0% found this document useful (0 votes)
31 views8 pages

Analysis of Theory of Communicative Action: November 2020

This document provides an analysis of Jurgen Habermas's theory of communicative action. It discusses how Habermas developed this theory as part of critical theory to understand how communication constitutes society. The document outlines Habermas's typology of social action, distinguishing instrumental action oriented toward manipulating the world from social actions like communicative action, symbolic action, and strategic action. It defines communicative action as establishing social relations between actors aimed at mutual understanding through language and defines this as Habermas's alternative to examining solely instrumental rationality in modern society.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
31 views8 pages

Analysis of Theory of Communicative Action: November 2020

This document provides an analysis of Jurgen Habermas's theory of communicative action. It discusses how Habermas developed this theory as part of critical theory to understand how communication constitutes society. The document outlines Habermas's typology of social action, distinguishing instrumental action oriented toward manipulating the world from social actions like communicative action, symbolic action, and strategic action. It defines communicative action as establishing social relations between actors aimed at mutual understanding through language and defines this as Habermas's alternative to examining solely instrumental rationality in modern society.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345820334

ANALYSIS OF THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION

Article · November 2020

CITATION READS

1 8,101

2 authors:

Kire Sharlamanov Aleksandar Jovanoski


International Balkan University University "St. Kliment Ohridski" - Bitola
42 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

European Value Study View project

INTERNET ADDICTION AMONG STUDENT POPULATION AND QUARANTIES BECAUSE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kire Sharlamanov on 24 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

ANALYSIS OF THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION


Kire Sharlamanov1, Aleksandar Jovanoski2
1
International Balkan University, Skopje, Macedonia
2
University St. Kliment Ohridski, Bitola, Macedonia

Abstract
In this text, authors try to represent e new contemporary understanding of Habermasian Theory of
Communicative action. The theory of communicative action, with its inventiveness made a real
revolution in the understanding and the interpretation of communication as an activity that constitutes
the social world. This text aims to analyze exactly this communicative action, the reasons why it was
developed, its most important characteristics, especially in regard to instrumental action etc. Special
attention will be paid to the incorporation of this theory in the works of its author and one of the most
influential contemporary authors in the field of social sciences, Jurgen Habermas.
Key words: theory of communicative action, Jurgen Habermas, social action, sociological theory

1. INTRODUCTION
The theory of communicative action is developed by Jürgen Habermas, the most influential author of
the second generation of the Frankfurter school of sociology and a progenitor of most modern flows in
the theories of democracy (deliberative democracy). Habermas as a student of Theodor Adorno and
Max Hornheimer after their return from the USA, is following their example indicating that historical
Marxism has serious weaknesses, and therefore is needed correcting. Starting from this position in the
beginning of the 1970-es he started developing his own social theory above all dedicated to analyzing
of communication.
Some authors think that several phases can be recognized in Hagerman’s intellectual and scientific
development: speculative hermeneutics, empirical criticism, neomarxistically and communicatively
characteristic after the developing of the communicative action theory (Mitrovic 1999:217). All these
phases are interlaced in between and generally form a coherent totality. So in theory of communicative
action Habermas implements his attitudes of critical theory which he represents as part of the
Frankfurter school of sociology.
The communication between individuals is the most important constitutive element of society. The
society can’t be understood without understanding communication among individuals. Therefore, the
key aspect of theoretical perspectives which are opened by Habermas is his theory of communicative
action. Relying on communicative action Habermas analyzes societal development, but also societal
conflict in modern society that gives the critical dimensions of his opinion about society.
As for the larger part after war sociologists Habermas also started his communication analysis with the
analysis of social action and the wider theoretical range of Max Weber. But unlike others Habermas in
his analysis of communicative action makes an attempt to reconciliate different intellectual traditions
in sociology. On one hand, what is visible in Hagerman’s analysis of communicative action is the
influence of symbolic interactionism and Meed’s view especially pragmatism as an intellectual
tradition which inspired symbolic interactionists same as Habermas (Heath Joseph 2006:120), so
Habermas (Habermas 1984) on the other hand can be under the strong influence of
Parsons’sundestanting of social action as an integrating element of social system. However, as
Habermas himself says in the introduction of his Theory of social action, it is the very
Parsons’sTheStructure of social action he takes as a model for combining of conceptual analysis of
social theory. It was precisely the deep knowledge of different intellectual traditions, the attempt for
their reconciliation and the systematic side of the analysis which gave a special weight to Habermas’s
analysis of social action.

