User:Kaylag84/communicativeaction

Definition of Communicative Action-
Communicative action is a concept associated with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Habermas uses this concept to describe agency in the form of communication, which under his understanding is restricted to deliberation, i.e. the free exchange of beliefs and intentions under the absence of domination.

In sociological terms the communicative action is a social action that can be compared to instrumental action (self-interested), normative action (adapted to a shared value system) or dramaturgical action (one which is designed to be seen by others and to optimize our public self-image). Habermas claims that all of those actions are parasitic upon the communicative action, which goes beyond them (Habermas, 1991, volume 1., pp.82-101).

Habermas is best known for developing the theory of communicative action through his book " Theory of Communicative Action", which was written in 1982 and said to be his first major work.

Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action
The communicative action theory is still viewed as one of major contributions to social theory and has recieved extreme attention in various fields of study. The potential innovation of the theory of communicative action resides in attempt to identify a mode of social interaction that draws its motivating force from neither strategic rationality nor social norms. Given this ambition, Habermas rightly observes that the "concept of communicative action stands or falls with the proof that a communicative agreement...can fufill functions of action coordination"(Johnson,pg.12). He also tries to delineate the normative foundations of critical theory and suggesting that the essential and concrete norms are implicit in the validity claims of all speech.(Chriss,pg.9). Communicative actionis basically concerned with achieving and maintaining mutual understanding among all those who are involved in a coordinated organizational situation. This theory assumes that everyone in the action is an actor in a social context. Organizational actors involved in communicative action depend on a common language and a shared understanding of the organizational content in order to enact meaning from each other's communicative actions(Ngwenyama and Lee,pg.154).

== Related Theories and Concepts ==

"Habermas's theory of communicative action fundamentally rests on a distinction between two concepts of rationality that shape knowledge to guide action" (Deflem, 1996).First, cognitive-instrumental rationality conducts action that pinpoints at the prominant realiztion of privately defined goals. These action types are either strategic, which is when guided attempts to successfully influence the decisions of others are performed (e.g in relations of domination), or instrumental, which is when they are directed at efficient interventions in a state of affairs in the world (e.g through labor).He argues that instrumental and strategic actions are(in reality and conceptually)always parasitic on communicative action. Hence instrumental and strategic actions alone cannot form a stable system of social action [(http://www.philosophersnet.com/cafe/archive_article.php?id=69&name=philosopher).]

Secondly, communicative rationality motivates action that is directed at reciprocal understanding, a process developed to reach understanding between speaking subjects and to synchronize their interpretations of the world (Deflem, 1996). Communicative action is internally linked to communicative rationality which is a central plank for Habermas' version of idealized communicative action: a condition the he terms as "unconstrained communication".

To refrain from causing any form of misunderstanding, Habermas's communicative action concept does not suggest that subjects can seek a mutual understanding only through acts of speech, signs and symbols can also be oriented into the process of understanding one another, although that is only if they can be developed into interactions mediated through language (Deflem, 1996).

Sociologically, Habermas fused micro and macro dimensions by using Durkheim and Mead as a theoretical bridge to develop communicative action. While Mead is important because of symbolically mediated interaction, Durkheim is important because of his analysis of the "sacred" and process of secularization of religion. Therefore, Habermas sees the language-communication framework as a new way of reaffirming the project of modernity and wants to show how the transformation of traditional society to modernity involved a secularization of normative behavior reconstructed through communicative action]].

The Lifeworld concept, which is an unthematized realm that suffused as it is with shared cultural knowledge, allows us to refer thematically to something that actually exists in the objective world, is also linked to communicative action(Chriss,pg.547). Habermas's lifeworld distinction thus has to be viewed as making possible a more complex interpretation of what Marx and Engels supposedly understood as the basic components of social labor.

