationhasforcedthischoiceonpeopleorthatapreexistingoraccidentalchoicehas  yieldedaclassstructurealongthelinesofwhoaccidentallyhappenstobenefitfromthechoice. | Orboth,ofcourse.Thebasicpointisthatmoralarbitrarinessandsocialpowerareinternally b connected.3|x(&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  U  ($USUS.,    4    _ThisisnottoimplythatStages13arenolongerinuse.Manyrelationshipsinvolve  onlyissuesofconcerntotheimmediateparties!simpleagreementsbetweenfriends,for  example.Inacomplexsocietyoutsideforcesmaysometimesintrude,meaningthattoreally | understandthoseissuesonerequireshigherstagethought,butthisoccasionalintrusionofthe b outsideworlddoesnotobviatelowerstagethoughtinothercircumstances.IappreciateAki H Halmeforpressingmeonthisissue. ($USUS.,    12    _AndthesamecouldbesaidforBenhabibvisavisAckerman,quiteapartfromher  effectivecritiqueofhisposition. X ($USUS.,    15    _XqXXXIntheoryitisundercutbytheobjectionsofevenonecitizen,butsocialpowerbeing  whatitis,withthefirstreactiontocriesofunfairnessbeingsilencingandsocialdisapproval,any  foundationalprincipleliketheSPIcanonlybeovercomebytheobjectionsofobjectingcitizens | numerousandpowerfulenoughtomakeotherspayattentiontothemeritsoftheissue.#XqXXXqf#(.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1    ($USUS.,    10    _Forexample,inrecountingsatyagrahasdeterminedavoidanceofsanctimoniousness  andselfrighteousness(4 &O  5  q.v.6&Oryi  7caL /). i)/) YYYY)!dxdx dP(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,   * ($USUS.,    7    _IfindFoucaulttheeasiesttoexplain,butotherpostmodernistmethodscertainlyexist.  Forexample,Derridashowsthepossibilitiesinherentinasystematicreversaloffigureand  ground!asystematichighlightingofthepreviouslyenshadowed inferiorincontrasttowhich | theputatively superiorformofknowledgehasclaimedvalue.Thefield(s)ofsocial b constructiontheoryandsymbolicinteractionismprovidesimilarcritiquesintheirongoing H demonstrationofhowsocialpracticesareconstructedoutofpeopleschoicesandsocan . ~ conceivablybeconstructedinotherways.  d   OtherexamplesofpostmoderncritiquewouldincludeBenhabibs(1986)attackonthe  J wholegeneralizingapproachofjusticebasedtheories(arguingthattheirfocusonthe  0  GeneralizedOtherpreventsanyconsiderationofthe ConcreteOther)andtoNancyFrasers    (1986:425)longlistofmeansbywhichthedominanceofcertainnormativediscoursesare    maintained. ($USUS.,    19    _ Bootstrappingcouldbeanotherterm.(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   2IL0Level 1 X   2( ` hp x 2   5+ ` hp x 52FL0Level 2    /%` ` hp x /   5+ ` hp x 52CL0Level 3    ," hp x ,   5+ ` hp x 52@L0Level 4 `   ) hp x )   5+ ` hp x 52=L0Level 5    &hhp x &   5+ ` hp x 52:L0Level 6    #p x #   5+ ` hp x 527L0Level 7 h    p x    5+ ` hp x 524L0Level 8    pp x    5+ ` hp x 52 0Level 9    <IL:ChiltonBul01 X   2( ` hp x 2   5+ ` hp x 5<:Default Para$359=AEIMQ111111111(-2$ !USUS.,  )Hairline d i)/) (359=AEIMQ2"""""""""'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK% %d i) # ($USUS.,    13    _XqXXXThephilosophicalpositionisnecessaryforthetestinordertosaywhatquestionswould  berelevanttomoralityinthefirstplace(asopposedtocustom,orprudence,orobedienceto  authority,etc.).Habermastermssuchaphilosophicalpositiona placeholder!somethingthat |  cannotitselfbeprovendirectly,butthatwerequiretostandinforwhateverthetrue ^ philosophicalpositionisinordertoconstructthetest(s).Thispositioncanthenbetested D indirectlybyseeingifpeopledoinfactmovefromstagetostageinaccordancewiththesenseof * moraladequacyimpliedbythephilosophicalposition.#XqXXXqf#ԀAswiththejustificationofHabermass   discourseethics,theprocesshereisoneof reconstructivescience. a ($USUS.,    3    _XqXXXEarlierpremodernstages!Stages1and2!arebasednotonmutualroletaking.  Technically,Stage3isfullysatisfactoryonlyfordyadicrelations,sinceashiftinanyone  relationshipcandisrupttheagreementsmadeinthepartiesotherrelationships.InKohlbergs | classicmoraldilemmaofHeinzandthedrug,whereHeinzmustdecidewhethertostealadrug b tosavehiswifeslife,Heinzsrelationshipwithhiswifedisruptshisrelationshipwiththe H druggist.Similarly,inSophoclesstragedy, Antigone,thedisruptedrelationshipbetween . ~ KingCreonandtheslainrebelPolynicesdisruptsCreonsrelationswithAntigone(Polynicess  d sister),hissonHaemon(Antigonesfianc),andhiswifeEurydice.ThisistheargumentImade  J inChilton(1988a).  