Page 365
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

2. TYPES OF ACTION
After Weber’s example, Habermas (Habermas 1998:62) has also made typology of several different
action types. Generally, Habermas makes a different between: instrumental action and social action.
Instrumental action is fully oriented action which the intention to manipulate natural and social world
(Edgar 2006:74). More accuratelyinstrumental action is a kind of action which natural world (things)
and social world (social actors) takes as instruments (items) that uses to achieve a certain goal.
In the field of social action Habermas differentiates: symbolic action, communicative action and
strategic action. Thereto symbolic action is an action oriented toward understanding and it relies on
using symbols as social constructs, communicative action is oriented toward understanding while
using talkative (symbolic) acts such as orders, demands, terms, pleads etc., while strategic action is a
kind of social action striving for mutual understanding of social actors while using instrumental logic.
Unlike communicative action which is spontaneous and is satisfied only by understanding between
social actors, strategic action is planned; it is a kind of action plan which includes understanding other
social actors whose help is needed in order to achieve a certain goal. For achieving an understanding
with the rest of the social actors strategic action doesn’t exclude manipulation, imposing, and
enforcing. Mutual understanding in strategic action among other is achieved using techniques such as
violence, bribing, blackmailing. Speech, especially an emotional is one of the techniques in strategic
action.
Habermas's typology is a result of the synthesis of sociological view in the area. Namely if we were to
review sociological theories of communication and the type of actions characteristic for each one of
them we will see that what Habermas defines ascommunicative action is much alike Weber’s
rationally valuable action. Instrumental/strategic action of Habermas has many common things with
Weber’s rationally oriented action of as with Gofman’s dramatic action, while Habermas’s symbolic
action corresponds to symbolic action of Meed and Bloomer even by name. In this Habermas
differentiates more the dominant character of one action or another, then placing a sharp and
nontransient limit between them i.e. some of social action types are not excluded in between. It applies
especially to symbolical and other types of social actions, which serves Habermas as a buffer zone
(interspace) in reviewing the relation between instrumental/strategic action and communicative action.

3. DEFINING OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION


Habermas’s communicative action is based on Weber’s theory of social action. Actually as we could
notice communicative action is a type of social action. Pointing to different types of social actions,
Weber is indicating, and Habermas is accepting, that modern society has instrumental/strategic action
as its foundation. However, unlike most modern analysis which has been concentrating on examining
of instrumental/strategic social action, Habermas developed theory of communicative action. At the
same time, Habermas had a proper answer to the dilemma which perspective to be used for analyzing
of social action. Unlike micro sociological theories of communication of Meed, Schulz, Garfunkel,
Berger and Lokman, Gofman, who analyzed social action from social actor’s perspective, Habermas
has chosen to place social action ambivalent and analyze it from both perspectives. With Habermas’s
words he analyzed “social world” perspective and “social system” perspective.
Communicative action as understood by Habermas includes establishing or happening of social
relations between two or more social actors and is directed toward mutual understanding and
agreement. Because such action is meaningful, in includes an appeal by using regular language, by
saying or writing on something. The simplest actions can be gestures which hold some meaning as a
shaking, a greeting etc. These gestures have a purpose to start or to maintain conversation between two
or more people (Edgar 2006:21); Habermas (Habermas 1998:81) has identified three types
ofcommunicative action: transferring of information, establishing relations with other and a
enabling for expressing ourselves. More precisely, communicative action is cognitive, interactive
and expressive. These three types of communication in the theory of Habermas are connected to three
types of reality: the outside world of nature (connected to our expressions: it’s going to rain, it will be

