My key Thinker and his Background
In this study, I pick Jurgen Habermas as my key thinker. Habermas became born in 1929at a place called Dussedolf (Braaten, 1991). His family was traditional. The Second World War occurred when Habermas was in his teenage years. His teenage experiences and the fact that he belonged to a traditional family largely impacted his life and thoughts (Roderick, 1986). It is for these reasons that much of his ideas reflect on Kant’s traditions.
In 1954, Habermas obtained a doctorate from Bonn University ahead of undertaking studies at the universities of Zurich and Gottingen. Later, he joined the Frankfurt Institute and the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University where he studied under top associates called Theodor and Max Horkheimer before becoming a prominent member of the Frankfurt school of thought (Bottomore, 1984; McCarthy, 1978).
Scholars who influenced Habermas, their School of Thought and Associates
Both Theodor and Max Horkheimer belonged to the Frankfurt school of thought. The Frankfurt School of thought offered courses that sought to build on the critical theory of society. This theory used philosophy by incorporating the descriptive aspects of social sciences with the normative features of philosophical manifestation. Hence, the Frankfurt school of thought is associated with Marxism’s social theory of capitalist societies (Braaten, 1991; Geyer & Heinz, 1992; Held, 1980, Marshall, 1994; Portes, 1998). Other scholars who influenced the work of Habermas were Fromm, Walter, and Herbert Marcuse (Habermas, 1984).
Following the Second World War, most school members discarded orthodox Marxism but maintained their criticism of capitalism (Honderich; 1995). Habermas differed with these critics and thus, his work sought to reestablish sociological and philosophical work that these scholars discarded.
Summary of Key arguments of Habermas, their relevance to Communication Studies and ideas that are Critical in Communications Studies
Habermas’s work is a criticism of theorists, who discarded Marxism’s social theory of capitalist societies, although, he does not openly claim to support Marxism’s theory. In his work on communicative action, Habermas explains the way the use of language varies in diverse models of action including communicative, teleological, dramaturgical, and normatively regulated action (Habermas, 1984). Habermas uses these action models to demonstrate that communicative action varies from all other action models. He explains that all these other action models, apart from communication action, only have one dimension.
According to Habermas, the communicative model never aligns communication with action when it comes to speech. He asserts that although the language is a model of communication, communicative action allocates a form of interaction that gets synchronized by speech acts, which never corresponds to the wide notion of communication. Besides, Habermas maintains that language utilization is basic, strategic, or influential in the use of communicative action. Whenever someone makes strategic use of language, he can maneuver language in order to influence the listener, for his personal interest. This notion becomes further explained in the public sphere.
The concept of the public sphere as explained by Herbamas is a field in social life, whereby, a common public view can be created and availed to everybody. Herbamas argues that the engagement in the public sphere, ignores status, and links between advocates in this territory become created by a common will, to engage in issues that are of broad interest. After scrutinizing the past of the public sphere, Herbamas establishes that there was no between the public and the private spheres, because of the class groupings by the feudal government. According to Herbamas, the feudal government placed superior power at all heights, with political power maintained by those in the top most levels. He views the liberal model of the public sphere to be extraordinary in history (Habermas, 1989).
Various constitutions in different countries have provisions that govern the liberal model of the public sphere, which consists of individual persons who gather to create the public. Hence, these persons arbitrate the link between the bourgeois community and the nation so as to control and inform the political administration. Within the latter half of the 18th century, Herbamas recorded that journalism was on the increase, and it was not a mere provider of news but instead, an arm that could be used in politics making journalism start the work of editing. Herbamas argues that the public sphere became created subsequent to journalism becoming a public establishment that sought to support public debate. Newspapers changed their role in public opinion that sought to highlight business issues to siding with debates of social-political nature, following the institution of democratic bourgeois (Habermas, 1989). The flow of individual interest into mass media and newspapers created transformations in the public sphere, for instance, advertisements and ideological substance.
According to Herbamas, however, the public sphere’s liberal model is not compatible with the modern democratic government because the philosophy that pertains to the model of the public sphere can be attached to values that have transformed ever since the 18th century (Habermas, 1998). False information and journalism have extended, together with the margins of both the public and the private sphere. The modern public sphere becomes typified by the eroding of its vital responsibilities and powers.
Herbamas construes democratization, rationalization, and humanization of the people in reference to the recognition of the prospects for rationality, which is intricate in the communicative community that is exclusive to human beings. Herbamas agrees that communicative capacity has grown through the period of development although, in modern society, it gets concealed or destabilized by the manner in which key spheres of social life, become handed in by both strategic and instrumental rationality, in order that the rationale behind the system, supersedes that of the world life.
A key Passage of Herbamas
“The example of social security is reform is informative in another respect as well for social security is part of the complex of social -welfare -state protections against personal life-risks that were once left to private autonomy. The contradiction is obvious: a proliferation of the social conditions of private existence that are maintained and secured by public authority, and, therefore, ought to be clarified within the communication process of a politically autonomous public of citizens, that is, should be made a topic for public opinion. Although objectively greater demands are placed on this authority, it operates less as a public opinion giving a rational foundation to the exercise of political and social authority, the more it is generated for the purpose of an abstract vote that amounts to no more than an act of acclamation within a public sphere temporarily manufactured for show or manipulation” (Habermas, 1989 p.222).
