Jurguen Habermas communicative action guide
The theory of communicative action, by the German thinker Jurguen Habermas, requires a demanding intellectual and analytical heritage, together with disciplines of philosophy, sociology, law, linguistics, ethics, anthropology, education and communication and It seeks to consolidate a refreshing critical theory of society.
Making a critical reading of various modern authors, from Hegel, Kant, and Marx, to Weber, Adorno, Horkheiemer, Wittgestein, Mead, Durkheim, Popper, Lukács, Piaget, and Parsons, he builds the principles of his own theory of rationality and of Human communication, in which the primacy of overcoming different presuppositions that hinder the way to achieve the status of a true, authentic and liberating interaction for all its protagonists has.
It addresses the study of the rationality of action, of social rationalization and of functionalist reason, stripping them of any statement that is not sufficiently argued. Thus, he guides us with his reflections on the possible actor-world relations, or subject-reality, and the evolution of the images of the world, from the magical vision to the systemic theory of society, considering the limitations of instrumental reason in science, law, morality, the state, the economy and also in the philosophy of conscience, as well as in the complex systems of action of modernity, to propose a new starting point that reconsiders the scope and promises of the dialectic of the illustration.
In the same way, it extends in the analysis of the evolution of human communication, from the language of the gesture to the symbolically mediated interaction, to confirm the category of world of life as horizon and scene of communicative action.
In this way, he conceives that the essential thing for individuals endowed with language and action is to identify the specific world of life in which they operate and interact with people, the worldview that each one has, the rationality that supports their form to see and make use of reality, the spheres in which it can extend its influence, the environments and means it uses, the structures it involves in the various fields of action and the validity claims it seeks to position, to face the challenges of modernity and undertake the challenges that are presented as priorities, through a sincere and convergent communicative action, which puts on the table the open letters of any intention, manifest or veiled.
Each of the mentioned components is broken down into several categories and interacts with the others at different dialogical levels and obtain, in most cases, only the results they intend to obtain, or just a hint of goals and objectives and a meager approach to the understanding between people and obtaining rewards for everyone in the communication process.
Worldviews can be magical or mythical, metaphysical, religious or mystical, philosophical, scientific, and aesthetic. Each of them reigns in its own way in the different structures and spheres of action, with its own one-sided claims for validity, in terms of its speeches or acts capable of criticism.
Rationalities can be oriented according to understanding, values, principles, norms, means and ends. It is a descending order, as is also the case with structures, spheres of action, and validity claims.
The spheres are that of private life and that of public life or opinion. There only the scenery changes. That is why there is talk of an intrusion into the privacy of the individual, a colonization of life, a loss of meaning and freedom.
The environments and the media are, respectively, the economic subsystem, ruled by the medium money and the state political subsystem, ruled by the middle power. Economy and politics, capital and the State, and, among them, human society, less and less able to shake off the alienating yoke sanctioned and legitimized by all means, which have never more than now been the message and massage that warned McLuhan.
The structures are also related to the fields of action and the claims of validity. The structures are culture and science, society and morality, personality and art, and the organism and its adaptation. To them correspond the fields of cognitive-instrumental, practical-moral and aesthetic-expressive action, as well as the claims of validity linked to truth, conformity with norms, legitimacy and authenticity.
In such a way that the structure of science and culture corresponds to the scope of cognitive-instrumental action and the claim of validity that the truth seeks; To the structure of society and moral corresponds the scope of practical-moral action and the claim of validity that focuses on compliance with the rules; To the structure of personality and art corresponds the aesthetic-expressive scope of action and the claim of validity of legitimacy, and, finally, to the structure of the organism and its adaptation corresponds the aesthetic-expressive scope of action and the claim of validity of authenticity.
The challenges of modernity or postmodernity that the individual must face are the colonization of the world of life, the bureaucratization of ordinary life, the loss of sense of reality and the loss of freedom on the horizon of life.
The challenges we must address are building intersubjectivity, building consensus through dialogue, building morality for the world of today, and building rationalizing theory. The author gives hope: he says that there is a long way to go, that we are always prepared to follow it and that we must unite more for that purpose.
Communicative action must focus on human understanding, coordination of action, social interaction, socialization, and the individuation or construction of subjectivity and autonomy.
Habermas adds a mechanism called AGIL schema, which is broken down into Adaptation, Gain, Integration and Legitimacy and that can work in time with the triad of categories that represent the structures, the fields of action and the validity claims.
In all of them, very different positions can survive, but to a large extent human behavior remains basically the same and has still impoverished the instrument and with it also the mind of the species: all discourse or knowledge has been mimetized in myth so as not to die. It is then necessary to retrace the path of methodical doubt and rebuild a truth that has no refutation. For the author, what is most important is contact, expression, freedom and rectitude in communication, the sincere search for understanding and leading action through dialogue towards the full potential.
Humanizing communication to humanize action is the bet in this perspective, as well as rethinking the reason to transcend all incontrovertible assumptions and build, with a free mind, a society in freedom.