Page 366
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

shiny etc.), our social world (our communication with others) and my inner world (my subjective
expressing where expressions like I thought it will rain are a part of).
The analysis of Habermas of communicative action is based on his understanding of speech
communicating. In it communicative action is directed to achieving mutual understanding and
agreement. Even the act of asking for water wouldn’t be enough to be seen only as a relation between
two individuals where a demanding is set, but as a language act where understanding is included
(anticipation of context and relation between individuals) (Outhwaite 2009:229). For this
understanding to be achieved it is necessary for certain conditions to be satisfied above all connected
with validity claim of the expressions of the interlocutors, but at the same time Habermas knows that
there are situations when social actors can’t understand each other, respectively when communication
is unsuccessful, because of improper speech, using of inarticulate idioms etc. Agreement achieving is
based on the accepting of arguments where we use the communication as justified. The goal of mutual
understanding of the interlocutors is the agreement achieving. The example after we have understood
that the interlocutor ask us for water, to achieve an agreement that the demand for water there are
justified reasons, we need to understand and accept as justified the arguments which are used by the
interlocutor in the communication. In that direction some authors as Scharp (Scharp 2003:9) find a
breach in the theory of Habermas, noticing that Habermas is making a gradation between a poor
communication directed to understanding and strong communication directed to an agreement.

4. COMMUNICATIVE RATIONALITY
Social action, social relation, social relations must have meaning, to be designed in a particular way.
Rationality connects thing in a certain way, giving them meaning. That is the reason why according to
Habermas (Habermas 1983) each of classic sociologists Weber, Meed, Dirkem, and Parsons more or
less, in one way or another is exploring rationality. The interest for rationality is an interest for the way
thing are marked, the meaning they establish, hold, change and the sense they reflect. Rationality is the
basis upon which communication is set. The interest for rationality is actually an interest for
communication because communication is rational.
Rationality as understood by Habermas is a connection between ratio and knowledge. He differentiates
rationality of instrumental action set upon the relation goal-resources(tools) and directed toward goal
achieving and communicative rationality placed upon the universal pragmatism and directed towards
mutual understanding and eventual agreement achieving through the use of symbols. The difference
between rationality of instrumental action and communicative action is a difference between “to know
how” and ,,to know that”. According to this people who can use language as a system of symbols we
can say are communicationally rational (for example a lecturing teacher), and for those who know to
use the knowledge of acting we can say that are actionably rational (for example factory workers who
manufacture cars). In the way Habermas defines communicative rationality, communicationally
rational are only people. Animas aren’t.
With rationalization of communicative action, Habermas finished the tradition that had seen rationality
only in instrumental action. It is probably the key point, the stronghold which his theory of
communicative action is placed upon, but also the most criticized part of this theory.

5. UNIVERSAL PRAGMATISM AGAINST FORMAL PRAGMATISM


Habermas analyzed practical side and normative side of communicative actionthrough the
development of the separate theoretically analytical concepts, universal pragmatism and formal
pragmatism (Cooke 1998:1-2). Universal pragmatism (Habermas 1998) is actually the second name of
speech. In this, speech can be seen as a pragmatic side of language, respectively the part of the
language as an abstract system of symbols, being used. Such usage value of the language gives the
question of correlation between the speaking subject and words being used. Here Habermas makes the
difference between universal pragmatism which is more connected to the meanings brought by the
speech for the social actors and its metaphorical functions and formal pragmatism which is connected

Page 367
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

to the prerequisites of speech action through satisfying of universal valid basis of speech as a key
which used turns speech action in communication. Formal pragmatism is a concept offering
exploration of linguistic competency of actors who communicate. It includes the linguistic rules which
an actor is intuitively aware of. Formal pragmatism encompasses the rules according which a
conversation is happening, their understanding prior the exchange of symbols between social actors.
Because of this, maybe, as Cooke notices (Cooke 1998:1-2), Habermas gives priority in his theory to
formal pragmatism, unlike Searle who had given priority to ilocatory act analysis, although as Scharp
had noticed (Scharp 2003:5) insisting of mutual understanding (that Scharp considered to be a special
phase in Habermas’s speech understanding) passes the limits of formal pragmatism. In other words
although for achieving mutual understanding a sharing of linguistic rules used by interlocutors is
necessary, it is not enough. Understanding can’t be reached unless the meaning that is given to the
words by interlocutors which they use while talking including metaphors is understood.

