Name:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date:
Habermas procedural approach
Habermas, a German philosopher and sociologist in traditional and common sense theory brought in some contribution towards modern political theory more so in particular to recasting of Kantian universalizability principle of autonomy and its implications politically, have really shown that the public reasoning lies at the heart of the democratization processes and is a decisive role towards the survival of our political, economic and social institutions. Habermas has critically appropriated Kant’s cognitivist, emancipator and Universalist concept of moral autonomy in a bid to attempt to and understand the originality of political culture and publicity. Habermas proves that normativity ought to go beyond the merely conventional morality level as it requires the structural transformation of the legal and economic administrations to make it possible for the co existence of differentiated democratic interests (Oliviera). He believes that Kant’s verity of reasoning is critical when accounting for the principle of self-sufficiency in terms of political and moral accountability (Rosenfeld 72). Habermas also tries to reformulate Kantian proceduralism in communicative and inter-subjective terms.
Modern science has acquired an increasingly importance towards the social and political field ranging from administration, environmental issues, the judicial system and the legislative arm of the government. Due to all this we as human beings find ourselves trying to figure out how to assess the relevant scientific findings. Thus the various scientific forums of science related consideration of finding a way in the social processes of argumentation even as they draw attention towards the discursive side of science and the fact that results, forecasts and hypothesis ought to take shape as arguments (Rehg 162). Habermas’s discourse theory provides a sizeable argument based on theoretic frameworks by which we as individuals might extend to critically analyze the argument of science. If this extension succeeds, human beings would have a promising model that covers a wide range of meaningful and relevant logical contexts both at the boundaries and inside science and society (Rehg 163-164).
Perhaps now more than ever, one basic challenge that is so pressing for political theory is trying to imagine legitimate governments for plural societies. Plural societies have been in existence; “the contemporary world, immigration, technology, demographics and political and social upheavals have simply made the societies more plural,” (Smith 1). These factors as well as other changes have pushed the plural societies challenge to the wall not only as oppressive and failing governments, but also of stable governments that have taken their authority very lightly and for granted. It is a possible challenge imagining such governments because of the ever persistent tension understanding the difference between plural and legitimate. In a plural society, there are many different ideas concerned about the question “what makes for a genuine and trusted government,” (Smith, 2). The different ideas posed here will involve different ways of reconciling the pre-existing tension.
There are different law paradigms and images that correspond to the different conceptions of justice and the various sources of legitimacy. Furthermore, speaking in the context of pluralistic and complex societies, the relationship between justice, law and legitimacy has greatly become an acute problem as the competing conceptions of the good shed away the legal relations as merely relationships among strangers, and as the justice according to law seems permanently split from justice beyond and against the law. In other words, the legitimacy of the law in a modern pluralistic society seems to need sacrifice either in terms of justice or democracy. As such, one ought to abandon the quest for justice beyond the law and settle for a combination of legal and democratic positivism so as to reduce political authority to the majority that rule and to confine the role of the law to the stabilization of several expectations among the legal subjects.
One would opt for justice beyond the law if they fear the tyranny of the majorities and become discontented with the idea of unjust and predictable laws by embracing human rights as a shield against the legislative abuses of the majorities and the inequities of the positive law. Legal positivism and legal realism do not cooperate that well (Deflem 33). Legal positivism tends to be dismissed as it cannot justify its own principles as per the classic analysis of positivism while legal realism is defined as some kind of skepticism, which is carried out in the shadows of Critical Legal Studies. Thus study tried to show that there was essentially no difference between the political policy and judicial decisions. It claims that a legal realist is a doubting Thomas, who features the decision makings of judicial system to a host of other factors, power, politics, class and interests (Deflem 33). They cannot explain how an efficient legal system capability is compared to the radical legal cynicism on the part of the involved experts.
