Jurgen Habermas  1929- ?  habermas

"in discourse the unforced force of the better argument prevails".

Critical theory merged with communication theory

Biography
born in 1929, in Düsseldorf Germany
-philosopher
studied under Horkheimer and Adorno
2nd generation of critical theory

primary concern:
How to create more freedom and a greater range of thought for citizens
how to fulfill Enlightenment ideas- hang on to rationality
how to move towards participatory democracy
rejects Marxist approaches to change too based on revolution
redefine the 'public domain'
Critical Theory roots:

a. recognition that technology and instrumental rationality (machine logic) can be imprisoning for humans
   1. intended originally to be emancipatory (Enlightenment)
   2. human element is lost in merging of bureaucracy/economy
   3. social inequality gives more power to some people/interests than others
   4. economic inequality prevents possibility of true democracy, politically
   5. communication is restricted/limited by bureaucratic/market forces
     a. keeps ppl from questioning
     b. keeps ppl passive politically- don't see any other way possible or realistic
     c. restricts human activity to market activities
     d. humans role as citizens not realized, reduced to consumers

b. thinks it is possible to re-frame, reinvent rationality to work for human ends
  1. create a system in which citizens have real freedom of choice to define society for their own benefit
  2. thinks Marx focuses too much on economic status, neglects human domains, individual choice

c. solution is to work to redefine the human sphere of society- 'civil society', public domain
  1. restore democratic decision making through human interaction
  2. grassroots democracy can counter instrumental rationality- economy/govt
  3. change happens through human response to recognized "crisis"
     a. institutional failure recognized by all
     b. need to use human creativity to devise new arrangements
     c. possibility of more freedom/range of choices for individuals

Public: discursive arena that is home to citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action.

d. How to change society to allow for more freedom?
   1. discursive debate in public sphere by citizens
   2. not dominated by market/wealth- but by argumentation, deliberation, reason
       a, brings back Enlightenment values, reason, freedom, individual choice
       b. human action can redefine social relations
   3. redefines "public" domain
     a. separate space from economic, political, regulated domains
        1. "life-world" negotiated by communicatively defined norms, values
        2. socially-defined ends
    
   b. non-coerced presence for all citizens
   c. human ability to use all talk to reach human understanding (inherent tendency in speech)
   d.discussion is based on concrete issues/problem-solving
   e. assumes universality of meaning- (we all agree)

Redefine rationality and knowledge

a. combine practical/technical knowledge and interests

    1.Technical interest - The basic attitude that allows us to exert control over the natural world.

    2. Practical interest - The human need to interact and work toward understanding.
    3. Emancipatory interest - Desire to move from domination to freedom.
    4. achieved through self-reflection, discussion, debate, communication

b. communicative rationality can be used to counter instrumental rationality

  1. definition: unique human ability, using communicative competence, through discussion to reach communal understandings and consensus, based on pragmatic grounds. It is a circular process in which the actor is two things in one: an initiator, who masters situations through actions for which he is accountable, and a product of the transitions surrounding him, of groups whose cohesion is based on solidarity to which he belongs, and of processes of socialization in which he is reared
 
 2. relies upon intersubjectivity between ppl (unspoken understandings)- contextualized meaning
   a. human ability to use all talk to reach human understanding (inherent tendency in speech)
   b.discussion is based on concrete issues/problem-solving
     1. knowledge is product of problem-solving discussion
      2. legitimacy of results is given and defined by those participating
      3. process-oriented, not defined in advance  3. uses post-modern definition of identity
  c. human identity is fluid, performative
     1. possible for people to be redefined if we change environment, context in which they live
     2. participating actively will create active participants
     3. individual identity is constituted by group action, effectiveness

3. problems to be overcome
  a. power differentials between citizens/interests
  b. concerned about cultural biases, prejudices  
     1.irrational
     2. contributes to marginalization, invisibility
     3. can be overcome through self-reflection, commitment to reason
     4. discourse, debate, deliberation with others

5. discourse ethics govern argument
       a. rules of engagement between those involved in discourse
       b."Ideal speech situation" created as much is practicable
           1. communicative competence developed
           2. principle of impartiality & fairness used
3. basis for  new, directed theory of political action reflecting human needs 

.Members of the public sphere must, however, adhere to certain rules for an 'ideal speech situation' to occur.

1. Every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to take part in a discourse.

2a. Everyone is allowed to question any assertion whatever.

2b. Everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion whatever into the discourse.

2c. Everyone is allowed to express his attitudes, desires and needs.

3. No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercion, from exercising his rights as laid down in (1) and (2).

c. assumptions which have been criticized by others:

  1. thinks it's possible for diverse community members  to have agreement on meaning of terms, priority of problems
  2. presumes it's possible for more active, invigorated civil society to be powerful enough to counter bureaucracy/market forces
  3. contextualized process to produce meaning which then is presented as universal/decontextualized- does this work?

many see application to the internet and virtual communication  net
 a. absence of physical traits that lead to bias, marginalization, makes more free exchange of ideas
    1. consensus can come from reason, not from wealth, power, etc.
    2. virtual networks all for transformative emancipatory discourse

Problems:
-does this medium have enough civility to follow communicative ethics rules?  rude
-is it possible for pluralistic ppl to agree on common solution?
-isn't open-ness of discourse sign of more freedom?
-shouldn't some points of view have more authority than others?