1. ORLD 5057 Fall 2010

2. Critical Theory: Background “Critical theory of history and society driven by a passionate commitment to understanding how ideological systems and societal structures hinder and impede the fullest development of humankind’s collective potential to be self reflective and self- determining historical actors.” (Welton, p. 14)

3. Foundations Kant: Critique of reason … “rational reconstruction of the conditions which make language, cognition and action possible” … focus on apriori categories that separated subject and object with ideal being “enlightenment” and the “critically reflective individual” Habermas, “unlike Kant, attempts to understand the fundamental forms of knowledge in the light of the problems humankind encounters in its efforts to produce its existence … Habermas places reason inside the historical process” (whereas Kant did not) (in Welton, pp. 15-17)

4. Foundations Marx moved away from critique that seemed separated from reality by locating critique “within the dynamic social order itself” …. “oppressive society recreates itself …. In its victims’ hearts and minds in the form of behavioral patterns and attitudinal beliefs.. Sustained by the normal functioning of social intercourse itself” (Welton, pp. 17-18)

5. Critical Social Theory: Frankfurt School Frankfurt School emerged in 1920s to examine foundations of Marxist theory when people were disenchanted with Lenin and European socialism Critique should promote enlightenment and collective development of working classs … but lost confidence in ‘revolutionary potential of proletariat’ … asked why was emancipatory learning blocked? Answer in distorting pressures and closed philosophical systems, e.g. reification of social order by science/technology which itself became ideological (Welton, pp. 21-23)

6. Habermas Placed learning processes at center of his critical project / major shift in Western critical theory Whereas Marx localized learning in “productive forces”, Habermas pointed to learning, communicative action, and the consensual regulation of action conflicts— learning processes that are deposited in more mature forms of social integration” (Welton, pp. 26-27)

7. Habermas in Context Post World War II anti-Naziism Influenced/rejected by Adorno, Horkheimer — links to socialism + democracy Focus: connection between undistorted, public, domination-free communication and democracy — rational discourse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBl6ALNh18Q

8. Lifeworld “lifeworld is... ‘the vast stock of taken-for-granted definitions and understandings of the world that give coherence and direction to our everyday actions and interactions’” (Welton, p.141) Fundamental problem of social theory is how to connect the “system” and the “lifeworld” (civil society & the family)

9. Habermas: “Colonization of the lifeworld” Both deformations of capitalist society and critical learning potential of present moment “Sets in when the destruction of traditional forms of life can no longer be offset by more effectively fulfilling the functions of society as a whole” state reifies everyday life to “control” clients professional experts take over to manage life for people workers lose ability to be creative contributors consumer role becomes stronger than worker and citizen roles(Welton, p. 143-147)

10. Habermans The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: analysis of democracy via literacy clubs, salons, newspapers, political journals, etc. Reconstruction of reason — fear that its rejection has dangerous & political consequences Paradigm shift from subjectivist philosophy of consciousness (immanent reason) to intersubjective philosophy of communicative action

11. Structural Transformation (James Gordon Finlayson, Habermas: A Very Short Introduction) 1st half charts rise of “public spaces”, e.g. coffee houses, salons … “both an idea and an ideology…. Space where subjects participate as equals in rational discussion in pursuit of truth and the common good” … but property & education unspoken conditions of participation 2nd half charts “disintegration and decline of the public sphere” … e.g., newspapers absorbed by capitalism / public opinion “stage managed and manipulated” / “culture industry created an increasingly homogenous mass of docile and uncritical consumers” Optimism: identify social and institutional conditions that foster autonomy and that can withstand the colonization of the lifeworld by the system

12. Habermas: Modernity Development of “Modernity”, or rise of Reason, can be seen as the development of institutions that allow this kind of communication, e.g., civil law, democracy, science, market systems, public education, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and communicative action

13. Habermas: Domains of Human Interest Work knowledge — objective world of facts that enables strategic action [instrumental knowledge] Practical knowledge — intersubjective world of community of actors with shared norms, roles, community values Emancipatory knowledge — subjective world of self knowledge, individual desires and feelings [“‘collective emancipation from a history f domination that heretofore has come into being and proceeded spontaneously … not … guided by human reflection’”, Honneth & Joas, 1998:155 in Welton, p. 27)]

14. Links between Human Interests, Knowledge, and Research Methods Technical interests — instrumental knowledge Practical interests — interpretation, understanding Emancipatory interests — critique, liberation Positivistic sciences: empirical-analytic methods (work) Interpretive research: hermeneutic methods (language) Critical social sciences: critical theory (power)

15. Habermas: Communicative Action “Communicative action can be understood as a circular process in which the actor is two things in one: an initiator, who masters situations through actions for which he is accountable, and a product of the transitions surrounding him, of groups whose cohesion is based on solidarity to which he belongs, and of processes of socialization in which he is reared.” (Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action)

16. Habermas: Validity Claims Truth (propositional) Domain of reality: “the” external nature Function of speech: teleological Rightness or appropriateness (interpersonal) Domain of reality: “our” world of society Function of speech: normative Truthfulness (speaker’s intention) Domain of reality: “my” world of internal nature Function of speech: expressive

17. Habermas: basis for acceptance / rejection of “speech act” Truth of proposition Whether or not speaker has right to say it Truthfulness of speaker Whether or not statement is garbled And... communicative action should only be accepted if it can reconstruct reality accurately and self-consistently.