Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Axel Honneth, Hans Joas, Jeremy Gaines, Doris L. Jones Communicative Action Essays On Jürgen Habermass The Theory of Communicative Action PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ruan Duarte
    10 views157 pages

    Original Title

    Axel Honneth, Hans Joas, Jeremy Gaines, Doris L. Jones Communicative Action Essays on Jürgen Habermass The Theory of Communicative Action .pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views157 pages

    Axel Honneth, Hans Joas, Jeremy Gaines, Doris L. Jones Communicative Action Essays On Jürgen Habermass The Theory of Communicative Action PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ruan Duarte

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 157
    Communicative Action Essays on Jiirgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action Edited by ‘Axel Honneth and Hans Joas Translated by Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones ‘The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Patina SRN elshed Know Ha nye Make The ascetic snd che, 1 ame ets SIRENS acta 1 tone na any (OWS) Ose iis ed No pt tsk ay eee iy army yet Srl mas ning nay ing ema ged Kommunsv Hann ash "Conmniaeatonenyc ge bea Thy comune son ety ve enethan eow oelby eny Caieand Der. Pm citasin compe Grn cl gh) Inc pp eee 1 Habermas, oegen Ties dphommerains Ma, 2 Sea [exo Aad 9050 jon Ha ABO, Ser, HNBUHSESKGS15 1950 for-oiaao so-es Contents Publishers’ Note (On the Contibuoss Ineodvetion Axel Honeth ard Hans Joas 1 The Transformation of Cite! Theory Herber Sdnadelbach 2 Language and Society Charles Taylor 3. The Two Meanings of Communicative’ Rationaiy: Rem gpabernar's Ctague of eral Cone of Reson ‘Marton Sel 4 Habermas and Cetel Theory: Beyond the Maraian Dilemma? Isley Aesander 5 Communicative Reaon and Imerest; On the Reconstruction lof the Normative Order m Sots Structured by Egalarianism or Domination Ginter Dus {6 The Unhappy Mariage of Hermeneutics and Funtonalism Hos Ja “* » 36 ” ” ” vi Comers 7 Gomplesity and Democracy o the Seducements of Systems Theory Thomas MeCarthy 8 Communicative Action or the Mode of Communication for Society asa Whole Flan Peter Kage 9 The Lingusifcton of the Sacred andthe Dlinguistiiaion lsh Esonomy Jobarnes Berger 10 Modecity a Project and as Feld of Tensions Johar P Arson A Reply Jigen Habermas Bibliographical Note Notes Indes n9 0 us a 268 as Publishers’ Note All the contributions in thi volume have been sranlted from German, those by Jetey Aletander and ‘Thomar McCarthy, which are published herein thir original English versions. On the Contributors Jefiey Alerande, bora 197, js Profesor of Sociology athe University 2eCiomnin Los Angeles Hs poblenons include Thora Lot Sacto, twos (erhcey,i81-5)s Teeny Lecues, Solel Theory ster 1545, (New York, 1987) Johann Pall Aran, born 199 in Di, Kinds as benching sete Pat Tee Gaesty i Mabonoe sce 1978 He pober SSE Le Won hee oe Mare eid, 7, Zaebey Nar wad Sema lage Bis Pras ned Irpreson (ral, 80) johannes Berge, bor 193, is Profesor of Sociology the Unnesy of Medan: Fes pubiaons include (wth V. Bader ad oes) Krew Koplalionas be Mave 3 wok (restr, 1973) (th Ve Bade) Eo Jib ne Ceselihafceorie rank, 1980) He has writen ete {iy So pols eomomy and researc on the bout marke. Ginter Dux, born 1930, is Profesor of Sociology atthe Universiy of, Freburg, Hs present increst can best be described under ch heading of "mony and cogs’ His puleatons ica Srtarundel der Le timation (reiburg, 1976; Recbusoziologie (Stuart, 1978), Die Logik Welbalder, Sonsukenren im Wendel dr Geschte, 20d cd France, 1985), Die Zeit im der Geuiche (Frankl, 198) ‘Axel Honneth, born 1949 in Essen, teaches philosophy athe J.W. Goethe Universy in Franke His publications include (with Hans Joss) Soil ‘Acton and. Human Nature, (Cambridge, 1988), Krit der Macht. Re- [fessonstafon ener brtchen Geseliscafbeone (Frankfurt, 1985, English Aragune son Cambridge, MA, 1991); Die zerusene Welt des Sonulen Soutiposophiche Anfsize (Ranklur, 190), (On the Conibatrs i Hans Joas, bors 194 in Manic, it Profesor of Sociology at che Free University Betin, His publeasons include Die gegenuarge Lage der toulogscho Ralenteoe Fankére 1973-8); CT Mead A Cost. porary Reczamination (Cambrage, 1988); (with Axel Monnet) Socal fon and Human Nature (Cambridge, 198); (vith Michael Bochow) ‘Winenchaf nd Karine (anktun, 7) He bs publibedexenvcly on socologieal theory and research on eduction Hane ee ter nord lid icon 10 ee i ge ea 2 SF ,rrr——C_c ee ine ruben dr lc Pa IS Hehe tari ge a ap commerce Oe are de ce el ae me 13 ‘Thomas McCarthy, born 1940, Profesor of Philosophy at Norhwestern University in Evanston, lino. He is the author ofthe book The Criteal Theo. urge Haberman Camp, Mh 97) wl fe ‘vs aticles on epistemology and ericl theory. He also the translator of| Several books writen by Habermas, and editor of the sees Contemporary German Socal Thonght (Cambridge, MA). Herbert Schnidebach, bor 1986 in Akenburg Thuringia, ha been Pro= fessor of Philosophy, especially Socal Philosophy, at the University of Hamburg since 1978. Publications include Eyabrung, Begrinding und Refleon, Vermch aber den Postsviomat (Frat 1971), Gesbubeph loxopbe nach Tegel (Peebuey/Munich, 1974), Reflexion and. Disha (epklurt, 1977) Phloophie. se Destechland 1601-1933 (Eran, 1983); (with E, Martens) Plsopbie. Eon Grandes (Reick bel Hain burg 985) He hs contd Yo mameros jour, colle volumes Martin Sel, bor 1954 in Ludwigshafen am Rho, x Research Assistant in Philosophy athe Univenty of Consance, Hs publications include Die Kenn der Erswetng” Zur Bog dor theicbon Reson (Fan fare, 1985), Charles Taylor, born 1991 in Montedl, is Profesor of Poel Phioso phy atthe Metall University in Montes. His pobleasions ince The Explanation of Bebavior (London, 196); Hegel (Cambridge, 1973), Hegel land Modern Socey (Cambysdge, 1979); Pilorpbial Paper. 1 andl (Cambridge, 1985); Sowces ofthe Sel. The Making ofthe Moder Ident 'y (Cambridge, 1989), and numerous artes. Introduction Axel Honneth and Hans Joas tn 196, jing Hebe als his ‘Theary of Commun, A= ,rrr~——CSs AU og ssid SE ela Ss Fee een ata SUL catpoesy nly of ine al ited gels he et eg reer SS rrt—<“—~wrsCidzsSCS SOT Dudie ad pote Sys ian cence he a rrr——E fre shy dhe ae ee te ook gees it ace dered etn which, eee erage ssh ah eh rom ae eg crop nes oe sk epson aly eee tits ae ars hopes eersey eo ey renege ere eee rr —— a = =e aS rrC———— Frr—— SRLS DRrL: clan’ tet eet! Tat ay ene nahn te te a be few oer shore whos in ter of tec rpunenaion tnd Se _agnone the prevent, ar so capable of drawing together the most diverse 2 el Hommeth and Hans Joss vepintna neti nl my ppg ny SSR ding all to say about ds great gure excludes him /bersel from SAatyoan eee oceania sete tora Frees eo eee each la ree ree pass Sein a sete Sonn Sia cath Mi my et etal rd dag tae Sue et archaic Se tag ak Eyring dean Sy ees SEES ttn mt ad iets a La ce Se hale Rea ay Sey Sam tice acy tire ticle smelngrone ct Son Sates panty SET ts wipe fe a ACH URS SCS Bia meant each Sen re RS aa Seeecclette Pe LTT py Sr sla a se lta feet Tals cpietisbak tees tg Fay nas a ala eee ae we Speers Sete Ew gee ke Shscnaa des "othope'a & nol mee Oe Hee cnt tr nh ea iieaetcemr aaNet Oia wa sna ic it anh ema pes ies ac en cree icant snr wie sain 9a ee a, Svc a, eae Geeta eeicna ce eth? eee Sdn Siegel atic nore ae Intodation 3 ofthe aia of action, Hebert Schidelbach’s cay i one of the Fit ‘dell pubietion: on The Theory of Communictoe Action. Alter prox ‘iling a sramary of the work that va conch a 1 sled in handing the materi, Senidlbach concentrates on a erisgue of thee of Haber= mars proportions. He dobre that theory of rationality can be supported By relerence tthe quality of aconreted knowlege, as Habermas ego wth ft copii apponh, New. e gues the fea ‘ebtionsip Habermas exabshes berween understanding and evaluat Fnguinie wcrc: ily he rine =a do other author sn hs book algun be Harms man oh cope of Menor: Hate ‘has inal ineroduce ths from the parcpans perspective, ony then ‘hang pepectve and transform into che object of danced analy SchnddGbach summarizes there doubts by questioning whether Habermas fas actually sccecded in justifying the normative premises of his projected foci theory. "Ache beginning of his esa, Charles Talo, who Became well known in Germany chil through hs masterly book on Figs, develop the oundations or a theory of communicative action” trom 2 ‘dlogue theory of language, His cis i nally dered athe assumption of the posbliy of ec fonmalin Taylor tosnsine chat the sit epee Hon berween questions of jstce and questions of the good hs, which $Ebermas propose sis dacoure ets, cannot be made, ecaie every formal or prosdaralctevon of usc bow i part, aesdyivarly included ina comprehensive understanding