Chapter 7

LESSON 1: Social Interaction and Society

Prepared by: Mr. ERIC B. AQUINO

 Lesson objectives:

At the end of the lesson, you are

expected to:
• distinguish between transactional and
personal relations.
• demonstrate understanding of concepts
such as society, social systems, social
relationships and social transformation.
“So we live in two worlds: one characterized by
social exchanges and the other characterized by
market exchanges. And we apply different
norms to these two kinds of relationships.
Moreover, introducing market norms into social
exchanges... violates the social norms and hurts
the relationship. Once this type of mistake has
been committed, recovering a social
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

There are different kinds of

social relationships. They differ
by virtue of the kind of
interaction that takes place
between individuals.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

Two main kinds of social

relationships :
1) personal
2) transactional
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

Relationships are personal where

interactions are based on a mutual
regard for each other as persons.
Interactions are defined by
cooperation rather than competition.
Its focus are the preservation and
development of mutual regard for each
other.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

Relationships are transactional

where interactions are based on a
regard for each other as means for
attaining one’s goals. In other words,
persons are “used,” not necessarily in a
derogatory sense, to help one attain his
goals or succeed in his plans.
 Two types of interaction in society

Social Kind of interaction How one treats

Relation the other in the
social
relationship
Transactional Instrumental or As an object, a
Strategic Action means for attaining
one’s goals
(Subject-object)
Personal Communicative Action As a fellow
Subject, a fellow
person
(Intersubjective)
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

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.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

This means, 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
intersubjective and personal relations also
have limits in aiding the development of
persons and societies.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

We need instrumental and strategic

action in fulfilling our material needs,
just as much as lower species plan
strategically in catching their prey. This
cannot be delivered by personal and
intersubjective relations alone.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

Society, encounters a problem when

one of the two forms of social relations
takes predominance over the other.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

Relating to your role play, it shows that:

1) The friend treats an act of generosity
and hospitality, which are valued and
idealized in the context of intersubjective
relationships, as an object or means to
attain monetary reward.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

2) The other friend applies the rules or

expectations that are applicable only in
transactional relationships such as in
markets or institutions by assigning a
market price to gestures and actions that
should be “priceless” in the context of
friendship.
Different Social Relations and their Corresponding Interactions:
Jurgen Habermas

In a theoretical perspective,
Habermas would refer to this as the
colonization of the lifeworld by the
social systems. In order 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.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

In our actual societies, these

spheres take the form of economic
system (the market), political system
(the state) and our everyday world of
communicative relations (family,
school, religious communities, civil
society).
 Market, State and Lifeworld

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.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

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.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

In both cases, the relationship

between persons can not be purely
intersubjective. At least one participant
in a transactional relationship gets to be
objectified for the attainment of a
certain end.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

If social systems have a “language”

which all participants understand, it would
be the medium of money and power.
People are linked up with other people
through currencies of exchange value in
the market, and through the use of
domination, or threats of sanctions in the
political system.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

In this way, transactional relationships

are neutral to the affective aspect of
relationships. This is what we observe in
interactions that take place in the market.
Social systems follow a simple, value-free
logic: the logic of having and not having
(economic), or the logic of commanding
and obeying (politics).
 Market, State and Lifeworld

Hence our actions in social systems are

characterized within that logic.
When I move within social systems,
either I am the one in the “having” category,
that is, I possess a good for selling, or I am
in the category of of “not having”, that is, I
need to possess a good hence I need to
interact with the one who has it.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

In the case of political systems, either I

am in the category of “commanding,”
meaning I am in the position to control the
actions of others in order to preserve order,
or I am in the category of “obeying”, which
means I am in the position of one who
follows another possessing the power over
my actions.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

As such, transactional relationships

are too narrow that it cannot
accommodate other aspects of a
genuine human relationship. But is is
also an advantage that they are purely
transactional relationships because
they ensure efficiency.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

For Example:
Market systems that deliver services in the
fastest way are most likely those who are not
bogged down by personal issues of those
running it. The same logic applies to political
systems who effectively maintain order through
professionalism and objectivity (no favoritism,
no personalizing of issues).
 Market, State and Lifeworld

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.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

This is a presupposition of communicative

action, which resembles that we have discussed in
the previous lesson on intersubjective human
relations as the structure of genuine dialogue.
Because participants in communicative action are
thus expected to treat each other as subjects, no one
can take on the role of a calculative and strategic
observer while simultaneously in communication with
another.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

Lifeworlds thrive on mutual

recognition. It is for this reason that we
feel disturbed by situations in which
individuals “use” other individuals within
this sphere. This is what is illustrated in
the above situation we gave for your
dramatization.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

In the lifeworld, we uphold and

respect each other as subjects, as
embodied spirits, and as free and
autonomous beings. To manipulate or
use another person in the lifeworld is to
violate that person’s being a person.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

Our social interaction in the lifeworld

is marked by cooperative communication.
We connect with one another through
shared understandings of what is good
and valuable for us, not through the use
of threats over others, nor because of a
material interest over monetary reward.
 Market, State and Lifeworld

Through communication, we generate

and develop our culture, form and
improve our norms such as laws and
policies, and socialize with others as we
simultaneously develop our personal
identities.
 Application

1) Describe what happens in

schools and business
establishments if relations are
dominantly transactional or are
dominantly personal.
 Application

2) Can societies still exist if social

systems are destroyed?
 Application

3) Is Habermas saying that we

better go back to primitive society
where relationships were highly
personal?
 Check for Understanding

1) Distnguish between
transactional and personal
relations.
 Check for Understanding

2) Explain the following concepts:

a) three main spheres of society
b) transactional and personal relationships
in the 3 main spheres of society
c) communicative actions in the lifeworld
d) social systems become less efficient
e) colonization of the lifeworld
 Reflection

Do you have relationships that have

been compromised because of money or
power? Have you been able to revert
back to a purely personal relationship
after that? How can you preserve and
shield the relationships that matter to you
most from the interests of money and
power?
Thank You for
listening!