critical social theory intro

Upload: marie-ee

Post on 07-Apr-2018

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    1/22

    Critical Social Theory: An Introduction and CritiqueAuthor(s): John P. ScottSource: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 1-21Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/589216 .

    Accessed: 01/08/2011 08:06

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

    you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

    may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

    page of such transmission.

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with

    JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589216?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589216?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black
  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    2/22

    Britishtournalf Sociolog):Volume9 J%umberMarch978John P. Scott

    Critical ocialtheory:an introductionandcritiqueABSTRACT

    This papergives a systematicntroduction o the majorthemesofJurgenHabermas'ormulation f criticalsocialtheory.A discussionof his viewson knowledge, ognitive nterests,and scientificmethodis followedby an accountof his social theoryand his attempttocombine Marxismwith mainstream ociology. In criticismit isarguedthat Habermashas not yet solved all the problemsof a'realist'approach o sociologyand that his synthesiss incomplete.It is arguedthat sociologycan progress hrougha criticaldialoguewith Habermas'work.

    The aim of this paperl is to give an introduction o the thoughtofJurgenHabermasn sucha waythat thosewhoare interestedn under-standinghisideasyet do not havethe stamina o readall hisavailableworkwill possessa 'sketchmap' of his versionof criticalsociology.Hopefully, his will encouragereaders o consultthe originalworks.Onlyon thebasisof informed iscussionan scientific dvancebe made.The fateof complexwriters s to be rejected ather hanrefuted thatis, they aredisregardedecauseof theircomplexity ndobscurity atherthanbecauseof theirlackof scientific igour,validity,etc. The aimofthispaper,then, is to initiatefruitfuldiscussion, o give a systematicaccountof Habermas' deas, and to suggestsomeimportant ines of

    * * @crltlclsm.The workof Habermashas developed,alongwith that of his col-leaguesWellmerand Schmidt,2rom he earlierwork n critical heoryby Adorno,Horkheimer nd othermembers f the Institute orSocialResearch t Frankfurt.3he workof theFrankfurt choolrelates o thedebatesover 'scientific'and 'historicist' pproacheso Marxism,andover the 'Young'and the 'Old' Marx.The criticalapproachbecameincreasinglynvolvedin philosophicaldebatesin Germansociology,resultingin the now-famousconfrontationbetween Adorno andPopper.4Habermashas continued this line of argumentand hasattemptedo developa methodologyorcritical ocial heory hrougha

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    3/22

    jrohnP. Scottsystematicreconstruction f the worksof Hegel and Marx, and acritiqueof 'positivist' nd 'hermeneutic'nterpretationsf science.

    I shall begin by consideringHabermas' heoryof knowledgeandthen turnto his substantive ocialtheory.Havingdiscussedhis fullestandmostsystematic ersions f epistemology ndsocialtheory,I shallturnto his morerecentconsiderationsn methodology.Thereaftershalloutlinesomecriticisms.HABERMAS ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGEHabermas' heory of knowledgeattemptsto establisha connectionbetweenmethodological ules and 'knowledge-constitutiventerests',andto rootthese n a theoryof socialevolution.This is thebasisofhisargumenthatepistemologyodayappears ssocial heory.Specifically,heposits henotionofknowledge-constitutiventerests s a linkbetweenscientificmethodology nd socialaction.Criticalsocialtheory,whichembodiesboth a socialphilosophyand an empirical ociology, s thestandpoint romwhich these interestscan be analysed.Knowledge-constitutiventerests,or cognitive nterests,are transcendental:hey arefundamental rientationso knowledge ndactionwhicharerooted nthe underlying onditions f the evolutionof the humanspecies.Sincethey are necessaryconditions for particulartypes of knowledge,Habermas eeshis typologiesof cognitive nterestsandtypesof know-ledgeas logicallyexhaustive.This analysis s basedon a philosophicalanthropologywhich relatesthe diffierentypes of knowledge o thedeep structureof humanexperience.Cognitive nterestsreferto thelinkbetweenthe origin,application,andvalidityof knowledge,a linkwhich s broughtaboutthrough henecessarymbedding fknowledgein experience nd action.5

    Habermasidentifiesthree cognitive interests:the technical, thepractical,andthe emancipatory. he technical nterestrefers o thoseaspectsof knowledge ndactionwhichareconcernedwithmanipulat-ing theenvironment ndensuring uccessful ction; t involvesgainingand expanding ontrolovernaturalobjectsand events.The practicalinterestrefersto those aspectsof knowledgeand action which areconcernedwith attainingandextendingunderstandingnd consensusin intersubjectiveelations o as to achievecommunityandmutuality.At a moreabstractevel, the emancipatorynterest nvolves iberatingmenfromhistorically ontingent onstraintshrougha process f 'self-reflection'.Whereas he technicalandpractical nterestsare 'primaryformsof cognitiveworld constitution', he emancipatorynterest s aderivative, 'meta-interest'.6t is derivative n the sense that it islinkedwith derivative ypesof action:exploitation ndsystematicallydistortedcommunication; hat is, it relatesto situationswhere thevarious ub-systems f a societyare structuredn ways whichcannotberationally rounded.7 hetechnical ndpracticalnterests reaspects

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    4/22

    Criticalocialheory 3of the processof social evolution,where evolution is seen as theemancipatorytruggleof the human species.8They mustbe compre-hendedas aspectsof the meta-interest f emancipatoryeason tself.In his latestworks,Habermas haracterizeshecognitive nterests sdeep structure rules' n the specificsensethat Chomskyhas given tothat term.Such rulesare to be seenas invariant ocial universals, ndforthis reasonaretranscendentalo immediateexperience.As aspectsof the deepstructure f socialevolution heymakepossible he surfacefeatures f actionandknowledge.Habermas rgues hatthey are'rulesaccording o whichwe constitute he worldof experience',9nd sincethey are not immediately iven to consciousnesshey can only be dis-coveredreflexively hrougha processof reconstruction.The episte-mologistreflectson knowledgeand action and so gives a rationalreconstructionf the underlying uleswhicharepresumedo generatethatknowledge ndaction.Habermasrecognizes hreetypesof knowledgebasedon the threeinterests: analytical-empirical, istorical-hermeneutic,nd critical-dialectical.Analytical-empiricalnowledges that whichis embodiedin the natural sciences.Theorizingconsistsof the constructionofdeductive-nomologicalheorieswhich 'fit'data derived rom observa-tion.l Analytical-empirical nowledgeyields 'information'and isstructurednto explanations'Informations technically tilizableknow-ledgein thesensethat its application an,in principle,expandhumanpowersof technicalcontrolandmanipulation.llHabermasmakes womajorpointsabout analytical-empiricalnowledge:he criticizes he'positivistic'nterpretationf it, andhe argues hatit is too restrictivefor socialphenomena.He arguesthat the dominantapproach o thephilosophy f sciencehas treateda distorted iewof analytical-empiricalknowledgeas the paradigm or all knowledge,and he terms this ap-proach positivism'r 'scientism'.Habermass criticalofthe 'positivisticself-understanding'f analytical-empiricalnowledge,which fails torecognize ts underlying echnical nterest.l2But he arguesthat thisorthodoxyhas comeinto questiondue to the worksof Kuhn, Feyera-bend,Lakatos, ndToulmin,andby worksn theanalyticalphilosophyof language.l3Additionally,he claims that Popperhimselfhas beenconsistently riticalof elementsof positivism,althoughhe has nevertakenthesecriticisms o theirlogicalconclusion.Habermas' riticismof theanalytical-empiricalpproachn socialscience s thatit is undulyrestrictive.Specifically,he criticizesits empiricism n favour of arealistor essentialist osition,according o whichit is necessary hattheorygrasps hereal structure f the socialtotality.l4The historical-hermeneuticnowledge f the cultural ciencesworksthrougha 'cycleof interpretation'the hermeneutic ircle) in whichtheorizingalwaysdependsupona priorunderstandingf the objectofknowledge. t aimsto relateordinaryutterances nd socialproducts othe sociallife-worldn whichthey are constituted.This is the method