ofthe good Ie. This argument then expanded i gener eanm of the aerial appropratenes and orate dexiabliy of Habermas's dfferentation beeween three Sspecs of raonlty In the process, Taylor ams to develop an expanded once of caonality which breaks any formal confines. Sef contin opt of Tr aur ia 2 sepae, bur gives i teste twist. He begins by demonstrating a iter” ‘inl meron Breen he de ‘Tension of roby dn futshed and stempe to show thal speciale angrmentation necessary {pcessesumpoons about he validity domains thus excluded thsi, the manner in hich switches ae mae from one form af argaren 0 sn. ‘ther would be the substance problem facings comprthensive henry of ‘soll. The ering chan shoe wi Sel cnc {sn ams ogo some way towards providing such » solution, He proposes Set commonate ‘ana binomial a de ‘suatons faculty for judgement mhich helps to accompli rational” the constant sith between the taldy domaion / "Te middle section of the volume, ie. the contributions by Alerander Du, Joss, McCarty and Rrdger, focuses onthe fundamental theoresca ‘questions’ of socal theory. fey ‘Alexander sa young “Amescan fScilopit who arated wideypread atenton with his ambstious four: Nelume work, Theorncal Logit in Sociology. Tis contibuion deserves enon as conronestion between this neo-Parsonian approach snd dat, taken by Habermas, Alexandr pices Flabermas inthe waion of Creal 4 Al Homneth and Hans Joos Theory, but thinks him disint from it both becase ofthe nsitence on pik jstifeatons being piven forthe normative erent framework tu becuse of his willie to onsber a wide specrum of empirical ‘Beorencal tains, He pecs emphatically wath Habermas's coq of Weber's insomenaise relocsons bu dems 2 contadiccon berween the mand Haber cea ory that Habermas does ot relly caborate a theory of sce onthe basis of ‘Phowanstrumenaise concep of acon, bac lsteaderscs an 4m thcoree reiual category of non-communicstive acsion, and thus, in the Sayle of Creal Theory, imately submits largely non-normative de- ‘Spm mode i veo ‘Gamer Dar concentrates onthe question ofthe (phylogenetic) origin of orm: He bases his approsch on the idea that Habermas's dvncton Feswecaason, on the one han, and dicoure rived of action functions, cask fro sehen fms dua nt action, which usually guided by interes. He atempe t very ths $8 Seal daction Serna sens on sc toa recone ion of ery socetes: this approach sBaed on the sumption that wea poms ithe historia reeonstaction are indcave of decency Fpaemate thought. Dux’ ercism of Faberma, which draws on interest ie mtorlgges meal cnn wih he ona heine oncep o bly expan the genes of norms Teeny Hae Jou seks inialy vo demonstrate te rlaive narrow net of te ation theory proposed by Habermas and 0 rase the question Archer the concept of Communeative ation can do juice to the ask of ‘Reilogcl theory of action, the ches of elect story and the Phenomenal Breadth of scion ssa topic. la 2 second step, he temps to how that precy tis constricted actonshcortia approach and a probe lemascal tndertanding of the logeal sun of schon theory compa FHibermas ro resort (ontenable)fencsonais constructs The sbverse she of hy neo fn the ngayon of he enor Concept, which ous does not find convincing, He dispute the de thatthe Soncepr of th hiswond winch Hsbema® deployed in communcison ‘heorp and to which he also gives an epstemologea thas, can athe same Kime Be construed in era of theory of rca de. system and ie ‘word are ths exttemely problemascconceps in Habermas's theoretical is, donb al se sour gon of contenporary voy ee IRtlzes thee conerps “Thomas McCarty concentrates solely onthe dninction between ‘sy3- tem’ andldeworld which cerainy represents te core ofthe concept of Society as developed by Habermas. Ar the se of his esay sugges MeCarchy ew ont to jsily he suggestion that, by adopting the func” tional Concept of sysem, Habermas succumbs 10 the sedacton of 4 pin i sca ney whe Be aed pct by meek sass own orginal approach, McCarihypuruts + theoreti, methodologies normative ne of argument tempting t delist sn ‘tiontheortcal skernative tothe stems-theoreical analysis of formal ‘rpaieatons support ofthis echo he Ges the poll sphere of Ireredacion 5 pectbiten ect See wks nen ene 4 Mieteearg don “rie mis ana cso lot he ltl tee sos Ta Lee crthe in Sot poi ngs eons Ne Gbps Meng pet to ra Mars tia of Ma Serene Cal nde Br ely aloe Tae te a ety ew faba Ae Serato ae is oe Toute he gure net Reh ores eter ote de ad so TONE SAE poy cate oa en ee seomer S| nr, neta et ee hse Ese Rl oy how fs oll acl ad Teas as Bod fe or Sl NWA aye ment Ge del arly withthe fn dant heli ump a Hibear Dahan be ae Spe af Adana femora ota te es TAS eH tect we gata ioe eae ese cane dae amas iy Bogert ec fbi nel fbr tts pers yee Sen ace alent epee cea ee Sighs telnet ates ken ae Se ans ne nade Xone epee in Ga'h oe das ea re te posal ‘Ect ou scant Sono ag, One See te tlie cee are poly ath Seid tel tm beots o pome oso iy ofthe courbutoa atenled nhs vle eed on ps rch cout ent re Seagate” sty by Ine Bhs He wes ann a oe Pe tie tar Oe wt eon ilen aten RE eget dae ise usin est tha Hen at sora cite eas a a oi al ma Sic ane the ngie Sprites wicks Earle inh he ge Fe cm er pean he pit ot fee ScKTidee pre sus noe ays hh Ty eee teas ef a comune he pel by keg. Mie Fils of ts crisan forthe nol 0 acta bese eri tet anct seen clon ach re ere ie ee nak aera Sorelle be tegned Stns deol hear oat ee co cee te ee beaen amy ee ne ae edge cae SORT moguls cE tS of ent’ boa Se 6 Are! Homet end Hen oss competing interpretations of Enlightenment and Romani if i ito be pepe rectal fmewor of eo aan “Sur volume concudes with an extensive reply by Jorgen Habermas, not only the commentaries on his work presented hee, bu also ro many of ‘ect ducutons published on hit Book to date: We wish to express tur rate for hs cooperation. 1. The Transformation of C: Herbert Schnidelbach “The age tat books havea ft oftheir owe has proved 1 be roe once again inthe sae of Jurgen Habermas The Thebry of Commamsstve ‘Aeson (1CA) Wht war to be expected did of coun apps sarge atm nepal making sutable commentaries, to lay down the shape ie reception Should ake Among these wer sore ovrasty csieatens inten of polis or nals ory inended wo csur tht readers would not be rated’ by the fice that the book w3s unusual. Habermas bok was ‘writen for those who havea profesional interes in the foundaons af Social theory” (TCA, vol, p. Xi) but unfortunately this eannot be ad the ery ceviewert oe intros were sometsmes stronger, Wis Annoying about thsi the danger of polseaton ental» station ile fac dscusion, The following an atempe to avo follow foe pat I wh lies cay se gutiow ch mold probably’ be of interest for 2 phvsophil journal, yet withowt cher "Ehming wo provide an exhaust account or merely giving a simple efi Slo in Seo the pron sd cont othe hry Habermas's book has repeal een called opaque his tain of thought convoluted and fll of derour, although the author himelf repeatedly sets fut chars offering an overview and ging pointers for inital orientation, ‘The origin ofthe charges i probaly to be found in the fact thatthe ‘overall projec # suated atte inerecing poe between two set of ‘dnincne whch are normally treated respectfully a» opposes, aamely that berween “phlosophy and social theory, on the one hand, and bermeen theory and the history of theory, on the osber. With regard to the second Astron, Habermas endeavoured in hit Knowledge and Haman Interest (Kt to develop theory further, using means drawn precy fom the Fistory‘of theory, and to preset the systematic these, put forward ia Ms 8 Hebert Smddliach deur neo ane se mtn ft erm Tare importan precursors in theory. By contrast the separation of the cl ingretrer , By i ee ees Sa nS nti ee te ap ee ie an ie Ett beeen ea aac eee Se Ee ere Se ee a eat ale ps eee eee ee er toa Seen eh oar Ube tm iS teen hn i a nen Sr Eero en, Ri omc ee serene aor ts eae bine dere reptile ee et ee ee ene abit eee ie Peep may Wines cae Sa et Ce emg neds se ae a Pao ae eps eh tu ee en Kooy a eo a ian tn eet ie ment re re Bong edie epee epee ee ea ms Gos any © Ee ca ee cn eo toe ape Toe oak Can ane ee regain of ta coin cre rite vat ckeataie total CPR ERS cts pete an ean ee yy vest iy a ee ra tay neh ee SE ce te cate ito ie ee ee A ae rene oma Faro rent pence her mie cee fe Src ee ee pa epee cel a ee eens cri n ea ce Pt teh one nhl ‘externally to its object: as the consciousness of lived rationality — without SER heal Tela ve come lactone ce ie ee ate ey sno ey, ede i ae a i cd Pe a ae SST geen Te Seen ay se iat ie ae oe ate ld Be ne eT aot ee ee ee srorm cel some ca te ite Seater eaten se cae Speteree eeetaitoe fees phonon Beet ae, ele com arte ern fete i bers pt Oe ance ee rg peta oe See need, ero rme e a sagen en cor frag es Ae Ral eer sates fe Rie ol ccna a Tas Terral tear