Thesis Proposal on Evaluating Philippine
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
A. Background of the Study
In today’s setting, people are always looking for the truth. Many find them in only
in themselves and measure the truth in their own selves. Where they will understand each
other with the same agreement. They aim for the common end because they believe, in
community with understanding to each other, there will be progress. A progress that will
develop and all of them will benefit. It is true that humanity aim for their goodness and
harmony. They want comfortable lives and order in the society. Whereas there are people
who’s sometimes cannot be understand and what they are pushing for. They make
troubles and fear to the people.
Specifically, the dialogues in ordinary people up to the law makers of the
Philippine society can be distinguished its difference from other culture. In looking back
on the historical reestablishments of the Filipino culture and society, it seem possible to
discern three assumptions: first, that the different cultural complexes encountered in the
Philippines were introduced whole into this country by groups of people migrating from
the Asian mainland; second, that these migrating people founded independent groups,
each of whom had diagnostic racial and bodily characteristics and arrived in the islands at
specific time periods; third, that prehistoric tool traditions in the Philippines can be
associated with physical types and cultures of living groups. As seminarian, the
researcher would also try to use the theory in seminary community specifically the
2
Immaculate Conception Major Seminary enhancing the good relationship towards others.
The mutual understanding that the seminarians developing are very important in the
future ministry that they have.
The ICMAS Vision-Mission speaks of “A Christ-centered communion of disciples
rooted in the Word of God, witnessing to stewardship, collaborative ministry and servantleadership in the Church of the poor; through integral formation towards New
Evangelization and under the maternal care of Mary, the Immaculate Conception.” This
vision-mission aims to develop the personality of a seminarians through its formation
inside the seminary. Through becoming an example to others, it manifests from the four
pillars of formation in the seminary. Besides, in academic formation it includes the study
of Philosophy and Theology. During the stays of the researcher in the seminary, he tries
to find topic from his study of philosophy that can help more their formation inside the
seminary in way that is more effective. In Priestly formation where seminarians are
directed to be, they are taught of discipline that will help them in their future ministry. In
preaching the ministry should be well in speaking as communicating to others. It is one of
the major service that the Priest should have.
Because of this aim, the researcher focuses his study on Jurgen Habermas’ theory
of Communicative action in which the society can attained its equality and rationality
through an open discussion that includes the minority. Among of the many writers that
studied this theory are Robert C. Holub, Roy Boyne and Kristeva. Aiming to expand
more the study of Jurgen Habermas’ Philosophy, the researcher will going to evaluate the
Filipino context of society using Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action.
3
The society is uncertain. There is disorder both in the environment and the
members of it. In this present generation, from the members of this society, it seems that
people are not caring anymore for others and focused only on what they need. They
become self-centered, for they do their job only for the sake of their own. This problem
becomes the trending issue of today’s time. One of the prominent names that discussed
the solution in making the society in order and harmony is Jürgen Habermas a German
Protestant philosopher. He makes theory in which will give way to the minority of the
people in the society. Giving them a chance to give their ideas. Filipino culture can be
distinguished from the other because of its uniqueness and its history. Many of the past of
these islands are mixed of different literature and culture. The researcher would make an
evaluation where it will become interesting if the Philippine society would be sufficed
enough to this theory of Jürgen Habermas.
B. Statements of the Problem
The researcher get the foundation of this thesis in depending on the main problem.
This problem has been constructed in order to be clear in the working thesis, which
will be studying the dialogue inside the Philippine society finding its compatibility
and its false notion of agreement. The Philippine society has been called only a
Christian nation in far southeast. Thus, as Christin doctrine is implanted in this land,
there are good situated impressions towards the Philippine society. The good
relationships with their co-workers imbibing the heart of Christianity. In this situation
4
the researcher will try to evaluate the Philippine society using Universal Pragmatics
of Habermas.
Thus, the researcher, would make a study regarding Philippine society putting it
in Habermas’ Universal Pragmatics in his Theory of Communicative Action in which
will find the compatibility of this society.
Main Problem: What it is in Philippine society using universal pragmatics in
Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action sorts and makes it wrong ?
Sub Problems:
- What is Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communication?
- Can it possible that the Theory of Communicative Action situate in the
Philippine society?
