Analysis of Theory of Communicative Action: November 2020
Analysis of Theory of Communicative Action: November 2020
net/publication/345820334
CITATION READS
1 8,101
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Page 369
Language, Individual & Society Journal of International Scientific Publications
ISSN 1314-7250, Volume 8, 2014 www.scientific-publications.net
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