ae a sol Tour omen ary, ea Saree screr ies menue a ee ieee Rel 02 fee ree sent mda dey corn altag Sree ca fgets gree oon Gere sy tid ome nate, Hb os am settee ca ations sempre nde eet ty re ee ene ea ga sae a to Bee te Sucre el no een Sees eae eae oe eee ee cay Sipe alt aan at spore rere a al nine imme of ern ol rig te god ere a in ern cn =o Sons eee eee cet ir ee a ae Septic me Seen Se Seyctarane Reema lg deena before embarking on the application of the: icici. : zd Se a ead le de pri oh ae Gal hy ne i ep Sa oe ney eset cep eet et ss by ae ean an se al ey ot ents il Tew to He nae foe mere teeny ker Shae can ee ia sett tepals bon el een se apie oe seca ety dom penton sree fm enn pe ao eee eee te rok ees oe nr cee een Se ane ey a 10 Herre Scmidelbach “This integration is underken in systematic form i he “nermedite Reflection Sysem snd Lileword in the second volume (7A, vo. le Po i13-98), Phe prof concepts used in the le to be understood to Baca tees ict theory which correlate to the difference in Aton {Blog beeen purposive onl scton and communicate ation. “hte Send Step inrodaced a 2 "ores to process of reaching Undenanding' objet acting communcately aways come. tan Sindewtanding {in the horizon of = Meworid” (FCA, vo. I, p70 In items’ age weer te concep ym, cds Era ype t purposive ation for species cane experienced On} 3 ‘patent und then obcved rom sshirspersonpespecve to he extent scion rgd oss be drm iptv of an wderstning Erbe be commancaey renewed over and over agin ad an be at et ky encoped om aon ose ech unread Ts maker rnb» socal itaonaiaton of prpse orl son for Ene Mody for enapl oration of Sc, cond eg money 1d port for tatond canons sod ronal ninston. (TCA, val pint tin parcel pp 7) “The problem of the relation beeween system snd lewd, which acco the suo ion soled herby Max Weber ov by Cre ‘Theory, akan samo leve social theory necessary. oe that embraces both Syaten and Hfovold (ce TCA, vl Up. 11}, 2 Socal theory which ‘Sherer of the tension laden difreneebueween the two athe product of {itty wich can unesvand tel oly ita socal theory ii thet jrovde x systematic account of the gente and normative primacy St sommunisacve sion and ofthe beworl the socal counterpart of Sachs history (4. TCA, vo I, p.279) The chapter on Parsons serves co pot the demand made bythe history of theory Tora concrete systematic Fwovkrel concep of sciy. which links the aspects of eword and system” ia pratice, and leads into the ‘Concluding Reflections, which, By combining the result ofthe systematic investigations into the his of ‘culty seth the projet of 3 Cited Theory teansformed nto of modern “losing tory over sey ofthe ses ached inthe ook and of ta man hess and steuctare, [wish ow to move on 1 sparce ‘Tacusion of tvdual complexes of problems which should be decsve for the book's reepton in pilosophy™ The hey tes ‘rasonaty om imusicate ation "Hework and "Creal Theory serve to ius the Sem adel In a'er speciation’ the author sates the concept of rational: Inf Abe pol Tae cre lodanenel dictions tetas se a be stn tine cestes 4 'cogntvintvetson (TCA, woe. 10) of the concep The Transformation of Creal Theory 11 “The ewo distinctions concern the dispositional and non dispositional ax well athe descripve and normasie sages of atonal aa predieste, We {se the term ins dispositional form i we stsibute ito persons we Fler by it to actions and wrerances (ofthe widest vay Iidy pp. 11-13), then we se i noudapostonaly. Now Habermas ase that whenever we speak ofthe “rationality” of stmlated response or te atonal: lig" ofa system's change in state’ ~ and one could sd otis aking sboot the ainaltyofpsutonal rules hat do not arse intentionally we use ‘he word in ‘ested’ or ‘metaphorical sense. We must ak here whether {here really are compelling reson to ink the non-dposiconal merning of “raonaliy’ in the substarive sense back othe dapontional meaning, Of, £0 potit difereniy, what compels uso scribe al che phenomena which ‘term ronal © the Conpernce of sbjes cal of language and “The significance of such a form of introducing the argument for theory's underying stategy has been obvious since the debate wth 'shmann, The imtenon i to redoce the systemic rational championed by systems theorists wo systemic functionality, and to use the remaining, sddiuonl ‘meaning of ational” ab the bass for artigo of uncon son However, this leaves the quention open of wheter the context i which Habermas choose introduce rational’ doesnot ovr pred the d= sion, Atalyucaly speaking, numerous plausible reso can be ced for ‘Tauonlty” Belonging to "pesor action language's an much historical idence 9s avalable to suggest thatthe society character a system =the ‘eason why systems theoty has enjoyed such 4 boom’ arses Contests of ‘toy, he eeu wil evel dob whe hs pes can be Completely rele back t te disposition for rationality tnong subject {apie of linguage and acon. Ie perhap cls that this way of os dicing ational ino te arguments inked to the thesis ofthe primacy of communicative rasonaty over purposive rasonly and we shld not doubt that Habermas hiss number of arguments independent of hit at his disposal with which to buttress the thes The sytem theorist wl jesion all the same ~ just a Tsbmann actally did in hit rp to labermas ~ wheter the non dspostonal form ef rtionsty whch the systems theorist interpre in terms of systems theory has tobe elered Bhck to people's dupontons. ‘To the exten ha such rationaty can be interpreted the staazation of dnpontons~ and even this far from Seli-eident~ the aymems thorn wil eter back precisely to systemic Alspostions. 1 ot the objet here t question the securscy of Haber ‘mars conceptuaization of atonaity in principle, but rate to indie Shc cn lysed ym he couse the ver projet = and i after aly temps via imanent eg to go beyond sytem the With spac o the dtncton in dines zon Gece decipaee and ‘normative, Habermas assumes thatthe concep of raonalty i sed in a deenpave shoreual sense, i always alo "bstantvem normate terms’ ek tbidy pa). The question here whether that which i nuts Iy obvious ean the ame ine be proven to exis princpe: We cern 12 Herbert Schnidelback always ao use ‘ational’ as an crluatv, indeed as» normative predic Beene bs Shown in his Retna: Av Ey towed on Anas (1968) aT nao onan yf gar tr my Won and he cncepeal weaponry smplemented in the elevant empire Toone shout making wwe of the normative connotations of the rodene Yes cven fone fers thee connotations to be essential, te ‘estion sl remains whether the normaly of the tational is something SUES the observer orca ater be situated fully onthe ‘sie of the TRSb in ne seme tat one alls of ormatiaty Ree only with respet 0 S2 Sgtying regulations forthe behwour or erentation for action ofthe penans, observed or of sociel sytem (the theses in TCAy vol I Bp Ii). The neorhisoricm and peo. of follower ofthe te Biagensrn (hy for example, BR. Wibon (el), Rational, Oxford, 1970} tare on dis dference."The programe for + universal pragmatics, Bis dense oes Bre eee Rel at be Itcerpretel athe atempe co block off this eeape route and to stabilize Siew the ineeable Inerconaesion of tagonsiy and. norma, = sich was regarded a mater of coure by German Ideals and Crical ‘Theory = by teas of a theory of say claims inked to communicaive Teton ev bee again the tory asa whole hs to bear the burden of prouding pro! (oF the exposed onion created by the inutve concep al expiation, “Te Impi Somatviam in he way in wich se conepes a no duced istmade clear by the following natement: We can summarize the ‘Bove as flows: Rasonaly is understood o be a isposton of speaking nd sing subject has expressed in modes of behavior for which there {Fe good fesnons or grounds Ths mea ha extonal expresions admit of Sbjve evalu’ (TCA, vo. lp, 22), “Good reasons” and “objective nd hp mein ih ar en ht Te bold to be good or oblecve when arguing wit one another sbout Somhing eaimed taconaly. This coresponds othe systematic hnking of Toray and “knowledge” (dp 8) ue. the ‘ogni erson’ of ‘ray (ids pd wish Hamas ancl expands ious ‘Revuly abandoning f. Habermas may well ‘presuppose this concept itsowidage without farther carieaon or ronal as les to do with the poston of knowledge than sh how spesking and acing subjects ltptve and nse hnowledge (bid p. 8. However, the fac tha at eas he Ince understanding of tionally gute debit does depend on the {Tua of th knowledge sed by subjects capable of language and action al sae athe ppt lds se Te rhs ean in he Tnwrodscton show that laberas operates with 2 very caste conepe of IGowtelge wih dc, ox mena sch more tne cnt of or {pur ralinonally the refenve posession of mean of onentation sich fhe flowed by spesch a08 aston, Thi not ahered by Inowlcige, understood in thir way, Being determined more closely at & Inter tage" by vay claims whch re purporedly