C. Significance of the Study
a. Theoretical
-
The theoretical significance of the study is that it will shows more elaboration
of the finished study of the Habermas’ theory and can add up an idea of
where points of this theory it can be right and where points of this, it can be
wrong in Filipino context. This idea can be sum up to the recent conception
of Filipino people in terms of communicating. There can be an adjustment
from the subject to communicate more effectively and sufficiently without
biases to anyone. This Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action is
denying of selected Filipino values such as the notion of hiya. In this theory,
5
it impulse all members of the society to participate in discussion, to give their
own ideas and opinions.
b. Practical
-
This study will contribute to the primary formation of the future shepherds of
the church as it said in ICMAS vision-mission. The aim of this study is to
evaluate the applicability of Habermas’ theory of communicative action in
Filipino context. It will helped one to know more specially by the future
shepherds of the church on where the communication system of Filipino is
lacking that can be compliment through this study. This will also contribute
to the seminarians who are undergoing of formation in the seminary directly
to the pastoral formation. As it said above, the researcher will evaluate this
theory on how applicable it is in Filipino communication system where the
seminarians are under it.
-
This study will also helpful in a Christian way of life where the subject will
get not only from his own idea but also from the other specially the minority.
Even the philosopher is a protestant; his philosophy could help in a Christian
view of life. There is no contradiction in his philosophy against the Christian
view, for his religion is latter a member of the Church.
6
D. Review of Related Literature
In proving the significance of the study claimed, there are many resource books
and articles that have been consulted for more information about the study. This thesis
will be proven new through these studies that have been conducted by different
people that have been published which are related in the light of Jurgen Habermas’
Theory of Communicative Action. The publications reviewed included books and
journals, and to give convenience and accessibility, the online internet sources will
also be present.
a. Books
Habermas Critic in the Public Sphere
“The literary public sphere, which Habermas considers a prefiguration of a
political public sphere oriented toward matters of state policy deals with issues of cultural
rather than governmental concern.”1 It consists here how the fairness in public sphere it
can be. What the one is doing should have justice and give what is due to him.
Habermas, Kristeva and Citizenship
“Over the course of thirty-five years, Habermas’ writing have maintained a
striking unity of focus and concern, looking into the capacities that people
have to create a more just society, which with some qualifications, may mean
a more rational society… the bulk of Habermas’ writing has focused on the
development of such rationality specific communicative rationality…”2
1
2
Robert C. Holub, Habermas Critic in Public Sphere, (London: Routledge,1991), 3-4
Noelle McAfree, Habermas, Kristeva and Citizenship, (Ithaca:Cornel University Press,2000), 8.
7
Habermas and Kristeva discussed how the society could be rational getting two
sides view. Kristeva look at the theory as a woman. She looked at it as an equal worker of
the society.
Specter, Matthew G., “Habermas: An Inteleectual Biography”. NY: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
“Habermas’ primary contribution to the liberalization and Westernization of
German political culture was sustained manner in which he recast Germany have lent
concreteness to the German political and legal thought. A number of recent intellectual
histories of twentieth-century Germany have lent concreteness to the liberalization and
Westernization paradigm…”3 It is add up to this theory so that the liberalization can be
focused by the society. It will give more eyes to look at the society as rational rather than
a crippled life in the community of its members. He contributed a theory in which opened
his generation to the Western thought which latter’s concept was “closed world.” He adds
up to the society in which it can be aware of everyone that they can contribution to the
society to rationalized it.
Specter discussed, how Habermas arrived to his theory. He said that Habermas
strongly identified with ideals of the left wing publishing house Sulhkanp, whose cultural
3
Matthew G. Specter, Habermas: An Intellectual Biography, (NY: CUP, 2010), 9.
8
authority, he believed, was “militarly called into question” in the 1970’s Habermas
claimed:
“If there was ever anything (in Germany that is to the expression, “the spirit
stands on the left,” then it was during those years, when despite the massive social
restoration, the memory of Nazism and the tradition which it had broken was kept
alive… by an intellectual left that could place its stamp on the cultural milieu with
a certain conviction that it had been entrusted with the task. All this, however, is
now over.”4
Specter, added how Habermas made a directed cultural restoration of the
Germany’s society despite of its chaoyic memory. The tradition was kept alive and it still
flourishes in the society. In this book also, Specter discussed how Habermas” theory was
denied and criticized. Students have called him, “a betrayer of the movement”. Habermas
accused of leaving them from the movement by saying pursuing for technocracy. This
one Habermas focused on a decision of agent and not on understanding.
Braeten, Jane. Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. USA: State University of
New York Press, 1991.
