As a communication specialist I am looking for a story background for games, puzzles, and toys which emphasis communication. One possible idea I have is to play off of Habermas' Communicative Action Theory.
In a FAR too oversimplified nutshell, the theory states that actions taken can only be rational if they are the result of understanding brought about through good communication. Good communication, in turn, is dependent on communication that has not been distorted.
Distortions occur when one simply accepts that certain things are true without examining them. For example, if someone tells you "This rock needs to be over there" and you move it unquestioningly, you have acted irrationally. Instead, to ensure no distortion, you should first determine if the statement meets three conditions: "Is it true?", "Is it right?", and "Is it truthful?".
The first of these, "Is it true?" addresses the realities of conditions. Does the statement actually reflect what is? Taking our rock example, is there really a rock, and can it really be placed over there? If the statement fails to meet the qualification of being true, then you and the person telling you the rock needs to be over there can then determine why it is not true, and discuss what to do about it until you are in agreement. Once you have agreed, then you can act rationally in response.
The second, "Is it right?" addresses the question of acceptability. Is the person making the statement one who can rightly make that statement? Do they have the authority? the knowledge? Is putting the rock over there the right thing to do? Again, with our rock example, by stating the rock should be over there, the individual is making the claim that they have the right to determine where a rock should be, and that it is acceptable for the rock to be over there. Do they? If you feel there is reason to doubt their authority in this, you and that person can engage in dialog about the issue until, again, you come to agreement as to what is right in this matter.
The third condition is "Is it truthful?". This gets to the question of sincerity on the part of the speaker. Do they really feel it is best for the rock to be over there? Or do they have some sort of ulterior motive and the statement is being made deceptively? Again, this can be discussed if there are doubts. Once everyone agrees that things are being truthfully done, their action is rational.
To help students learn Habermas' Communicative Action Theory, I propose the following game concept:
It is a post apocalyptic world. Civilization and the world as we know it is no more. The students are a group of survivors who have just come together in the ruins of a city, and now they must survive and begin rebuilding the world. While engaged in this, they have to learn about the conditions they now face and act accordingly. They will have to determine in all of their interactions whether their actions to survive are based on good communication, or distorted communication. This will be done both internally (discussions of situations faced by the classmates) and externally (interactions with neighboring survivors who may or may not be well intentioned) as they solve puzzles, use toys, and play games that determine if they can cause a rebirth of civilization or will simply become the latest victims of the end of the world as we know it.
There is a LOT of great stuff here. I don't get a sense of "mashup" of multiple theories, but since the main theory is so rich and deep, maybe that will come later. I wonder on the "true" part, whether its really about a correspondence theory of truth: "does the statement connect to a real situation, where the affordances of being a rock and possibility of being moved exists etc. Also, I wonder about all the need for "rational thought" We can talk about this as time moves on...
ReplyDeleteThe word "true" gets very tricky. Fortunately for Habermas' theory, when he refers to something as true it is not a question of great universal facts about the cosmos, but more a question of simple practicalities. Another example: If you and I were in a mine and I said "If we remove that support column the roof will collapse on us" you could challenge that by pointing out all the cross beams that would take up the load. In this case you have countered that what I was saying is not true. (According to Habermas you could also challenge me on whether I have the moral authority to make the statement, "You're not a mining engineer", or if I am being truthful, "You don't believe that. You're just trying to convince me not to remove the pillar because it's blocking a shaft you don't want me to enter.")
ReplyDeleteAs for rationality, Habermas was big on trying to determine how we come to rational action. His theories were formulated in response to Positivist thought on rationality. He felt that we had basically become so focused on scientific fact as a basis for rationality we had abandoned very legitimate concerns like ethics as a basis for rational thought. One example of this used by his mentor (Theodor Adorno) was eugenics programs. According to the science of Adorno's time, a program to remove bad genetic material makes rational sense. But morally it's repugnant.
But that's getting way off into the weeds. I am curious if this little story would provide good fodder for teaching "good" communication practices, as defined by Habermas.