inked to for chi ft beat lever ar vite determinate claims to knowledge, IF this sep is Indeed meant shu then the Question remain ast which standards one The Transformation of Cial Theory 13 srmepag thes aden a ond oF he amen tine ‘iionaiy ts ee en How sctiouly should we then take the cogntvsm in the theory of rasonaliy. given that Habermas tends cowards 3 cogniti poston fn ‘thir ss wel (fs, p19)? Behind thir queton Lark the controversy ‘whether reason most Be defined as apace for Koow edge snd hun va 3 Connituive reernce to tu or not (i + welrhnown fact tat, for Kae, the domain of reaon i grester than that of knowlege tothe extent thar is at the same te the Orga of transcendental appearance an 3s Pasta reaon, one of the grounds detemaning wily Hegel of 2 [Uferest opinion) T would ike to suggest ving tp cognitive inthe theory of rationality, that avoiding weighing down wen theorem of Iinowledge, We at tr all so clay sternces ad Scion a aol ifthe etmatons on which they are Dated prove tobe eroneous, whereas opntvsm © nor able to do 30, ten tht binds faton to knowiedge seh anytingcronnan ald ale mat dis goeion of water ont crainvaliiy ims ate bavely inked fo the atonal however, no touched by this proposal One ean ‘Gre up copii without baving to conten tat ravoudl uerances or vont ast rule purpor to follow good resons and stand che et of 0 ‘bjecive assent, The standards for hit eaot be sought the ath of the knowledge involved, buc inthe rules of consensus formation through syumentaton. Ths i indeed the approach taken by Habermas ‘Thus the rionalcy proper 9 the communicative practic of evry ile pot to the pracice sf argmentason as» cour of appear makes it pombe vo canine conmensnive ston wth oer mei when digee ‘em can no lnger be reared with everyday routines td ye ae aot be ‘ale by te dre or neg ane of force For this exon fbb th the oncpt of eommaricsve ratory, whi le to an wnlaedsyrtemae Smercnnecsion of univer vay Cam canbe dequnly expened only i> terms ols theory of argmentaton (7A, so Ingp 18-19) Ie is therefore somewhat misleading of Habermas in turn co term his csp argo whch pct quis an pce be fetled by way of apimentaton’ 3 cogntivar postion” (FCA, vo. 1, 19). One eat either ungewtand this solely again the background of fis Eonsenus theory of eth = for what cold cogniivsn mean without ‘eleringsubsanively to Wath? ~ or a 4 gue of speech which cold Keer be replaced by “atonal poston’ The asonahtyincorported in veryday commanicive practice can adequately be characterized withthe SUPOf vali claims witch one consider ean be deeded by means of gument: ye, aba theorist of rationality, one does not need to take 2 Since on the gualtyof such lime en whether they can be decided ‘ffecvely in argument and what the rerlt ofthis would Bethe mere xnmence of eleve medio’ (ibd p20) sles. 14 Herre Scidelbach Habermas sharply contests precisely this in his discussion of Skier (4L'TCA, vey po SIE), He mainesins inthe secon on undersanding \seaning inthe soil sccnces thatthe interpreter of speech as oriented ‘Sivardcaching understanding ust bring to mind the ressons with which ipesker would if necessary and onder suitable conditions defend is [an xfressons alidiy [and] a himself dawn ino the process of delend- i valiiy laine” ibid, p13). erm continues: For reasons rf sch nate that they cannot be dvb in the ade of INAEd ponon tht sathow recon of alfematon or nepton or be ‘Son The inerprece soul nt have undersood hat» dhe didnot eco ith fa cam to provide gourd that he de noe ge ea ‘ional tnerretation in Max Weber's sone The derpaon of res de {hand ip conto, ec wes the one proving the desrpion fre tha eu nota he tomes in Pouton to age ther soundness: One an ncdrwand ens only tobe eter hat Ooe tern hy they a oa fo sound or hy ina ten ce 1 decison sto wheter ren ae good TE noe ye) psnble: An ierpreter cannot, seo ire expressions onneed trough sizable ay chime with sponta of reser ond ‘how represent knowlege) ato king + poston on them. And be cant {SLES potion without applying his ou sandarde of adgent a ay re Sodirs that he has made hs owe. (TCA, vol lp. 8~18) “hig lengthy quotation demonstrates clearly how staunchly Habermas defends hi norms snd. cognisht postion Ta the theory of com imamate ratonaty: i pessps also shows that we have todo hee with {he foundations of Ciel Theory av whole Only if Habermas ean show ‘hat communiatve action fundamental wo all otber types and suctares of acion and that themaing sch communicative Souon necessary com isthe rbeors to adopt poston in the light of hive ow standards Eoshe proved tha every exhaustive theory of comsuniaive ction must {Ske th shape of Crise! Theory if sich 1 rool shuld not be fothcom Inge then ts would not be the case Ye ether the pasage quoted nor {he cones in which appears, slices to bea the burden o such» prot Ieis unclear why the potion who brings to mind the reasons for action and attempes to interpee them rationally “drawn ino the proces of delend- ing aid carne wo iterpret something rationally, on the bai of feasone This noc the same a ierpreting cht rasional. Ineidenaly, tbermas expres allows that te ind person may eae by abwaiing™ to de reson for that which the sbservet and precely thi reaction 0 the Webcran version te pcp of value reo. In Schitss work, the Alec Benen socilnpenc al expres he voxel sence Sonsnepreclyn such an spc, iam tha methodological nterepton ff communicate co-tcton which makes observason and understanding in the socal scenes possible inthe rat pace. Why then does Habermas ‘him that one can understand reasons oly tothe extent that one under. Sands why they ae sound? The Transformation of Creal Theory 18 Son ee irre Mbo feel ter momen ceriate -. erect ra ite mpc feed ohh ee el Lr a rrr—~—“i—Os=*SszSCS seers ein rae eee i eas sca ee mci ene ele, wale oe ee or ee Sree Bi pre ieee ore ee Spc bn ot ales a mon lavigne fo a al Shea ii Sadr ihe oe She eral eee etme tema ial tee (cf. ibid., pp. 276ff,). . cous cca spat, ie te Me pe oe sogpeet ae of ewe mea de ae aaa on ls SE send dg ee a od we ee et ae a See eee ene Lene 6 FM Seen ee 2 oe per ener meen mear ene seen eee mane fe pars ck ve ac seh steed cerca Soc ely era ee Sere pee coe fhe of of rg ee be seer heme TL BR pe Be Sera Fr —C (p29 tea ue cet een a we Sn em ee oc ol ee a RE re See ee ede deat tobe ee eo sak ea cl gh ony ae cm es i cape ik ie pen cma ace ey in a Frrrr—=—™—— Boer Spee ek rl eo ae feo Dapp oe emma eee oe cor lef Fr —— S..r—“—i————SCsSS cee ae at oral aoe oe a Sag ee coe es Eee Tee acl a rumen Heber hts at ie ei rest coment acme vince Soe a a Son Ee alto oe 16 Herb Scomielach The pole ined can be added by fsaing on te qusion of the Se ged by lay eae extant undetacg ih Daeg’ York, yh, he dened ha one estat 4 tote 6 lawking su th conden Sal ty tino postin om ce eve sh ine ld or tor en sly compeling wo nie he ingress Repro or ta of Comebenitar aon We ote a odo idy chine ed seer eng ama ima ren ee an bjs heme adpe 4 potion with fgid tober own ee ‘thik Three slly eft sch Sry ne Bp a itso da rem coe eee ranged et thoi cet ino opel bythe cit to bene bers rs lil eri Reels Ga tine hr tain ost beat dee ests ee en oh ear cr pesacly dr sx prt sal be serdar ely Fencing ik ser a(n ting Ste or norma le ‘Remrot Rie oon ly tg ce eden aoud Sexy hn) Yo pape Dries he se eerand be tuo Phe lows tnt leh onions te wy cs eden ‘onder the brn eee nde whe aes sha ce ‘cont teed owl ake btn se ta wade sted pect when we ns wha maker sapale (FEA, 7 baci drt undetand be det ssh sea oo poses Eee wih peo nn enn aa ing ly Isolde at betas hr nt rely denoted shine comin itween deen sed causing fron hs “Pes Te ‘EimedieRefecons The thar for Habra sormsrm ohh Proves hth pois tdead scl hry “sotto eon not {ice or el page que daily be sug ‘nl cones be reson Sabena snd cet noe Sony tole be In bs hwy of eas ewer cence Sad Meas 1 have algeady mentioned the proposition thas communicative rationality has genesc and normative primacy over oder sytem of tational Is my contention that Habermas hat succeeded in lending chit proposition fulfcsen evidential strength and that hi formal-prgmatic foundation Of {he theory of communicative actin 30 designed tate permit aking {0 empincl pragmatics and two-level socal theory, thi one which fered coward the level of both action and system. The issue of noratn fy is then decided by whether or not the normatine primacy of com ‘municave rationality newsarly alo extends to the theo of rationality fr to the social theorist. In Habermas project the concept of lleworld plays a hey role in this conent-On the ome hand tnt in sacha ‘ay "that we ean sce the points of connection for social theory within the The Tranfomaton of Critical Theory 17 shor of communi acton TA, no p37, Om th te, Servet eo cable the linking of formal and empl pragmatic by repre ‘ening that