This book is critic of Habermas’ theory specifically to his “Aesthetic-Expressive
Rationality. Braeten said that the rationality of truthful self-expression and aesthetic
expression have inclined to overshadow the relatively brief and scattered references.
Resulted to the claims of the role of aesthetic-expressive in the totality of our actions is
less abruptly focused in Habermas’s work than are those of the other two validity claims.
This claim was first called the truthfulness or sincerity claim and the speech was
described as the “disclosure of the speaker’s subjectivity and the basis of “dramaturgical”
or self-expressive action adheres well with the theory of speech acts within which it first
4
Ibid., 9.
9
appears Braeten exclaimed that Habermas did not seemed interested in the possibility that
a form of discourse might appeared to this validity claim. Habermas has not changed his
view that sincerity or aesthetic validity claims are not “discursively redeemable” but he
now speaks freely.
Edgar, Andrew. “The Philosophy of Habermas.” Canada: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2005.
Andrew, first discussed in chapter 2 of this book the problems of developing a
maarxism that is significance to contemporary capitalism: “theory of society conceived
with practical intention.” Habermas in early 1960’s in this period, there are two man
empirical studies, “Student und Politik and “The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere” in which begin to substitute both the critique of contemporary apitalism and an
understanding of the potential that can be found with rational self-criticism and selftransformation.
Another point in which Andrew discussed in his book chapter five the Universal
pragmatics of Habermas. He said that universal pragmatics is a development of a
theoretical reconstruction of the competences that people use in everyday
communication. This should be the final form or structure in the theory of communicative
action. “Habermas approaches universal pragmatics as a comprehensive social theory.” 5
Habermas makes a distinction among non-social “instrumental action”(on natural world,
it is instrumental work) and “social action.” Habermas divides social action into two
namely: strategic action and communicative action. Strategic action is pointed to success,
which is to say that the agent takes an onjectifying attitude to the social world, and
looking to manipulate social objects. On another hand, communicative action is oriented
5 P. 138
10
to mutual understanding. The doer treats others as subjects with whom one establishes
and meaningful intersubjective relations. As Universal pragmatics is concerned, it
provides a rational reconstruction of the competences that allow human beings to act
communicatively, on the other hand, it looks in this competences the ability of social
actors to provide and sustain everyday social life as stable, ordered and meaningful.
Owen, David. “Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of
Progress.” NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Habermas started his analysis of social action by giving the meaning in general
the word action as “the realization of an action plan based on an interpretation of the
situation.” An agent manages with a given situation through first interpreting the situation
and then based on that interpretative argument, acting then realized the plan. With this
notion of action, Habermas denied the conflation of actions with merely bodily
movements: “Actions and bodily movements and operations occur concurrently, but
bodily movements are actions insofar as they are an element of the agent”s interaction
with world.”6 Bodily movements can be deliberated actions only in a derivative sense of
being entrenched in an agent’s contacts in the world- fir instance, in play or teaching
practices actions can acquire independent status, but only by virtue of their being a part
of agent’s contacts with the world. Furthermore, with this notion of action, Owen added
that Habermas recognizes that all actions have a generally teleological, or purposive,
structure, such that “the actor achieves his aim or brings about a desired state by choosing
6
David Owen, “Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress.” (NY: State University
of New York Press, 2002), 35.
11
and making suitable use of means promising success in a given situation.” 7 This
elaborated simply that any action is an intrusion of one or more agents in the world to
achieve some end: “With his actions the agent changes something in the world.” 8
Therefore, Habermas knows action as an intentional act that is aimed at bringing about
some end.
c. Articles
Crem, Theresa. “Marxism Today.” Catholic Mind 67(March 1964): 32-35.
Crem exemplified that Marxism is not an absolute doctrine of the last century, but
a vibrant force in the contemporary world having an influence on the lives of each
and every one of us. In the New program of the soviet Communist party published in
July, 1961, there are many references to Marxist theory and to the important role it
plays in the Communist struggle against the free world. To give an example:
“In the struggle for the victory of communism, ideological work becomes
an increasingly powerful factor… The party calls for the education of the
population as a whole in the spirit of scientific communism strives to
insure that all working people master the ideas of Marxism-Leinism…
Communist ideas and Communist deeds should blend organically in the
behavior of every person and in the activities of all collectives and
organizations.”9
It is well-known that contemporary Communists consider Marx, Engels and Lenin
the founders of their system, and even
7
8
Ibid.
