Habermas and Communicative Actions

Jurgen Habermas is one of the most influential sociologists and philosophers of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Though his work on the public sphere, “The Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere,” is his best known work, it is his writings on communicative actions that remain most influential. Habermas believes that competent communicative actions is the key to constructing what is rational and creating a participatory democracy that can counter the administrative and coercive nature of formal systems, such as corporations and the welfare state. This article details the principles of communicative actions and the benefits Habermas believes are possible. The article then examines some criticisms of Habermas and gives examples of Habermas's continuing influence.

Keywords: Communicative Actions; Competent Speaker; Deliberative Theory of Democracy; First Philosophy; Ideal Speech Situation; Instrumental Rationality; Project of Modernity; Public Sphere; Strongest Argument; Universal Pragmatics

Habermas & Communicative Actions

Overview

Jurgen Habermas is a German sociologist and philosopher most closely associated with the Frankfurt School, critical theory, and pragmatism. His theory of communicative action is detailed in two volumes, The Theory of Communicative Actions: Reason and the Rationalization of Society and The Theory of Communicative Actions: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. The basic premise of these works is that language, and more specifically, communication between competent speakers, is the mechanism people use to understand the world, the people around them, and their own intentions, feelings, and desires (McCarthy, 1984). Habermas believes that through conversations, individuals participate in a process that constructs rationality, validates truth, and criticizes formal structures or institutions of power in our society. At his most hopeful, Habermas believes that communicative actions strengthen the democratic process and a rational scientific understanding of the world he terms the 'project of modernity.' One of the key things to understand about Habermas and his theory of communicative actions is that the ideas and methodologies he lays in this theory have remained influential, if not a key building block, for almost everything he has written since. To understand communicative actions is to take a grand step forward in understanding one of the most prolific and influential modern social theorists.

Rationality

Habermas opens his first book on communicative actions by stating that from its inception, philosophy has attempted to describe the world as a whole, despite its myriad fragmented appearances, and subject it to discoverability through reason. Habermas believes this totalizing of knowledge (knowledge of nature, history, or society) is no longer feasible. Advances in science and the "reflective consciousness" that accompanies science have devalued the approach to philosophy which constructs large theories about the world and history and then tries to fit everything into the theory. All the efforts to establish a first philosophy, which claims to explain the first causes of foundational truths, have broken down. An additional problem Habermas identifies is the subjugation of rationality to formal systems, or what Weber might call bureaucracies. In this context rationality is merely instrumental; that is to say that reason serves as a tool of the formal system and its goal. Habermas believes this changes rationalism and its approach to nature and individuals. Instrumental rationality serves formal systems by gaining understanding through objectifying nature and individuals (Habermas, 1970a). For a reflexive understanding of one another and the world, as well as a critical understanding of and ability to question coercive formal systems, there needs to be a different form of rationality. This form is Habermas's communicative actions.

Non-Foundational & Universal Instrumental Rationality

Habermas attacks rationality on two fronts. The first is an attack on the philosophical establishment. Philosophy can no longer be viewed as an autonomous discipline. Additionally, it cannot lay claim to universal truths or "First Philosophy" (Nielsen, 1993). The critique of "First Philosophy" brings into question almost every philosophical construct from Plato to Kant and more specifically challenges elements of Marxist theory at the heart of the Frankfurt School and critical theory. Habermas's communicative action locates reason in language as opposed to history such as Marx and Hegel or in the mind as Kant (Alfred, 1996). Habermas believes philosophy cannot stand out from the world and the sciences. Rather, philosophy should "stand in" providing science with foundations and logic as well as to integrate science back into the world of morals, politics, and art (Nielson, 1993).

The second front Habermas attacks is modern rationality. Habermas believes modern rationality is ambiguous and a distortion of reason (Bernstein, 1989) and ultimately becomes subjected to formal systems that reduce rationality to a means to an end. Habermas's fear is that scientific, economic, and governmental formal systems practice a form of instrumental rationality, or goal oriented value-free reasoning, which accomplishes a goal but does not take into account the rightness of such acts or their effects upon individuals (Habermas, 1970A). Instead of rationality guiding the actions of formal system, formal systems guide the use of rationality. Habermas believes this is just one of the negative results that arose from Enlightenment thinking, or what he calls the 'project of modernity.' However, unlike some critical theorists, Habermas believes there have been many good results from the project of modernity and a few worthy ideas that can be reclaimed from the Enlightenment. Habermas sees communicative actions, or communicative rationality, as the mechanism to reclaim the positive aspects of the project of modernity.

Communicative actions leverage the non-foundational universal rationalism located within language. By "non-foundational universal" Habermas means two things. First, the rational mechanisms in language are pragmatic. That is to say they can be observed in the every day and that they work. Second, they are not based in some sort of Aristotelian or Platonic "form" or philosophical or theological first principle (Meadwell, 1994). This pragmatic approach to language and philosophy is at the core of Habermas's work.

