This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
phd:book-journals:communicative-action [2020/02/27 14:41] avnerus |
phd:book-journals:communicative-action [2020/03/30 12:16] (current) avnerus [Concluding Reflections: From Parsons via Weber to Marx] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<poem> | <poem> | ||
- | Only with the conceptual framework of communicative action do we gain a perspective from which the process of societal | + | //"Only with the conceptual framework of communicative action do we gain a perspective from which the process of societal |
rationalization appears as contradictory from the start. | rationalization appears as contradictory from the start. | ||
The contradiction arises between, on the one hand, a rationalization of everyday communication that is tied to the | The contradiction arises between, on the one hand, a rationalization of everyday communication that is tied to the | ||
structures of inter-subjectivity of the lifeworld, in which language counts as the genuine and irreplaceable medium | structures of inter-subjectivity of the lifeworld, in which language counts as the genuine and irreplaceable medium | ||
of reaching understanding, and, on the other hand, the growing complexity of subsystems | of reaching understanding, and, on the other hand, the growing complexity of subsystems | ||
- | of purposive-rational action, in which actions are coordinated through steering media such as money and power. | + | of purposive-rational action, in which actions are coordinated through steering media such as money and power."// |
</poem> | </poem> | ||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
Adorno: | Adorno: | ||
//"The state of reconciliation would not annex what is unfamiliar or alien with philosophical imperialism; instead, it would find its happiness in the fact that the latter, in the closeness allowed, remains something distant and different, something that is beyond being either heterogeneous or proper." **(This reminds of Simone Weil)**// | //"The state of reconciliation would not annex what is unfamiliar or alien with philosophical imperialism; instead, it would find its happiness in the fact that the latter, in the closeness allowed, remains something distant and different, something that is beyond being either heterogeneous or proper." **(This reminds of Simone Weil)**// | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a reference to the theory of reflection and self-consciousness by Henrich, and a critique of it by Tugendhat who exposes its circularity - **Much like Merleau-Ponty's critique of the theories of reflection on //The Visible and the Invisible//**. Thus consciousness is unable to address itself 'naturally' only as an object, as in the theories of instrumental reason and self preservation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | //"A subjectivity that is characterized by communicative reason resists the denaturing of the self for the sake of self-preservation. Unlike instrumental reason, communicative reason cannot be subsumed without resistance under a blind self-preservation. It refers neither to a subject that preserves itself in relating to objects via representation and action, nor to a self-maintaining system that demarcates itself from an environment, but to a symbolically structured lifeworld that is constituted in the interpretive accomplishments of is members and only reproduced through communication. Thus communicative reason does not simply encounter ready-made subjects and systems; rather, it takes part in structuring what is to be preserved . The Utopian perspective of reconciliation and freedom is ingrained in the conditions for the communicative sociation of individuals; it is built into the linguistic mechanism of the reproduction of the species." // | ||
+ | |||
+ | In Volume II Habermas will develop a communicative theory of rationality, that decentralizes the focus from studies of consciousness and instrumental reason, to a rationality that is developed through communication, reaching understanding and agreement, and under the effect of steering media such as money and power. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Volume two ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Concluding Reflections: From Parsons via Weber to Marx ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | After analyzing society through new paradigms of system's theory, Habermas goes back to Weber's reflection on rationalization and the loss of freedom and meaning - moving from Weber's //purposive rationality// to //'action oriented to mutual understanding', 'symbolically | ||
+ | structured lifeworld', and 'communicative rationality'//: | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Then we could analyze the rationali- | ||
+ | zation of action systems not only under the cognitive-instrumental aspect, but by bringing in moral-practical and aesthetic-expressive aspects | ||
+ | across the whole spectrum.// |