moval commenictve background knowledge without which the communicaue we of words eaanat be fll grasped ther mesning (Gk bid pp. 351. Boh factions ae connected i such 4 manner that tke scoala peal i he arma ecg of cm tunica scion dal ot point pro facto so a consenus aseady having Bren reached empl, then there would be mo conceal ese to make the Wanton Mom s theory of communicative ston soc “Te concept of ileword at wed by Habermas ~ tis brought nto play as the conept complementing thx af commanicatve Seu = fade eran deter tothe ett that embraces vars, highly diferent mou. Habermas merges the theorecaltadion of Hoste snd Sehr, ‘Wingenstcin and Sere wah soi-teoreteal deliberations onthe aon bermeenmtrason sett onthe one hand, by communicate to tly ands onthe othe, by purposive rstonaly at were abou tat Sone wor ee a oth Fo pa cy, donot {cs how iis supposed to be posible to rtree informal ropmatic ‘ene thi posed term wh one in hea fy and cheno ince ino sil tory io sirasannr seco enable ne eo ape ofthe ‘colonization ofthe lfeworld wong ‘cwortm + tton-equlvoal sense 1 need nov enind anyone that the thought of Frome and Schr “ifeword concept tken fom epstonology de ‘doped in the context of 1 sanscndeneal philosophy or Fhenomento ‘This sex the concept tothe fie person angular a he seater oro plhral of commas of reac, who i ellecing on Gh Soditons St posi” of thr Knowledge, ecountr an insrmoustbe horizon of ‘Rapes ovens nd wie re wor die taeran 2 prot, whch, for all wr subwansne cootent ever que bral arto thn othe cone one ttn phot of gmcoune yng wha st me ye once to Moores sod Watyensins ‘sommbn sve ceva TEA ok app. 386) and remepreog Wi forms of Gory of Conta on He wy mine do oy by oie any set compliance wih the Rst-person perspective. The iesirmountae iy of oy Own especve’ Ieword, wei | basi aware of vi 4 trancendentl approach, becomes +more general these onthe sxtece of {TRackground knowledge that cantor be tendered problemas sod which plays a roe inal communication. This aves the fran wide open for 2 Evotcel conception hich allows one to conceive of octet sive {neoutly a ystems and bleworis (TCA, voll p.118) and one should 1, both ae abou sen tom 3 chidpron perspec Toleve iaberma concept of Meworl faces the flowing dilemma {Qe the one hand he wishes oe space in which Yo deploy he cone {or cil theory and not st epatmogicaly by uncoupling som conzent in whigh wat ‘oigelly"devdoped, nine phenome nology and 2 pllsophy of contours On toe oben i is pecacly Hebert Scnddlbch this new use which s supposed co permit one to join Mead and Dus itm onsting fry com he penpeeive ol ig ct he jemord of oca group (bid. 117) On the oe hand, the tention s erred that Absa Welior tse “hemencute Wels” de esi oat met hoi et nl i bie ive tty cans eveything C0 do with soit Gincling tng orig to then) enly fom the perspective of ther own para fewodds ths tmay merely be to pl Sisal bie On the oer, the object 0 Fetinthepeapectve of acting subject’ which fis enables thing soc to Ee thomcited rom wit’ by means of undertanding thet meaning Hlowever fone change the concep of leword in he way Habermas dou ten alta esi the pospctive ofthe pata een fom the perspective ofthe abserver= oo put losey, he it person in the {hid potion, One tbe concenrting onthe abecing prtpant and fees secur move oma weer del ot ch 29 inoget poses nny problems of perspective. The pace to be pad i, ow trek tthe Ieworld veda tothe everySay world ~ an everyday orld which hs sendy always been understood ~ ofthe observer tang, ur in hand which, i viewed from the perspective ofthe sid persons Ei be considered the embodiment of ther sensory and motivational re: Ione transpose this dilemma back onto the theory of communicative aston hae Hapa ede evo empl cn ‘Spe then the problem of the perspective adopted lade Back sai {he question of whether or not the genet and normative primacy of ‘Somumsadve acon neces always rele aa tthe shear who thematzescommomestiveseon. Ione believes that i docs, then hit Inean hat every ther of commniave acon aresdy sw partic Bric inthe Hfeword which the complement o that which she them Eis. Even i one may not wish co tr thr Wes, amount at any fatto che universal penpectvism ofthe observer's own Meworl, fr se Gi pl never he porn bien The norma ‘there inthe thei thatthe observer muse ao always adopts positon Ena to tha of spain with regard tothe vali clams ted ommonicatve action fhe able to underwand i 1a the fs place ‘would then be secured = athe pice of ream, (Ths elas, for IResning and valid of lngusieuerances are thus bound back to the Tfeworkiy "backgroud ofan implicit Knowledge’ whck“paripans poe sally regard tv sod obvious (TCA, vol, 9336 and the observer Fevhiml isinallenably one of them) i aersatvly one entries the Forse eben fly han ie eof ain Bet bye 2 omnstnt change of perpectve Or the feuon of am. epoch are steed thr would perapr bring about 5 Reerl conceptual newer Inspendent of persons and parijane with which one could then study ‘oc so the pol aia of ew oye a aman Sey experienced crenday word, Yet such a approach would no in tha th poron who Godt would ecimealt Be subject to the vay clin whi migh have been applied inthe subject-maser staid The Trnfomaton of Crit! Theory 19 “To summa: 1 propos thai ufces to abide by the diferece in types berween purporiveratonal and communicsve ation when develop” Safe inc bse nd Hew ido oh ‘Tference down with the problem of the perspectives of the frst and third ferons and thir ron tone another The sheory of commerce [cson is ef fre enough to provide the json for sucha tor iG woncepe of sccy an 0 pes ahesd th tert forgo such 30 ‘aboraon of perspectives leat to te problem of whether and in what Sere this concept can then sl be called rica shea sory of commune a! ane jnal a 2w Acniton ofthe poubier and taka of ciel heoy. The cig of GERD 'rheony, "wtih ie exempy So ta laity Cd, TCA, vo p39), should noe ust be taken as simple dstancation, bu eather a the Fhempe o crete the necesary space for 4 repettion of 3 eiigue of {burumentalrssn” (Horde) a he crigne of fnetionali earon hs sr pa x ry, ath by pinging th i of a eri ted ia's phlonphy of conscious to approah whch te whole iho of aot? fas rons bound wet nc Uae any [roping tat inthe cage of instrument reson Horkeimer and ‘bro fad aeady resorted wo another concept of reston without, how eee ang the cetyl ane hi po with Sich to prove foundations fore (ck hn, pp. 7M). Tha diagno Tore das adequate “The theory of commnicaive action cms, at quoted above, tobe the “befning of sow theory concerned tvaldte te ow erie tn. dus (C4, voll penis). Habermas steed stn tary date how ‘roblesatal she nto foundatione of he oder Cate The Td thee was abet secure ts normatve foundations ony ina philoso: ty of sory (TCA, wl lp. 82) Hix Frankure naopura lecre of Tats, "Kowlce snd Haman Interetsowld today be ead a doce ‘nen in wich he enphasealyfomlates a progranme wich bro to temporary somplecon bythe wo volumes of TCA. At that time, the ‘Gero? reaching for the normative foundations of Cota Theory in inngeage was isnched, snd Faber has ever since, and though his Cepong cntat nih Rik Ape scl sp 1 bore SRE TE. Theory of Commentcate eon she teat Thi x noe the pice co go int the individ! step involved 1 sno hardly fru to [rye with she author about the changes ch the origin pla has since lnfegone. (At the time, ceruin “onhodoxFranfun’Sckool dips “les benoane Fubernar' dexructon’ of Cnc! Theory) The car {scizstion of the normatve foundations themes would, however, ‘Sop fokne undone an snp ste ole ne [addi withthe atatore of gang "mat s) alta posted for ‘Sr Macury isthe ony ea which we fopoe over the ene ofthe {hoo pls” (Technik ond Wanita "Tdelogie’, Franke, {90t), By conta Habermas sow formulates the poston 2 fellows Reaching understanding the inherent eos of human speech’ (TCA, rl 20 Herbert Scidelbach 1p. 282, i, nowadays, + normative concept of reaching undersandin Jeoded we jay the ea se of 2 teary of sociy bat replced imacory (kd pp. 37H. Tago prepared to ope the alto frequen sited interpretation, acconding tlic this change i some rengrative or conservative tum Habermas has undoubredy onipdeawn the obvious conclusions from the acy of eel aifenatig beween peal and cman inert in knowledge; forts reason he probaly Iter operates ony wi the dunincion berwecn instrumental sd comsmuniativ scion, which WE sabiquenty sbdnues even usher (el TCA, wok I pp. IM) The owmaure concept of reaching understanding then suffer in order (© {Tedegush beren freedom and repression in he practic domain, which Ss thn spetied more closely athe domain of communicative action. Fhbermst har serine ee to ime when he tera thatthe eas of ‘eonclauon and freedom. ca i act be developed by means ofthe Concept of communicative eaonaity" (TCA, wl pp “Cea opinion vares widely on the ue