Jürgen Habermas Concepts, Communication Theory and the Problems of Modern Society

Jürgen Habermas
Concepts, Communication Theory and the Problems of Modern Society

by Margaret Stowe

Jürgen Habermas, born in Germany, has been referred to as one of the most important social thinkers in the world today (Ritzer, 2008:438). Habermas became associated with the critical school of Marxist theory developed in Frankfurt in the 1920s and in the 1950s
he held a position in Frankfurt at the Institute for Social Research, the center of the Frankfurt School (see Marxists.org). In the early 1930s, fearing that war was imminent, he moved to New York City along with Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and other theorists, then relocated back to Germany after the war.

Although he was essentially neo-Marxist, his theories incorporated the ideas of several other theorists including Max Weber, G.H. Mead, Talcott Parsons and Emile Durkheim. For example, he drew from and expanded on Weber’s concept of rationalization and Parsons’s action systems. Habermas’ theories dealt with both micro and macro structures and focused on agency/structure integration. The action of both the actor (or agent) and the system (groups of agents) were the subject of Habermas’ theories. His theories were anti-positivist as he felt that positivism looses sight of the role and dynamics of the actors acting and interacting within society. His communication theory deals with the micro structural processes of social interaction and social (and structural) integration, and is one of his most important contributions to modern social theorizing.

Key Concepts

Habermas studied the conflicts within modern society and his theory could be called the “theory of pathology of modernity” (Ritzer, 2008: 437).

He saw the problems that modernity presented - depersonalization, formalization, bureaucratization, and other ways in which the systems of modern society have come to dominate all aspects of life. He used the Weberian idea of rationalization to define this normative framework of social integration, legitimations and other workings of the system. He identified distortions of these processes as a major cause of the problems of the modern world.

Basic to his theories are the concepts of system and life-world. Life-world is a concept from phenomenology, a philosophy of society developed by Alfred Shutz and represents the interaction of individuals in everyday life (Ritzer, 2008:412). The system is the realm of formal rationality and takes the form of purposive-rational actions (or work). It includes the “forces of production” as well as political administration and other social systems (Turner, 1998:559). The life-world has an independent “substantive” rationality that is characterized as truthful, honest and authentic. Life-world takes the form of what Habermas calls communication action and, for Habermas, communication action is the context through which all understanding is reached. Arguments and discussions (discourse), subject to validity claims, result in cooperative resolution and consensus and this communication action is relevant within all systems, structures and sub-systems. For Habermas, it is the breakdown of communication action that is one of the major problems of modernity.

His social evolution envisioned progress towards a good society, a rational life-world, based on reason and the harmonious interaction between individuals, within everyday life (life-world), and the system (Ritzer, 2008:440). Habermas’ ideas of social evolution included the Marxist idea of emancipation of individuals from the oppression and repression that modern society presents and, even more basically, to uphold the ideas and goals of the Enlightenment (rational society based on reason and science) (Ritzer, 2008:441). He coined and maintains the Enlightenment Project (Cavalier, Ess & Mellon). However, Habermas did not adopt Weber’s pessimistic approach to social evolution. He believed society was ultimately redeemable through the efforts of both social thinkers and the agents of society alike .

A key concept in the understanding of the workings of both system and life-world is the concept of rationalization. The rationalization processes of system and life-world are necessary and direct the course and evolution of society. However, modernity creates distortion of the processes of rationalization. As modern society evolves it acquires increasing differentiation and complexity as well as increasing processes of rationalization. However, the manifestation of rationalization in modern society has resulted in the domination of formal rationality (the system) over substantive rationality (life-world). The system is dominating areas of life that were formally dominated by life-world. The pervasive nature of social media in modern life is an obvious and stark example. Habermas calls this the “colonization” of the life-world by the system.

Habermas thought that the rationalization of productive-rational action was a major problem for modern society as it has “led to a growth of productive forces and an increase in technological control over life” (Ritzer, 2008:154). In Habermas’ view, the problems of rationalization could be dealt with through a systemized but ground level effort towards achieving free and open communication, communication free from control. Rationalization based on free and open communication leads to emancipation, which is the end point of modernity (Ritzer, 2008:155). The rise of social movements from the 1960s through to the present, aimed at self-preservation, the environment and equality, is both a symptom and a solution to the encroachment of the system on the life-world. Habermas’ theories also had a psychological component and he believed that modern social thinkers should act as the psychoanalysts of the modern world to actively help with the reconstruction of the relationship and interaction between the system and the life-world.