Habermas’s other theory of communicative action rests fundamentally on the distinction between the concepts of rationality, which shapes knowledge so as to guide actions (Habermas 8-22). First and foremost, the rationality of instrumental cognitive carries out action aimed at successful realization of privately defined goods. These actions are either strategic or instrumental. Strategic actions guide attempts to influence the decisions of other actors successfully while instrumental actions are directed at efficient state interventions of world affairs, for example through labor organizations (Deflem 2-3). Secondly, the communicative rationality action aims at reaching a mutual perception, which is conceived as the process to reach an agreement between individuals so as to harmonize their worldly interpretations. According to Habermas, a stable human association cannot be simply explained in terms of strategic and instrumental modes of interactions whereby actors calculate their moves in a bid to assume each other’s fears and desires rather it can be based on the ongoing social orders that ultimately depend on and involve a richer communicative mode of interaction whereby the actors can either, raise, reject or accept, discuss and even revise the claims that have been subjected to validation based on mutual persuasive reasons (Rehg, 164).
This concept does not assume that human beings aim at mutual understanding through acts of verbal communication or even an agreement would be necessary as a blameless pre-figuration of thought when it comes to the process of communication. There are several forms of action, which do not form part of the linguistic action, for example symbols and signs, which can become oriented to understanding but only if they can easily be transferred into interactions that are mediated by the use of a language (Deflem, 3). The possibility of disagreement, which comes as a result of unresolved communication, cannot be excluded as the orientation to reach an agreement between the actors of communication.
Habermas investigates the conditions necessary for rational argument to take place in communicative action based on distinction between the different claims of validity, which are explicitly or implicitly raised during an act of speech by someone. He distinguishes the following validity claims; an evaluative claim to sincerity and authenticity, well formed and comprehensible speech, which makes an objective claim become truth and a normative assertion to rightness (Habermas 319-328). The different types of communication serve plainly to address the claims of aesthetic and therapeutic assessment based on sincerity and authenticity, a moral- practical dialogue on the normative of rightness and the theoretical communication based on the truth.
Habermas also develops a two level approach based on his theory of argumentation, the approach of a life world and system. Everyday communicative action is often not criticized or questioned because they are raised within the forms of a shared world, which is undisputed (Deflem, 4). The life world offers an accepted background knowledge that is common and it is within which an action can become coordinated. In occidental cultures, the characteristic for rationalization is based on the fact that the life world has distinguished the acts of speech along the lines of validity. As a result of this, a differentiation has been brought about based on the three performative attitudes; a normative attitude towards the social world where people live, an objective attitude towards the events and circumstances of the outer world and an expressive attitude towards the subjectivity of an individual to the inner world (Deflem, 4).
This concept of the world life is not limited to the traditional cultures of a certain community, which incorporate the shared interpretations of the world. The life world maintains that the social part of life ought to abide to the normative societal standards so that it can provide a set of cultural values, and that social actors should act as competent personalities in working hand in hand with their societal environment. There are three life world components that correspond to the societal functions; personality, society and culture. These three form the structural components that encompass the rationalized world life. Cultural relations relate to transmission of interpretation schemes that are consensually shared among the members of the world (Rosenfeld 133). Social interactions include social integration, which is defined as the legitimate ordering of interpersonal relations based on an individual’s coordination of actions through subjectively shared standards (Deflem 5). At the personality level, processes of socialization aim at ensuring personalities with interactive capabilities are identified and formed. The process of rationalization of the society entails the segregation of a once united world into several different specialized institutions of social well being and domains. The life world has a double meaning, the resources of options from which communicative action participants can renew and transmit their cultural knowledge, build a new social identity and establish solidarity, and lastly the cultural horizon-forming contexts, societal and personalities within which communicative action takes place.
The theory of social evolution takes an important turn of events when Habermas argues than an action oriented approach towards the life world cannot become accounted for all the complexities of the modern society. Rationalization process ought not to be understood in terms of the societal material substratum but also as a differentiation of the world life as a symbol reproduced via communicative order (Deflem 5). This double perception shows that a society has to secure cultural transmission values, socialization processes and the legitimate norms, and on top of that, a society has to control and manipulate their environment efficiently in terms of successful interventions. In a bid to supplement this theory, Habermas pays specific attention towards the political and economic system by means of introducing a systems theory (Deflem 5). These systems theory in the course of history have split off from the world life so as to function independently in terms of the functionality that controls power, media and money, but no longer based on communicative actions aimed at understanding. The actions that are coordinated via the steering of media ease difficulties related to communicative action in reaching a consensus among the complex societies, which have been characterized by a range of alternative actions, which pose constant threat of disagreement.