of wheter Habermas's pro- jes lurkers Coil Thcory oe not, ined whether even 1 Ciel ‘Frey, Whereas oe reviewer concerned about the ‘alfimation of social anu potkal suture for which one could pan space’ only one were tot fo share the prejudice for theory whic i supposedly critique’ he {io pens fs teary ‘which, owing spot of deparare,can aly be theory ctl of modern aocer (Kaus Haran in Die Wel, 26 February 1912) Another acuse the author ofa depoeniation of Cra “Theory” (telan Breuer in Levan, 1 (1982) pp 132), Anyone who {ened tat» eal theory of socey cold ony take the shape of 3 ‘onderation of the present, with appropriate polit conclsions being ‘Hawn should perpe slow these fears to be alayed by Habermas: "We ol othe Se fo pc erate ral rac of cto ‘eened to reaching understanding i we cid not aeady ave before ws iniagmencry an dod form, w be ae = he sing [ome of Teatot that hes to rely on being symbolically embodied and historically Stunted” (7CA, vl 1, pexbs ek ao vol Ty pp. 404). Jose 29 Creal “Theory, folowing Mar always eclerred tothe eedom and equality ofall ‘human beings and thie wa purportedly incorportedy tft the form damage sce an dew He ery from tho Source so Habermas temps to use 4 ormaive concep of reaching ‘itsetancing founded communicative ston fuel the Dass for hs “tisguc of en relations of reaching understanding’ andthe paradones tnd aberradns of Modernity. (Whether one can tive ll this from Man's theory of aga Breer maintain, wood fst have 0 be demon seated) Coren reader wil forever suspece Habermas of conservatism {Sites Mal canst be ay ope ean, whch ts Slrealy given in hs uleeconsroctng procedures, And the othe cmp ‘+HTEC apiciosof the face tha he nevertces understands himsel aya ‘ical hermencutcan Ts perhaps best to daregard ach Ibs a et Sd “gt and to remind ones ofthe orignal measing of eiiqu’ “Crtal shoughn, a 2 illernsiting way of king that opposes all The Tramformaton of Creal Theory 21 deg a, by epee a onion epee, a xg ena, be se of en ere ee Ta tee Rate pene cae pert oa A eee mary eco other words, take up the contrast between affirmative and negative judge- eee oe cee en ere me hecreey end EF Ry ey pe gn eon lene pe enero eta ed for tn cena Cue at re cara Sede ne owe ae Moms ali ect Sapte ec ed Hae Poa Scat eo urate rd ere ee eae occ ee ie wai sabe Gey ney tee elec Slut oles re ee Se ht ine eit emer ces cre ce ee be et Sg seas, at wb Met uP elena ete dene Cast ebos ca ae tne aole ica en See ra ier of ones grannies es xc ofthe rey f develope societies insmod a they do ot make full ue ofthe leasing poses early salle them, bt deliver tem ves over 10 am uncooled growth of comply Av we have seh this Increuing sem eompleniy emcoachs upon nomenewsble pps Uke = {esseatral fore not only doe tank rational fom of Ble sche ‘Setcommuniive inastre of rg atoraled Ufewors (oe. ct) “The general theory of such ‘communicative infrasractres is, however, he eho crave ae: ch ln he soma undies cel theory of society (ids pp. 397) “The theory of commusizave action wil, however, succeed in effecting roch'a carBeation ony iit doer not op shore at reontracting the ommunictve infrastruc of largely raonalze ifewoda in term of {vale re nature, Even if contrat reconsraction with what the Insure has been tured ito by the ‘oloneton ofthe eword errno oreo more oe nl a cage or could ere ess ren from passing judgement. Immanentcrique mux pecs aso [orton he bel omen que int to bs meng Hie ‘as clams nothing ks than that hi projet could form the basis for ‘Sioge i he eps sea The theory of commnicie ston i meant to provide an aerate to the phony ol hry on wich en cal eo wll led, br which n> Enger tenable Socal tery neo no longer sera he normative cvtente bourgeois ele, of a sed of phosopieal hou ina net way hae 22 Herbert Schielbach in by may a a crgu of dslgy With the concep of acommunicnereton| ingined in te une of ngage ovewed 1 rexhing endermanding gn ‘rps rm poopy tat take om tema te. The ov cence (erin x stopev elation with poopy that har aken op the ah of Sorting ont hey of etonay. (FCA, wok hp 397) ‘The question whether Habermas has really succeded in clariying the ‘nama owns fete hy of sce? wl hfe inwance, be decided by wheter the philosophy cooperating with is Telly abe to provide jriestion. for that moment ef unconditional ‘Bae with cele vay clams s bulking the condition of pro ease of consensus formation’ (id p. 398). Habermas would ke to feaivetha can: inthe form ofa Yeder and fee of Youndaionalt Claims: (bid, p. 399) At ts pout I see myself again confirmed my Sceptial ascsment of Haber’ pormatvim sbore all by methodol fel considerations. erespectve of how one may fudge the deals ofthe project Habeoma. develops. | do not in principle See ih what way Fecontrectne pilosophy with merely hypothesal validy cline Ce Beat pp 390 is supposed toe suited to generating that moment of ‘ncontlinality without which ‘normative foundation are simply otto bbehad, The atenaive would be hermeneats as practical philosophy fe of any cli to encondtionalty, apd all We relat consequences, A ena Iemay indeed be the ease that communicative action aways involves soconditonal claims being made, but ths doesnot quakiy io ‘roid she foundasos for Cac Theory. To do so would ssl have {be open to cia sessment In other words, the theorist would have Uecondtwonal to provide the unconditional sandards for cegue from the cutee and s/he wil never be able to derive hee from the sbjer tae va hypotal rle reconaracin. en ances ht Ka Seo Apel stnchly retains hs tamcendetal rita uncon Sioaly ‘hoa fountain hey bean ha Himelf doubts ae in onder whether he has reached 2 Language and Society Charles Taylor In what follows | wish wo comment in two dine stepson The Theo Gomme Action The book exeptonaly ad densest ‘anno, therfore, cm w provide an exhaustive Interpretation, Ae + Hist Step however, [would like teat o ater to iterpret one ofthe main dps ving cog the ba; es sco ep sal rs de lemenes ofa cue. “The area on which {wish wo focus could be called the run taken by the theory of sce inthe ih of pilonpy a nga. ial sent in the firs sevion ofthis esa to porry th tam Oy reconswcting the ‘Spel aunts nad send etn ot gcston wir tmanrn which have recommen nn neem 1 undenun Habema corey be stames at Inggs mat be Sonpihede atmo hos of Soe, We ce he Sorte Halden pre, ice ne han cond we athe tot al hme Haima ph oa nh Sok ole nd Ha Hema ep onde oy on “snp se dome" OY wane ot wh ee salon she oer Tr tab ad Sr undanding ap ayo ave te ogee Cplaning tn nen sey nde cnrpons chon eters he spp 1 The fundamental aproich: language develope and renews isl in discourse. We seu she sly 10 speak only as party to decoure ives Command of cerain vocabulary foe example ony cure Thee 24 Chars Taylor es a .hrrt~—ssS ah sr ead psanl sy wom has poe eer ope rent Teen Sut Sen err ee ome sneer lay nares ipo Tt were os oniscbnely the comes ors Seeger eeeey ere Hee ty 2 a cee ath Hote nd Lk roe Sohn ome eal bye lr rr Miner Spe hoe pando te Sr Fee pce pert eee eo a ee er he a ll ey oF ——SsSCSs Sean Meat 2. The complementarity becween suture and practice, A language can ge undernosd as nrc or sce This structs normate for Sere eh on Sree rc nde ot one ed the former ene only beease is continually renewed in linguistic pate, In other word, 4 resiproclrelasoadhip Obuins between stra [cand pracce or fo wie Sausture's arms, between “ange” and parcle preventing the one lde of the ration being reduced ro the other. We do For crent the sactare in Our respective spesch act for these presuppose {he cutee of that codes bur the srocture sures only i those acs {0 fp self in them ~ he peri the form of cee uta, Ava consequence, any moni theory of language, be ie sver flr or itentionait mare, suchas in Grice’ work in principle inadequate ne oul sik de wold hve ben cis 0 pay hs ssrutue/pacce picple to 3 theory of society, Yet it has in reality Siways been neleed Most hiker, such a Hegel and Herder, delended {he frst fandamentlst approach, namely the enna of community, Sethu pada ceran amoune of stenton tothe SP pringpe- However, the prindple mover less wene overboard in the recepuon of the fan: tdimentlit approach in Frenh sociology rom Sain-Simon and Comte to ‘ers: Durkheim therfore offers us 3 non-atomisic theory of sxe, ‘eng ft hye noble feo mea etn. howe ig any beed tothe second approach, namay the S7P pine Pr Baedntnd Habemars ce coe, ten he beers tat who- cer ignores this principle variably misinerprets the primacy of scity i yhaving to imerpret the Laer the context of a plowphy of cone Sloumet.'A socgy's norm and cirtoms would sctordingly inevitably Laie nt ey 8 spee sngly have ben inp on idan in he cue of eae ar te i at wens how he lic como nhac mene aia emanate ceo tae ee ae a ey ec et Sr init fan cal ol aka ted its haes nkatnd teases ee of stad ase ee ta enn et fo ads