Ibid.
9 Theresa Crem. “Marxism Today.” Catholic Mind 67 (March 1964), 31.
12
E. Methodology
1. Within the scope of the research’s methodology will be the following: its
method, scope and limitation and the procedure of analysis and interpretation.
1.1.
-
Qualitative Method
The method of the research will be qualitative historical method, since it will
not be using a numerical method that is used in a quantitative method of
research.
1.2.
-
Historical Method
This method will be in a form of textual data, since it will be focused on the
primary texts of the chosen philosopher from the past. Thus, this textual data
from the past is the reason why the research will be rightly called historical.
2. Scope and Limitation
Out of many writings of Habermas, only selected writing will be used on the
research. The researcher is dependent on the primary texts, which in a way limits that
validity of the interpretation. Nonetheless, such invalidity is offset by the use of
authoritative translations and the consultation with some scholars well-versed in the
original language of the philosopher’s text.
13
3.
Procedure of Analysis and Interpretation
The researcher will be using critical method of analysis and the points of
interpretation will be the following:
a. Gathering of Data
The researcher aims to gather information from many universities with a faculty
of Philosophy but there are only selected schools of Philosophy where the
researcher made a study. A documentary abstraction guide will be the instrument
used in collecting data. There are only limited primary sources but in contrast,
there are many studies had been made in this study by different people. In this
situation, the researcher can say that there are enough sources that can be use in
this study to suffice its need.
b. Analysis of philosopher’s theory
Jurgen Habermas has been the most important intellectual in the federal republic
of Germany for over the three decades. In field ranging from sociology and political
science to philosophy he has been contributed to West German intellectual life.
Habermas’ theory of communicative action is originated in his experience during the
regime of the Nazis. During his life, he had witnessed how the Protestant community in
Germany was governed by the Nazis regime. This directed him to make a theory that
14
constitutes the member of the society to be more useful than what he experienced that
men have been used as a laborer and do not have any right to do something from their
own will. Upon this philosophy he knows that this theory will tackles more on cultural
basis of the society and not on the governmental concern. Such as in public sphere, the
foundation of the critique where it becomes the realm of individuals to gather and
participate in open discussions. It can be, that everyone has accessed to it; by saying that
there is no one can enter into the discussion with an advantage over another. This is the
claims of communicative actions in everyday social life, Habermas gave argument that
was not often questioned or criticized because they are raised within the line of an
undisputed, shared lifeworld. This lifeworld offers the commonly accepted background
knowledge within which action can be communicated. His framework is designed to
ensure that the reason underlying actions to do “from duty” will be shared by all agents.
There is discussions that will give by all agents to make an objective truth. For
Habermas, to give way to reasons to be shared, in the absence of genuine dialogue among
agents, it is necessary to abstract away every feature that makes agents different from one
another. Therefore in discussion will provide in discussion a publicly shared reason for
the action.
Analyzing this philosophical content, it will include then how applicable it is in
Filipino Context where values are much preserved and maintained. Kantian critique is
that the discussion is only for the philosopher and not for the common people. However,
for Habermas’ conception of his philosophy, unlike today that the academic affair without
practical consequences for the lives of the citizens. There are debate on variety of issues
15
had to be submitted to the public, conceived of course as a reasoning public for decisions.
Habermas’ claim is that the public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it is only
the way that can bring about enlightenment among men. Filipinos are very much
appreciated for their values in terms of relating to others. Because of this, there are points
that the theory cannot be fit to Filipino context as such.
c. Analysis of the class interest behind the philosopher’s theory.
As a Protestant, Habermas saw the public sphere as deprived in giving voice to
the minority. He argued that the rational and equal society should be attaining through
this discussion where it is open to all. Men were degraded to as a laborer and deprive of
its dignity and reconciled it in his philosophy that helps the society in enlightening the
discussion in which all people should be heard.
d. Write-up of the Study
This paper contained on first page the Background of the Study, where the visionmission statement of the institution is integrated in the study. On chapter one, it
introduces the study where it is related. On chapter two, discusses the event that leads
Habermas to come up to his theory. On chapter three, it discusses the language that
Habermas uses in his philosophy. On chapter four summarizes the findings and provides
recommendations.