Criticisms
Criticisms following Cooke and Habermas point out the instrumental, possibly even coercive nature of organiztions and many argue that they are equally pernicious impediments to engaging in noncoerced or reasoned communnicative interaction within the boundries of lifeworld itself. Granted, actors may very well be ethically neutralized by the formel-legal constitution of action systems typical of organizations-this accounting to a distortion of lifeworld processes via the incursion of systems imperatives (Chriss, pg.548). Nevertheless, there always exists the possibility that certain forms of action, such as strategic or dramaturgical action, although emanating from the lifeworld itself, are nevertheless parasitic on communicative action, thereby hampering actors' ability to reach understanding (Chriss, pg. 549).

Several feminists working in critical theory have expressed reservations about the applicability of Habermas's theory. Some view his concepts as too abstract and limiting.At the very least, his theory requires substantial changes, if it is to be able to the aims and expectations of contemporary women. Some argue that the problem of gender in Habermas's theory can be traced to his attempt to rework the Marxian tradition of historical materialism. The problem is not that Habermas puts little value on "women's work", in his reconstruction of historical materialism he argues that, compared with the production and social labor of men, the activities of nurturing and socialization performed by women are "equally important" for the reproduction of human species. That is to say, the nurturer role, despite its importance for the reproduction of the modern lifeworld, it is not viewed by Habermas as a "social role". From the point of view for gender equality expressed by women, Habermas's understanding of the nurturer role amounts to a basic conceptual inadequacy. His lifeworld distinction reproduces the Marxian exclusion of "female" work form social labor.

There are also several disagreements over validity claims because Habermas is said to have failed to specify how consent operates as a mechanism for coordinating social interaction more generally. He cannot persuasively explain why individuals suffiently concerned with the success of their individual projects to consent the existing definition of the situation would adopt an orientation to understanding (Johnson, pg. 193).

Secondly, communicative action aims at a shared definition of the context of interaction. According to Habermas, a "definition of the situation establishes an order"." In this sense, agreements negotiated via communicative action impose constraints on individual action. It is highly unlikely that such constraints would operate impartially. Thus, given ambigous circumstances of discourse, what is to motivate an actor at least partially concerned with his individual goals to submit to such constraints?(Johnson, pg. 198).

Third, while Habermas contends that agreement between actors orientated toward reaching understanding always is possible "in principle," he acknowledges the constraints that time imposes on the actual prospect of their achieving consensus. Discussion must end sometime if communicative action is to fufill iots role of coordinating interaction. Yet time constraints might compound the uncertinty of actors embarking into the terrain discourse. For if arguement necesarilly has some termination point, then it would become exceedingly difficult for particpants to determine how to interpret failed consensus. Each individual would be left in a position of asking whether the failure actually was due to insufficientt time for ironing out differneces or whether others perhaps were not truly oriented toward reaching understanding.(Johnson, pg. 198).

Thus, even though Habermas aims at a theory based on equality, and even though he admits that power and money still pervade the relations of the private household, his theory does not, and apparently cannot, provide criticism of the power and economic relations of a gender-structured lifeworld.

Conclusion
A rehabilitated concept of strategic action combined with a revised concept of communicative action might enable  critical theorists to investigate the various  factors that threaten to derail  social interaction. And finally, it might prompt critical theorists to reflect on whether and to what extent we can expect that these different modes of action can be encompassed by even a more comprehensive concept of rationality(Johnson, pg. 196). Recent history suggests that it is difficult to implement Habermas' universalized narratives of communicative action in a world with so many differences between states, cultures, and ideologies. It seems difficult to provide a modern solution to characteristically postmodern problems. Inspired by the dreams of reason, the ideal of communicative action is a slender reed with which to overcome the powerful forces of dehumanisation increasingly evident all around us.

Primary Resources
American Sociological Review 60(4), 545-565
 * Chriss, James J. (Aug., 1995). "Habermas, Goffman, and Communicative Action: Implications for Professional Practice".


 * Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama; Allen S. Lee(Jun., 1997). "Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning ". MIS Quarterly21(2), 145-167


 * James Johnson(May, 1991) "Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action". Political Theory19 (2)181-201