Different Social. Talip

"Different Social Relations
and their Corresponding

Interactions : Jurgen
Habermas"
According to Habermas, there are
different kinds of social relationships. They
differ by virtue of the kind of interaction
that takes place between individuals. For
purposes of simplification, social
relationships was divided into two main
kinds :
1.) PERSONAL
2.) TRANSACTIONAL
~ Relationships are personal where
interactions are based on a 'MUTUAL'
regard for each other as persons. As such,
interactions in personal relationships are
defined by 'COOPERATION' rather than by
competition. The focus of personal
relationships is the 'PRESERVATION and
DEVELOPMENT' of the mutual regard for
each other.
~Relationships are transactional, where
interactions are based on a regard for each
other as means for 'ATTAINING ONE'S
GOALS'. In ordinary terms, transactional
relationships are where persons are "used",
not necessarily in the derogatory sense, to
help one attain his or her goals or succeed
in his or her plans. Because the focus of a
person using another as a means for
attaining
his or her goals is his or her success, then
transactional relationships usually
'suspend' the deeper reality that the other
is a person, not just a mere object for my
use.
In other words, transactional
relationships, we put aside personal matters
in our interactions. In most cases of
transactional relationships, the atmosphere
is 'COMPETITIVE'.
TWO TYPES OF INTERACTION IN SOCIETY :
Social Kind of How one treats the

Relations Interaction other in the social
relationships?
TRANSACTIONAL Instrumental or As an object, a means

Strategic Action for attaining one's goals
(subject-object).
PERSONAL Communicative Action As a fellow subject, a

fellow person
(intersubjective).
The Table shows that transactional
relation is treating the other as an object, a
means for attaining one's goals. That is why
it is described as an instrumental or
strategic action. In contrast, personal
relation is treating the other is termed as
communicative action.
In this lesson, we now focus on the
concepts from the background of
society. Habermas analysis of society is
helpful here in pointing out that we need
both transactional and personal social
relations in our lives. This means therefore,
that to some extent, instrumental or
strategic action is just as important as
communicative action in the development
of individuals and of societies as a whole. It
also means that not all forms of treating
like the
other as "object" is inherently evil. It also
means that intersubjective and personal
relations also have limits in aiding the
development of persons and societies. We
need instrumental and strategic actions in
fulfilling our material needs, just as much as
lower species plan strategically in catching
their prey. This cannot be delivered by
person and intersubjective relations alone.
From a theoretical perspective, Habermas
would refer this as the "colonization of the
lifeworld by the social systems". To explain
this problem, we need to understand some
basic concepts :
*MARKET, STATE AND LIFEWORLD

In Habermas' social theory, society is
made up of three main spheres : the social
system of money, the social system of power
and the lifeworld. In out actual societies,
these spheres take the forms of economic
system (the market, political system (the
state) and our everyday world of
communicative relations; (family, school,
religious communities, civil society).
Each sphere calls for different
interactions. In the market and the state,
relationships are more of transactional and
so individuals view each other as means for
a particular goal or end. In the market, we
pay someone in return for goods that we
need to have and own. In the political
system, some individuals control others'
actions in order to ensure that the peace
and order is maintained. In both cases, the
relationship between
persons cannot be purely intersubjective. At
least one participant gets to be objectified
for the attainment of a certain end.
If social systems have a "language" which

all participants understand, it would be the
medium of money and power.
Furthermore, social systems follow a
simple value-free logic : the logic of having
and not having (economic), or the logic of
commanding and obeying (politics). Hence,
our actions in social systems are
characterized within that logic.
In addition, the situation in the lifeworld
is significantly different from social systems.
When we are within the
confines of our homes, or in our immediate
communities, we naturally assume that all
who are part of the community are persons,
and must be consciously recognized and
treated as such. Since participants in
communicative action are thus expected to
treat to each other as a subjects, no one can
take on the role of a calculative and
strategic observer
while simultaneously in communication with
another. "Lifeworlds thrive on mutual
recognition". In the lifeworld we uphold and
respect each other as subjects, as embodied
spirits, and as free and autonomous beings.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING! GOD BLESS
😇😇😇
Reporters : TALIP, ROLLYGENE

TINAMBACAN, JESSA
VETERBO, LOVELY ROSE

Different Social. Talip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Different Social. Talip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Different Social Relations

and their Corresponding

Social Kind of How one treats the

TRANSACTIONAL Instrumental or As an object, a means

PERSONAL Communicative Action As a fellow subject, a

*MARKET, STATE AND LIFEWORLD

If social systems have a "language" which

Reporters : TALIP, ROLLYGENE

You might also like