An Explanation of the Quote
A true public sphere must maintain discussions with members of the society in order to recognize and cater to the needs of its population in areas like social welfare. However, such a sphere does not exist in modern politics. While modern democratic governments call for public opinion regularly in order to legalize state power, this action stops immediately when this power becomes legitimized. In other words, politicians of the day create the public during elections so that they can obtain endorsement into power. Mass media and newspapers serve as appropriate tools for transmitting individual interests into the public sphere. That is to say, mass media and newspapers help in spreading false information about candidates in the public sphere so that these candidates can win elections. Such candidates maintain discussions with members of the society with empty promises of catering to their needs.
Habermas’s theory also stresses, on sharing of information with the public, wide involvement of the public, and reaching an agreement through public dialogue and not an exercise of power (Argyris & Schon, 1974, Innes, 1995, Wilson, 1997). As such, the authenticity of democracy should not solely rely on constitutional processes. Rather, such processes should engage the public in discussions that lead to the adoption of best policies. Various constitutions in different countries have provisions that govern the liberal model of the public sphere, which consists of individual persons who gather to create the public. Politicians of the day create the public during elections so that they can obtain endorsement into power. Hence, political candidates arbitrate the link between the bourgeois community and the nation so as to control and inform the political administration.
Evidence used by Habermas in making his Arguments and what he Studied
Habermas builds his work from different scholars and evidence. Some scholars that Habermas uses to build his work are Marx and Weber. Besides, Habermas seems to restore both the sociological and philosophical work of several scholars which has caused the rejection. Some of these scholars include Talcott Parsons, Sigmund Freund, Mead, Wilhelm Dilthey, Georg Lukacs, and Karl Marx (Marshall, 1994; Portes, 1998).
Another Scholar by the name of Benjamin also influenced the work of Habermas. Most of these scholars belonged to the Frankfurt School of thought, which offers courses that seek to build on the critical theory of society. This theory seeks to use philosophy by incorporating the descriptive aspects of social sciences with the normative features of philosophical manifestation. The fundamental aim of this course is to offer insights and connect theory to practice. Besides, the course seeks to empower learners to transform their repressive situations and attain human liberation.
Work Influenced by Habermas and different Interpretations
Habermas’s work has influenced the work of several scholars. For instance, Cooke (1998) spends time identifying the significance of Herbamas’s communicative action to critical social theory. Besides, Rasmussen (1990) develops his work in support of language as a communicative instrument that can lead to liberation.
At the same time, Habermas’s work has received different interpretations from different scholars. A number of philosophers argue that Herbamas focuses on language due to his intention to make use of modern philosophy to back his perspective on democracy and involvement in order to position both democracy and involvement on a more solid ground than other theories by rationality scholars (Meehan, 1995; Thompson & Held, 1982). According to Rasmussen (1990), Habermas plans to salvage the mission of modernity by using a sophisticated explanation of the philosophy of language. Rasmussen (1990) further explains that Habermas’s task is to demonstrate language as a communicative instrument that can lead to liberation.
Cooke (1998) also identifies the significance of Herbamas’s communicative action to critical social theory. There are also other scholars who condemn Habermas’s theory due to his stress on language. For instance, Langsdorf (2000) asserts that Habermas’s theory is not valid to real-world communication, since communication engrosses diverse aspects and not language alone. Langsdorf (2000) also considers the fact that the theory construes language, as a mode of communication, but takes discourse as a mode of language utilization. She further takes the fact that Habermas stresses on language as a way of disregarding the theory. This comment is parallel to Portes (1998) that dependence on communicative action for synchronization benefits players who have a remarkable capacity in argument through communication in social arenas.
Examples of Essay Topics or Studies based on the ideas of Habermas
One essay topic that can be discussed based on Habermas’s ideas is the construction of the European public sphere. Media reports can be examined in order to obtain information about the European public sphere. This should involve a relative analysis of media coverage in different European nations. Questions regarding features and times of reporting should be explored, in order to establish consistencies and inconsistencies in the European public sphere.
Another topic that can be explored is the relationship between interactive telecommunication and Habermas’s projection on the public sphere. The relationship between cyberspace and Habermas’s descriptions of the public sphere can be explored. Besides, questions regarding the use of e-mail and websites, which characterize a rebirth of small media on the margin between the public and private, as well as, verification through public discussion may be discussed. This study should focus on internet and telecommunication users in different age groups.
Lastly, aspects that influence dialogue can be investigated. By so doing, questions regarding the extent to which a speaker can manipulate language to his own favor can be explored. This topic can be developed by investigating how presidential candidates use dialogue to influence voters during campaigns and election periods. Questions regarding the strategic use of language and language manipulation can be answered in this way.
References
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Bottomore, T. (1984). The Frankfurt School: Key sociologists series. New York, NY: Routledge.
Braaten, J. (1991). Habermas’s critical theory of society. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991.
Cooke, M. (1998). Language and reason: A study of Habermas’s pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Geyer, R., & Heinz, W. (1992). Alienation, society, and the individual: Continuity and change in theory and research. New Brunswick, N J: Transaction Publishers.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Honderich, T. (1995). The companion to philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Innes, J. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14 (3), 183-190.
Langsdorf, L. (2000). The real conditions for the possibility of communicative action. Rationality and Society, 10 (4), 481-502.
Marshall, G. (1994). The concise Oxford dictionary of sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, T. (1978). The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas. Chichester, England: Hutchinson.
Meehan, J. (1995). Feminists reading Habermas: Gendering the subject of discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Rasmussen, D. (1990). Reading Habermas. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Roderick, R. (1986). Habermas and the foundations of critical theory: Theoretical traditions in the social sciences. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Thompson, J., & Held, D. (1982). Habermas: Critical debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, P. (1997). Building Social capital: A learning agenda for the twenty-first century. Urban Studies, 34 (5), 745-760.