Although Habermas criticized the oppressiveness of the system upon the ordinary lives of people, he was a supporter of modernity and felt it was the only possible path of evolution for society. He saw “emancipatory potential in evolution trends” (Turner, 1998:566). However, for Habermas, simply criticizing the system is not enough; the critique must become a “reified object itself” (Turner, 1998:560). The end point of social evolution was not communism as it was for Marx but simply rational society (Ritzer, 2008:155). He argued that through therapeutic critique (Ritzer, 2008:154), where self-deception is unveiled, it was the job of the critical theorist to help society eliminate the barriers to communication; to create psychotherapy for society, as such. He believed that the ideal future society exists within contemporary society and is optimistic that social evolution will progress in this positive direction. This hopeful Utopian view of a better future world was central to Habermas’ ideas of social evolution and communication theory.

Communication action and Communication theory

Habermas identifies two major types of action - productive-rational action (or work) and communication action (sociocultural interaction within the life-world). The distortion of communication action leads to distortion of the processes of rationalization, which, in turn, defines the way the system works. Habermas believed that if society focused on the rationalization of communication action rather than on productive-rational action that society’s problems would be solved. He argued that rationalization that allowed for “free and open communication” would lead to less repression and rigidity in society as well as “individual flexibility and reflectivity” (Ritzer, 2008:155). Contrary to Marx, he focused on the normative system rather than the productive system and he felt that free and open communication would also lead to a less distorted system of norms and values. Habermas didn’t believe in the Marxian idea that the struggles within society stemmed from class-consciousness and class struggle but from the distortion of communication action.

In the context of Habermas’ communication theory, communication action is defined as “that form of social interaction in which the plans of action of different actors are coordinated through an exchange of communicative acts, that is, through a use of language orientated towards reaching understanding” (Powell & Moody, 2003:1). He called his analysis “universal pragmatics” and communication theory was the basis of this pragmatics.

Communication theory identified four types of action – teleological (action as the “means to an end”, towards a goal), normative (relating to the common values of the group with normative expectations), dramaturgical (ego-centered manipulation of oneself before an audience) and communicative (individuals reach mutual understanding about a situation or agree upon a course of action through rational discourse and argumentation).

Habermas’ communication theory focuses on the two major types of action, purposive-rational action, or work, and social interaction, symbolic interaction or “communication action”. Habermas further divided purposive-rational action into two sub-actions, strategic action and instrumental action. Both types of purposive-rational action are directed towards the pursuit of self-interest. Instrumental action is the calculated action of an individual towards a goal and strategic action is that of two or more individuals coordinating an action to pursue a goal.

Whereas purposive-rational action serves to achieve goals related to self-interest, communication action serves the goal of understanding. Individuals “harmonize their plans of action on the basis of common situation definitions” (Ritzer, 2008:153). Communication action is the basis of all sociocultural life and is facilitated by language as the agents “draw upon a set of speech acts with shared verbal meaning to achieve understanding” (Heath, 2010:6).

When communication action becomes distorted and hindered, society develops problems, or “pathologies” (Ritzer, 2008:415). Two of the main causes of the distortion of communication action are legitimations and ideology, which must be eliminated in order to have free and open communication (Ritzer, 2008:155). Legitimations are ideas generated by the societal systems (political, economic, the state or any system) that are designed to support the existence of the system. Legitimations also mystify the system and make it unclear what is happening. This is one of the major ways in which the system dominates and controls the actors or agents within society.

Discourse is action the only motive of which is the cooperative search for truth. It is “grounded in tacit assumptions of universal validity” (Cavalier,Ess & Mellon). A famous phase in Habermas’ discourse ethics is: “in discourse the unforced force of the better argument prevails” (Gimmler, 2003). A key concept of this discourse theory is the idea of discourse in the “ideal-speech situation” in which force and power do not determine the outcome of an argument but the best choice determines the outcome of the argument (Ritzer, 2008:155). This would be called the consensus theory of truth, is part of all human communication and is crucial to human evolution. Truth triumphs when interaction is free from distorting influences. This is the goal of critical theory, a “good and true life” (Ritzer, 2008:155). Evidence and argumentation, subject to validity claims, determine what is true, not force and power.

There are four types of validity claims that are raised and recognized by participants within discourse. A participant who is making an argument must fit these four validity claims. (1) The person must be understandable; (2) the facts being offered must be true and reliable; (3) the person make the claim must be reliable; (4) the person must have a normative basis for speaking and making the argument (e.g. an expert). Habermas argues that if validity claims are not satisfied, truth in discourse becomes distorted and true consensus cannot be achieved.