0    Thisinterpretationhelpedmeillustratethenatureofthecentrallyimportantbreak    betweenStages3and4,butInolongerbelieveitisthebest.Inowbelieveitmorereasonableto    read Antigoneasacautionarytaleabouttheconsequencesofastubbornrefusaltoworkthings   outwitheachother.Inotherwords,IbelieveSophoclessawtheproblemasarisingprimarily x  fromCreonsinflexibility,hisrefusaltoworkoutamutualaccommodationwiththepeople ^  aroundhim.Creonshubrisconsistsinhisdeterminationtohavehisownway,tobethesole D  determineroftherightandwrongofthesituation.Hisrefusaltoaccommodateispunishedby *z  thedeathsofhiswife,son,andfuturedaughterinlaw.Thesamepointcanbemadeabout `  Oedipus,anotherofSophoclessplays,interpretingOedipusstragicflawashisdetermination F toknowthetruthofhissituationdespitethepleasofhiswife/motherJocasta!i.e.,hisrefusalto , workoutamutualaccommodationwithher.#XqXXXqe# q ($USUS.,    6    _Actually,oneneednotclaimthatsuchchoicesweremadeconsciously;onlythatthey  werechoices!i.e.,contingent!andthattheirresultsservetoarbitrarilyandthusunjustly  advantagesomegroupsoverothers. D ($USUS.,    16    _XqXXXIbelieveBenhabibgoesfartherthansheneedstohere.Hermoralobjectiontothe  occupationisprimary;itscorruptionoftheethicalvaluesoftheJewishpeopleissecondary.  Perhapsshemeansthattheimmoralityarisesbecausetheoccupationisagainst(specifically) | Jewishlaw.ButIfindithardtobelievethatshewouldacceptthepracticeeveniftheJewish b traditionmandatedsuchoccupation;morelikelysheismakingitclear,inadiscoursetaking H placeamongpeoplesharingthattradition,thatherviewscannotbedismissedasforeigntoit.#XqXXXqf# 4 ($USUS.,    17    _XqXXXInowregardHefsphilosophyasStage4.Itshedonismrightlychallengedtherigid  culturalnormsofthe1950s,buthedonismisnotyetaprincipledstance.PerhapsIamdoingit  aninjusticehere,butthatscertainlywhatmyteenagemindgotoutofit,andIhaventseen | anythingsincethentochangethatperception.#XqXXXqf# ' ($USUS.,    20    _HeldundertheauspicesoftheCenterforPhilosophyandtheSocialSciences,Federal  UniversityofSantaCatarina,Florian;polis,SantaCatarina,Brazil,June67,2002.  ($USUS.,    22    _ThiswastheoriginalURLofthearticle.However,thiswebsiteand,asfarasIcan  tell,theentirejournalhavevanished.Therewentmy15minutesoffame.  ($USUS.,    21    _ThisarticleanditsbibliographyusethesamereferenceschemeasinChilton  (forthcoming)!naturallyenough,sincetheyformpartsofit.Apologiesfortheincomplete  citations;thesourcebibliographyisincomplete,andIhavenotyetunpackedmybooks | sufficientlytogetthecompletecitations.Table_A  ($USUS.,    14    _Withoutprejudice,IignorethequestionofwhetherAckermanwouldagreewithher  characterization.Ifyoulike,youcanthinkoftheword Ackermanasbeingalwaysinquotes,  meaning Benhabibsexcellent/flawed/distorted/insightful/ridiculous/brilliant[pickone]viewof | therealAckermansposition.  ($USUS.,    5    _ThesepositionsarenumberedaccordingtoKohlbergsstagescheme(Colby&Kohlberg  1987).KohlbergsworkspecificallyincludesStage4.HisworkincludesStage6onlyasa  theoreticalposition;toofewofhissubjectscouldbefoundatthatleveltoestablishitsexistence. | KohlbergdoesnotevenmentionStage5(or3),buttheirexistenceItakefromFishkins b (1986)argumentthateachofKohlbergsstagescanbesubvertedbyarelativizationofthe H formerscommands.(ThustherearealsoStages2and1.Thesearenotshowninthe . ~ figure.)PaceFishkin,IhaveincludednoStage6,becauseasIwillarguelater,Stage6  d encorporatesitsownrelativization.Satyagraha _ ($USUS.,    11    _XqXXXItdoesnotseemreasonablethat agreementofallbethecriterion.Chilton(1998,  2000)dealwithhowdiscourseethicscandealjustlywithdisagreement.#XqXXXqf# g e"USUS.,  _ @ *ddd Xdd Xdd X,4<2,<2,<<+  ?Y.  ?Figure2  TheLogicofHabermassDefenseofDiscourseEthics   TJ/"  Y  T 9/!" 9 9/!" 9 QG,"    QPhilosophical  reconstructionofthe   presuppositionsof ||  argumentation,andthe bb  discourseethicsthey HH  imply 9/!. . " 9 9/!" 9Thecriticdoesaccept  discourseethicsasaresult  ofbeingconfrontedwith || performative bb contradictionsrelyingon HH thepresuppositionsof . .  argumentationXvF XXX QG,  "    Q#XqX XXvFD# (XXq#XqX(# 9/!  " 9 9/!  " 9 (XXq#XqX(# QG,  "     QThe[actual,internal] g g  presuppositionsof M M  argumentation 9/!33"  9 9/!g g "  9Criticaltestofdiscourse g g  ethics:canacriticbe M M  persuadedthroughuseof 33  performative   contradiction?<20!"     <[Again,Imustaskthereadertomakesurethecausallinksappear " asinFigure1.][ [dTable_A $Tahoma i)/) CircularReasoning  e"USUS.,  _ @ *ddd Xdd Xdd X% % ,<2,<2,<<+  ?Y.  ?Figure1  DialecticalLogic TJ/"  Y  T 9/!" 9 9/!" 9 QG,"    QE1 9/!" 9 9/!" 9E2XvF XXX QG, "    Q#XqX XXvF1# (XXq#XqX(# 9/! " ŋ9 9/! " 9 (XXq#XqX(# QG, "     QI1 9/! "   9 9/!"  9I2<20"    <[Becausethefourcausallinksmaynot  appearproperlyineveryformat,Imust  askthereadertomakesuretheyappear   asfollows:E1!>I2;I2!>E2;E2!>   I1;I1!>E1.]Table_A $Tahoma !USUS.,  _  8qXXdd8July27,2002  3(# LEVEL:8[i.e.,draft] Ԉ  ?