Communicative Rationality

What makes this form of rationality so valuable is that it can be accessed by virtually everyone through conversations. Additionally, this very democratic form of rationality is powerful. It provides the competent speakers with the ability to validate truth claims concerning rightness, appropriateness, and legitimacy in relation to our shared values and norms (McCarthy, 1984). When brought into a public sphere, communicative rationality is the foundation of democracy allowing conversationalists to contest, defend, and revise truth claims.

Habermas also viewed communicative rationality as an integrative force. He believed that once the walls of philosophy were torn down that philosophy, through communicative actions, could integrate itself into science, providing science with the ideas for its hypotheses. Habermas termed this the "philosophization" of science. He also imagined communicative rationality eventually integrating science back into the everyday world (McCarthy, 1984). This was an important issue to Habermas. He viewed instrumental rationality as one of the dangers of science, based in an objectification of nature and individuals, which could lead to harmful actions. Communicative rationality can supplant instrumental rationality and integrate science back into the world putting considerations of the effects of scientific actions on nature and individuals back into play.

Ideal Speech Situation

According to Habermas, the fundamental communicative action is the ideal speech situation. The ideal speech situation takes place in a public setting and is free from any coercive power or force. In other words, conversationalists meet openly and discuss freely. Each speaker must be competent on the subject being discussed and be willing to accept the validity of the stronger argument. Each argument serves to raise the validity claims of each conversationalist and allow each to recognize the others' validity claim. Thus each conversation begins with the assumption that the conditions for the ideal speech situation are sufficient and end when the stronger argument is validated by this interactive process of reason (Habermas, 1981).

Habermas's ideal speech situation assumes the existence of a public sphere that is closed to incompetent speakers. However, that does not mean that most speakers are incompetent to speak. Habermas believes that many speak competently within their own spheres. So, a parent unable to competently argue for structural reforms in local school system can speak competently on the type of education they feel their child is receiving under the current system. These competent speakers have local conversations among people, who have obtained the intuitive knowledge of a particular community and its background assumptions. Habermas recognized that a particular speaker with tenure and personal experience within a community can be a competent speaker (Habermas, 1987).

Universal Pragmatics

The mechanism in language that guides communicative rationality is what Habermas terms universal pragmatics. Habermas (1987) writes that universal pragmatics is a detailed outline of presuppositions inherent in language, specifically in conversations, that provide communicative actions with a non-foundational universalism. For Habermas reason is in language (Alfred, 1996). Presupposed in conversations are the conditions necessary to bring about understanding. Conversations contain the norms to criticize and promote societal democratization (Kellner, 2004). This includes conversations that appear less than ideal. In conversations rich with conflict or strategic actions, there remains something universal; an effort to reach an understanding (Habermas, 1979). Even intentionally deceptive speech, no matter how distorted the interactivity of mutual understanding becomes, necessarily implies the ideal speech situation (Habermas, 1970b).

Universal pragmatics is more than just a reflection of the rules of conversation and the values of a community. Habermas believes that language, when employed in the ideal speech situation, is liberating. Not only do communicative actions create a basis for rationality, understanding, and the criticism of coercive formal systems, it also is the key to realizing some of the ideals of our most liberating visions of the project of modernity and democracy.

Applications

Habermas's theory of communicative actions has been influential beyond the world of sociology. His work has remained vibrant in philosophy, feminist theory, and the humanities. From a practical stand point communicative actions have been integrated into city planning and politics. The theoretical aspect of communicative actions provides a rich field of research and writing for scholars and its pragmatic aspect provides new guidelines for individual and community participation in the democratic and governing process.

Philosophy

Habermas's influence on philosophy, particularly Continental Philosophy, has been profound. In his book, Habermas: A Very Short Introduction, Gordon Finlayson (2005) writes that Habermas is one of the most widely read social theorists in the post-Second World War era. His influence on philosophy is due to the interdisciplinary style of his work and the sheer volume of it (Finlayson, 2005). Habermas focused much of his early writing on Kant. Over his career he has engaged the most influential philosophers of his times including Rawls, Rorty, and Derrida. In his book The Liberating Power of Symbols, an important extension of his work on communicative actions, Habermas addresses the philosophical ideas of Jaspers, Apel, Cassirer, Wittgenstien, Rorty, and Rawls. In his first treaties on communicative actions he addressed philosophical writings by Popper, Pierce, Lukacs, Hegel, Feyerabend, Gadamer, Frege, and Condorcet; just to name a few. Philosophical academic journals of every sort routinely publish comparative essays on Habermas. Habermas has been and will remain a very influential figure in philosophy.