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    5/22

    jrohnP. Scottof Verstehen.lHistorical-hermeneuticnowledge ields interpretations'andis structuredntoprocesses f 'understanding'.nterpretationsrepracticallyrelevantknowledge, n the sense that they aid 'mutualunderstandingn the conductof life'.l6Critical-dialecticalnowledges specific o socialscienceand com-binestheothertwoformsofknowledgeby recognizingheir imitationsand the need to reconcilethem in a highersynthesis.Examplesofcriticalsciencesgivenby Habermasarepsychoanalysisnd Marxism,althoughhe claims hatbothFreudandMarxtended o interpretheirworkspositivistically.Criticalsocial theoryhas both a philosophicaland a sociological omponent. ts philosophical omponent akestheconnectionbetweenknowledgeand interestsas it object,whilst thesociological omponent xamines he structures f thevarious ormsofsocietywhichhaveexisted n humanhistory.The twocomponents relinked,in as muchas evolution s seenas a processof historical self-formation'.l7Criticaltheoryaims to restore o men an awareness ftheirpositionas active,yet historicallyimitedsubjects. n so faras itdiscoverswhichformsof constrainton humanfreedomare necessaryandwhicharehistoricallypecific, t generates critiqueofsociety: heinstitutionsof a societyare comparedwith the objectivepossibilitiesofhumandevelopment,withtheidealofa rational ociety. n thisway,actorscan achievea historically onditionedautonomyandso engagein rationalsocialchange.Therefore, riticalsocialtheorygoesbeyondthe nomologicalknowledgeof the analytical-empiricalpproach norder o discoverwhentheoretical tatements rasp invariant egulari-ties of social action as such' and when they express'ideologicallyfrozenrelationsof dependence'.l8The result s a 'criticallymediatedknowledge flaws'.l9 n achieving his t combinesheunderstandingfsubjectivelyntendedmeaningswithrealcausalmechanisms.Habermasargues hat 'Bylinking he methodof Verstehenn thismannerwiththeobjectivating rocedures f causal-analyticalcienceandby permittingthe realizationof both througha mutually ranscendingritique, hedialectical pproach vercomesheseparation f theoryandhistory.'20In so far as it embodiesboth information ndinterpretation,riticalknowledges structured s an 'explanatory nderstanding'.Habermas emarks-andthismaysurprisemanyof hiscritics-thatmuchsociology,recent Germansociology n particular,comesveryclose ohisnotionofcritical ocial heory.Hegoessofarasto argue hatmorettentionshouldbe paid to acquiringanalytical-empiricalnow-ledgeof socialregularities.Sociologistsoughtto devoteall efforts oacquiringmoreandbetter nformationfthiskind'.2lGerman ociologyunlikeeconomicsandpoliticalscience-has continued o placesuchnomologicalnformationn thecontextofa historically riented heoryofsocietywhichfurthershe self-understandingf the actingsubjects.Hisreason orentering nto 'the Positivistdispute'wasthathe wishedto criticize the positivistic nterpretationof social science, and so

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    6/22

    Critical ocialtheory 5prevent ociologyrombecomingustonemorespecializedechnocraticscience.Critical ocial heory s notanideal,it is anendangeredeality.Habermasaimsnot to rejectpreviousapproacheso sociology,but topoint out their limitationsand to incorporate hem in a broadersynthesis.HABERMAS SOCIAL THEORYThe context orHabermas' ocialtheory,andthereforeorhisanalysisof knowledge,s an essentiallyHegeliannotionof the evolutionof thehuman peciesasa process fformation, reducation.Habermas rguesthat this formationprocessoperates hroughsocial 'media', .e. basicsocial mechanismswhich underlydifferentaspectsof the processofevolution.Habermas' houghton the social media has undergoneanumberofmodifications.t wasnotuntilhe re-examinedHegel'searlyphilosophy hat he succeededn arrivingat a coherentanalysisof thethreesocialmediaof humanevolution.22His solutionwas to presentlanguage, abour,andinteraction s threesocialmedia,with 'domina-tion' as a categoryreferring o the specifichistoricaldistortionsoflabourand interactionwhicharisein the courseof socialevolution.In his analysisof Hegel'searlyphilosophyof mind,Habermas howsthat, for Hegel, the evolutionaryformation of self-consciousnessinvolved hree undamental spects f'Absolutepirit'whichHabermasidentiSesassymbolic epresentationor anguage),nstrumentalction,and communicative ction. Together,these definethe two concreteformsof 'Actual pirit': ocial abour(orwork)andsocial nteraction.23In theconcrete ormsof humansociety, nstrumental ctionappearsas social labour,and communicative ction appearsas social inter-action. Whilstthe abstract ypes of action are each separatelycon-stituted throughlanguage, the concrete types of social action aredependentupon one another.Both the technicalrulesemployed nsocial labourand the normsof social interactionare formulatednlanguage,andthetwotypesof action henenter ntoan interdependentrelationshipwith one another. On the one hand, the cooperationnecessaryorsocial abourmustbe backedup by socialnorms;on theother hand, mutual recognition n interactiondepends upon therecognition f rightsof possession,ndpossessionrises rom helabourprocess.24 hus, the interdependencef social abourandsocial nter-action n humanevolution hows hatemancipationmusttakeaccountof the nterconnectionbetween hem.Andit is onthisbasis hatHabermasjustifieshis argumentthat a critical social theory, oriented by anemancipatorynterest, nvolves he synthesis f the typesof knowledgegenerated hrough he technicalandpractical nterests.It is the types of action and social action which constitutethescaffioldingf Habermas'work, and each mustbe discussedn moredetail.

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    7/22

    6 jrohn . Scotts. Instrumentalctions nd he ocial abourrocessHabermassees instrumentalaction (tweckrationalitat)n terms of astrictmeans-end elationship ndstrategic hoice.The strategic lementinvolvesanalyticalknowledgederived romformalcalculations n thebasis of preference ules and decisionrules; the means-endelementinvolvesempiricalknowledgederived romconditionalpredictions nthe basis of technical rules and observations. nstrumentalactioninvolves he assessment f alternative hoices n termsof the effectivecontrol of external reality, although such actions may or may notachieve the desiredend. Contrary o what Habermasoften implies,this type of action s not defined n termsof the employment f accurateanalytical-empiricalcientificknowledge.Rather, he action s definedfrom hepointofviewofthe actor n terms f Parsons' attern ariables.25Instrumental ction involvesneutrality, pecificity,universalism, ndperformance.Habermasarguesthat the learningprocess nvolved ninstrumental ction concerns he acquisition f problem-solvingkills,and that the failureof an action indicates he actor's ncompetence.The paradigm or instrumental ction s the labourprocess, ince it ishere that instrumentalactions are most clearly and systematicallymanifested.Labour s seen as the processwhich regulates he materialinterchange, r metabolism, etweenman and nature: t is the processof transforminghe material basis through which the survival andreproduction f the species s ensured.262. Communicativections nd ocial nteractionCommunicative ction is governedby consensual ormswhich definereciprocalbehavioural xpectations.Such normsmust be understoodand recognized s bindingby the actors,and they are enforced hroughthe use of sanctions. It is this intersubjectiveunderstandingandrecognitionwhichvalidates he norms.This type of action s not definedas irrational,or even non-rational Habermasclaims that it follows'the rationalityof language games'. Like instrumentalaction, it isdefined rom he actor'spointof view in termsofthe patternvariables-this time, affectivity,diffuseness,particularism, nd quality.27Thelearningprocessnvolved n communicativection s the internalizationof motivations,and failure s indicativeof deviance.28 he paradigmfor communicative ction is the reciprocityand mutualityof socialinteraction: he process hroughwhich the speciesconstructsa con-sciousness f itself as a subject.Each type of socialactioncan be analysed n termsof the particularsocial systemswith which it is associated.Social interaction eneratesan 'institutional ramework' or 'socio-culturalife-world')which isparticularly ealized n systems uch as familwrnd kinship,although tpermeates he whole of society.The sub-system f instrumental ctiorlcomprises he economy and the state apparatus,both of which are

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    8/22

    Criticalocial heory 7'embedded'n the institutionalramework. s has alreadybeen argued,labour and interaction are interdependent.However, Habermasrecognizes hat the institutionalramework as a certain'priority' nthe constitutionof society: 'Of course, only institutionalizationanguarantee hat such [instrumental] ction will in fact follow definitetechnical rules and expectedstrategieswith adequateprobability.'29Technical rules must be backed-upby the bindingpower of socialnorms.Politicaleconomyhas as its objectthe socialsystemsof instrumentalactionand Habermas elieves hat Marx'scritiqueof politicaleconomyis the exemplar or criticalsocialscience n this area. Fromthe stand-point of Habermas'Marxism, ocial abour s the universal lementofall social life throughwhich man seeks to satisfyhis basic needs. Itconsistsof the natural nterchangebetweenman and his environment.This 'material' elationof man to nature s a conditionof existence orthe individual,and is the dynamicof social evolution.Labouroccursunderdefinitehistorical orms,definitemodesof production.t is in themode of production hat the techniquesof instrumental ction (theforcesof production) reembedded n a particular spectof the institu-tional framework the relationsof production).Marx'scontribution ocritical ocialsciencewas toshowthat n all knownmodesof productionlabour was performed nderconditionsof an alienation rom its truenatureas an expression f species-being.Exploitation's any structureof the relationsof productionwhich generatesalienated abour. Theaim of the critiqueof politicaleconomy s to showthatexploitations ahistoricallypecific ormofdominationwhichcan be dispensedwith n afully rational ociety.30But Marx'scritiqueof politicaleconomywas not a completecriticalsocial science. Whilst he criticized he form of domination ound insystemsof instrumental ction(exploitation),Marxdidlittleto criticizethe formof domination ound n systemsof communicativection. Heexamined he materialand instrumental reconditionsor a rationalsociety,but he did not discusshe formsof communicationharacteristicof such a society.This is the taskwhich Habermas etsfor himself.Hisaim is to constructan 'ideology-critique', critiqueof systematicallydistortedcommunication.Only in this way can Marx'scriticalsocialsciencebe completed.To this end Habermashas begunto constructtheoryof communications such.

    Habermas rgues hat the traditionalhermeneutic nderstandingfcommunication elies on the notion of 'communicativeompetence',and that for this reason, he hermeneutic pproachcan be employedonly if actorsare 'competent'.This leadshim to the problemof definingcommunicativeompetence.He criticizesChomsky'smodelof languagefor separating bstract competence'rom actual 'performance'. om-petencerefers o an abstractystemof rulesbasedon aninnate anguageapparatusof linguisticuniversals;performance efersto the use of

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    9/22

    8 ,7ohnP. Scottlanguage n actual speech and is determinedby peripheralpsycho-logical and sociologicalconditionswhich restrictthe applicationoflinguistic competence.3lChomsky'smodel requires that phonetics,grammar, nd semantics e rigidlyseparated rompragmatics.Haber-mas startsout by criticizing he applicationof this idea to semantics,arguing hat not all universalmeaningsneed be regardedas innate-even though they are 'universal', hey may nevertheless e culturallydetermined.Universalmeaningelements for example,kinship erms)may derive rom eaturespecific to culture,but which arecommon to allcultures.Habermas ttempts o show that communicative ompetencedependsupon both innate anguagecapacityand certain ocio-culturalconditions.He argues hat 'in order o participaten normaldiscourse,the speakermust have in addition to his linguistic competence-basic qualificationsof speech and of symbolic interaction (role-behaviour)at his disposal,which we may call communicative ompet-ence'.32Communicative ompetence s a set of abstractrules whichgenerate what Habermasterms an 'ideal speech community'.Hisanalysis elates o the intersubjectivend institutional onditionswhichmake mutual understanding ossible. People are not competent ifthese conditionsdo not exist, and if people are not competent, heircommunicative actions are systematically distorted. Traditionalhermeneutics eedsto be modified o as to take accountof this notionof communicative ompetence.Wherecommunications organized nthe basisof social domination, ather han on the basisof a free com-munityof speakers, ermeneutics ives way to 'ideology-critique'.Habermas'next task is to give a more specificdefinitionof syste-maticallydistorted ommunication.He argues hat it can fairlyeasilybe recognized n the individual evel, if, for example, here s a speechdisturbancedue to a failureof the speaker o followthe normalcon-ventions of his society. However, t can also exist where the normalconventions hemselves re at fault: 'Pseudo-communicationroducesa systemof reciprocalmisunderstandings,hich are not recognized ssuch, due to the pretenceof pseudo-consensus. nly a neutralobservernotices hat the participants o not understand ne another.'33Haber-mas takes Freud'spsychoanalysis s his startingpoint for an analysisof this phenomenon nd attempts o relate his to his notionof the idealspeechcommunity.This dealrarely xists n actual ocial ituations ndHabermaswouldargue hat all known ocieties an be analysedas pat-ternsof systematically istorted ommunication.t is worthquotinghimat lengthon the conditionswhichmust be met forfreecommunication:

    An unlimited nterchangeabilityf dialogueroles demands hat noside be privileged n the performance f these roles: pure intersub-jectivityexistsonly when there s complete ymmetryn the distribu-tion of assertion nd disputation, evelation nd hiding,prescriptionawndollowingamong the partnersof communicationAs long as

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    10/22

    Criticalocialtheory 9thesesymmetries xist,communicationwillnot be hinderedby con-straintsarising rom tsownstructure:I) in thecaseof unrestricteddiscussion in which no prejudicedopinioncan continuallyavoidbeingmadethematicand beingcriticized) t is possible o developstrategies or reachingunconstrained onsensus; 2) basedon themutuality of unimpairedself-representationwhich includes theacknowledgmentf the self-representationf the Otheras well), itis possible o achievesubtlenearnessalongwith inviolabledistanceamong hepartners ndthatmeanscommunicationnderconditionsof extreme ndividuation; 3) in the caseof fullcomplementationfexpectations whichexcludesone-sidedobligingnorms),the claimof universalunderstandingxistsaswell as thenecessity f universa-lizednorms.These hree ymmetriesepresent, ytheway,a linguisticconceptualizationorthat whichwe traditionally pprehendas theideasof truth,freedom,andjustice.34Wherethe intersubjectiveonditionsof symbolic nteraction role-playing)are not basedon truth,freedomandjustice, communicativeaction s systematically istorted.Social nteractionn realsituationssnotprimarily ontrolledby motiveswhichcoincidewiththeintentions

    of the actor the greaterthe importanceof those underlyingneedswhich cannot freely be converted nto public communications,hegreater hedegreeofsystematic istortioni.e.theless competent's theactor).The degreeof systematicdistortionncreaseswith the generallevelofrepressive ominationn a society, helatterbeingdependent,nturn,on the developmentaltageof theproductiveorcesandpoliticalpower.My main aim in this paper is to outline the main featuresofHabermas'approach o sociology,but someaccountmustbe givenofhowhe employshisparticular rientationn studyingactualprocessesof change.In broad erms, he mainproblemof historical ociology,asHabermas eesit, is the transition romtraditional o rational ociety.Capitalisms seen as the formof societywhichmakesthe firstbreakwith traditionalismn the nameof rationality.Habermasargues hatthisprocess anbefulfilledonlythrough hesupersessionfcapitalism:the full developmentof the principleof rationality s incompatiblewith the capitalistorm n whichit wasnurtured.35 he fullyrationalsociety s the culmination f humanevolution.To thisend,Habermassees t asnecessaryoreconstructhehistoricalmaterialist ccountofthestagesof socialdevelopment.A classification f stagesmustbe basedupon the formstakenby both labourand interaction.36 erhaps hemost importantaspect of this scheme of social development s hisargument hat it is important o distinguish liberalcapitalism' rom'latecapitalism'.Eachof the societaltypeswhichhe identifies s definedby a parti-cular 'organizationalprinciple' which determinesthe patterns of

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    11/22

    IO jfohnP. Scottexploitationand systematicallydistortedcommunication. n liberalcapitalism, he organizational rinciplewasthat of the market,whichgave rise to a classpolarizedsocietyand to endemiceconomiccrisistendencies.The systemas a whole was legitimated n terms of theapparentexchange f equivalents'whichobscuredhe realexploitativerelationsof the appropriation f surplusvalue. The developmentofoligopolyand state interventiondestroysthis systemand createsaqualitativelynew form of capitalistsociety in which many of theoriginalMarxian deasno longerhold. In latecapitalism,he economiccrisis endencies an be resolved,but only at the expenseof displacingthem to the political evel. The statecan regulate he crisesof a marketeconomy,but only by creatingpersistentadministrative nd fiscalcrises oritself.At thesame time,the end of the free marketmeans heend of its legitimating unction.The advancedcapitalist tate facesalegitimation risiswhichcan only be resolved hroughchanges n thestructure f communicativections.The principleof 'rationality'mustbe extendedfrom the sphere of instrumental ction to that of com-municativeaction:but the type of legitimation eneratedn an idealspeech community would be incompatiblewith the exploitativestructure f capitalism.The capitalist ystem aces a dilemma: t triesto continuewithout rational legitimation,or it bringsinto being asystemof legitimationwhich underminest. At this pointwe reachthefrontiers f Habermas'work.This s the empirical ndpractical roblemto whichall his workhas beendirected.His solutionso thisproblem reonly now emerging.37KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY REVISITED: SOME RECENTDEVELOPMENTS AND SOME CRITICISMS

    Habermas' atest developmentsn the area of the analysisof com-municationhave requireda reconstruction f his epistemology.Ipropose o examine he mainthemesof his arguments ndto take theseas a startingpointfor a criticalcommentary n his work.His recentdevelopments n epistemologyhave centred around a distinctionbetween everyday communicationand discursivecommunication.Everyday ommunicationnvolvesa body of common-sensenowledgewhich s the taken-for-grantedontext or experience ndaction.Bothsocial abourand social nteraction re rooted n this mmediate ction-contextof common-sensenowledge.Habermasargues hat this bodyof knowledge eneratesaction-relatednterpretationsf experience'.38Discursive ommunication, iscourse,akesnothing orgrantedandis'argumentative easoning'.Discourseinvolves a phenomenologicalreduction n which everydaybeliefis suspended o that a thoroughinvestigation f knowledgecan take place. Only throughsuch a dis-coursecan a rational, rue, consensus e achieved.39

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    12/22

    Critical ocialtheory I IThe common-senseknowledgewhich is relevantto instrumentalaction involvessensoryexperienceon the basisof observation.The

    experiencing f thingsandevents nvolvesno shift n orientationwhenwe movefromthe level of perceptiontselfto the level of statementsabout perception:both involve the descriptionf sensoryexperience.Descriptionnablesustoproceed o a causalexplanation.Thecommon-senseknowledgewhichis relevantto communicative ction involvescommunicative xperience n the basisof understanding. he experi-encing of personsand utterancesdoes involve a shift in orientationbetween first- and second-orderconstructs:40irst-ordermeaningsderivefromparticipationn interpersonalelationships, hilstsecond-ordermeanings nvolvethe objectivation f experiencento a 'narra-tion', whichis the basisof a narrativenterpretation. he theoreticalpropositionswhich are formulated n discursivecommunication redevelopmentsof second-order onstructs,and it can be seen thatHabermas'discussionof analytical-empiricalcience and historical-hermeneutic cience relatesto the differentialrootingof these twosciences in everydayknowledge.The notion of cognitive interestexpresseshe conceptual inkbetween heoreticaldiscourse nd every-

    < . . -day actlonorlentatlons:Statementsabout the objectdomainof thingsand happenings orabout deeper structuresmanifestingthemselvesin things andhappenings)can only be retranslatednto orientationsgoverningpurposively ationalaction (i.e. technologies nd strategies).Like-wisestatementsaboutthe objectdomainof personsand utterances(orthe deeperstructures f socialsystems) an only be retranslatedintoorientations overning ommunicative ction.4lWe may now returnto the emancipatorynterest.This, too, links

    the levels of everydayand discursiveknowledge.At the experientiallevelis knowledge elated o actionswhichareaimedat theremovalofunnecessaryconstraints('self-reflection'); t the discursive evel issystematic nowledge imedat the explanatory nderstandingfsocialevolution('rationalreconstruction').Criticalsocial theory,which isbased on the emancipatorynterest,expresses he relationbetweenself-reflectionnd rationalreconstruction:hat is, it comprehendsheinterdependenceetweennstrumentalndcommunicativexperiencesin termsof a theoryof society n whichanalytical-empiricalndhisto-rical-hermeneuticormsof knowledgeare synthesized.Self-reflectionrelates to individual experienceand development.It analysestheimpactof ideologyand dominationon personalawareness,t makestransparenthepreviously bscuredevelsof experience, ndit aidsinthe directliberationof the individual romquasi-natural onstraints.It is attachedto individual earningexperiences nd is illustrated nthe therapeutic ontextwherethe patientgraduallycomesto acceptthe 'correct' nterpretation f his experience.Rationalreconstruction

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    13/22

    I2 John P. Scott1lncovershe deeplyrootedregulatorymechanismswhichevery ndivi-ual requiresn orderto engage n any kindof cognitiveactivity.Itiscloseshesetsof 'rules' suchasthoseof logicandlinguistics)whichan universallybe mastered-thus, Habermas ormulates he 'rules'f communicativecompetenceas Marxformulated he 'rules'of theeallabourprocess.The leastdevelopedpart of Habermas' heoryof knowledges hisiscussion f the connectionbetweentheoryand practice.The mainointof his argument s that an assessment f the validityof socialheoryis not sufficient:the 'therapeutic'applicationof theory toractices a processof enlightenmentwhichinvolves he 'authentica-ion'of tlle theoryby socialactors.In its connectionwith an emanci-atorynterest,criticalsocial theoryaims to show particular ocialroupshat the theorycan give themself-knowledgendthat it is ancceptablereconstructionf theirsituation.42 he importantquestion,f ourse, s that of whichsocialgroups he critical heorist s to enternto ialoguewithin order o authenticate istheory.ForMarx,thereasittledoubtthat t wastheproletariat, utHabermas rgues hatinateapitalismhe capitalist lassrelationsareno longeractualizednealocialgroups.Theserelationsare latent withinthe society,but onheurface hereis a pluralityof actual socialgroupingsn varyingelationsf consensus,competition, ndconflict.The traditional role-ariats no longer the appropriatesubject for critical theory.43abermas'onclusion eems o be thatthe empiricaldiscoveries asednritical ocialsciencewillthemselves ointto thegroupswhichofferheostpossibility s agentsof socialchange.Habermasurther rgues hatcritical ocial heory tselfcannotyieldtrategicnd tactical knowledge:no science can replace practicalrocessesf will-formation nd decision-making. he achievement futhenticatednowledgeproducesan enlightened ocialgroupwithinhichhe conditions f an idealspeechcommunity reapproximated,ndhis is the condition or the achievement f a rationalconsensusvertrategies ndtactics.Critical ocialtheoryestablisheshe condi-ionsnderwhichappropriatetrategies an arise,but it cannotpre-udgehe outcomeof practicaldiscourse.The successof a strategyhouldesult n progressowardsa rational ociety.Eachstagein thisrogressroadensthe social groupingwithin which enlightenmentxists,ndtheendresult s therecreation ftheclassicalpublic phere'nheevel of societyas a whole.Farfrombeingmerely he depoliti-izedpherecharacteristic f late capitalism,a true publicsphere snenwhich open, practicaldiscourseeads to a meaningfulpublicpinion.44hesocietyaimedat bycritical ocial heory s onein whichationalitys fullyrealized;a society n whichthe publicas a wholeeterminests ownfuture n a rationalandautonomousway. Criticalocialheoryaimsat a society n whichmenmaketheirownhistory nfullconsciousnessf theircapabilities nd limitations.

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    14/22

    Critical ocialtheory I3Clearly,the plausibilityof Habermas'remarkson the problemoflinking heoryandpracticedependsuponhismoregeneral pistemology

    and social theory.In so far as the cognitive nterestsare the 'deepstructure ules'whichconnecteverydayknowledge,discursiveknow-ledge,andthetheoryofknowledgetself, t mightseemthattheyareatthecoreof criticalsocialtheory.In a sensethisis true,forthe interestsare the threadswhich hold his arguments ogether.But in anothersensethe interestsareof quitesecondarymportance.His argumentsthat the logicof particular ormsof knowledge mplies a particularrelationshipbetweenthat knowledgeand social life. As Habermas'recent discussionof the connectionbetweencommon-sense nd dis-course hows, ormsofknowledge avea differentialootingn everydayexperience.Scientificdiscoursereflectsupon problemsgenerated neverydayifeandsubjectshemto systematic xamination. incesocialactions are structured n certain ways, correspondingdistinctionswithinthe sphereof knowledgewill also be possible.The conceptof'interest'merely makes this connectionclear. For this reason,anycriticism f thenatureof theinterests rof theirnumber,mustdependupon a priorcriticismof Habermas'conceptionsof knowledgeandsociety.AsHabermas rgues:epistemologymustbe seenasanaspectofsocial heory; ocial heoryexplainshumanevolution;andthecognitiveinterestsrelate to the media of evolution.45My critical comments,therefore, oncentrate n his analysesof knowledgeand society,sincetheseare the real core of criticalsocialtheory.In particular, shallinvestigatewocentralproblems:irst,hisviewofknowledgen generaland of sociologicalknowledge n particular;second, his attemptedsynthesis f approacheso socialtheory.I wishto argue hatHabermas asan inadequate iewof themetho-dologyof the naturalsciences,and that this createsproblems or hisview of sociologicalknowledge.Habermas eesthe naturalsciencesasgeneratinganalytical-empiricalnowledgeand his sole criticismcon-cerns ts 'positivistic'nterpretation.Whilsthe makesreference o thecriticismsof positivismby Kuhn, Feyerabendand others,he fails torecognize hat thesecriticismsare linkedwith thoseof otherwriterswho reject the 'empiricism'of the orthodoxphilosophyof naturalscience.Basing hemselves n the workof Harre,a numberof writershave formulateda 'realist'interpretation f natural science whichcorrespondsn all essentials o Habermas'realist interpretationofsocial science.46The realistpositionholds that analytical-empiricalknowledgeailsto distinguish etweenproviding rounds orexpectingan eventto occur(ratio ognoscendi)ndgivinga causalexplanation fwhy the eventoccurred ratio ssendi), ndthatobservationalactsare'constructed'ather han'given'.Thus,an attack s madeagainstboththe 'analytical' ndthe 'empirical' omponents f analytical-empiricalknowledge.According o the realist,scienceattempts o uncoverthereal causalmechanismswhich generateeventsin the world, and so

    B

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    15/22

    jeohnP. Scott4attemptsto orderthis knowledge n termsof a conceptualscheme.Scientific heoryaimsto representhe structureof real factorswhichoperatewith causal force. Habermasrecognizes he importanceofargumentsuchastheseforthesocialsciences,butfailsto undertakesufficiently adicalexamination f the naturalsciences.47His view ofnatural cience akesovertheverynominalismwhichmanypeopleare

    .nowreJectlng.At thesametimehisviewofthehistorical-hermeneuticnowledge fthe culturalsciencestakesover a relativistic,and hence nominalist,viewof knowledge.Butif Habermaswishes o arguethattheinterpre-tationof meaning s a crucialpartof criticalsocialtheory,he cannotrejectthe idea thatstructures f meaningarereal.It is difficult o seehow Habermas ouldsynthesize wo nominalisticormsof knowledgeandobtaina bodyofknowledge oncerningeal structures.However,fit isaccepted hatthenatural ciencesandthecultural ciencesmustbeinterpretedn a realistway, thena realist ocialscience s oncemoreapossibility.WhilstHabermas'derivationof a realistsociologymaybeat fault, t maystillbe thathisproject s feasible. f thesequalificationsareaccepted, t is possible o assesshisviewson the critical-dialecticalknowledge f the socialsciences.Habermas' iewofsociological nowledgemplies hatthesociologistconstructsheoreticalmodelswhichrepresentherealsocialstructuringof actionwhich results romthe operationof both natural,materialforcesandculturaldeas.The basicproblemof thisargument oncernsthereality tatusofthesemodels: sHabermasakinga materialist ranidealistposition?If he wereto adopta materialist iew of theoreticalmodelshe wouldhaveto argue hatsocialstructures,uchasthemodeof production, ada materialexistencen thesocialworld.But,it wasprecisely o avoid this kind of materialismhat Habermas,and the

    earliermembersof the FrankfurtSchool,attempted o drawon thearguments f German dealism.48However, he idealistposition tselfcanbe nomoreacceptablehanthematerialist.f socialstructures anideal entitywhich is not the arbitrary onstruction f an individualtheorist henit mustbe immanent n socialaction,thoughnotpresentina material ense.Habermasries o avoidthedilemmaofmaterialismversus dealismby basinghis argumenton structuralinguistics. ustas the linguistgivesa rationalreconstructionf the rulesof grammarwhichare inherentin speech, though they may not necessarilybeconsciously pprehended y the speaker, o the criticalsocialtheoristattemptsa reconstruction f the rulesof social grammarwhich areinherentn socialaction.I havealready hown hatHabermas imstoreconstructhe 'rules'ofcommunicativeompetence ndof thelabourprocess.49Whilst this argumentcertainlyclarifies he natureof theproblemnt by no meansconstitutes solution.It is stillnecessaryoknowthe realityof the 'grammar' r 'rules' dentified.They cannothavea nominalist tatusas simpleconstructions y the theorist, ince

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    16/22

    Criticalocialheory I5they are held to be real structures.But neithercan they be seen asnecessaryprinciplesof the humanmind,sinceHabermashas alreadyrejected hispossibility ndit would n anycasepreclude hediscoveryof particular rammars elating o thespecific tagesof humanhistorywhich Habermasrecognizes.50Habermashas failed to solve theproblemof sociological ealism.Habermas s not alone in this failure.The problem s at the veryfrontiers f knowledge ndis being nvestigated y numerouswriters.5lWhilstwe musthope for and expecta solution n the nearfuture, tmustbe recognizedhatthere s no obvious olutionat present.Haber-mas' problem s the problemof all realistpositionsand it is to beexpected hatanyattempt o resolve hisproblemwill reflectupontheissueswhichHabermashasopened.The synthesisof substantiveapproaches o social theory whichHabermashas attemptedto produceis perhapsthe most strikingfeatureofhiswork,andisoneofhismost mportant ontributionso thecontemporaryociological cene.Habermas'attemptat an integratedsocialsciencehas drawnon manyapproacheso sociologywhicharegenerallyseen as incommensurable. e considers he issuesraised nthe systems heoriesof Parsons ndLuhmann, he 'phenomenological'worksof Schutzand the ethnomethodologists,52he hermeneutics fGadamer,53nd the philosophyand sociologyof language.54All thiswork s discussedn thecontextof thedebatesbequeathedo sociologyby the classicalworksof Marxand Weber.It is this integratedandcoherentview of sociology, f nothingelse, which shouldforceus toconsiderHabermas'work.55n viewof thisfact t is essentialoexaminethe successof his synthesis f divergent ociologicalendencies.Suchahugetaskcanonlybe introducedhere,andI propose o examine wointerrelated roblems:whetherHabermas asreconciledhe 'material'focusof Marx'soriginal heorywiththecultural, ymbolic ocuswhichhe has taken over from phenomenology nd systemstheory,56andwhetherhe has brought ogether helevelsof socialactionand socialsystem,or, morebroadly,atomismand holism.57Theseproblems anbestbe discussedhrougha considerationf Habermas' onceptof the'institutionalframework'.Habermasargues that the economy isembeddedn aninstitutionalrameworkf socialnorms, hroughwhichculturalvalues and meaningsare structuredand which 'guarantees'that instrumentalactionswill follow technical rules. This will berecognizedas a versionof Durkheim's lassicalargumentabout the'non-contractual'lementin contract.However,Habermasgives noanalysisof thisinstitutionalramework;t is usedasan unproblematiccategory.WhereasMarx took the threevolumesof Catital o give adetailed,but unfinished,analysisof what Habermascalls the 'sub-systemof instrumental ction',Habermas ivesno comparablenvesti-gation of the institutionalmechanisms f communicative ction.Hisdiscussion f communication nd interactions pitchedat the levelof

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    17/22

    I6 jtohnP. Scottindividual action processesand he does not considerthe structuralfeatures of communication ystems. Whilst the latter is central toParsons' ociology,58Habermasdoes not followhim into this area. Allthat Habermasprovidesare various cattered emarks.At a numberof points n his writingsHabermas uggests, lthoughhedoes not explicitlydevelop the idea, that role theorycan be re-inter-preted n the light of his modelof distorted ommunication.59 odernsociological nalysis and he is presumably eferringo the debateoverDahrendorf'slassicpaper60-seessymbolic nteractionn termsof rolebehaviour,but the concept of role is not seen as being historicallyspecific.It is necessary o approach ole theory n the same way thatMarx approached he theoryof the market both 'role' and 'market'are historically pecific ormsof actionwhich are not applicable o allstagesof socialdevelopment.6l ociology endsto reify socialrole' andso losesthe historical,dynamicdimension. n order o relate his to hiscommunicationheory,Habermaswould have to arguethat roles areassociatedwith particularvocabulariesof motive, that actors areconstrained o express hemselves n termsof these vocabularies, ndthat they may nternalize hem and accept hem as theirown. In suchasituation any consensuswill be 'false' owing to the absence of theconditions f the ideal speechcommunity: ommunications structuredthrough he dominance f one classover another.However,Habermashas, so far, spent little time in attempting o build such a bridgewithorthodox ociology.Habermasmust continue o developsuch themes.He must recognize hat the institutional rameworks a structureofobjectiverelationsbetweensocial positions,a structurewhich is con-structed on the basis of cultural meaningsand which providesthecontext within which individualactions take place. Instead of con-centrating n individual ctions hemselves e must nvestigate he waysin which they produceand reproduce n objective ocialstructure ndthe ways in which this structure, n its turn, producesand reproducesindividual actions.62Habermas fails to integrate the 'action' and'system' evelsand thereby ailsto integrateMarxianpoliticaleconomywith a theoryof the institutionalramework.n order o achieve uch asynthesisHabermasmust not merely examine these problemsat thegeneral heoretical evel, he mustalso nvestigate he structure f parti-cular social institutions and the mechanisms hrough which theyoperate.63This would require that he extend his analysisof 'syste-maticallydistortedcommunication' nd 'communicative ompetence'to a full analysisof the normative tructures f the institutional rame-work.CONCLUSIONI have argued that Habermas, ik-emany other writers, s grapplingwith the very difficultepistemological roblemsof a 'realist'social

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    18/22

    Crzticalocial heory I7science.To the extent that the problemsof this positionhave beenclarified,Habermashas made an importantcontribution o theirsolution. Equally, his attemptedsynthesisof social theoriespointstowards omefruitfuldevelopmentsn substantiveociological heoriz-ing, altlloughit cannot yet be regardedas a completedsynthesisHabermas'work cannot be acceptedas it stands,since it involvesmanyserious lawsandomissions.However,his visionof an integratedsocialscienceand of its contributiono the achievement f a rationalsociety requirethat we considerhis work seriouslyand attempttocorrectit and develop it. Sociologycan progress hroughcriticallyassessingheworkof a writersuch asHabermas.The aim of this paperhasbeen to introducehis ideasand to suggest ome areas n which ourcritical attentionshould be concentrated.Habermasis a difficultwriter to understand,but this should not result in his work beingignored.

    jrohn . Scott, .SC.(SOC.), PH.D.LecturernSociolog)sUniversityf LeicesterNotes

    I. A much earlierdraftof sectionsofthis paper was delivered to DavidMartin'sGraduate Seminaron Socio-logicalTheory at the LondonSchoolofEconomics n I972. The present paperincorporates more detaileddiscussionof Habermas'ater works.I am gratefulto my colleaguesn the TuesdayEveningSeminar at Leicester University, andparticularlyto ChristopherDandeker,for commentson a previousdraft. Theworksof Habermasare cited accordingto their title; full detailsof publicationare givenin theappendedbibliography.. For Habermas'work see biblio-graphy. A. Wellmer,CriticalTheory fSociety,New York, Herderand Herder,I97I; A, Schmidt, fhe Conceptf Naturein Marx,London,New Left Books, 97 I .

    3. For an accountof the historyof theInstitute and the ideas of its leadingthinkers see M. Jay, The DialecticalImagination,ondon, Heinemann,I 972;P. Slater, Origins nd Developmentf theFrankfurtchool,London, Routledge &KeganPaul, I977.4. T. AcIornot al., ThePositivist is-pute n Germanociology,ondon,Heine-mann, I976.

    5. Habermas,'KnowledgeandHumanInterests'.For a generaldiscussion f thecognitive interests see N. Lobkowicz,'Interestand Objectivity',and F. Dall-mayr, 'CriticalTheoryCriticized',bothin Philosophyf theSocialSciences,ol. ,no. 3 (I972)6. C. Lenhardt,The Riseand Fall ofTranscendentalnthropology',hilosophyof theSocialSciences,ol. 2, no. 3 (I972),p. 239s7. Habermas, A Postscript o Know-ledge ndHumannterests'.8. T. Schroyer, 'The Politics ofEpistemology',InternationalfournalofSociolog)t,ol. 2, no. I (Winter 97I-2).Schroyerwrites that the technical andpracticalinterestsare 'moments n thedialecticof social evolution',but little isgained from this formulation.See alsoT. Schroyer,Ehe Critique f Domination,New York,GeorgeBraziller, 973.9. Citedin Lenhardt,op. cit., p. 242.See also Habermas 'A Postscript toKnowledgendHumannterests'.

    IO. Habermashas in mincIthe so-called 'covering law' paradigmof ex-planationassociatedwith writers uch asPopper,Hempel, and Nagel.

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    19/22

    XohnP. ScottI I. A usefuldiscussion f this can befound in B. Fay, Social Theoryand

    PoliticalPractice, ondon,George Allen& Unwin, I 975,pp 29-47I2. Habermas, A PositivisticallyBi-sectedRationalism'.I 3. T. S. Kuhn, rhe StructurefScientifiicevolutions,hicagoUniversityPress, 962; I. Lakatos nd A. Musgrave(eds), Criticismnd the Growthf Know-ledge,CambridgeUniversityPress, 970;S. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument,CambridgeUniversityPress, I 964; J.

    Searle,SpeechActs,CambridgeUniver-sityPress, 969.I 4. Habermas, AnalyticalTheoryofScienceand Dialectics'.It is interestingto note that Albert sees Habermas'argument as a 'blatant' example of'social-scientificessentialism':see H.Albert,'The Myth of Total Reason', nAdorno, tal.,op. cit., p. I 69 n. Keat andUrry see it as an argument or realism,although they criticise him, as does

    Lobkowicz,for failing to extend thisrealism o the naturalsciences.R. Keatand J. Urry, Social Theoryas Science,London,Routledge& Regan Paul, I975;Lobkowicz, p. cit.I5. A useful general account of thetradition of hermeneuticsand of themethod of Verstehean be foundin W.Outhwaite, Understandingocial Life,London,GeorgeAllen& Unrin, I975.I 6. Habermas, 'Knowledge and

    Human Interests',p. 3 I . Habermasrelates this tradition to the works ofDilthey, Husserl, and Schutz. Botilanalytical-empirical knowledge andhistorical-hermeneuticknowledge areaspectsof whatMaxHorkheimerermed'traditionalheory'.I7. The German erm is 'Bildung'.I8. Habermas,op. cit., p. 3I0.I 9. Ibid.20. Habermas, AnalyticalTheoryof

    ScienceandDialectics',p. I40.2 I . Habermas,'A PostivisticallyBi-sectedRationalism',p. 22I.22. Habermas, 'Knowledge andHuman Interests' contains his firstformulation; idem., 'Technology andScience as "Ideology" contains hissecond discussion; dem., 'Labour andInteraction:Remarkson Hegel'sJena

    Philosophyof Mind' eontainsthe finalversion.

    23. I am not eoncernedherewith theaceuraeyof Habermas'nterpretationfHegel. I merelywish to present is ownviewsof the natureof the soeial media.24. Compare he analysisof moralityand property n A. \V. Gouldner,7CheComingrisis f Westernociology,ondon,.._ elnemann, I 97 n pp. 304- 325. Thiseontrastbetweendefining herationalityof action from the point ofviess of the actoranddefining t in terms

    of valid scientifieknowledgehas fre-quently arisen in modern sociologicalthought.The main issuesare coveredn:B. Wilson(ed.),Rationality,xford,BasilBlackwell, 970; J. D. Y. Peel, 'Under-standing Alien Belief Systems', BritishXournalf Sociolog)t,ol. 20, no. I (I969).26. Habermas, Technologyand Sci-ence as "Ideology", p. 93 for a generaldiscussion f the twotypes of action.27. Ibid.,p. 9I. For a very nteresting

    comparisonof decisionrules and socialnorms,see A. Heath,Rational hoicendSocial Exchange,CambridgeUniversityPress, 976.28. Habermas'ociology fmotivationis relativelyundeveloped,but an ap-proachwhich wouldseemto correspondto his argument is Mills' notion of'vocabularies f motive': C. \V. Mills,'Situated Actions and VocabulariesofMotive',Americanociologicaleview,ol.5, no. 6 ( 940); H. Gerth and C. W.Mills, Character nd Social Structure,London,Routledge& KeganPaul, I954,ChapterV, 'The Sociologyof Motiva-tion'.

    29. Habermas, p. cit., p. 94.30. This seetionis based on: Haber-mas, 'Teehnology nd Seieneeas "Ideo-logy"'; idem., BeyondPhilosophyandSeienee: Marxismas Critique'; idem.,KnowledgendHumannterests,art I.3 . Habermas,TowardsA TheoryofCommunieative Competenee'; idem.,'VorbereitendeBemerkungenzu einerTheorie der kommunikativenKompe-tenz'.Restrictions n the applicationofhermeneuticsrediseussedn Habermas,'DerUniversalitatansprucher Hermen-eutik'.Fora generaloverview ee T. A.A1eCarthy,A TheoryofCommunicative

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    20/22

    Criticalocialheory I9Competence', Philosophy f the SocialSciences,ol. 3, no. 2 (I973).

    32. Habermas,TowardsA TheoryofCommunicativeCompetence',p. I38.33. Habermas, 'On SystematicallyDistortedCommunication',p. I I 7. Anexampleof thekindofsociologyowhichthismightlead is C. Mueller,'NotesonRepressive Communication', in P.Dreitzel(ed.),Recentociology,umber ,London, Collier-Macmillan, 970. SeealsoC. Mueller,ThePoliticsfCommunica-tion,OxfordUniversityPress, 973.34. Habermas,TowardsA TheoryofCommunicativeCompetence', . I44.35. Habermas, Tecllnologyand Sci-ence as "Ideology", idem.,LegitimationCrisis,PartIII.36. Habermas,Legitimationrisis,pp.

    I 7-3 I; idem.,TowardsA Reconstructionof Historical Materialism';idem.,gurRekonstnxktiones Historischen Iaterial-ismus,PartIII.37. The major sourceson this are:

    Habermas,Legitimationrisis; dem.,gurRekonstraktiones HistorischenIaterial-ismus,Part IV. Empirical studies onadvanced capitalism influenced byHabermas rebeginning o emerge.Thework of Claus Offe is particularly m-portant. See in particular: C. OSe,'PoliticalAuthorityand ClassStructure'(I969), in P. Connerton(ed.), CriticalSociology, Harmondsworth, Penguin,I976; C. OSe, Leistungsprinzipnd ndus-trielleArbeitTheAchievementPrincipleand IndustrialWork)( 970), translatedas Industrynd nequality,ondon,EdwardArnold, 976.38. Habermas,A Postscripto Know-ledge ndHumannterests',. I68.39. Comparethe notion of a 'ThirdWorld'of 'objectiveknowledge'n K. R.Popper, ObjectiueKnowledge,OxfordUniversityPress, 972.40. Habermas efersoA. V. Cicourel,Methodand Measurementn Sociology,Glencoe,FreePress, 964.

    4I. Habermas,op. cit., p. I75.42. Habermas,'Some Difficulties ntheAttempt o LinkTheoryandPraxis',

    p. 32 ffW.Baumandiscusseshisbut unfor-tunately conflates the practical andemancipatory interests: Z. Bauman,Towardsa CriticalSociology,London,

    Routledge& KeganPaul, I976,Chapter3. A useful discussion s contained inR. J. Bernstein,TheRestructuringfSocialandPoliticalTheory,Oxford,BasilBlack-well, I 976,pp. 2 I 3-I 9.43. Habermas,Legitimationrisis,pp.37-4I; idem., Technologyand Scienceas Ideology , pp I 0 7-I O44. The nature of the public spherewas the subjectof Habermas' irstbook,Strakturwandeler Offientlichkeit,nd hiswork ince hencanbe seenas anexplora-tion of preciselyhow a rationalpublicsphere s to be attained.45. Habermas,KnowledgendHumanInterests.46. R. Harre, An Introductiono theLogicof theSciences,ondon,Macmillan,I 960; idem., The Principles f ScientificThinking,London, Macmillan, I 970;R. Bhaskar,A RealistTheory f Science,Leeds Books, I 975; Keat and Urry,SocialTheorysScience,p. cit.

    47. I(eat and Urry, op. cit., p. 227;Habermas, gur Logikder Sozialwissen-schaften.

    48. G. Lichtheim,FromAIarxo Hegel,London,Orbachand Chambers, 97I.It is for the same reasonthat anotherMarxist heretic, Louis Althusser,hasdrawnon therationalist ndstructuralistarguments f Frenchphilosophy.49. Habermas,A Postscripto Know-ledge ndHumannterests'.50. Habermas,TowardsA TheoryofCommunicative Competence'; idem.,Legitimationrisis,Chapter3.

    5I. The contortionsof the Althusserschool can be seen in this light: L.Althusser, orMarx,London,AllenLane,I 969; idem.and E. Balibar, ReadingCapital,London,New LeftBooks, 970;B. Hindessand P. Hirst, Pre-CapitalistModesfProduction,ondon,Routledge&Kegan Paul, I 975; B. Hindessand P.Hirst, Mode of Productionnd SocialFormation,ondon,Macmillan, 977.52. Habermas,gur LogSk erSozial-wissenschaften;dem.,Theorieder Gesell-schaftoderSozialtecilnologie'.53. Habermas,DerUniversitalitatan-spruch der Hermeneutik';idem., gurLogikderSozialwissenschaften.54. Habermas,TowardsA TheoryofCommunicativeCompetence'.

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    21/22

    jtohnP. Scott2055. The claim that Habermas ismerelyan eclectic s argued n G. Ther-

    born, 'Habermas:A New Eclectic',NewLeftReview, o. 67 (I97I).56. Still the most relevantdiscussionof this is D. Lockwood,SomeRemarkson "The SocialSystem", Britishurnalof Sociolog):,ol. 7, no. 2 (I956).57. D. Lockwood,Social Integrationand System Integration', in G. K.Zollschanand W. Hirsch (eds),Explora-tionsnSocialChange,ondon,Routledge& Kegan Paul, I964; P. S. Cohen,

    ModernSocial fheory, London, Heine-mann, I968.58. In particular ee T. Parsons,rheSocial ystem, lencoe,FreePress, 95I.59. Habermas, TowardsA TheoryofCommunicative Competence'. Also,idem.,BetweenPhilosophy nd Science:Marxismas Critique'.60. R. Dahrendorf, 'Homo Socio-logicus' ( 958); idem.,'Sociology andHllman Nature' (I963); both in Essays

    intheTheoryf Society,ondon,Routledge

    & KeganPaul, I968. Seealso,H. Popitz,'The Conceptof Role as an ElementofSociologicalTheory' (I967), in J. A.Jackson(ed.), Role,CambridgeUniver-sity Press, 972.

    6 I . For a similarargumentfrom adifferentpoint of view see T. Shanin,'Units of SociologicalAnalysis',Sociology,vol.6,no.3(Ig72).

    62. The most sophisticated iscussionof these is P. Bourdieu,Esquisse 'unethetoriee la pratique 972), translatedas Outline f a fAeoryof Practice,Cam-bridgeUniversityPress, 977.63. It is interesting to note thatAlthusser asattempted uchan analysisof the family,theschool,and the churchas components f the 'ideologicalappa-ratus'.Althusser,however,commitstheoppositeerrorto Habermasand focuseson 'structures'o the completeexclusionof 'actors'.See L. Althusser, Ideologyand Ideological State Apparatus',inLeninandPhilosophy,ondon,New LeftBooks, 97I.

  • 8/3/2019 Critical Social Theory Intro

    22/22

    Critical ocialtheoryBibliographyf MajorWorks y Habermas 2IThisbibliographyistsall theworkscitedin footnotes, ogetherwithother mportantbooksandarticles.The dategivenis thatof theoriginalpublication,butpublicationdetailsare givenfor the mostaccessibleEnglisheditionswhereappropriate.Thereare two majorcollectionsof articleswhichhavebeenpublishedn English:fowardA Rational ociety, ondon,Heinemann, 970; fheoryandPractice, ondon,Heine-mann, I973. In thefollowingbibliography, rticleswhichappear n thesecollectionsarefollowedby the abbreviationsRS and fP.Strakturwandeler bffientlichkeitStructuralChange in the Public Sphere), I962,Neuwid,Luchterhand.'BetweenPhilosophy nd Science:Marxismas Critique', 963, fP.'Dogmatism,ReasonandDecision', 963, fP.'The ClassicalDoctrineof Politics n Relationto SocialPhilosophy',963, fP.'NaturalLawandRevolution', 963, fP.'Hegel'sCritiqueof the FrenchRevolution', 963, fP.'AnalyticalTheoryof ScienceandDialectics', 963, in T. Adornoetal., fhePositivistDisputenGermanociology,ondon,Heinemann, 976.'A Positivistically isectedRationalism',963, in T. Adornoetal., op. cit.'The Scientization f Politicsand PublicOpinion', 964, f2S.'Knowledgeand Human Interests', 965, reprintedas Appendixto KnowledgendHumannterests.'Technologyand Scienceas "Ideology", I965, 2S.'TechnicalProgress nd the SocialLifeWorld', 966, f2S.'OnHegel'sPoliticalWritings', 966, fP.'Labourand Interaction:Remarkson Hegel'sJena Philosophy f Mind', I967, fP.gurLogikderSozialwissenschaftenOn theLogicof the SocialSciences), 967, Revisededition,Frankfurt, urhkamp,970.'Der Universitalitatansprucher Hermeneutik' The UniversalityClaimsof Her-meneutics), 967, in K. O. Apel (ed.),Hermeneutiknd deologiekritik,rankfurt,Suhrkamp,97I.KnowledgendHumannterests,968, London,Heinemann, 97I.'TheUniversity n a Democracy', 969, fRS.'StudentProtest n the FederalRepublicof Germany', 969, fRS.'TheMovement n Germany:A CriticalAnalysis', 969, f2S.'On SystematicallyDistortedCommunication', 970, in H. P. Dreitzel, RecentSociology,o. 2, London,Collier-Macmillan,970.'TowardsA Theoryof Communicative ompetence',970, in H. P. Dreitzel,op. cit.'VorbereitendeBemerkungenu einer Theorieder KommunikativenKompetenz'(PreparatoryRemarks or a Theoryof CommunicativeCompetence), 97I, inJ. Habermasand N. Luhmann,fheoriederGesellschaftderSozialtechnologie.?,Frankfurt, uhrkamp,97I.'Theorieder Gesellschaftoder Sozialtechnologie?'Theory of Society or SocialTechnology), 97I, inJ. HabermasandN. Luhmann,op. cit.fowardsa CommunicationheoryofSociety,97I, Unpublishedecturenotes.'SomeDifficultiesn theAttemptto LinkTheoryand Praxis', 97I, fP.'WhyStillDo Philosophy?',97I, SocialResearch,o. 40 (I974).'A Postscripto KnowledgendHuman nterests',973, Philosophyf theSocialSciences,vol. 3, no. 2 (I973).Legitimationrisis,973, London,Heinemann, 976.'HabermasTalking:An Interview', 974, fheoryandSociety,ol. I, no. I (I974).'TowardsAReconstructionofHistoricalMaterialism',975, fheoryandSociety,ol.

    2,no.3(I975)gur RekonstraktionesHistorischenaterialismusOn the Reconstructionf HistoriealMaterialism),976, Frankfurt, uhrkamp.