+ ` hp x X? (XX[Chapter6]#XqX(P#  | 0    XXqSituatingPostmodernisminCognitive % developmentalPerspectived #  1      #XqX# (#(# [URL:PICdP] m  SECTIONS(&perhapssubsections): 9   =(v03 "7;"  7;0  2v  I  3  0` (#(#  SituatingPostmodernism7;݌o ` (#` (# Ќ  "7;"  7;0  2v  II  3  0` (#(#  XqXXXqCaseStudy:SeylaBenhabibs(1989) LiberalDialogueVersusaCriticalTheory U  ofDiscursiveLegitimation#XqXXXqH#7;݌; ` (#` (# Ќ  AY]) xdExA      ABSTRACT  ^ Postmodernismscritiqueofnormativesystemsisinsightfulbutalsosubjecttoreflexiveself .~ negationandconsequentpoliticalimpotence.Thisessayattemptstobothhonorandrescue f postmodernismbysituatingitaspartofadialecticalstructure!Habermass reconstructive N science!includingbothconstructionanddeconstruction.Kohlbergssequenceofmoral 6 reasoningstagesisusedtoorganizethesevarioustheoreticalpositions.Acasestudyof  Benhabibs(1989)critiqueofAckermanshowswhatthesepositionslooklikeinonecontext.  [linespacingsethere]  AY]) xdExA  #     #` .I  .ۀ  SituatingPostmodernism#`    Ԍ  Ќ  Thisessaylaysoutatheoreticalframeworksituatingpostmodernism.B #  2      ׀Theframeworkabstracts k certainlogicalfeaturesofpostmodernismandseveralothernormativepositionsinorderto U  acknowledgepostmodernismsstrengthandtoclarifythemannerinwhichHabermass ?!  reconstructivescienceprovidesapositivedirectionthatpostmodernismissooftencriticized )"y  aslacking.Ratherthanusepostmodernismsdifficultiestodismissit,atacticwhichcanbeused #c! ideologicallybyentrenchedpowerstructurestobeatbackpostmodernismscritique,Iwantto #M"  clarifyhowreconstructivesciencepreservesthepowerofthepostmoderncritiquewhile ^ renderingitsecureagainsttheaccusationofanabsoluteandthusselfdefeatingrelativity. H  l<`   ThebasicperspectiveisshowninTable1.Inmoraldevelopmentterms,premodern 2 societyischaracterizedbyitsorganizationthroughfacetofacerelationswithinthesmall   community.Socialconflictsareaddressedbymutualadjustmentsbyallparties.The   communityissmallenough(andorganizedsimplyenough)thatpeoplesrelationshipsare   basicallyfacetofaceandsopeopleknowwhattheiragreementsareandwithwhom.At  | Stage3,the firstorderGoldenRulestage,theseagreementsarearrivedatmutually,affirming  f arelationshipofmutualroletakingandthusmutualcare. #  3        P   Premodernsocietybecomesmodernwhensocialintercoursecannolongerberegulated :  byfacetofacerelations.Historically,thisoccursduetopopulationgrowth,moredifferentiated $  manufacturingprocesses,widertradeconnections,andmorecomplextechnology.Population l  growthmakesfacetofacerelationsdifficultorimpossible.Tradeandmanufacturing V  complexityrequiresorganizationbeyondthelocalcommunity.Andfacetoface @  accommodationsaretooslowtoadapttothefasterpaceofchange(newmarkets,newtrade *  routes,newtechnologies,newknowledge).Itdoesntmatterwhethersocietyisorganizedby   Stage1,2,or3moralreasoning;allofthesearebasedonfacetofacerelations.l #  4          TheseproblemscouldbedealtwithatStage4,where,historically,onesloyaltywas ^ organizedbyacentrallydefined,overarchingmoralsystemandwhereonesfacetoface H relationsweresubordinatedtothatloyalty.Soonthisaccount,modernsocietyappearswiththe 2 adventofthetruepoliticalsubject,thecitizen,whoseresponsibilityisnotmerelytoobeythelaw   butalsotomaintainit.Politicaltheoriesofmodernitydifferwidelyfromeachother,buttheyare   allpremisedontheideaofcitizenshipandthesimultaneoussubordinationtoandsupportofthe   law.  |  l`   Theremainderofourstoryistoldintermsoftheinterplayofasearchfornormative  f groundandacritiqueofanysuchground.Thepositionsalternatebetweenassertionsofmoral  P positions(stages4&5,showninboldfaceinTable1),andcriticalsubversionsofthesepositions :  (stages4&5,showninitalics). #  5      ׀Noticefinallythateachstagehasavarietyoftheorists $  associatedwithit,becauseeachcognitivedevelopmentalstagecanberealizedinavarietyof l  concreteforms;however,eachconcreteformretainsthebasiclogicalstructureofitsstage. V    PostmodernismappearsasStage5,andthispositioningindicateswhatIseeasthe @  central,definingcharacteristicofpostmodernism:postmodernismisanyphilosophicalposition *  orcritiquethatseekstoshowthecontingencyofmodernism(Stage5theories)byundercutting   modernismspretensetoobjectivity.Forexample,MichelFoucaultsgeneralcritiquesandhis  archeologyofknowledgeshowthattheinstitutionsandlogicalcategoriesofliberalsocietyare  neitherinevitablenorneutral.Instead,theyarealwayscontingentchoicesthatbecomedominant t atleastinpartbecausetheyserveaparticularsocialgrouping(class;occupation;etc.).f #  6      ׀His ^ archeologicalexpeditionsintotheoriginsofspecificsocialcategoriesorpractices!theclinic, H theprison,sexuality,andsoon!turnupevidencethatthesecategoriesorpracticesaretheresult 2 ofchoicesbeingmadeamongavarietyofpossiblealternatives,choicesthatwerebynomeans z selfevidentatthetime.Eventheseminimalfindingsshowthecontingencyofthesechoicesand d thusimplicitlycallourcategoriesandpracticesintoquestion.Butbeyondthat,hisfindingsalso