Feminist Theory

Habermas's communicative actions theory has been widely critiqued, reinterpreted, and reformulated in feminist theory (Pajnik, 2006). Perhaps what makes communicative actions so appealing to feminist theory is its liberating or emancipating element (Farganis, 1985). Part of the feminist critique is that formal systems are patriarchal, and communicative actions certainly provide a mechanism to address the inequity of these systems. The inter-subjective nature of communicative actions and the appeal to interactive understanding also make Habermas's work appealing to feminists (Meehan, 2000). That is not to say he is not without his feminist critics. Habermas's work can be reductive and his underlying assumptions about Western values, the public sphere, and the role of power in the communicative process either ignores issues important to feminist theorists or puts into play the very formal systems of culture and power that he is trying to eliminate.

Humanities

Habermas's work has also influenced many areas of the humanities. In law, communicative action deals extensively with the ideas of democracy and local participation making it a fertile area of study. In art, the idea of validating what is art through communicative rationality has been explored by scholars. Habermas has been criticized by scholars in religion for not supplying a viable form of democratic participation and reasoning for individuals who put forth validity claims based on their religion (Boettcher, 2009). Habermas's influence even reaches historians. Prominent historian Paul Ricoeur has written about how Habermas's work has influenced his own (Piercey, 2004).

The important thing to note here is that these scholars have to recognize the influence of Habermas's theory of communicative actions, even if they disagree with it.

City Planning

In city planning, Habermas's communicative actions theory has become one of the primary approaches. The approach allows planners to meet publically with people in communities and work cooperatively to do planning. The role of the planner who leverages the communicative approach is to listen to people's concerns, ideas, and stories, then work to provide a consensus of the differing views. The idea is not to move stakeholders to a particular idea, but rather to bring about agreement (Fainstein, 2003). Agreement is based on the strongest argument and validated among speakers. The planner should set aside any force that may influence the conversation, such as a speaker's position in the social hierarchy or the planner's own expertise and focus on what claims can be inter-subjectively validated. The involvement of city planners as communicative facilitators with community groups, schools, churches, and political groups is central to good city planning. The communicative process legitimizes the city planning and governing process and keeps local interests and the city working together.

Politics

The influence of Habermas's communicative actions on politics is profound. As the Third-World countries begin to move towards democratic governing, Habermas's ideas become more and more relevant. In his later writings Habermas has focused much of his work on "deliberative democracy." This is democracy anchored in communicative actions and rationality. This includes public deliberation, consensus building, and participation in order to validate legitimate governing and justice (Kapoor, 2002).

Another area of Habermasian influence is in international relations theory. Communicative actions have influenced international relations theory for more than twenty-five years. Communicative actions provide a model that sets aside power differentials between nations and engages them in conversations that allow each nation to put forth validity claims with hope of each claim being redeemed or rejected on the basis of the strongest argument. Additionally, communicative rationality attempts to set aside instrumental and technical rationality of the dominant nation. Communicative action provides an effect approach that allows both sides to evaluate and either understand or contest the dialogue of the other (Dietz & Stearns, n.d.).

Viewpoints

Habermas is not without his critics. From the beginning his work has been criticized for ignoring various post-modern critiques (Delanty, 1997; Ku, 2000; McCarthy, 1993) and for being constructed within the hierarchy of Western culture and philosophy and virtually ignoring other narratives (Cohen, 1990). Yet, post-modern theorists, multi-cultural theorists, feminist theorists who battle the vestiges of Western culture, and theorists all over the world continue to integrate communicative actions into their work, writings, and theories. It shows that in many cases even his critics find lasting value in Habermas's most enduring and influential theory.

As Habermas continues to broaden the scope of his writing he keeps the idea of communicative rationality at the core of each new idea. As globalization takes hold and world leaders grapple with new opportunities and challenges, Habermas's work appears to be more important than ever. His work in the 2000s has addressed terrorism, a post-national world, the future of Europe, and the relationship between reason and religion. These topics reflect many of the world's concerns as globalism seems to shrink the distance between nations, sects, and ideas presenting each of us with a greater awareness of the other as well as with new problems. At the core of all of Habermas's responses to these great issues are communicative rationality, and a hope for greater global democracy.

Terms & Concepts

Communicative Actions: Jurgen Habermas's theory of communication interaction that outlines the process for sharing of validity claims, understanding, and criticism. Habermas believes communicative actions are a fundamental element to creating a vibrant participatory democracy.

Competent Speaker: Someone who enters into a conversation with the attitude towards gaining an understanding without employing force, sufficient knowledge of the topic, knowledge of local presuppositions and rules, and able to effectively communicate in the particular language or dialect being employed.

Deliberative Theory of Democracy: A form of democracy based on public consultations, debate, deliberation, and voting. Legitimation comes from the public's participation in the process of deciding and governing.

First Philosophy: A term used by Aristotle concerned with first causes and principles. The term has become synonymous with metaphysics.