6. HABERMAS INTERPRETATION OF SPEECH ACTION


Communicative action which Habermas analyzed is happening through using of language as a
normative construct of communication and speech as a practical construct of communicative action. In
this the basic unit of analysis of language is the sentence, and speech is the expression. Habermas
gives a special emphasize to speech analysis, respectively speech action.
When Habermas exposed his interpretation of speech action Austin and Searle already had developed
a theory of speech action. Therefore Habermas have them recognition to Austin and Searle who made
first steps in analyzing speech as communicational, not instrumental action, but according to him they
didn’t go far enough in that analysis. Namely although for Searle speech wasn’t instrumentally
oriented, he stayed only on analyzing the performance of the speakers. Habermas analyzed speech as a
communicative action directed towards understanding and eventual agreement. As Pusey noticed
(Pusey 2003:76) while Austin and Searle were speaking about speech as a performance, for Habermas
it was a combination of speaking and acting, respectively communicative action. Speech according
Habermas’s understanding (Habermas 1998:63) has double structure. Whenever we use language we
express ourselves in the process establishing a relation with others. According to this every using of
language is at the same time directed toward others establishing relations with them.
Habermas (Habermas 1998:81) is mentioning three types of constative speech action which is in
function of representation of facts, regulative which is in function of establishing legit interpreting
relations and avowal which is a function of discovering the subjectiveness of the speaker.
Communication includes more than symbols, words, grammar, language, gestures, in also includes
credibility (in Habermas’s terminology validity claim) of social actors participating in the speech
action. By satisfying the criteria of speech validity it evolves in communication. If a speech act doesn’t
satisfy these criteria it is not a communication. Social actors go through four phases of validity
claiming. These four phases are (comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness). The first
condition for an existing communication is comprehensibility. For a communication to exist social
actors must compare the picture of the world, respectively in a similar way to see the world. According
to this social actors must exchange the facts of physical and social environment. The next phase of
validity claim is connected not only to with the fact we are understanding each other, but after we have
understood ourselves the facts we talked about must be true, correct. This validity criterion of
communication involves the correctness of the expressions about natural and social environment being
used in the conversation. The third phase of validity claim of the communication is connected with the
freedom the participants in the communication have in presenting themselves to others. But at the
same time, truthiness (or sincerity) in the communication is connected with the style of expressing of
the social actors. Namely, sometimes the expressions being used by the social actors are cynical, jokes
etc. The way sentences are being expressed can be ambiguous and with this the difference between
truth and lie and what is said and done is being diminished. To be able to communicate properly you
must know the interlocutor’s style, but also the social context of the conversation being made. In the
end (rightness) the expressions in a conversation must be meaningful. Sometimes we use neologisms,
idioms and for a conversation to be done properly good knowledge of the language being used is

Page 368
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

necessary. According to Habermas this check presumes the reservoir of mutual knowledge with Shic,
and enables negotiating for different demands.
According to Habermas (Habermas 1979:4-5), the interlocutor in any usual conversation in a very
short time can see if the expression is grammatically correct, if it’s true, if the speech is sincere and if
the expression is logically correct, that practically passes validity claim. As Pusey (Pusey 2003:79)
noticed the conversation between at least two interlocutors who are simultaneously and reciprocally
speaking, practically satisfies the criteria for validity established by Habermas. But such conversation
can’t happen if validity conditions aren’t satisfied, if there is a misunderstanding i.e.
incomprehensibility, inaccuracy of the expressions, dishonesty in the conversation, senselessness in
the expressions. By satisfying the conditions of validity of speech action it is turned into a
communication. Unlike the speech that is an addressing of one interlocutor to the other,
communication is mutual understanding. For a communication to happen social actors must mutually
cooperate offering arguments that validity conditions of the communication are met, which gives the
cooperation rational dimension.
Because every communication is directed to agreement achieving, the question comes out about the
ideal conditions of making a conversation and mutual understanding and agreeing. These conditions
Habermas determines as an ideal speech situation. Using the methodological procedure of Weber’s
ideal type, Habermas analyzes the ideal speech situation.

7. THE PLACE OF LANGUAGE IN COMMUNICATIVE ACTION


According to Taylor (1991) the language has a key meaning of understanding communicative action
of Habermas. The language is the prerequisite if speech and communication. For exploring the
language Habermas developed the concept of formal pragmatismwhich dedicates the central place
while analyzing communication according to some authors (Cooke 1998:2). Realizing the basic line of
giving arguments, Taylor appreciates that for Habermas in language most significant is the structure of
expression – discourse. In other words ,,since we have conversed we are". It is further leading to
understanding of whole society through the structure of expression (discourse) that we use. Exactly in
analysis of the language Pusey (Pusey 2003:69) had seen the inspiration of Habermas for exploring of
communication at all. Namely since in 1965 y., 15 year before Theory of communicative action
appeared, Habermas had written for the language as most significant type of communication. Based on
the key role of the language Taylor (1991) divides whole theory of communicative action of
Habermas, in four approaches:
• Fundamental: the language is developed and renewed independently (from itself). We perceive it
only as a structure of expressions and use the vocabulary that we have taught from others. When
we learn new and unique ways of expressing we do that against (as a reaction) to the mutual
language, not independently.
• Complementarity between structure and practice. More precisely language can be understood as a
structure of codes. This structure is normative structure of linguistic (speech) acts. Among acts
(practice) and structure e reciprocity connection exists. In the way acts affect the structure, so is
the structure affecting acts.
• As a consequence results of the connection between structure and practice (acting) can be found
applied in the accompanying knowledge, in linguistic practice etc. More precisely this connection
is not seen only in the preparedness to act in certain previously prepared codes in communication,
but also in accompanying knowledge, that opens space of know-how and prior knowledge.
• Complementarity of,,me” and ,,we”. With Taylor’s words (1991:28) the difference between me
and we is the difference between initial and usual. Through we the mutual space (public space) is
formed in which all participate more separately. We respect the rules, we do the rituals, we adopt
the norms.

Page 369
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

8. GENERAL METHODOLOGY OF EXPLORING COMMUNICATIVE ACTION


According to Habermas (Habermas 1998:29) there are two methods for exploring communicative
action: observation and understanding. Observation (observing) is directed to perceiving the outer,
objective characteristics of speech, while understanding is directed to meaning which expressions
have. Observation and understanding are two levels of reality, sensory and communicative reality,
which are interconnected. In this first level of speech observing, making an observation after which
follows the second level understanding and interpretation. Observation as a method of exploring of the
first level falls upon describing communicative action, while understanding is characterized with
explaining of communicative action. In the process we have a direct access to the phenomena we
explore through observing: while with understanding we have a mediated access to this phenomenon.
The difference between observed and communicative reality is practically the difference between
sensory reality and symbolic reality. By using expressions we can describe the observed part of reality.
We can additionally give our interpretation. But we use explaining only in situations when symbols
being used are not clear enough.