Habermas made several observations on procedural approach have research and inspired theory that lead to interesting insight about the empirical and theoretical limitation and strengths. The theory argues that the modern law remains in need of moral explanation based on the practical communication rather than simplified into a functional entity (Deflem 9). Based on the principle of ethics discourse, Habermas realizes any such discourse on customs may only be unfolded within the boundaries of specified ethical life forms. He also maintains that the principle of ethics discourse is strictly procedural based on strict universal applicability. Another weakness observed in Habermas’s theory is that it does not come up with a moral true theory and his formalistic proposal quite empty. It is argued that the ethics of communication is an indecisive method that fails to put together a road to an ideal society and has no room for provision of substantive moral principles (Rosenfeld 107). In order to achieve the best and most suitable application relating to the principle of dialogue, one ought to investigate and implement the required procedural requirements in as much as they tend to fulfill the true realization of substantive human rights principle, freedom, justice or even solidarity.
In addition to reconciling democracy and human rights from the communicative action point of view, Habermas’s paradigm of law offers an innovative means of pursuing the purely procedural achievement of justice. Legal actors ought to reach a mutual agreement through communicative action and factual similarities and differences to be taken into consideration by the law. Habermas’s procedural proposal seems to be of particular attraction mainly for two main reasons; it requires subjecting each and every one of the differences and identities to every represented perspective by the individual communicative action participants and to allow all differences and identities considered when weeding out useful strategies for communicative action (Rosenfeld 131). Habermas’s proceduralism has a high affinity to reconcile the factual and legal equality in a way that not only takes into account the importance of every asserted difference and identity but to also account for all the existing differences and identities, which have been represented in the communicative action.
Summarily, legal interpretation is under constant siege especially from pluralistic societies that tend to lack common social, political and ethical values. Positive and just interpretations that reflect on a shared vision of justice in the end may look like simple interpretations, which are rooted as mere understandings in the interests and orientations surrounding different groups. With reference to Habermans’s theories, we can conclude that the pillars of the world life; culture, personality and the society have greatly contributed towards a mutual understanding of our surroundings and the world in general. Habermas’s theories have brought into light a more complex modern political and cultural society, the idea of democracy has become simplified to integrate dialogue and ethics for easier communication.
Works cited
Deflem, Mathieu. Habermas, Modernity and Law. London: Sage Publications.
Habermas, jiirgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Rehg, William. Habermas, Argumentation Theory, and Science Studies: Toward Interdisciplinary Cooperation. < HYPERLINK “https://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phaenex.uwindsor.ca%2Fojs%2Fleddy%2Findex.php%2Finformal_logic%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F2165%2F1609&ei=sUuoUpbOF-LnywOD3ID4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFIvmUOUkuCbzVtq7Cl25n2ssTALg&bvm=bv.57799294,d.bGQ” https://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phaenex.uwindsor.ca%2Fojs%2Fleddy%2Findex.php%2Finformal_logic%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F2165%2F1609&ei=sUuoUpbOF-LnywOD3ID4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFIvmUOUkuCbzVtq7Cl25n2ssTALg&bvm=bv.57799294,d.bGQ>. Accessed December 12, 2013.
Rosenfeld, Michel. Just Interpretations: Law between Ethics and Politics. California: University of California Press, 1998.
Smith, Adam. “Discourse and the Common Good: Universalism and Proceduralism in Habermas and MacIntyre”. Academia.Edu. < HYPERLINK “http://www.academia.edu/204105/Discourse_and_the_Common_Good_Universalism_and_Proceduralism_in_Habermas_and_MacIntyre” http://www.academia.edu/204105/Discourse_and_the_Common_Good_Universalism_and_Proceduralism_in_Habermas_and_MacIntyre>. Accessed December 12, 2013.