Ideal Speech Situation: Habermas's concept of the ideal situation where competent speakers can reach understanding. The ideal speech situation requires competent speakers, an openness that allows all speakers to question validity claims and introduce new claims into the discourse, the absence of force or coercion, and the agreement that each claim is validated based on the strongest argument.

Instrumental Rationality: Rationality that is based on organizational goals and often determined by what is most expeditious, efficient, or cost effective. This rationality focuses on the "how" aspect of problem solving rather than addressing whether an action is right or just.

Project of Modernity: A vision of what humanity can achieve, originating in the Enlightenment. The project of modernity is vision of a more egalitarian and just society built upon the continued advances in reason and science.

Public Sphere: A place where people can freely come together. For Habermas the public sphere is where people meet and discuss the important issues of the day and validate or reject one another's validity claims.

Strongest Argument: According to Habermas the strongest argument should settle all arguments. The strongest argument is the most reasonable and pragmatic based on knowledge of the topic and local presuppositions and rules.

Universal Pragmatics: The mechanics in language that necessarily provide the conditions for validating truth claims, criticizing formal systems, and reaching an understanding.

Bibliography

Baumeister, A. (2011). The Use of 'public reason' by religious and secular citizens: Limitations of Habermas' conception of the role of religion in the public realm. Constellations: An International Journal Of Critical & Democratic Theory, 18, 222–243. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60732643&site=ehost-live

Bernstein, J. (1989). The causality of fate: Modernity and modernism in Habermas. Praxis International, 8, 407-425.

Boettcher, J. (2009). Habermas, religion and the ethics of citizenship. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35(½), 215-238.

Chernilo, D. (2013). Jürgen Habermas: Modern social theory as postmetaphysical natural law. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13, 254–273. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87713557&site=ehost-live

Cohen, J. (1990). Discourse ethics and civil society. In D. Rasmussen, Ed. Universalism vs. communitarianism., Cambridge: MIT Press.

Delanty, G. (1997). Habermas and occidental rationalism: the politics of identity, social learning, and cultural limits of moral universalism. Sociological Theory, 15 , 30-59. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12707343&site=ehost-live

Dietz, T., & Stearns, J.(n.d). A useful dialogue? Habermas and international relations. Review of International Studies, 31, 127-140.

Fainstein, S. (2003). New directions in planning theory. In, S. Campbell & S. Fainstein, Eds. Readings in planning theory: Studies in urban and social change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Farganis, S. (1986). Social theory and feminist theory: The need for dialogue. Sociological Inquiry, 56, 50-68. Retrieved January 22, 201 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11688364&site=ehost-live

Finlayson, G. (2005). Habermas: A very short introduction. Cary, NY: Oxford University Press.

Habermas, J. (1980). Discourse ethics: Notes on philosophical justification, moral consciousness, and communicative action. C. Lenhart and S. Weber Nicholson, Trans. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). Philosophy as stand-in and interpreter. In, K. Baynes, et al., Eds. After philosophy. 296-315. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1970a). Technology and Science as 'Ideology.' In, Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1982). The entwinement of myth and enlightenment: Re-reading dialectic of enlightenment. New German Critique . 13 -130. Retrieved January 22, 201 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5305148&site=ehost-live

Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society, vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason Vol. 2. Oxford: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1970b). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 13.

Kapoor, I. (2002). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism: The relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe debate for Third World politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27 , 459. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=8850100&site=ehost-live

Ku, A. (2000). Revisiting the notion of 'public' in Habermas's theory-toward a theory of public credibility. Sociological Theory, 18, 216 - 240. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6632697&site=ehost-live

Nielsen, K. (1993). Skeptical remarks on the scope of philosophy: Rorty V. Habermas. Social Theory & Practice, 19, 117-160. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9407111854&site=ehost-live

Meadwell, H. (1994). The foundations of Habermas's universal pragmatics. Theory & Society, 23, 711-727. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9502152715&site=ehost-live

McCarthy, T. (1984). Introduction. The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society, Vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press.

Murphy, M., & Allan, J. (2013). Social theory and education research: understanding Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu and Derrida. New York: Routledge.

Pajnik, M. (2006). Feminist reflections on Habermas's communicative action: The need for an inclusive political theory. European Journal of Social Theory, 9, 385-404.

Piercey, R. (2004). Ricoeur's account of tradition and the Gadamer-Habermas debate. Human Studies, 27, 259-280. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14446077&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Dews, P., Ed. (1999). Habermas: A critical reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas: The key concepts. Routledge Key Guides Series. New York: Routledge.

Hendley, S. (2000). From communicative action to the face of the other: Levinas and Habermas on language, obligation, and community. Lanham, MD: Lexington Book.

Junker-Kenny, M. (2011). Habermas and theology. New York: T&T Clark.

Specter, M.G. (2010). Habermas: An intellectual biography. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.