Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments
Search
Author
Item
Summary
Meta data
III 128
Communicative action/Habermas: the concept
Ha I
refers to the interaction of at least two subjects
J. Habermas
capable of speech and action who enter into an
Der
interpersonal relationship (by linguistic or nonphilosophische
linguistic means). The actors seek an
understanding to coordinate their plans and thus Diskurs der
their actions. Language is given a prominent status Moderne
here.
Frankfurt 1988
III 143
Problem: there is a danger that social action will be
Ha III
reduced to the interpretive performance of the
communication participants, action will be adapted Jürgen
Habermas
to speech, interaction to conversation. In fact,
>
>
Theorie des
however, linguistic communication is only the
Habermas Communicativ mechanism of action coordination, which brings
kommunikative
, Jürgen e Action
together the action plans and activities of the ones n Handelns Bd.
involved.
I Frankfurt/M.
III 157
1981
In communicative action, the outcome of the
interaction itself is dependent on whether the
Ha IV
participants can agree among themselves on an
intersubjectively valid assessment of their world- Jürgen
relationships.
Habermas
III 158
Theorie des
Interpretation: Problem: for the understanding of
kommunikative
communicative actions we have to separate
n Handelns Bd.
questions of meaning and validity. The
interpretation performance of an observer differs II Frankfurt/M.
1981
from the coordination efforts of the participants.
Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments
Search
Author
Item
Summary
The observer does not seek a consensus
interpretation. But perhaps only the functions
differed here, not the structures of interpretation.
III 385
Communicative Action/Habermas: here the
participants are not primarily oriented towards their
own success; they pursue their individual goals on
the condition that they can coordinate their action
plans on the basis of common situation definitions.
In this respect, the negotiation of situation
definitions is an essential component.
III 395
Communicative Action/Speech
Acts/Perlocution/Illocution/Habermas: Strawson
has shown that a speaker achieves his/her
illocutionary goal that the listener understands
what is being said without revealing his/her
perlocutionary goal. This gives perlocutions the
asymmetric character of covert strategic actions in
which at least one of the participants behaves
strategically, while deceiving other participants that
he/she does not meet the conditions under which
normally illocutionary goals can only be achieved.
Therefore, perlocutions are not suitable for the
analysis of coordination of actions, which are to be
explained by illocutionary binding effects.
This problem is solved if we understand
communicative action as interaction in which all
participants coordinate their individual action plans
and pursue their illocutionary goals without
reservation.
Meta data
Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments
Search
Author
Item
Summary
III 396
Only such interactions are communicative actions
in which all participants pursue illocutionary goals.
Otherwise they fall under strategic action.
III 397
HabermasVsAustin: he has tended to identify
speech acts with acts of communication, i.e. the
linguistically mediated interactions.
III 400
Definition
Understanding/Communication/Habermas: in the
context of our theory of communicative action we
limit ourselves to acts of speech under standard
conditions, i.e. we assume that a speaker means
nothing else than the literal meaning of what
he/she says.
Understanding a sentence is then defined as
knowing what makes that sentence acceptable.
III 457
Communicative
action/Rationalization/HabermasVsWeber/Haberm
as: only if we differentiate between communicative
and success-oriented action in "social action" can
the communicative rationalization of everyday
actions and the formation of subsystems for
procedural rational economic and administrative
action be understood as complementary
development. Although both reflect the institutional
embodiment of rationality complexes, in another
respect they are opposite tendencies.
IV 223
Meta data
Philosophy Dictionary of Arguments
Search
Author
Item
Summary
Meta data
Communicative Actions/HabermasVsSystem
theory/Habermas: Communicative actions succeed
only in the light of cultural traditions - this is what
ensures the integration of society, and not
systemic mechanisms that are deprived of the
intuitive knowledge of their relatives.
_____________
Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source,
arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding
books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment
by the sender of the contribution.
The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an
addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition
is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
> Counter arguments against Habermas
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Z
Home
List view
Tables
Ed. Martin Schulz
Legal Notice Contact Data protection declaration