Problems of Modern Society

Habermas identified one of the major problems of modern society as the domination and permeation of systems and structures over everyday life. He called this the “colonization” of the life-world by the system and is characterized by the increasing rationalization of the life-world. The life-world is made up elements and influences of culture, society and personality. All of these things come into play when people make decisions about how to behave. In modern society there is increased complexity and increased differentiation hence there is a growing differentiation between the elements of culture, society and personality. These elements are also working processes within the system in the form of cultural reproduction, social integration and personality formation (Ritzer, 2008:413). As the system becomes more rationalized, communication within the system becomes less and less concerned with consensus and more concerned with legitimations and ideology. These barriers to consensus become more systematically controlled and become normalized into the system.

“Social integration” and “system integration” represent the processes of connection between life-world within the structures and systems of society. This maintains socio-cultural life. “Society is an entity that, in the course of social evolution, is differentiated both as a system and as a life-world” (Ritzer, 2008:414). Habermas argues that rational society would be one in which both life-world and system were allowed to rationalize in their own way. However, in modern society, as the domination of system expands, life-world is becoming increasingly deprived, undernourished and impoverished. For Habermas, this is the “hallmark of modernity” (Ritzer, 2008:440), the “breakdown of the dialectic between system and life-world and the growing power of the former over the latter” (Ritzer, 2008:414).

Social integration is achieved by an increasing consensus formation of language. In modern society, “delinguistified media” starts to replace everyday language (Ritzer, 2008:415). In modern capitalist society, instead of language “coordinating” action it is money and power that does that. The reification of symbolic structures is increased. “Life becomes monetized and bureaucratized (Ritzer, 2008:415). Modern “blogging life” is, again, a simple and stark example). Habermas maintains that there is a certain “violence” that underlies the control of system over life-world and this causes “pathologies” and dysfunctions in the life-world. He argues that the processes of domination are systematically formalized and rationalized within the system, specifically within the economy and the state. As repression, distortion and pathology increases, communication action becomes less and less directed towards consensus and the life-world itself is threatened.

Habermas also argued that the decline of the public sphere has become a major problem for modern society. The public sphere is where people can discuss and debate issues without the influence of force or dogma and resolve issues through rational argument (Turner, 1998:560). The public sphere was developed in the 18th century as a reaction to the oppressions of feudalism, which was dominated by religion and custom and has become part of society’s evolution. Modern society began to allow people to participate in the governance. However, as the state encroaches on life-world, problems of society are dealt with by technologies and bureaucratic procedures rather than public debate and rational argument. Instead of discourse, society creates new, further differentiated sub-systems to deal with the problems. This increases rationalization and the processes of inter-system influence and control become more unclear or skewed. An example is the intervention of state into the economy and the state’s use of science to service its control over life-world. (Turner, 1998:563).

For Habermas, the solution is not the breakdown of the systems themselves but the use of restraining barriers against the domination and colonization of life-world by the system. Also, “sensors” must be built in to enhance the influence of life world on system (e.g. public opinion forums, task groups, blogs). It is the life world that must express its influence within the increasing complexities of system. Social movements are key. (Ritzer, 2008, 440). New online social media are also starting to play a large (albeit complicated) role in the expression and influence of life-world into the system.

In formulating solutions to these problems of modernity using communication theory, Habermas formulated and analyzes the relationship between knowledge and human interests. These subjective and objective factors are not separate from each other and cannot be dealt alone. He identifies three knowledge systems and their corresponding interests. (1) Analytical science with the corresponding interest of technical precision and control of material world; (2) humanistic knowledge (the interest is understanding of the world including learning from the past); and (3) critical knowledge (the interest is human emancipation). For Habermas, it was up to the critical theorists to use critical knowledge to enlighten the people, “raise the self-consciousness of the masses” (Ritzer, 2008:152) and bring about emancipation.

There are certainly many ways in which agents (the actors) and structures within society can use communication theory to both analyze real-life social issues and use as a framework of operation. Deliberative democracy, developed in the 1980s and 1990s is an example. It is democracy that includes public opinion and public decision-making involving rational discourse. Deliberative democracy theorists argue that “legitimate lawmaking can arise only through public deliberation” (Wikipedia, Deliberative Democacy).