N showthatthechoicesaremadeatleastpartiallythroughthebattleamongspecificsitesofsocial 8 power,andtheconsequencesofthatbattleisseenstilltodayintheadvantagesenjoyedbythe " winningsite,advantagesthatmayhavebecomeoppressiveinsteadofmerelythebestofpossible   choices.Inpoliticalconflict,ThomasKuhns normalsciencewouldbeconflictswithinthe  frameworkofexistingcategoriesandpractices,e.g.,whetherweshouldspendourtaxrevenues   ongunsorbutter.Foucaultprovidesuswithasystematicapproachtoconducting,inthesocial !l sphere,whatKuhnwouldcall revolutionaryscience.y #  7      ׀Otherpostmoderncritiquesvaryin ^ howtheyidentifyandundercutthesepretensionstoobjectivity,buttheyhavethesamebasic H logic. 2   ThepostmoderncritiquedrawsontheforceofthesocalledMnchhausentrilemma,   namely,thatanyattempttogroundamoraltheoryinpropositionallogicmustresultinoneof   threeunsatisfactorysituations:eitherthechainofjustificatoryimplicationiscircular,oritisan   infiniteregression,oritbreaksoffatacertainpointheldtobeselfevidentlytrue(Habermas  | 1983/1990:7,79;seealsoAlbert1985).Thislastalternativeistheobjectofpostmodernists  f critiques.Theircritiquesshow,ineffect,thatthesupposedly selfevidentpositionsareinfact  P contingent,subjecttocritique,thusdislodgingthemodernistfromhisentrenchedposition. :    However,allsuchpostmoderncritiqueshaveaparticularvulnerability:theycannot $  answerthefundamentalquestionofhowwearetolivetogether.Critiqueisameansof l  improvingthehumancondition,butitisnotitselfawayoflife.Awayofliferequiressome V  formofjustification,ameansofmakingdecisionsinthefaceofnewsituationsandbetter @  understandings.Takenbyitself,postmodernismscritiquecansaywhatshouldnotbe,butit *  cannotsay,oratleastjustify,whatshouldbe.Infact,themoreabsolutistformsof   postmodernismdamnallsocialconstructionsinadvance,aselfannihilationevenoftheirown  sourcesofmeaning.Sopostmodernism,tobesuccessful,mustacceptitsownlimits.Ifits  critiqueistohaveanyvalueatall,itcanonlyhaveitwithinthecontextofthepossibilityof t value. ^   Whathappenstomodernistsinthefaceofpostmodernistsvigorouscritique?Abad H response!butacommonone,alas!istoentrenchthemselvesmorefirmly,catchingthe 2 postmodernistsinacrossfirebetween(a)thedemandthatpostmodernistsprovidewaysto z improveorovercomethecategoriesandpracticestheycriticizeand(b)theuseoftheir(the d modernists)entrenchedpowertoresistanysuchchangesfrombeingattempted.  #  8      ׀Ineffect, N suchmodernistsclaim,aprioriandabsolutely,thatregardlessofpostmoderncritiques,wearein 8 factlivinginthebestofallpossibleworlds. ^   Abetterresponseofmodernistswouldbetorelyuponthenecessityofsomeconstruction H withouttotalizingit.Thisplacesthemandtherestrainedpostmodernistsasdialecticalpartners, 2 notopponents.Noonehastochoosesidesinsuchapartnership.Thosewhohavecategories   andpracticestoproposeordefendcandosowhilestillacceptingthelegitimacyofcritiquesthat   subverttheirpositions!indeed,beyondacceptingthepossibilityofthosecritiques,actively   seekingthem.critiques.Thosewhousecriticaltechniquestoarriveatcriticalsubversionscan  | dosowhilestillacceptingtheultimatenecessityforsomeaffirmativechoiceofpositions.I  f recognizethatthissoundsratheridealisticandimpractical.Idonothavetimeenough,space  P enough,oryourtoleranceenoughtodescribethebackgroundprocessesthatdealwithwhatI :  acknowledgearepracticalproblemsofemotionsandtheworldslimits.Idealwiththemto $  someextentinmyotherconferencepaper,particularlyundertherubricof therapeutic l  discourse. V  ic5%!`|LR  `E tt% q 4i  ThisdialecticalrelationshipisthestructuralcharacteristicconstitutingStage6.( #  9      ׀Two @  formsofknowledgearesaidtobeinadialecticalrelationshipwhenneitherhaslogicalpriority ^ overtheother,eachcansubverttheother,andnoother,superiorformsofknowledgeexist.(See H Figure1,below.)Inthedomainofnormativetheory,modernismhastogiveupitshopeof 2 establishinganyabsolutetruth;normativepositionscanonlybeheldcontingently.For   example,evenif,asHabermassdiscourseethicsrequires,wecanachievetheagreementofall,   thisagreementiscontingent,sinceitcanbebrokenbythedefectionofanyone,noworlater.In   particular,postmodernobjectionsmustbedealtwith.Postmodernism,foritspart,givesupthe  | righttodamnallpositionsinadvance.Itsmethodcancontinuetoidentifyproblemswith  f existingnormativepositions,butithastodosoinpractice.Suchcritiquesareacceptedoreven  P welcomedasnecessaryandimportant,butonlyintheformofpostfacto,concretecorrections. :  Evenifwefacetheprospectofaninfiniteseriesofsuchcorrections,theexisting,contingent $  normativepositionretainsitsbindingpower. l    Thislogicalrelationshipseemstobedifficulttograsp.Considerthe waysofrelating V  approachasanexample.WhenItellpeoplethatitisbasedinpartontherecognition(viathe @  Mnchhausentrilemma)thatnomoralitycanbedeductivelyjustified,q #  10      ׀theyobjectthatthisis *  selfcontradictory,sinceitmeansthatImightbewrongtoo.Theybelievethatthisobjection   forcesmeeithertoconfessthatmyargumentiswrongortoclaimajustificationthatthewaysof  relatingperspectiveitselfholdstobeimpossible.However,thephrasingofthisdilemma  concealsagapintheirlogic.Tosaythatatheorymightbewrongisnotthesameassayingthat t itisinfactwrong.Ihavenoproblemsayingthatthewaysofrelatingperspectivemightbe ^ wrong;IllevengosofarastosaythatIbelievebetterperspectiveswillbefound. H Unfortunately,Ihaventbeenabletofindoneofthosetheories,andnotforwantofbeingopen 2 tothepossibility.Sounlessthecriticcanshowaspecificflawinthetheory,s/hehasgivenme z noreasontodiscardit.Imnotobligatedtodefendthetheoryagainstthepossibilityitiswrong, d onlyagainstspecificobjections.Andevenifspecificobjectionsweretobefound,theyarenot N  inthemselvesgroundsfordiscardingthetheoryunlessabetteroneisknown. 8 ic5%!`|LN `Ett4 dri  Here(Figure2, below)isanotherexampleofthisdialecticalstructure,takenfrom ^ Habermassdiscourseethics,wherethecriteriaformoralnormsderivefromthepresuppositions H ofargumentation.LetusmomentarilybrackettheissueofhowHabermascanknowthese 2 presuppositions.Habermasconcludesfromthemthatnormsarejustifiedonlywhentheyareor   couldbeagreedtobyallinpractice.Ifhehascorrectlyidentifiedthepresuppositionsandifhis   deductionsfromthemareaccurate,thisallowshimto cornerthemoralskepticintoaccepting   hisposition,becauseanyattempttoargueagainstthatpositionembroilstheskepticina  |  performativecontradiction:arguingbringsintoplaytheverypresuppositionsthattheskeptic  f  (#(#(#(#wishestodeny.Soin  P thissenseHabermass :  justificationisbasedon $  theinescapabilityof l  discourseethics,notits V  selfevidentness.This @  sideofdiscourseethics *  correspondstothe    modernisthalfofthe  dialecticalrelationship,  whereHabermasis t maintainingaparticular ^ normativeposition. H ButhowcanHabermas 2 provetheaccuracyof z hisunderstandingofthe d presuppositionsof N argumentation?Here 8 hecompletesthe " dialecticalrelationship   byturningtowhathe  calls reconstructive   science.Theaccuracy !l ofhisclaimed "V presuppositionsof #@   (#(#(#(#argumentationmustbeprovedinrealdiscourse,notbysometranscendentalphilosophical $*! analysis.Thismeansthatifaskepticisabletoformulateanobjectiontodiscourseethicsthat r%" doesnotembroilhiminaperformativecontradiction,i.e.,whereHabermasisunabletocorner \&# him,thenthepresuppositionsmustberevisedtotakeaccountofthis,andthediscourseethics F' $ thatfollowsfromthemmustbealteredcorrespondingly.Discourseethicsisrecognizedas 0(!% contingent,sincewecanneverprovetheaccuracyofthepresuppositionsofargumentation,but )"& unlessanduntilsomeonefindsawayaroundthem,theuseoftheperformativecontradiction *#'  methodletsusdemonstratetheiraccuracyandthatoftheirconsequentmoralsystem,inpractice *$( andtoall. #  11       ^    Inconclusion,postmodernismisproperlysituatedonlyasonehalfofadialectical H relationship.ItscritiquesoftheabsolutisttheoriesofStage5mustberecognized,butitdoesnot 2 itselfprovideameansoforganizingourlivestogether,andinsomeincarnationsitevengoesso   farastoabsolutizeitscritiques.Thedialecticalrelationshipofwhichitformsapartgivesusa   theorywithnormativeforcebutwiththemodestyofaselfrecognizedcontingency.   #     #R.II  .ۀ  CaseStudy:SeylaBenhabibs(1989) LiberalDialogueVersusaCriticalTheoryof  f DiscursiveLegitimation#RR  RԌ  P Ќ  InthissectionIapplytheforegoinganalysistoBenhabibs(1989)critiqueofAckerman(1981, $  1989).BysituatingBenhabibsandAckermansargumentsincognitivedevelopmentalterms, l  wecanclarifythesourceoftheirconflictandsuggestadirectioninwhichBenhabibsargument V  needstobeextended. @  $H    $HU0  0` (#(#   .A  ..ہ  Multipledisclaimers$HUU 0UԌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ?+ ` hp x X?  BeforetakinguptheanalysisIshouldnoteexplicitlythatthecognitivedevelopmental  analysisisonlyameanstounderstandingandcritiquingpositions;itisnotateleology,andit  doesnotreplaceactualanalysisofthearguments.Itprovides,atbest,agoodwayof t understandingthecommonformsofargumentforcritiquingonepositionandforminganew ^ one.InthispapertheclassificationofAckermanspositionasStage5andBenhabibsposition H asStage5isonlyawaytounderstandkeyfeaturesoftheirargumentsandtherebyguideusto 2 standardlinesofcritique.ItdoesnotmeanthatBenhabibspositionisautomaticallysuperiorto z Ackermans.Ackermanmight(probablydoes)haveinsightsintopoliticallegitimationthat, d whilenotyetbroughtwithinacoherentlogicalstructure,areimportantthingstonoticeandare N notinherentinBenhabibsposition.m #  12      ׀Inshort,thecognitivedevelopmentalanalysisisintended 8 togiveinsight,nottodismiss. "   Thereisyetanotherreasonforthiscautionaboutcognitivedevelopmentalanalysis:we   cannotbecertainthatwehaveadequatelycapturedwhyacognitivestageisbetterthanprevious  stages.Habermasshowedthis,andKohlbergacceptedit,inaseriesofworks(Kohlberg1981a,   Habermas1983a,Kohlberg1984a).HabermasscritiqueofKohlbergsearlierposition,andthe !l pointbeingmadehere,isthatthereisadialecticalrelationshipbetweenthecontingent "V philosophicalpositionrequiredtoconstructKohlbergsmoralreasoningtestinthefirstplaceand #@  Kohlbergsempiricaldiscoverythatpeopledoinfactmovestagebystageupward. #  13      ׀Inother $*! words,wecannotknowforcertainthatKohlbergsdescriptionofmoraldevelopmentstagesis ^ correct.Andifthisistrue,thenevenlesscanweblindlyrankonepositionasbetterthananother H basedonthiscontingentframework.CertainlyIhavefoundKohlbergsframeworkextremely 2 usefulinclarifyingissues;Iwouldnotbeofferingithereotherwise.Butevenso,youandI   mustbothbeawarethatitmaynotbeaperfectguide.     InthisparticularcaseIwillbeemphasizingthevulnerabilityofAckermanspositionto   Benhabibscritique,butthisisnottoimplythathisposition(and,indeed,theliberalproject  | overall)doesnotcarryimportantmoraltruths:thevalueofliberty,thedistinctionbetweenthe  f legalandthemoral,thedistinctionbetweentheGoodandtheRight,andsoon.  P   Finally,myconcerniswithhowBenhabibsituatesherselfwithrespecttoAckermans :  position,notwhetherherperceptionofthatpositionisaccurate. $  $H    $H\d0  0` (#(#   .B  ..ہ  BenhabibscritiqueofAckerman$H\dd 0dԌV ` (#` (# Ќ    BothBenhabibandAckermanareconcernedwiththequestionofhowthepower @  configurationofasociety!thatis,itssetof institutions,relations,andarrangements *  (Benhabib1989:143)!canbeevaluatedaslegitimate.BenhabibcharacterizesAckermans   position #  14      ׀asresemblingKants republicofdevilsliberalism,aliberalismforcommunities  whosememberscanassumenothingabouteachothersgoodwill,moralintegrity,or  conceptionsoftheGood.Ackermanholdsthatlegitimationinsuchcircumstancescanonlybe t achievedthroughapublicdialogueinwhichonly neutralclaimscanbeadvanced.Neutral ^ claims,inAckermansview,arethoseinwhichthecitizendoesnotrelyonclaimseither that H hisconceptionofthegoodisbetterthanthatassertedbyhisfellowcitizens8orthat,regardless 2 ofhisconceptionofthegood,heisintrinsicallysuperiortooneormoreofhisfellowcitizens. z FortheserestrictionsAckerman presents[only]apragmaticpoliticalasopposedtomoral d justification(Benhabib1989:145).Specifically,hedefendswhathetermsa Supreme N PragmaticImperative(SPI),encapsulatinghissensethattheproblemoflegitimatesocialorder 8 istofindawayforindividualsandgroupstorelatethatallwillacceptdespitetheirdisparate " sensesoftheGoodandtheunlikelihoodofanyonesensebeingabletocarryallothersbeforeit.   AckermandefendstheSPIasmerelytherecognitionofwhatweneedtoengageinpublic  discourseatall.     Benhabibtermsthisposition, modusvivendiliberalism.ItisaStage5position, !l becauseitrecognizesthatsocialnormscannotbelegitimizedbysomeabsoluteauthority "V (monarch,tradition,aholytext,theexistingpowerconfiguration,etc.),asinStage4,andit #@  attemptstogrounditsclaimsontheconsentofalltocertaindecisionproceduresorprinciples. ^ ThisisclearlyAckermansintent,sincehejustifiestheSPIonthegroundsofitsevident H necessityforcarryingoutpublicdiscourseatallinthefaceofdisagreement,particularlyinthe 2 faceofdisagreementsovertheGood,whichappearincapableofresolution.     AswithallStage5positions,however,thefoundationalpremise!forAckerman,the   SPI!hascertainpowerimplicationsthatpostmodernistscancritiqueasarbitrary.For   Ackermanstheorythisisafairlyeasytask;asBenhabibshows,theSPIdividespublicand  | privateinawaythathasveryclearpowerconsequencesandisthusunacceptabletothosewhose  f voicesaremutedthereby.n #  15      ׀Hereishowshevoicesherobjection:  P   8  IfIamdeeplycommittedtothebeliefthatprevalentconceptionsofsexualdivision "  oflaborinoursocietiesaremorallywrongbecausetheyoppresswomenandhinder h  theirfullexpressionofthemselvesashumanbeings,whyshouldIagreenottodothe P  bestIcantomakethisapublicissueandtoconvinceothersofmypointofview? 8  OrsupposeIamamemberoftheIsraelioppositiontotheoccupationofthe    territories.Iconsiderthisoccupationwrongnotonpragmaticgroundsbutonmoral   ones,becauseIbelievethattheoccupationiscorruptingtheethicalvaluesofthe  Jewishpeople. #  16      ׀Imaywellbeawarethatundercurrentconditionspublicopinion z issodividedthatIstandnochanceofwinningassent;nevertheless,isit b unreasonableofmetoseekthewidestpossibleforumofpublicdiscussionand J participationtoairmyviews,ratherthantoagreewithyou,asAckermanadvocates, 2 nottotalkaboutwhatisofmostconcerntome[?](Benhabib1989:147).x   rTheseobjectionsresonatewithme,notjustbecauseIsharehernormativebeliefsintheareasshe H mentionsbutalsobecauseofanincidentIrememberclearlyfrommychildhood.Around1962, 0 whenIwassixteenyearsoldandwrestlingwiththegreatmysteryofsexuality,HughHefnerwas  challengingtheexistingmoralswithhis Playboyphilosophy.  #  17      ׀SoonenightatthedinnerI  askedmyparentswhattheythoughtaboutthisphilosophy.Thiswasaquestionofsome ^ importancetome,since(asInowrecognize)Iwasimplicitlyaskingiftherewereanyreasonto F restrainmyeroticexuberance,i.e.,anyreasonbeyondblindobediencetoafrightened . Victorianism.Myfatherwouldnttouchthatquestion,andtherewassomeperiodofsilence.    Oh,Steve,mymotherfinallysaid, dowehavetotalkabouteveryphilosophy?Eventhough   thatresponseavoidedassertinganyspecificsexualethic,itsreticentrelativismwasnevertheless   inthosecircumstancesanassertionofpowerinthatitdeniedthattheyhadtomeetmyquestions  p asequals.b #  18      ׀ThusitiswithAckermansSPI.  X   BenhabibdoesnotcarryherargumentbeyondStage5,however,becauseintheendshe  @ isonlydemonstratingtheinadequacyofAckermansposition.Inparticular,shedoesnot (  provideapositivegroundingforamoralpositionthatcouldremedyAckermansproblems.She n  argues!correctly,Ibelieve!thatamoralproceduralismcanthematizeitsownproceduresin V  whatshecalls,inaniceimage, Neurathsboat,whoseleakscanbefixedbyreplacinga >  limitednumberofboardsatatimebutcannotbefixedbyreplacingalltheboardsatonce.z #  19      ׀ &  However,inthisarticleatleast,sheleavesundonethetaskoftellinguswhichofNeuraths   boardsweneedtofixfirstandhowwemightgoaboutdoingso.   AY]) xdExA h  Afterword:Questions  _ [WhenthisworkwaspresentedtotheWorkshoponPoliticsandPostmodernity, #  20      ׀itreceivedthe / followingresponse(amongothers),whichdeservessomediscussion.Thecommentwasby u Dr.LouiseA.Llulhier.] ] Q:Yourargumentdependsonthedialecticalrelationshipbetweenassertionandcritique - carryingnosubstantivenormativeclaiminitself,sinceanysuchclaimwillbevulnerabletothe  verypostmoderncritiquesyouseektosurmount.However,Kohlbergsworkcarriesanormative  claimaboutwhatpeoplesmoralityoughttobe.Bystagescoringpeoplesreasoning,Kohlberg  isjudgingpeople,evenifheclaimsheisnot;thehierarchyofreasoningisimplicitlya o judgment.  W A:Thisisacomplexissue.IdisagreewiththeassertionthatKohlbergsstagesequenceis "'  necessarilyanevaluationofpeople,butthereisalargersenseinwhichthequestiondoespush m#! myargumenttogreaterclarity.Letmedealwithmydisagreementfirst.Kohlbergconsistently U$" saidthathisstagesequencerepresenteddeonticjudgmentsoftheadequacyofparticular =%# arguments,notaretaicjudgmentsofthevalueofthepeoplemakingthosearguments. %&$   ItistruethatinWesternculture,atleastasIunderstandit,thesetwoformsofjudgment ^ areconfused:oneispunishedforbeingwrong.Thisisclearlytrueintheacademicworld, F wherewemakeourlivingbybeingRight,butitisalsotrueinthelargerculture,where . misjudgingwhatproductswillsell(say)canmeanbankruptcy. Lettheweakgotothewall   representsnotjustajudgmentofpeoplesreasoningbutajudgmentoftheirveryvalueasfellow   humanbeings.Inviewofthisconfusion,itisnaturaltosupposethatthemoralreasoningstage   scoresmightbetakenasanevaluationofthemoralityofthepeoplebearingthem.Anditistrue  p thatinacomplexsocietylikeours,socialissueshaveramificationsthatrequirehigherstage  X reasoning,sothatpeopleunabletodeploythisreasoningcanmakejudgmentsthatareina  @ certainsenseblind.Whenthosejudgmentsareseenasinadequatelybased,thenpeoplesactions (  arejudgedas immoral,andthepeoplethemselvesarethencommonlyjudgedasimmoralas n  well. V    Nevertheless,despitetheeasewithwhichoursocietyconvertsdeonticintoaretaic >  judgments,thefactremainsthatthisisnotinherentinKohlbergstheory.Thelimitationsand &  inconsistenciesofpeoplesreasoningdonotmaketheirjudgmentswrong,becauseknowledgeof   theTrulyRightisbeyondourabilitytojudge;theseapparentlimitationsandinconsistencies   mightsimplybetheinadequateexplanationsofanunderlying,perceptivemoralintuition.Noris  thereanyconnectioninKohlbergstheorybetweenmistakenjudgmentsandpunishmentofthe h individualsinvolved. Praiseandblamearenotmoralcategories,Kohlberg(personal P communication)hassaid,andinhisstagescoringmanual(Colby&Kohlberg1987)themoral 8 elementofblameworthiness/approvaldropsoutatthehigherstages.Sowhileitistruethat ~  peoplemaymistakenlyregardorevenuseKohlbergsstagesequenceasthebasisforaretaic f judgments,itisnotthecasethatit implicitlyembodiessuchjudgments. N   ItistruethatKohlbergsstagesequencenecessarilyrestsonaspecificviewofthenature 6 ofmorality,sinceitisthatveryviewwhichenableshimtocreatetheDefiningIssuesTestand  claimthatitisinfacttesting morality.However,Kohlbergdoesnotdemandthatweaccept  hisdefinitiononblindfaith;thedefinitionisitselfsupportedbytheempiricalresultsofthetest,  whichbearontheoriginalpremise.Iftheoriginalviewofmoralityiswrong,thentothatextent x theresultswillnotmakesense,andsoKohlbergsmetaethicalpremisesareindeedopento ` challenge.   H   (XXq BIBLIOGRAPHY #XqX(# #  21       ^ 0   Ackerman,BruceA.(1981).SocialJusticeintheLiberalState.NewHaven,CT:Yale D UniversityPress. ,(#(# Ackerman,Bruce(1989).WhyDialogue?JournalofPhilosophy[vol.??](1):522. Z  0   Albert,Hans(1985).TreatiseonCriticalReason.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.* (#(# 0   Benhabib,Seyla(1989).LiberalDialogueVersusaCriticalTheoryofDiscursiveLegitimation.   InRosenblum,ed.(1989:143156). (#(# 0   Chilton,Stephen(1988a).DefiningPoliticalDevelopment.Boulder,CO:LynneRienner.T (#(# 0   Chilton,Stephen(2000b).SituatingPostmodernisminCognitivedevelopmentalPerspective. $  Egipandevibrio:Revistadefilosofia1(Spring).http://www.artea.com.ar/egipan/6.htm #  22      j (#(# Chilton,Stephen(forthcoming).WaysofRelating. : 0   Chilton,Stephen(1998). ASecondMomentofDiscourseEthics.InFelipe,ed.(1998:141   153).(#(# 0   Colby,Ann,andLawrenceKohlberg(1987).TheMeasurementofMoralJudgment(2volumes). d NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.L(#(# 0   Fishkin,JamesS.(1984).BeyondSubjectiveMorality:EthicalReasoningandPolitical z Philosophy.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.b(#(# 0   Flavell,John(1963).TheDevelopmentalPsychologyofJeanPiaget.Princeton,NJ:Van 2  Nostrand.!(#(# 0   Fraser,Nancy(1986).TowardaDiscourseEthicofSolidarity.PraxisInternational5(4, " Jan):425-429.#t (#(# 0   Haan,Norma,RobertN.Bellah,PaulRabinow,andWilliamM.Sullivan,eds.(1983).Social %D" ScienceasMoralInquiry.NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress.&, #(#(# Ї0   Habermas,Jrgen(1983/1990).MoralConsciousnessandCommunicativeAction.Cambridge, ^ MA:MIT.F(#(# 0   Habermas,Jrgen(1983a).InterpretiveSocialSciencevs.Hermeneuticism.InHaanetal.,eds.   (1983:251-269). (#(# 0   Kohlberg,Lawrence(1981).EssaysonMoralDevelopment.Vol.I:ThePhilosophyofMoral  p Development.NY:Harper&Row. X(#(# XqXXXq0   Kohlberg,Lawrence(1981a).FromIstoOught:HowtoCommittheNaturalisticFallacyand (  GetAwaywithItintheStudyofMoralDevelopment.In#XqXXXq+#Kohlberg(1981).n (#(# 0   Kohlberg,Lawrence(1984).EssaysonMoralDevelopment.Vol.II:ThePsychologyofMoral >  Development.NY:Harper&Row.& (#(# 0   Kohlberg,Lawrence(1984a).[EssayacknowledgingHabermass(1983a)critique].In   Kohlberg(1984).(#(# 0   Marcuse,Herbert(1965).RepressiveTolerance.InWolffet.al.(1965:81-117).P(#(# 0   Rosenblum,NancyL.,ed.(1989).LiberalismandtheMoralLife.Cambridge,MA:Harvard ~  UniversityPress.f(#(# 0   Wolff,RobertPaul,BarringtonMoore,Jr.,andHerbertMarcuse(1965).ACritiqueofPure 6 Tolerance.Boston:BeaconPress. (#(# * ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,NA, NA,NN+  5+.. 5 (XXqTable1 #XqX( # .  FYY7 ,"  F Moralstage 9YYY&} YY 9 Assertive/constructivepositions(inboldface);  }  Critical/deconstructivepositions(initalics)50XXq HYYY5'e " YYY H LYY=!X  YYY L#XqX50|#Premodern kYY\2$  zzYY  @3@k 3 ]YYYJ?$    @3 @YY ] Normativemeaningarisesoutoffacetofacerelations. ;1$   YYY ;IS  V &YY S  &3 ?YYY,! YY ?Facetofacenegotiationsproveunabletoregulatelarge,diverse,   complex,andinterconnectedsocieties. KYY: YYY %KModern&    postmodern    V kY\2| YY  @4@k 4 ]YYJ?    @4 @Y ] Normativemeaning,onethatoverarchesspecificfacetoface    relations,isalreadygiventous;wemustupholdit.Politicaland   religiousabsolutism;classicalconservatism;Fascism,Naziism. ;1|  % YY ;I  b  &YY    &4 ?YYY,!o YY ?The alreadygivennessofStage4normsmakethemculturally o  arbitrary.Tothatextenttheexistingchoicereflectssocialpower.*?fghf #  *      ׀ W  Culturalrelativism,libertarianism,Hobbes[sic] ;1? YYY ;In% V EYY6 n  @5@E 5 ]YYYJ?2  @5 @YY ] Theoriesofnormativemeaningwithatleastformalequalityof 2 meaning-anddecisionmaking!i.e.,modernisttheories.Classical x liberalism;Kant;Burkeanconservatism[sic] ;1` YYY ;I1F V &YY 1 &I>S5 ?YYY,!>YY ?I>SAnytheoryofnormativemeaningfallstotheMnchhausentrilemma, > andbecauseitisarbitrary,normsagain(asinStage4)reflectsocial &  power.Postmodernism,socialconstruction/symbolicinteractionism l! theories;Foucault,Derrida,Benhabib,Fraser.50XXq ;1T" YYY ;I%:#XqX50e# V (YYY %" (I2G 6  ?YYYY,!2#YYY ?I2G Thedualityofnormativetheoriesandcritique;dialecticalreasoning/ 2$ reconstructivescience.Bothnormativemeaningandcritiquesthereof x% arestillnecessary;discoverybyinescapability(=universalityin `& practice),sothatanycurrenttheoryofnormativemeaningcanbe H' undercutbyanyonesescapefromit,anysuchescapenecessitatinga 0 ( reconstructionofthetheorytotakeaccountofit.Kohlbergs !) groundingofhisdevelopmentalscale;Habermassgroundingofhis "* discourseethics .$""+ YYYY .