cclpel stronk a we ju nl ay tga’ Sa gun tn tenn rah SECU y's Mtn tn gs tncally ares ‘Pipe comes ut youl pai hades cases tl ie ens weg wa nee a. pal cnn riled sro oe stl oe ae eee sith oy tier seus gph ome como TESST stmt Denn ob onpenetay ee Sey BeSaed a cnr arts de set te Piss ne ater Hobe ar me se sy Be eee perl te on hence conc eat EG athe pace wort weal ort tempos cate fhe Puen oft souewe nak raf oe esas cea es eee i tee wee es ota irate fetta seep, th net CEE Un bean ppontne heen ea 3 Background knowlege. The consequence of he S/P principle jue Inemnld infra ie takes he lease bag ‘Sarno acai Lins rata heap he ae Oy Simullancoulyrereang Al too equentiy however, the asamp then made ti hr coe edy exis Comply n't were sea Rock of ‘ead epresons eat one ceeds oly cal up order so oat ther Sn spect However ike al rat, gis pracie mov ms oy i che famework of 3 realy made code but sso draws ons background know edge, namely the horizon of our implit know-how and. pre-under sing, Ths engenders the pouty of ianoraveexpreons which {ie invented inthe cours of Speech and arculte for the ist time part SFr impli underanding "The sare is re of society there re always customs which ae already lid down and norms esd artculted: thse are used aod a the sume time renewed inthe course of practic. Tat practice, however rele on 3 fever eahauned background which can simlancoly be te source of Innovative statements and arclations> (Wienscn, i parca, bas emphasized the nebaabity ofthis background when dacosing iret vo flow s le} 26 Charles Te “This has significant consequences for a theory of society. We have already noted that hs sheory ust be developed on leat two level in Srdero do use to the polity of recur nd pracize. An explanation the suctorl level must always be supplemented by reference to cone feof sion, ahs po Beco ce tha he le payed by Shy tothe se of cpl some sed al of orm of bat io LTvays toa bacground which ean geerte new norms, However, these Sew behavioural ors bring with them a change in that form of: One elie nh ee ae hres ten agua te hor of background understanding This can have lnporane consequences. Thuy Fer ezomple peed on abonsouscotens ta ar wpe” 2Ble shape ss soon s+ our hitherto imple precndertanding is Even + ble psorm. P*Prhermore, arcltion sin itelf noe some unproblematic process stove sontnts a aresdy determined. by the background: There ate Sepa aye ending or pcandesandig cre: A ey Sricaltngscuon plays a ignfcat roles one frequen argues about opriate terms in which 0 formule our background krowledge 1 SRI eco Bi nde) Bows — "As Lei at presen the 8/P principle as two consequence fr soc theory thst both go beyond merely einforing the thesis already put forward in 2) abo. i) Fes Benes apparent ht if we develo oar theory from the cve othe observer tens postoning problematic Tn order to ESaBicto expla the scons of the parcpans in orm of ie from our perpecing we often ave vo areas clement of tet background under nding which for them remain imple. We otlze formulations in the {apo nih we pre fom what = we theo be oped ‘he parcipan, they would probably tigger off eet changes and wou be tghly Conover The refyingmetatheory could with lea consi fence Convince il ha hal "rey" dnovered the underying structre It'the same manner asthe physics found tera with the aid of atomic thoy Hover gen bee roll he ie take the postion of background knowledge seriously. The question arses ow We fam lpia oar explanation for shew background knowledge: Cond hare web on tpi sen 3 coum: Sur explanation supposed tobe accurate because the patpant if they Sire to anerand Genser well snd le conscoumen were 1 Be ‘limiate, would arculate themselves inthis wy. (b) canbe cll shown by referring tothe meaning of background inowiedge tha all fohtnablessempe t expla socety by means of 4 ‘ompotet model most invariably fail A computer programm i complete Fpformalizedranstion from one state osnothet mst oear onthe Dash ‘i onmal chasers This Alan Turing rllan sgh fomast be possible to transpose mathemteal question which can be answered in ne of wo ways on o12 mechanical Gevze. The mechanic programme ‘hes a conron precy because a merely formal rool supposed tobe Language and Socesy 27 Sel non eal open mae lyse yw Srihari etme fl reer oe eink we eon nla pnt Sabato ait anae te enters Tioga te Beton Pe ‘Bie eT ne ea el Me hg eat cop tn ae Sener acaphed cokers oes ene ses ek ie fh hte y's Se ager dy nie EE kot ees, Das Shite ats ahs ta ES ASST, STONE wats bens TOMI pagT sete ofa tree meee Do nf cpente iowa case 4. The complementarity of ‘and “We Sach linguistic practice as both sag and tially fois he ody ewe ‘olresparipating in discourse. In dscouse se ea about somethin "ates Howe he mater deiner esd you, but for us, When we frst engage is dacourse we open op 1 common feel space at were. What of nee then the reston btween this We-sance andthe hpenpecivs of the parsepens "We parpte in» common space Our acento both mine and yours js focuped on the martr io hands we ignore the fac that this spice Produced and maintained at once by pee acs we both ue. sn say Irthout arcing this, moving onthe Bass of mua practic in that space 4 space common to uy however, owing to your and my acon T st have ay imple undertanding of chese Tn otber words {mas be capable of finding my owm individual contibuion to this space again, for other ‘se | would no longer beable to participate in ie. “This an be made’ cleat if we take the case of ou tral sharing 2 mutual orientation towards a Space, We have to know ow the different eas rte on another aa and we mn al be ae od ‘our own way inthis ndscape’ The langeage we ese a8 a consequence feautes wo dilerne sper of etre expreons, aay bot geo fraphcal descriptions and dec expresione Fach asec and ‘here’ tat {Ena be used only rom the perp othe speaker. I thes vo forms of ‘xpreson ae nor meled in oer mend, when we have lose the SBligyto connec them wid one another and a consequently no loge ‘apable of making ening statements that connet expression of hese {mo cypes = then we have low our way “he cena ole of at selérelereatal expression (and Habermas slucidaey this) stem from the above? Te cannot fal a a rlerenal et Bresson. Ye ths doesnot hep sali we do ot connect and inter [Ewch expressions dwn from the common space, For the term cme tolaerve bur finding ourselves again as conta participant in this “There is chus «complementary elatonship herween the We-perspestive 28 Charla Taylor and che I-perspecive in discourse. The former is ear in origin, in that iimpunge 2 tended in dicoure and he dscourse cherelore necessarily iekes's common space. However the T-perspective must equally ener Se every cours the speaker ito be lef ake pati ensuing ost in tum means ta the Weeperspective by no means simply ares ‘Fame accumulation of individual Fperopeives, beesuse these cannot recede te former Neverlesy nthe normal eae of al parsipnt Ahe'We perspective ie rege an at eat mplictundestanding of che perpeeive The adult impli already always undersands the difer= tee teewcen ‘and ‘We’ aswell the way in which they inetock, "heal neds toy, nheve ah a oertandng ol by an cote press Pe ps of cea =i he aps SF'shich the wo level re not yet marked off from one another. et ‘orm communiaion erween adult requires precy thi diferent: {ion and iterinking ofthe ewo levels “Thar conception ete swurtre of dacoure can serve 10 enable ws to undersind te specie of soil ston As I have siy the code s both Aeployed and innovated in the course of ings practice. Ths pracce SEEN" and ‘oually”pproaimstes»Sscourse’ the pareipats ct rom a Werperpenine, We follow the rls, we cary out te ital and we apply ORR Alan cel de 9's gn col oT Hower the Weperpecive is joparized if we no longer unders the ‘comimon space of norms inthe tare way." and "We then no longer bear the conec rdstion to one another. Fire, the. E-prspectivs are ply exposed andthe Wer may then be the subject of#espute oF Tole Ti we wish wo recover that common ‘We’, thea a proces of reachiog onsen must atu, We canoe however, constaetis procs be the ‘Sump espn *-poapetivs mich se completly independent of ‘c mother Raker, our ay ofthe structre of ducourse has shown ws thie theperspecue'of the We’ is of prior ong. We mast reach 1 new onsensuy in order to separ the damage to this perpecve. Yet, cach ‘elvidal uprre ll embeded in overarching Wer pespctives, We ways share otler noms which are nor yet contested and a common {atRround knowledge Tit tock of oveching common properties in Danae lows ust) hope that we ean generate & new "We perpective ira thi juncure thatthe highly ongunal and neresting theory of rationality whith Habermas develops comes to beat. Here, reso i not Ulerstood monologcly, but eather 43 4 peecion of ths proces of aching understanding i sich 3 way thu the rupture in the