More Fire for the People
10th August 2006, 02:59
I'm looking into Habermas's communicative rationality and universal pragmatics. I find it a bit interesting but I still think it's a bit of trash as well.
Communicative rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality) —
Communicative rationality is a theory or set of theories which try to explain human rationality as necessary outcomes of successful communication. In particular, they are tied to the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas and his program of Universal pragmatics, along with its subtheories, discourse ethics, and rational reconstruction.
Universal pragmatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_pragmatics) —
There are three ways to evaluate an utterance, according to universal pragmatics. "Theory of elementary propositions" — the things in the real world that are being referenced by an utterance, and the things that are implied by an utterance, or predicate it.
"Theory of first-person sentences" — the expression of the intentions of the actor(s) through language and in the first-person.
"Theory of speech acts" — the setting of standards for interpersonal relations through language.
[...]
Habermas makes a series of distinctions in the service of explaining social action. The first major differention was between two social realms, the system and the lifeworld. These designate two distinct modes of social integration: The kind of social integration accomplished in the system is accomplished through the functional integration of the consequences of actions. It bypasses the consciousness of individuals and does not depend upon their being oriented towards acting collectively. Economic and industrial systems are great examples, often producing complex forms of social integration and interdependence despite the openly competitive orientations of individuals.
The social integration accomplished in the lifeworld, by contrast, depends upon the coordination of action plans and the conscious action-orientations of individuals. It relies on processes of human interaction involving symbolic and cultural forms of meaning. More specifically, as Habermas maintains, the coordination of the lifeworld is accomplished through communicative action.
Thus, communicative action is an indispensable facet of society. It is at the heart of the lifeworld and is, Habermas claims, responsible for accomplishing several fundamental social functions: reaching understanding, cultural reproduction, coordinating action-plans and socializing individuals.
[...]
Habermas argues that when a speaker is communicating successfully, they will have to defend their meaning by using these four claims. That they have uttered something understandably — or their statements are intelligible;
That they have given other people something to understand — or are speaking something true;
That the speaker is therefore understandable — or their intentions are recognized and appreciated for what they are; and,
That they have come to an understanding with another person — or, they have used words that both actors can agree upon.
What is everyone's opinon on these concepts? I personally think that absorbing some of this into orthodox Marxism could improve methods of organisation.
Communicative rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality) —
Communicative rationality is a theory or set of theories which try to explain human rationality as necessary outcomes of successful communication. In particular, they are tied to the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas and his program of Universal pragmatics, along with its subtheories, discourse ethics, and rational reconstruction.
Universal pragmatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_pragmatics) —
There are three ways to evaluate an utterance, according to universal pragmatics. "Theory of elementary propositions" — the things in the real world that are being referenced by an utterance, and the things that are implied by an utterance, or predicate it.
"Theory of first-person sentences" — the expression of the intentions of the actor(s) through language and in the first-person.
"Theory of speech acts" — the setting of standards for interpersonal relations through language.
[...]
Habermas makes a series of distinctions in the service of explaining social action. The first major differention was between two social realms, the system and the lifeworld. These designate two distinct modes of social integration: The kind of social integration accomplished in the system is accomplished through the functional integration of the consequences of actions. It bypasses the consciousness of individuals and does not depend upon their being oriented towards acting collectively. Economic and industrial systems are great examples, often producing complex forms of social integration and interdependence despite the openly competitive orientations of individuals.
The social integration accomplished in the lifeworld, by contrast, depends upon the coordination of action plans and the conscious action-orientations of individuals. It relies on processes of human interaction involving symbolic and cultural forms of meaning. More specifically, as Habermas maintains, the coordination of the lifeworld is accomplished through communicative action.
Thus, communicative action is an indispensable facet of society. It is at the heart of the lifeworld and is, Habermas claims, responsible for accomplishing several fundamental social functions: reaching understanding, cultural reproduction, coordinating action-plans and socializing individuals.
[...]
Habermas argues that when a speaker is communicating successfully, they will have to defend their meaning by using these four claims. That they have uttered something understandably — or their statements are intelligible;
That they have given other people something to understand — or are speaking something true;
That the speaker is therefore understandable — or their intentions are recognized and appreciated for what they are; and,
That they have come to an understanding with another person — or, they have used words that both actors can agree upon.
What is everyone's opinon on these concepts? I personally think that absorbing some of this into orthodox Marxism could improve methods of organisation.