Uncoerced agreement requires speech acts backed by criticizable validity claims

Evidence

On the basis of an analysis which draws on the speech-act philosophy of language developed by Austin, Grice and Searle, Habermas argues that understanding necessarily involves the listener’s acceptance of a ‘redeemable validity-claim* made by the speaker: ‘a speaker can rationally motivate a hearer to accept his speech-act offer because … he can assume the warranty [Gewähr] for providing, if necessary, convincing reasons that would stand up to a hearer’s validity claim.’ Only in this way can uncoerced agreement between subjects be obtained: ‘only those speech acts with which a speaker connects a criticizable validity claim can move a hearer to accept an offer independently of external force.’ — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 385

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains Habermas’s central mechanism linking speech-act theory to the possibility of force-free consensus.
• XREF: connects to: Commitments must be communicated through evidence, not just words. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 342; Incomprehensible terms force users into uninformed agreement — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 310; A leader can render a disputed proposition ‘true enough’ by practical fiat — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 132

Broader Connections

• Commitments must be communicated through evidence, not just words. #expands (0.78) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 342