9. CRITIC OF THE THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION


The theory of communicative action causes a serious attention in social science and has become one of
the most influential modern sociological theories, which has given its author a reputation as one of the
most significant intellectual appearances in modern sociological view. This theory doesn’t attempt
only to explain or complement Weber’s theory of social action that calls which he calls upon when
analyzing the communication as social action, as many modern micro sociological theories have done,
but it represents a serious critic of such, at the same time using this theory as a clutch for critic of
modern (capitalist) society. But, although the theory of communicative action was criticallyas to the
theory of social action, as to modern (capitalistic) society it had also suffered serious critics.
Among the first analysis that appeared just before the printing of Habermas’s Communicative action
was the one of Schnadelbach (Schnadelbach 1991). As Honneth and Joas (Honneth and Joas 1991)
notice, Schnadelbach on one hand gives a recognition to the thoroughness of Habermas’s analysis, but
on the other hand finds certain observations which can be grouped in three points: the connection with
theory of rationality and rationally oriented knowledge, the connection between understanding and
evaluating of speech, the blurriness (vagueness) of Habermas’s definition of the live world. In respect
to the last question Habermas had received many observations in social view.
In a similar way go the observations which came from Heath (Heath 2003) according to who
Habermas’s understanding of rationality is problematic. Namely to rationality that is strictly
instrumental according to Heath, Habermas has given moral and normative character, presenting
communicative action as rational. Heath had pulled this line in regard to the dichotomy economy-
sociology, placing rationality in the basis of this dichotomy where economy is the range of
instrumental rationality, while sociology is the range of communicative rationality. According to
Heath the basis of communication mustn’t be looked for in rational sources like Habermas had
attempted to do, but in irrational factors like social context, socialization, character etc.
For some of the attentive readers of Habermas’s theory the problem was the dichotomy itself;
communicative action directed towards understanding and agreement, against instrumental/strategic
action directed towards achieving success. According to Krueger (1991:142) Habermas had
unsuccessfully tried to surpass this dichotomy through the analysis of evolution of communicative
action. This dichotomy had met serious critic also from Plot (Plot 2009), who says there are actions
which at the same are instrumental and communicative without instrumental action in the process
destroying or distorting communicative action. Referencing to Hanna Arendt, as an example of such
action Plot points out democratic politic action which at same time is communicative asking for an
agreement and support with majority of the people and instrumental using suck agreement for
succeeding, while the scale of success for gaining control through the support obtained by majority of
the people. Habermas’s attitude for distorting of communicative action in the cases when it is seen as a

Page 370
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net

condition for strategic action Plot defines as a democratic deficit of the theory of communicative
action.

REFERENCES
Cooke, Maeve (ed) (1998) On the Pragmatics of Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Edgar,Andrew (2006) Habermas: The Key Concepts,Routledge, Taylor and Frencis
Habermas, Jürgen (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon. Press
Habermas, Jurgen(1984)The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. I: Reason and theRationalization
of Society, Translator in English Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press,
HabermasJurgen(1998)On the Pragmatics of Communication, Cambridge:MassachusettsInstitute
ofTechnology.
Heat, Joseph (2003) Communicative action and rational choice. Cambridge: MIT Press
Honneth, A., & Joas, H. (Eds.). (1991). Communicative action.Essays on Habermas’s theory of
communicative action. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Krueger, Hans-Peter (1991)“ Communicative Action or the Mode of Communication for Society as a
Whole“ in Axel Honnet and Hans Joas (eds.) Communicative action: Essays on JurgenHabermas`s the
Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991 p. 140-164.
Mitrović, Ljubiša (1999) New Social Paradigm: Habermas`s Theory of Communicative Action,
Philosophy and Sociology Vol.2, No 6/2, pp. 217 - 223
Outhwaite, William(2009) Habermas, Polity Press, Cambridge
Plot, Martin (2009) “Communicative Action’s Democratic Deficit: A Critique of Habermas’s
Contribution to Democratic Theory“ inInternational Journal of Communication 3 (2009), 825-852
Schnädelbach, Herbert (1991) “The Transformation of Critical Theory” in Honneth and Joas ed.,
Communicative Action :Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, Polity
Press: Cambridge,
Scharp, Kevin (2003) “Communication and Content: Cicrumstances and Consequences of the
Habermas – Brandom Debate“ inInternational Journal of Philosophical Studies 11:1
Taylor, Charles (1991) “Language and Society,” in Honneth and Joas eds., Communicative Action:
Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action Polity Press: Cambridge.

Page 371

View publication stats

You might also like