When one group “dominates” another ideologically, truth and consensus are compromised. An example is the issue of American gun regulation (or lack thereof). If the American people would have a rational discourse about gun violence and the implications about a gun culture, truth and consensus would have a better chance of prevailing.

Using communication theory, groups could develop programs to help facilitate communication action and correct communication action problems in the work place or institutional environment. For example, The Florida Inclusion Network (FIN), a group for equity in education for disabled children, uses communication theory in its effectiveness sessions for teachers (FIN, 2010). FIN’s session on Effective Communication for Collaborative Teams shows their use of the principles of communication theory. Session heading include, Communication Breakdown (reflection on communication breakdown and the impact of communication problems on relationships); Conflict Management Profile (how conflict management styles affect communication); Effective Communication Action Plan (develop communication strategies, share critical information and communication needs) (FIN, 2010).

Another example of communication theory in action today is CommGAP, the Communication for Governance & Accountability Program, a global program at the World Bank for “Exploring the interactions among public opinion, governance, and the public sphere” (CommGap). They incorporate the image of the “public sphere”, calling themselves “a new agora” (CommGAP). Started in 2006, CommGAP is based on two core premises: (1) that a democratic public sphere is essential to securing and sustaining good governance and accountability, and (2) that communication approaches and techniques are fundamental to the effectiveness of efforts to improve governance and direct accountability (CommGap). CommGAP is a “tool for all to share ideas, debate, and contribute to more effective development policy and practice”. You can further investigate how CommGAP employs communication theory at their website (see CommGAP).

In the ideal society, communicative action in discourse marked by “each participant’s recognition of each other as equals and their attempt to arrive without bias at universally applicable norms for a given situation” (Ritzer, 2008:328). It is present whenever individuals come together to form a public body to discuss and define situations that affect everyone. “Life-world” input into the public sphere not only helps define the “system-world” but it keeps “life-world” influence as primary and essential to achieving understanding. Habermas’ theory extends Marxist thought outside of the realm of productive-rational action. Free and open communication should be the basis of all social interaction, government and all social systems.

Habermas sees future society as forming out of conscious resistance to the intrusion and domination of life-world by system (Ritzer, 2008:416). The future society is dominated by reason and consensus. “Do not give up on modernity and the enlightenment project” (Ritzer, 2008:441); discuss the future as “modernity’s unfinished project” (Ritzer, 2008:439). Social movements are key.

This is contrary to Weber’s concept of the “iron cage of modernity” but Habermas does not believe that this “iron cage” is inevitable. As life-world and social system become ever more differentiated they can, ideally, further life possibilities and thus emancipation (Powell & Moody, 2003). Resisting distorted rationalization and domination is the defense of the life-world against the “incursions of the marketplace and bureaucracy” (Powell & Moody, 2003).

One of Habermas’ basic assumptions was that, despite the negative effects of modernity, society could be re-constructed to include free and open communication as well as rational discourse and argumentation. This is certainly a Utopian view and the challenge for individuals and social thinkers alike is to overcome the pessimism that modernity presents.

_____________________________________________

References

Cavalier, R, Ess, C, and Mellon, C, Introduction to Habermas's Discourse Ethics. Retrieved from <http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/meta/background/HaberIntro.html>

CommGAP, Towards a new agora (2010), About Us, Retrieved from  <http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere>

FIN (Florida Inclusion Network) (2010), Effective Communication for Collaborative Teams. Retrieved from < http://www.lsi.fsu.edu/Uploads/1/docs/CTSessionF-AtAGlance.pdf> FIN Network website: < www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/>

Gimmler, A. (2003),‘The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas’, Gesellschaftswissenschaften und Philosophi. Retrieved from <http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/meta/background/agimmler.html>

Heath, J, Legitimation crisis’ in the later work of Jürgen Habermas. Retrieved from <www.chass.utoronto.ca/~jheath/>

Marxists.org, The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory. Retrieved from <www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school> .

Powell, J and Moody, H (2003), ‘The Challenge of Modernity: Habermas and Critical Theory’, Theory & Science. <http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol4.1/01_powell.html>

Ritzer, G (2008), Modern Sociological Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Turner, J, (1998), ‘The Continuing Tradition I: Jurgen Habermas’ Frankfurt School Project’. Contemporary Social Theory. SOCI337 Reading file. Athabasca University, 2004.

Wikipedia, Deliberative Democracy. Retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy>

Wikipedia, Agora. Retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora>

Wikipedia, Dialectic. Retrieved from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic>