ken and list,
i do not think that the term legitimate and the disagreement over its
meaning adds much to the discussion. the question is what does it
distinguish, what is considered illegitimate? in practice, the distinction
is invoked largely by someone in authority over what is reasonable,
justifiable, and right. i cannot imagine any stakeholder creating arguments
they themselves consider illegitimate. and since, according to stakeholder
network theory, stakeholders need to be considered in their own terms, the
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate only elevates ones own voice
to the position of an authoritarian voice, which i find not particularly
useful.
as far as the voiceless others are concerned, of course, there are voiceless
others, the deprived, the defeated, the exploited, the imprisoned, etc.
stakeholders are not limited to their self-interest. politics often
consists of some people speaking in the name or for the benefit of others.
for example the ecology has no voice. it is a social construction. this
does not prevent environmental advocacy groups from shouting, demonstrating,
and boycotting measures that would negatively affect the environment, or
rather their conception of it.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Legitimate Interests, Stakes, and Ethics -- Long Post
Dear Terry,
Come on, my friend. I understand the etymology and dictionary definition of
the word. I've said that in three posts now. I have also stated clearly that
I use the word in the same extended sense that such scholars and thinkers as
Etienne Wenger and Jean Lave do, and many more.
As I wrote in my last note, if you can find a better word, please do.
I have stated what I mean by the term: "any person with reasonable rights by
virtue of being a human being involved in a situation where he or she has a
stake."
Because the larger context of this conversation involves the issues of law
and ethics, my earlier referred to such legal scholars as Ruth Buchanan,
Rebecca Johnson, or Robert Cover.
If you've got something to say about the larger issues I raise, I'll welcome
the comment. If you goal is to state that the word "legitimate" has a
specific technical meaning and a specific etymology, I agree. You're right.
Some of us nevertheless use the word in an extended sense. That grandest of
all dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary, notes that several of the
earliest English usages do not derive from the usage in law. On this, the
OED states, "Etymologically, the word expresses a status which has been
conferred or ratified by some authority; = LEGITIMATED. In English, however,
it has taken the place of the older LEGITIME, and even in the earliest
examples shows no trace of the original participial sense."
I am using the word in a current usage that the OED defines as: "In extended
use: valid or acceptable; justifiable, reasonable."
If you want to use another word, feel free. I have been using the term
legitimate in its extended use. In the context of wicked problems, the idea
is the important issue.
Yours,
Ken
Terry Love wrote:
Legitimate is direct from 'legalis' L - law
Legitimation and law _always_ in the limit depends on force - the ability
for one constituency to _enforce_ its choice of laws on others. Ethics
provides a commentary.
('Priviledge - 'private law' - Agre's article on conservatism addresses
this well.)
--
Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|