#6 - Should We Be Strategic? A Debate.

Today’s episode is part three of a three-part series on strategic communication. But unlike part two, today’s episode is through and through philosophy. We come full circle with Habermas who argues that strategic action is purposive, calculated manipulation of others. While communication itself is oriented towards increasing understanding, strategic action seeks to undermine communicative norms, to produce effects by increasing misunderstanding. And this is bad for democracy, claims Habermas. But is it fair to require such a narrow definition of strategic action? Aren’t there purposes and calculations behind every action — even communicative actions? Jason presents practical, relational scenarios attempting to bring Habermas down to every day life. Meanwhile, Juan Pablo defends Habermas’ critique of strategic action. Is the exercise of strategy to affect relationships ever morally desirable or permissible? Tune into the debate and let us know where you land. The views expressed on this podcast are our own. If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx