The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society [Paperback]

Jürgen Habermas (Author), Thomas McCarthy (Translator)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1, 1985

A major contribution to contemporary social theory. Not only does it provide a compelling critique of some of the main perspectives in 20th century philosophy and social science, but it also presents a systematic synthesis of the many themse which have preoccupied Habermas for thirty years. --Times Literary Supplement

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Habermas is a Beacon Press author.

Product Details

• Paperback: 465 pages
• Publisher: Beacon Press (March 1, 1985)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0807015075
• ISBN-13: 978-0807015070
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 1.4 x 9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #160,856 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

115 of 120 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Do not emancipate yourself without it!, February 13, 2001

By A Customer

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Paperback)

I would like remind readers that this book is the first volume of the two that constitute "The Theory of Communicative Action" (the second volume has as subtitle "Lifeworld and System - A Critique of Functionalist Reason"). The first volume was published in English in 1984, while the second volume appeared in 1987. The two volumes are not independent books and should be read as a single book.

Habermas can be linked to the group of German philosophers and social theorists associated with the Institute of Social Research, founded in 1924 at the University of Frankfurt. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, the two most distinguished members of the "Frankfurt School" (as the Institute was nicknamed), developed a social analysis that departed from orthodox Marxism and was known as "critical theory". According to critical theory, the ailments of modern capitalist society were due to its encompassing rationalization, resulting in a complete alienation of the working class. Following Weber's pessimistic diagnostic, Horkheimer and Adorno considered that Enlightenment's dream of a society guided by reason had degenerated into an "iron cage": human beings were condemned to live without freedom, following rules devoid of meaning. "Instrumental reason", that is, the manipulative, self-interested, technical use of reason in administration, economics, and science, had become so encompassing that there was no hope for escaping from it.

Habermas, who arrived at the Institute of Social Research in the early 1950's, concluded that Horkheimer's and Adorno's analysis of contemporary society hit a dead end. Critical theory, which was supposed to guide individuals in their struggle for emancipation, turned contemplative, pessimistic. The problem with the "old" critical theory, Habermas believed, was that it remained attached to the philosophy of consciousness. In order to put critical theory back to its original track, Habermas switched to the philosophy of language and expanded the concept of reason to include "communicative rationality". With these theoretical moves, Habermas reestablished the centrality of reason as the guiding principle for attaining emancipation. Because language presupposes unrestricted communication and mutual understanding, coordinated action is an always present possibility to speaking subjects. Parting from this philosophical outlook, Habermas developed the concept of "communicative action", defined as "the type of interaction in which all participants harmonize their individual plans of action with one another and thus pursue their illocutionary aims without reservation" (TCA, v.1, p. 294). According to this perspective, the predicaments of modern society are the consequence - as Horkheimer and Adorno had argued - of an excessive reliance in instrumental reason (or purposive rationality, as Habermas prefers to call it). However, Habermas argued that there is a way out of this situation: In order to overcome social crises, it is necessary to counterbalance purposive rationality by bringing communicative rationality back into play.

Habermas' communicative action argument was already present in his writings of the early 1960's. In TCA Habermas presents a detailed justification of his theoretical approach and expands it into a social theory aimed at explaining the occurrence of social pathologies. In support of his argumentation, Habermas introduces a new concept of society that intertwine the lifeworld concept (the common pool of knowledge that individuals use in order to attach meaning to the world) and the social system concept. According to this "dual" approach, society evolves by differentiating itself both as system and as lifeworld. "Systemic evolution is measured by the increase in society's steering capacity, whereas the state of development of a symbolically structured lifeworld is indicated by the separation of culture, society, and personality" (TCA, v. 2, p. 152).

The argumentation Habermas conducts in TCA is highly abstract at times. This has lead to misunderstandings of his key arguments, particularly of the communicative action concept. According to this distorted interpretation, Habermas had advocated for the establishment of an ideal, utopian society in which all human beings would reach consensus about everything. Taken out of the context of the full argumentation, the communicative action concept acquires a naïve twist that Habermas' detractors - as well as some of his supporters - have contributed to establish. Nevertheless, the reader that endures the abstract aspects of TCA will be recompensed by a bright and clear interpretation of contemporary society. Habermas argument on the limitations of socialist states is particularly enlightening. Leftists will finally understand why democracy should not be seen just as a bourgeois invention and right-wingers will find reasons for not rejoicing at the downfall of socialism.

Prospective readers of TCA should be warned that they are at risk of establishing Habermas as a benchmark to every other social theorist. This risk, however, is worth taking.

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Why Habermas?, August 7, 2009

By 

Thomas A. Mcdonald (New York, NY USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Paperback)

This review is in response to the negative review posted here by Justin Evans. This is also more of a defense and appreciation of Habermas' work in general.

I've read a lot of Hegel, and I do not think Habermas misreads Hegel. It is a profoundly insightful critique of Hegel to say that while he recognized the dialectical construction of History he wrongly insisted on making its comprehension the possession of a monological absolute subject. I don't think there is any better way to explain the persistent conflict that irrupts in a room of Hegelians (I've seen it many times) than that there is a fundamentally problematic monomania in Hegelian philosophy (reflective of most previous Western philosophy as well).

Don't misunderstand what Habermas means by "universal". It would be a mistake to take his critique of relativism vis-a-vis universalism as a search for some kind of Platonic purity apart from the situated individual. Habermas only uses the term "universal" in conjunction with "pragmatics", referring to the easily reasonable claim that any use of language (thus meaning) in any time or place, implies communicative action between language users.

A better comprehension of Habermas' approach here is aided by a critical reading of Heidegger's phenomenological analysis of Dasein. Despite Heidegger's own clearly frustrated desire for a monological meaning of being, his committed phenomenology reveals Dasein's essential being-with-an-other. When Heidegger discloses the inauthenticity-of-understanding-as-they-understand as the very condition for first developing one's own authenticity, it is better understood in Habermas' less morally pejorative terms of moving from being a conventional language user to becoming a post-conventional language user.

Habermas' theory of communicative action brings great clarity to critical thinking if you've been frustratingly spellbound by the parade of egocentric failures in theory from Cartesian foundationalism to Hegelian absolute subjectivity to Heideggerian ontology.

In the end it just seems difficult for people with strong intellects (like those attracted to theory) to accept that our own meanings are contingent upon interaction with an other in an open-ended way. Thus most of the great philosophers and theorists tend to fantasize about an ultimate closure which can be grasped within themselves by themselves.

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Single source to get in the modern social science, February 26, 2011

By 

Saladin - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Paperback)

I would like to thank to great scientist for his great contribution to social sciences and yet to all humanity. It can be your life-saver if you strive to make real research in this post-modern condition.
If you cannot see the importance and meaning of the books and important difference between two volumes, it is better to question your own "dasein" in academic field. Good luck..