commonly ‘Shred Swe are supposedly repared: By dit ofthe fact that we have wo do ine with rope in our Common ndertanding which ae i turn beige by' wore deeply rootel common property i makes sense to pat such ruptures i the commonly shared horizon. This, however, Ime tat oe mos seh for reson within ts horizon aceptable #3 IT we ae to bring aboot + new consensus onthe mater in dispute. "The lal of process of reaching anderanding motivated soy by Lange ress follows from this, 3 proces simed a fully recreating the ruptured fonsensus. According to Habermas, thi isthe appropriate basis or Our eal of raonaty Socio 29 {have atenpted to reconstract Habermas’ spesh act theory of soe ‘The nrucurr of dacoure se iaended to su in endersanding Sosy 484 whole T vided the conta plank of the theory ino four approche, which T should lke eo summarize herein thee thee: () wi the fst Upproach we assert the primacy of society over the actors avalved (6) the Second and did approaches cause as to sess the inedecble com plementary of srutre and/or system aswell ay practise andlor acon; {6) withthe Fourth approach we claim finally tar peace involves 9 ompler We play” One acs fom 1 Wepotion, which cm andthe Segal on ex sured by the pene he said subjects. The mutuality of "We then hae be recened vis process of ‘eaching understanding, Its the autre ofthis process which determines 2 gee peretion which we el enly.Ascoring to Habermas theory of human development the need for underanding incest 3 tmerely symbole, son-rfexive Werporions are overcome Tope tae my reconstactin at Est ds jc tthe main seams ia gen berate ch and complet thoy. The thy shes me cxconaly ogee and coving nwo rapes iy, tnables 1 ransormaton of scl theory which aks ita ssn th the Seructre of human acon resembles tat of Gicoore, Secondly. pro= Sides the bass for anew understanding of polite eri in ate apts Devin, Accoeding 10 Habermas, we ire Confronted today not only By fystem theory neler reps of the dice sree of ssi Bl bur alo by the rel repression of processes of reaching undersandng in favour of system forms of iteration such ss the marke or the brreacratc st, which to cera eee fonction behing the backs of the pacipant and achieve ther ends by means of string mechanisms. ‘This i the origin of oth the widespread curren expenence ofa les of freedom andthe rested experince of a foss of meaning These expericnces are pot, a some Would believe, an ineparale ret ol the prcesr ot ‘modernization perv. Rather, they do nat inelctably ate owing to che AEssolution of der word views be they of reigous or metaphysical stg sich word ews wer by eta be ped by be ad ‘on-dominisve processes of undertanding hen people today would be ‘bere imbue fem society with a meaning once more: es the Coming. fs ol ering mehr whch here res hep of ibermar’s theory thus opens up profitable and raul perspectives bot from there and native iewpoite Ye itt my mind aso Impaired by a severe weakns. Ths welknes can be described in atous ways The cent problem, to my mind, thatthe concep of aching ‘onal understanding it 'devdaped sing 2 tty fora ches of 30° Charles Taylor ry etc homo th nh siya ht ele ih he {his his eds proceeds from concept of the god Ife. Kant i the most ace se peed ore ea omen heey epee ne fe eg Heoeeckerteaeteumnar suerte bce Se ee eer Geet ea are eae eee pete Ss ge eer ean ave mee tora Cee re aes peer ied roe ms ore rope ee Se reece ete ican feat tedemate ete cero on rec re Frag eae pemee a e eee rle Appeal eb ions enna et wet ie ome ee od oe Bar rea ae Ete is ees tae aa Soe ae ei meni an a err se eee SP pothole Ener re econo ee oer eey sos a smelt eect ily Wee Sr Cen e noe ane Ream actor can always ask the ‘question why I should actually proceed ERs en teani econ nee ey nape me soem er Tare ear recietee reien aah ie cms OG Oa es ot pore coe corse e ies Flag tree th pn Hl eth ati cease ne oi eae spt roe {nderstanding, We should tadetvour to replace nonrational mechanisms ile Sey eee ee Se ee eee ceca areca rage eve ad nan i nor Oe Dar ne tena ip ie Che cea ol ol ht seer seercines ees rene ‘one turns tothe radial questions of Language and Soiey 31 ee ee sea Lara tn as gree he sy oe oe ee sina a ec pede esta om ise le Seah eh has a deel he of Shei ty acy seers ui ame my yb cay Sa cee one CS eB a pe Serene ey ale heme osts—= Imuneation is supponed fo be hough of te sae ness" ton’ between the appece of raiotaly, and isthe Re play” of these shih fst permits the poenilty of 9 mukayered reason ounfld in + Productive fashion? Tes dual irl and metaphoril meaning given to {Re concep of communsave stand ir ndtve of 2 metocoloie problem, Given that much ofthe Theary of Commutative Action Cone EEnested on cborsng the dfernceBeween the vay dimensions Sich the parapets ineracton have to ees atonoualy they ‘Tan io sooperte with eich oer ap addon prolem sre, name, av of the nerlation of valdy claims previously separated from one ‘her Myqucsuon is wha the implestons for the base concep of “ommunicatve rationality” ae f the Theory of Communicative Aeon 3 rel ae ack rot” ward ne pnw tegen onceming the interdependence of the aspects of faonly which ae STened primal a beng independent A Sociological and a Philosophical Consideration “The ambiguity inthe main conept Habermas develops bat ro do, among thr thn wth an unsaid reatonship between is theory soc Iba te iwc nd, Hata ecto op Wears ‘Bboy ofthe mode sepuston of vl speres (interpreted sald res Habermas he pilsopher, however, nu completly convinced EMR cpus has become a thorough going resi. Te wosld seam Sere me ats ct serge de sandpout of he iovophr who wah fo prsade the soclop tha he separa Te eaves so cecal taping she way fund soccer in Bs “otsy ew thse, spss pee of fle concoumes St ge cont. Sen thus, Both the totalitarian wnjieon andthe nid “Spiraton ofthe capac for reson would agent the complementary EeSiopes of a modriy inthe hal of he dele of Enlightcament A i free ma een oe gin he ar seagedon two font. The projet enderaken in the Tory of Comm Tumse Acton expretiy ker up ths mene poston. However, Fisbermas would make ie considerably caer for hrsell to repel the oumerataks, be thy informed by steps of reason of dalectis ‘Steconliacn, i hs sory dd ots tr, reproduce win fal the Sat theoreal ambience of eda seperation, onthe one hand, alma eran oe Oe = nthe everyday worl, vo Habermas sme, thot aspects of rations in ae sl tity intertwined separate ou mo sence, moray apd Bi tnd ae then teed ss olted sean modern expert cles, By Someone pt apne pr Th i: SSpattn can, however, be desrbed only a oor nee sensing) roc of rdonazaon bse the value peer ha have eparsed Oat 38 Mari See “nthe nde of th ewer backgroud gud inthe eon: Communication, pp =a). isbomars analyst of Weber takes Up SorherInvew of Eber concern withthe empl imancnce of ‘only and Ks commisment to communtatveangument, Weber eer {Sly seus an appropriate reference While Habermas ha Hggeted that Habermas snd Cra Theory 58 ‘avonl argument i an implce par of everyday speech, be thnks his as ‘ot alvays ben 4. Communicate acon cn be mare or ls aonl tnd the archer back we goin examining aon and primitive sos, the lest anal appears The pot stout rasonl onmunicaton i that “dranding cant be coneied spins fecanno and here Habeas ives 3 communicave twist Parsons famous patern-rarable dicho fomy ~ be nommatively mribed” (TCA, vl I, p70); rhe, mort Be “Communiatelyaciced Socal satonleson the, can be deine as ‘he emination of factors har prevent conscious setment of amie (bid p. 19). Here les the sgifeance of Weber. His sori analysis of {he cull and soil process tht produced ratonaizison can be sean ‘describing the movement toward communcativ etonaity. Habermas enmity dr in 0 spr Wier sh gay pe Although his reading of Weber's comps iby no. means systematic of complete, Habermas presents 2 sophicated and orga! interpretation of eran key sens inthe ponte phase of his sealing, be focuses on tlemencs of Weber culua Rory which have not yet eve sulficet ent, particularly on ‘The Socal Psychology of Word Reigns and FRebgos Keeton a te We ess o The Pea is iurpreaive perspective in unig because combines fittest in communication mis te Parsnan intr in cur dfltenaton Here he i influenced by Schivcter. whose own work reflects similar sriematon. While Habermas wes the ealrcsocicy/personly dsting: thon aan ove ramework, he focuses les o dferentaion among these three systems than on differentiation among the cognitive, expres and Imoral dimensions of cura fe He suggests that thi separton (ce Partonsinroducton to Cultre andthe Socal System” tn Theories of Society, New York, 1961) has lowed processes of justeaon to occur re ipa eel way Cla een ent ‘bj knowledge, exressieethes ie and moray cn incresing be conceived withoue relerence to an overarching igiouscoumos, “The

    You might also like