16
F. Definition of Terms
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lifeworld
Society
Action
Social Action
Strategic Action
Communicative Action
7. Universal Pragmatics
Chapter 1
Introduction
A. Background of the Study
In today’s setting, people are always looking for the truth. Many find them in only
in themselves and measure the truth in their own selves. Where they will understand each
other with the same agreement. They aim for the common end because they believe, in
community with understanding to each other, there will be progress. A progress that will
develop and all of them will benefit. It is true that humanity aim for their goodness and
harmony. They want comfortable lives and order in the society. Whereas there are people
who’s sometimes cannot be understand and what they are pushing for. They make
troubles and fear to the people.
Specifically, the dialogues in ordinary people up to the law makers of the
Philippine society can be distinguished its difference from other culture. In looking back
on the historical reestablishments of the Filipino culture and society, it seem possible to
discern three assumptions: first, that the different cultural complexes encountered in the
Philippines were introduced whole into this country by groups of people migrating from
the Asian mainland; second, that these migrating people founded independent groups,
each of whom had diagnostic racial and bodily characteristics and arrived in the islands at
specific time periods; third, that prehistoric tool traditions in the Philippines can be
associated with physical types and cultures of living groups. As seminarian, the
researcher would also try to use the theory in seminary community specifically the
2
Immaculate Conception Major Seminary enhancing the good relationship towards others.
The mutual understanding that the seminarians developing are very important in the
future ministry that they have.
The ICMAS Vision-Mission speaks of “A Christ-centered communion of disciples
rooted in the Word of God, witnessing to stewardship, collaborative ministry and servantleadership in the Church of the poor; through integral formation towards New
Evangelization and under the maternal care of Mary, the Immaculate Conception.” This
vision-mission aims to develop the personality of a seminarians through its formation
inside the seminary. Through becoming an example to others, it manifests from the four
pillars of formation in the seminary. Besides, in academic formation it includes the study
of Philosophy and Theology. During the stays of the researcher in the seminary, he tries
to find topic from his study of philosophy that can help more their formation inside the
seminary in way that is more effective. In Priestly formation where seminarians are
directed to be, they are taught of discipline that will help them in their future ministry. In
preaching the ministry should be well in speaking as communicating to others. It is one of
the major service that the Priest should have.
Because of this aim, the researcher focuses his study on Jurgen Habermas’ theory
of Communicative action in which the society can attained its equality and rationality
through an open discussion that includes the minority. Among of the many writers that
studied this theory are Robert C. Holub, Roy Boyne and Kristeva. Aiming to expand
more the study of Jurgen Habermas’ Philosophy, the researcher will going to evaluate the
Filipino context of society using Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action.
3
The society is uncertain. There is disorder both in the environment and the
members of it. In this present generation, from the members of this society, it seems that
people are not caring anymore for others and focused only on what they need. They
become self-centered, for they do their job only for the sake of their own. This problem
becomes the trending issue of today’s time. One of the prominent names that discussed
the solution in making the society in order and harmony is Jürgen Habermas a German
Protestant philosopher. He makes theory in which will give way to the minority of the
people in the society. Giving them a chance to give their ideas. Filipino culture can be
distinguished from the other because of its uniqueness and its history. Many of the past of
these islands are mixed of different literature and culture. The researcher would make an
evaluation where it will become interesting if the Philippine society would be sufficed
enough to this theory of Jürgen Habermas.
B. Statements of the Problem
The researcher get the foundation of this thesis in depending on the main problem.
This problem has been constructed in order to be clear in the working thesis, which
will be studying the dialogue inside the Philippine society finding its compatibility
and its false notion of agreement. The Philippine society has been called only a
Christian nation in far southeast. Thus, as Christin doctrine is implanted in this land,
there are good situated impressions towards the Philippine society. The good
relationships with their co-workers imbibing the heart of Christianity. In this situation
4
the researcher will try to evaluate the Philippine society using Universal Pragmatics
of Habermas.
Thus, the researcher, would make a study regarding Philippine society putting it
in Habermas’ Universal Pragmatics in his Theory of Communicative Action in which
will find the compatibility of this society.
Main Problem: What it is in Philippine society using universal pragmatics in
Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action sorts and makes it wrong ?
Sub Problems:
- What is Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communication?
- Can it possible that the Theory of Communicative Action situate in the
Philippine society?
C. Significance of the Study
a. Theoretical
-
The theoretical significance of the study is that it will shows more elaboration
of the finished study of the Habermas’ theory and can add up an idea of
where points of this theory it can be right and where points of this, it can be
wrong in Filipino context. This idea can be sum up to the recent conception
of Filipino people in terms of communicating. There can be an adjustment
from the subject to communicate more effectively and sufficiently without
biases to anyone. This Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action is
denying of selected Filipino values such as the notion of hiya. In this theory,
5
it impulse all members of the society to participate in discussion, to give their
own ideas and opinions.
b. Practical
-
This study will contribute to the primary formation of the future shepherds of
the church as it said in ICMAS vision-mission. The aim of this study is to
evaluate the applicability of Habermas’ theory of communicative action in
Filipino context. It will helped one to know more specially by the future
shepherds of the church on where the communication system of Filipino is
lacking that can be compliment through this study. This will also contribute
to the seminarians who are undergoing of formation in the seminary directly
to the pastoral formation. As it said above, the researcher will evaluate this
theory on how applicable it is in Filipino communication system where the
seminarians are under it.
-
This study will also helpful in a Christian way of life where the subject will
get not only from his own idea but also from the other specially the minority.
Even the philosopher is a protestant; his philosophy could help in a Christian
view of life. There is no contradiction in his philosophy against the Christian
view, for his religion is latter a member of the Church.
6
D. Review of Related Literature
In proving the significance of the study claimed, there are many resource books
and articles that have been consulted for more information about the study. This thesis
will be proven new through these studies that have been conducted by different
people that have been published which are related in the light of Jurgen Habermas’
Theory of Communicative Action. The publications reviewed included books and
journals, and to give convenience and accessibility, the online internet sources will
also be present.
a. Books
Habermas Critic in the Public Sphere
“The literary public sphere, which Habermas considers a prefiguration of a
political public sphere oriented toward matters of state policy deals with issues of cultural
rather than governmental concern.”1 It consists here how the fairness in public sphere it
can be. What the one is doing should have justice and give what is due to him.
Habermas, Kristeva and Citizenship
“Over the course of thirty-five years, Habermas’ writing have maintained a
striking unity of focus and concern, looking into the capacities that people
have to create a more just society, which with some qualifications, may mean
a more rational society… the bulk of Habermas’ writing has focused on the
development of such rationality specific communicative rationality…”2
1
2
Robert C. Holub, Habermas Critic in Public Sphere, (London: Routledge,1991), 3-4
Noelle McAfree, Habermas, Kristeva and Citizenship, (Ithaca:Cornel University Press,2000), 8.
7
Habermas and Kristeva discussed how the society could be rational getting two
sides view. Kristeva look at the theory as a woman. She looked at it as an equal worker of
the society.
Specter, Matthew G., “Habermas: An Inteleectual Biography”. NY: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
“Habermas’ primary contribution to the liberalization and Westernization of
German political culture was sustained manner in which he recast Germany have lent
concreteness to the German political and legal thought. A number of recent intellectual
histories of twentieth-century Germany have lent concreteness to the liberalization and
Westernization paradigm…”3 It is add up to this theory so that the liberalization can be
focused by the society. It will give more eyes to look at the society as rational rather than
a crippled life in the community of its members. He contributed a theory in which opened
his generation to the Western thought which latter’s concept was “closed world.” He adds
up to the society in which it can be aware of everyone that they can contribution to the
society to rationalized it.
Specter discussed, how Habermas arrived to his theory. He said that Habermas
strongly identified with ideals of the left wing publishing house Sulhkanp, whose cultural
3
Matthew G. Specter, Habermas: An Intellectual Biography, (NY: CUP, 2010), 9.
8
authority, he believed, was “militarly called into question” in the 1970’s Habermas
claimed:
“If there was ever anything (in Germany that is to the expression, “the spirit
stands on the left,” then it was during those years, when despite the massive social
restoration, the memory of Nazism and the tradition which it had broken was kept
alive… by an intellectual left that could place its stamp on the cultural milieu with
a certain conviction that it had been entrusted with the task. All this, however, is
now over.”4
Specter, added how Habermas made a directed cultural restoration of the
Germany’s society despite of its chaoyic memory. The tradition was kept alive and it still
flourishes in the society. In this book also, Specter discussed how Habermas” theory was
denied and criticized. Students have called him, “a betrayer of the movement”. Habermas
accused of leaving them from the movement by saying pursuing for technocracy. This
one Habermas focused on a decision of agent and not on understanding.
Braeten, Jane. Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. USA: State University of
New York Press, 1991.
This book is critic of Habermas’ theory specifically to his “Aesthetic-Expressive
Rationality. Braeten said that the rationality of truthful self-expression and aesthetic
expression have inclined to overshadow the relatively brief and scattered references.
Resulted to the claims of the role of aesthetic-expressive in the totality of our actions is
less abruptly focused in Habermas’s work than are those of the other two validity claims.
This claim was first called the truthfulness or sincerity claim and the speech was
described as the “disclosure of the speaker’s subjectivity and the basis of “dramaturgical”
or self-expressive action adheres well with the theory of speech acts within which it first
4
Ibid., 9.
9
appears Braeten exclaimed that Habermas did not seemed interested in the possibility that
a form of discourse might appeared to this validity claim. Habermas has not changed his
view that sincerity or aesthetic validity claims are not “discursively redeemable” but he
now speaks freely.
Edgar, Andrew. “The Philosophy of Habermas.” Canada: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2005.
Andrew, first discussed in chapter 2 of this book the problems of developing a
maarxism that is significance to contemporary capitalism: “theory of society conceived
with practical intention.” Habermas in early 1960’s in this period, there are two man
empirical studies, “Student und Politik and “The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere” in which begin to substitute both the critique of contemporary apitalism and an
understanding of the potential that can be found with rational self-criticism and selftransformation.
Another point in which Andrew discussed in his book chapter five the Universal
pragmatics of Habermas. He said that universal pragmatics is a development of a
theoretical reconstruction of the competences that people use in everyday
communication. This should be the final form or structure in the theory of communicative
action. “Habermas approaches universal pragmatics as a comprehensive social theory.” 5
Habermas makes a distinction among non-social “instrumental action”(on natural world,
it is instrumental work) and “social action.” Habermas divides social action into two
namely: strategic action and communicative action. Strategic action is pointed to success,
which is to say that the agent takes an onjectifying attitude to the social world, and
looking to manipulate social objects. On another hand, communicative action is oriented
5 P. 138
10
to mutual understanding. The doer treats others as subjects with whom one establishes
and meaningful intersubjective relations. As Universal pragmatics is concerned, it
provides a rational reconstruction of the competences that allow human beings to act
communicatively, on the other hand, it looks in this competences the ability of social
actors to provide and sustain everyday social life as stable, ordered and meaningful.
Owen, David. “Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of
Progress.” NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Habermas started his analysis of social action by giving the meaning in general
the word action as “the realization of an action plan based on an interpretation of the
situation.” An agent manages with a given situation through first interpreting the situation
and then based on that interpretative argument, acting then realized the plan. With this
notion of action, Habermas denied the conflation of actions with merely bodily
movements: “Actions and bodily movements and operations occur concurrently, but
bodily movements are actions insofar as they are an element of the agent”s interaction
with world.”6 Bodily movements can be deliberated actions only in a derivative sense of
being entrenched in an agent’s contacts in the world- fir instance, in play or teaching
practices actions can acquire independent status, but only by virtue of their being a part
of agent’s contacts with the world. Furthermore, with this notion of action, Owen added
that Habermas recognizes that all actions have a generally teleological, or purposive,
structure, such that “the actor achieves his aim or brings about a desired state by choosing
6
David Owen, “Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress.” (NY: State University
of New York Press, 2002), 35.
11
and making suitable use of means promising success in a given situation.” 7 This
elaborated simply that any action is an intrusion of one or more agents in the world to
achieve some end: “With his actions the agent changes something in the world.” 8
Therefore, Habermas knows action as an intentional act that is aimed at bringing about
some end.
c. Articles
Crem, Theresa. “Marxism Today.” Catholic Mind 67(March 1964): 32-35.
Crem exemplified that Marxism is not an absolute doctrine of the last century, but
a vibrant force in the contemporary world having an influence on the lives of each
and every one of us. In the New program of the soviet Communist party published in
July, 1961, there are many references to Marxist theory and to the important role it
plays in the Communist struggle against the free world. To give an example:
“In the struggle for the victory of communism, ideological work becomes
an increasingly powerful factor… The party calls for the education of the
population as a whole in the spirit of scientific communism strives to
insure that all working people master the ideas of Marxism-Leinism…
Communist ideas and Communist deeds should blend organically in the
behavior of every person and in the activities of all collectives and
organizations.”9
It is well-known that contemporary Communists consider Marx, Engels and Lenin
the founders of their system, and even
7
8
Ibid.
Ibid.
9 Theresa Crem. “Marxism Today.” Catholic Mind 67 (March 1964), 31.
12
E. Methodology
1. Within the scope of the research’s methodology will be the following: its
method, scope and limitation and the procedure of analysis and interpretation.
1.1.
-
Qualitative Method
The method of the research will be qualitative historical method, since it will
not be using a numerical method that is used in a quantitative method of
research.
1.2.
-
Historical Method
This method will be in a form of textual data, since it will be focused on the
primary texts of the chosen philosopher from the past. Thus, this textual data
from the past is the reason why the research will be rightly called historical.
2. Scope and Limitation
Out of many writings of Habermas, only selected writing will be used on the
research. The researcher is dependent on the primary texts, which in a way limits that
validity of the interpretation. Nonetheless, such invalidity is offset by the use of
authoritative translations and the consultation with some scholars well-versed in the
original language of the philosopher’s text.
13
3.
Procedure of Analysis and Interpretation
The researcher will be using critical method of analysis and the points of
interpretation will be the following:
a. Gathering of Data
The researcher aims to gather information from many universities with a faculty
of Philosophy but there are only selected schools of Philosophy where the
researcher made a study. A documentary abstraction guide will be the instrument
used in collecting data. There are only limited primary sources but in contrast,
there are many studies had been made in this study by different people. In this
situation, the researcher can say that there are enough sources that can be use in
this study to suffice its need.
b. Analysis of philosopher’s theory
Jurgen Habermas has been the most important intellectual in the federal republic
of Germany for over the three decades. In field ranging from sociology and political
science to philosophy he has been contributed to West German intellectual life.
Habermas’ theory of communicative action is originated in his experience during the
regime of the Nazis. During his life, he had witnessed how the Protestant community in
Germany was governed by the Nazis regime. This directed him to make a theory that
14
constitutes the member of the society to be more useful than what he experienced that
men have been used as a laborer and do not have any right to do something from their
own will. Upon this philosophy he knows that this theory will tackles more on cultural
basis of the society and not on the governmental concern. Such as in public sphere, the
foundation of the critique where it becomes the realm of individuals to gather and
participate in open discussions. It can be, that everyone has accessed to it; by saying that
there is no one can enter into the discussion with an advantage over another. This is the
claims of communicative actions in everyday social life, Habermas gave argument that
was not often questioned or criticized because they are raised within the line of an
undisputed, shared lifeworld. This lifeworld offers the commonly accepted background
knowledge within which action can be communicated. His framework is designed to
ensure that the reason underlying actions to do “from duty” will be shared by all agents.
There is discussions that will give by all agents to make an objective truth. For
Habermas, to give way to reasons to be shared, in the absence of genuine dialogue among
agents, it is necessary to abstract away every feature that makes agents different from one
another. Therefore in discussion will provide in discussion a publicly shared reason for
the action.
Analyzing this philosophical content, it will include then how applicable it is in
Filipino Context where values are much preserved and maintained. Kantian critique is
that the discussion is only for the philosopher and not for the common people. However,
for Habermas’ conception of his philosophy, unlike today that the academic affair without
practical consequences for the lives of the citizens. There are debate on variety of issues
15
had to be submitted to the public, conceived of course as a reasoning public for decisions.
Habermas’ claim is that the public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it is only
the way that can bring about enlightenment among men. Filipinos are very much
appreciated for their values in terms of relating to others. Because of this, there are points
that the theory cannot be fit to Filipino context as such.
c. Analysis of the class interest behind the philosopher’s theory.
As a Protestant, Habermas saw the public sphere as deprived in giving voice to
the minority. He argued that the rational and equal society should be attaining through
this discussion where it is open to all. Men were degraded to as a laborer and deprive of
its dignity and reconciled it in his philosophy that helps the society in enlightening the
discussion in which all people should be heard.
d. Write-up of the Study
This paper contained on first page the Background of the Study, where the visionmission statement of the institution is integrated in the study. On chapter one, it
introduces the study where it is related. On chapter two, discusses the event that leads
Habermas to come up to his theory. On chapter three, it discusses the language that
Habermas uses in his philosophy. On chapter four summarizes the findings and provides
recommendations.
16
F. Definition of Terms
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lifeworld
Society
Action
Social Action
Strategic Action
Communicative Action
7. Universal Pragmatics