Goodnight, T (2007). The Engagements of Communication:
Jürgen Habermas on Discourse, Critical Reason, and Controversy. In P. Arneson
(Ed). Perspectives on Philosophy of Communication. West Layfayette: Purdue
University Press.
Jürgen Habermas: Theory of Communicative Action
Basic idea of communication:
-
When we say something in the context of everyday
life, the speaker
o
Refers to something in the objective world.
o
Something in the social world
o
Something in the speakers world.
Every speaker is situated and speaks to all three worlds.
-
Speech is entwined with all three worlds
relative to particular situations.
Speech makes reference to events and objects, but also
-
They renew interpersonal relationships in the
social world.
Communication adapts it forms to accommodate a range of
assertions and replies.
There is no template that yields rational knowledge.
-
Each world has its own standards of appraising
communication through argument.
-
This enables a broad range of validity standards
to handle everyday communication.
-
Everyday communication is a bedrock feature of
life.
-
As we question things we open a space for
discourse.
-
We agree to the validity standards as
appropriate functions to use communication to form understanding appropriate to
the situation.
Claims are made, challenges develop and people are free to
defend their positions.
-
There is a willingness to offer or accept
criticism.
-
Smooth communication is reliant on social
actions agreeing to validity standards appropriate to the situation.
There is only one regulatory criterion for arguments.
-
That yes or no responses are solely influenced
by the better argument.
Argument serves to focus and test validity claims.
-
It is frequently invoked.
-
Rarely enacted fully
-
Yet universally accepted.
Arguments take given norms and shift them to norms that may
or may not be valid.
Under the best conditions:
-
justifications are questioned.
-
Disagreements are made explicit.
-
Alternatives are discussed
-
With no pressure other than to get it right.
A truth claim must be transparent:
-
Open to debate
-
Self regulating
-
And consensus forming.
-
Otherwise it is not defendable.
Argument as
-
Product – Intention of grounding a validity claim
with arguments:
o
A test of science.
-
Procedure: Using dialect to end disputes.
-
Process – Convincing a universal audience.
Validity is generally presented by grounds: Proofs offered publically
for systematic testing and revered by reasons, or critique
-
Partially public proofs.
Discourse:
-
Theoretical – Guides inquirey into the natural
world. Offers a state of affairs.
o
Produces technical knowledge.
-
Practical – If theoretical is what is, then practical
is what ought to be, what ought to be done.
Cooperation is based on self-interest.
-
threat of sanction, or promise of compensation
limit communications to giving commands and offering expressions of obedience.
Conformity to roles is expected and reinforced by
socialization processes that merge individual identity with the behavioral
patterns of a primary group.
Critique prompts the sort of deliberation that doubly
exposes hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and outworn traditions while opening a
space for articulating common values, ends and goals for a community.
Critical public arguments must honor traditions of custom,
which are the identity of the community while considering which customs should
remain.
Critical Theory of communication and theory.
The aim of critical philosophy of communication is to
broaden, reshape and rebuild confidence in ideals.
The aim is to examine both sides of arguments, and develop
prorams of adjusmtnet, renewal, or radical renovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment