UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ideology, tradition and social development : a study on critical and hermeneutical theories of planning Yeechong, Wayne 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 Y44.pdf [ 9.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095738.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095738-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095738-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095738-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095738-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095738-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095738-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095738-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095738.ris

Full Text

IDEOLOGY, TRADITION AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT A STUDY ON CRITICAL AND HERMENEUTICAL THEORIES OF PLANNING  by  WAYNE YEECHONG B.A., C a l i f o r n i a  State  University,  Fresno,  1972  M.S.,  State  University,  Fresno,  1976  California  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING  We a c c e p t to  THE  this  thesis  the required  as c o n f o r m i n g standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA O c t o b e r 1983  ©  Wayne Y e e c h o n g , 1983  E-6  In p r e s e n t i n g requirements  this thesis  British  Columbia,  it  freely available  I agree that  the Library  s h a l l make  and study.  I further  f o r reference  permission  for scholarly  fulfilment ofthe  f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y  of  agree t h a t  i npartial  for extensive copying o f t h i s  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my  department o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . understood that for  copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  f i n a n c i a l gain  shall  It i s  of this  D e p a r t m e n t o f ^ovtW*\unibj A*\4 jfe^ionat The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  (3/81)  Octette*- /4  thesis  n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Date  thesis  Columbia  'Planning  written  ii  ABSTRACT  Recent planning l i t e r a t u r e r a i s e s important  q u e s t i o n s about  the o b j e c t i v i t y of knowledge and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among theory, experience and p r a c t i c e . S o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s of p l a n n i n g , in p a r t i c u l a r , are concerned  with these matters. Two c u r r e n t  German schools of philosophy, c r i t i c a l as developed  theory and hermeneuties,  by Jiirgen Habermas and Hans-GeOrg Gadamer  r e s p e c t i v e l y , have examined these matters However,  i n great  detail.  i t appears that planning t h e o r i s t s have not given  schools the a t t e n t i o n they The present  these  deserve.  study explores concepts  hermeneutics as they r e l a t e to the f i e l d  in c r i t i c a l  theory and  of p l a n n i n g . I t i n t e n d s  to c o n t r i b u t e to c u r r e n t d i s c u s s i o n s i n s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s . In a d d i t i o n to i n t e r p r e t i n g the study aims at c r i t i c a l l y  ideas of the two s c h o o l s ,  examining these  i d e a s . Hence i t  i n c l u d e s an a n a l y s i s of the debate between Habermas and Gadamer as w e l l as that between two commentators. F i n a l l y d i s c u s s e s how c r i t i c a l to  the study  theory and hermeneutics might c o n t r i b u t e  the f i e l d of p l a n n i n g and why  some of the concepts  two schools have to be f u r t h e r developed  i n these  before they can  planning i s s u e s d i r e c t l y . With the help of concepts hermeneutics, process  in c r i t i c a l  theory and  t h i s study attempts to s i t u a t e the planning  i n the context of s o c i a l e v o l u t i o n . I t f i n d s that  address  Habermas r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s p e r t i n e n t to p l a n n i n g : c o n f l i c t i n t e r e s t s , s p o n t a n e i t y , nature-human r e l a t i o n s and  of  relations  among humans. Yet h i s answers are not always s a t i s f a c t o r y . His assumption of suppressed  g e n e r a l i z a b l e i n t e r e s t s and h i s use of  r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e s are not e n t i r e l y c o n v i n c i n g . Gadamer s t r e s s e s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n people's  in s o c i e t y and  s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e i r t r a d i t i o n . His argument  leads to the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n : a p l a n n i n g process which i s not based on the s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the people implicated  directly  i s bound to destroy s o c i a l meanings inherent  in that  s o c i e t y . But Gadamer ignores some of the major problems in contemporary i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y : c o n f l i c t and  rapid social  change. In s h o r t , Habermas and Gadamer d e a l with i s s u e s r e l a t e d to p l a n n i n g . Planning take  i n t o account the  different  t h e o r i s t s should  ideas of both t h i n k e r s . T h i s  seriously  study  proposes a theory of planning that answers Habermas' q u e s t i o n s by employing hermeneutical  insights.  iv  TABLE OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  Acknowledgement  vi  Abbreviations N o t e On 1.  viii  Translations  x  INTRODUCTION  1  Social Learning Theories S e t t i n g Of The Habermas-Gadamer D e b a t e V a r i a t i o n s Of A Theme By H e g e l 2. HABERMAS: CRITIQUE OF  IDEOLOGY  L e g a c y Of Kant And H e g e l The M a r x i a n P r o b l e m a t i c Against Positivism P e i r c e ' s R e f l e c t i o n On N a t u r a l S c i e n c e s D i l t h e y ' s R e f l e c t i o n On Human S c i e n c e s N o t i o n Of E m a n c i p a t i o n The P s y c h o a n a l y t i c M o d e l From E a r l y To R e c e n t W r i t i n g s A c t i o n , E x p e r i e n c e And D i s c o u r s e R e c o n s t r u c t i o n And S e l f - r e f l e c t i o n Reconstructive Sciences The A d v o c a c y Model A p p r o a c h To P l a n n i n g 3. GADAMER: HERMENEUTICS OF  TRADITION  F o r e - s t r u c t u r e Of U n d e r s t a n d i n g In H e i d e g g e r The H e i d e g g e r i a n View Of Time And H i s t o r y Prejudgments H e g e l ' s D i a l e c t i c Of C o n s c i o u s n e s s F u s i o n Of H o r i z o n s H i s t o r i c a l D i m e n s i o n Of H e r r n e n e u t i c s N o t i o n Of A p p l i c a t i o n C r i t i q u e Of S c i e n t i f i c Method C r i t i q u e Of R a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g  2 4 6 13 14 17 25 26 29 37 39 43 45 50 56 62 68 81 84 87 90 93 95 98 100 103 108  V  4. THE DEBATE BETWEEN C R I T I C A L  THEORY AND  HERMENEUTICS  The B a s i c D i f f e r e n c e Between Habermas And Gadamer L i m i t s Of P r e j u d g m e n t s And S e l f - r e f l e c t i o n Q u e s t i o n Of L a n g u a g e . T h e r a p e u t i c A p p r o a c h To S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Of A u t h o r i t y M o v i n g Beyond Habermas And Gadamer A n a l y s e s By M i s g e l d And M e n d e l s o n P r e j u d g m e n t s And S e l f - r e f l e c t i o n R e c o n s i d e r e d Authority Reconsidered The A d v o c a c y M o d e l E x a m i n e d Norms I n T r a d i t i o n And I n R e c o n s t r u c t i v e S c i e n c e s M e n d e l s o n : D o u b t s On R e c o n s t r u c t i v e S c i e n c e s M i s g e l d : P r i o r i t y Of P r a c t i c e From T h e D e b a t e To T h e o r y Of P l a n n i n g  5. A HERMENEUTICAL  THEORY OF PLANNING  B u i l d i n g On Gadamer And M i s g e l d P l a n n i n g S i t u a t i o n As H e r m e n e u t i c a l S i t u a t i o n P r o b l e m Of N a t u r e I n t e r a c t i o n Of S o c i a l G r o u p s P l a n n i n g , S o c i a l L e a r n i n g And S o c i a l E v o l u t i o n C o m p a r i s o n W i t h Habermas' M o d e l 6. CONCLUSION A Summary Self-reflection Appendix:  ...119 120 122 125 127 ...128 129 131 133 136 ...138 139 141 148  154 154 157 160 166 173 176 183  Of H e r m e n e u t i c s  S c h e m a t i c Of Habermas' M o d e l  Bibliography  119  183 186 188 189  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  For  h i spatience  Boothroyd deserves several did  times,  not forsake  partial  t h e student  and o b s o l e t e  horizons  the years,  I c h a n g e d my  range o f r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s .  who a c c o m p l i s h e d  little.  insurmountable.  Without  i f t h e t h e s i s c o u l d have been  Weaver and H e n r y H i g h t o w e r  i n my o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t  were a t t h e same t i m e e n c o u r a g i n g .  the  interest not  of i d e a s .  One  They them  Department  read  H i s r e m a r k s l e d me t o r e c o n s i d e r my oriented thesis.  i n h e l p i n g me shape my i d e a s the unconventional  topic  into  Peter  the present  f o ra planning  was  form.  t h e s i s and  I was m a k i n g , Brahm Wiesman showed h i s  i n my work and d e m o n s t r a t e d h i s s u p p o r t  have e x p e c t e d  completed.  I wished I had c o n s u l t e d  in writing a philosophically  slow p r o g r e s s  super-  some o f t h e c e n t r a l  more f r e q u e n t l y . G a r y Wedeking o f t h e P h i l o s o p h y same e a r l y d r a f t .  when  offered valuable  weaknesses  Despite  P i l e s of  a sympathetic  on an e a r l y d r a f t . They e x p o s e d  instrumental  Peter  t h i s p e r i o d . T h e r e were moments o f j o y , when  criticisms  approach  topic  d r a f t s o f my t h e s i s document my a c a d e m i c  i t i s doubtful  Both Clyde  the  Peter  emerged. T h e r e were d a y s o f f r u s t r a t i o n ,  o b s t a c l e s appeared visor,  a medal. Over  c o v e r i n g a wide  development d u r i n g new  as a t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r a l o n e ,  f o r me. I c o u l d  more from t h e D i r e c t o r o f t h e S c h o o l .  of t h e foremost  debate, D i e t e r Misgeld  s c h o l a r s on t h e Habermas-Gadamer  at the Ontario  Institute  f o rStudies i n  vii  Education  i s a remarkably  modest and  comments on my  recent draft  endeavor.  Bill  Leiss  prominent  scholar  It  was  an honor  approachable  e n h a n c e d my  c o n f i d e n c e i n my  a t Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y  on c r i t i c a l  t o have him  person.  t h e o r y who  present  i s another  commented on my  as t h e e x t e r n a l  His  work.  e x a m i n e r a t my  oral  defence. Ideas are never Intellectual  created entirely  i d e a s must be  community and  can  s u s t a i n e d i n an  o n l y grow on  The people  a l t h o u g h we presence  express  trained  do  not a l w a y s  o f many a r t i s t  themselves  mind has  individual.  intellectual  favorable i n t e l l e c t u a l  p e e r s a t West M a l l Annex have no doubt thinking,  by a s i n g l e  contributed  agree  friends  in a variety  to  w i t h one  soil. my  another.  keeps r e m i n d i n g  of  f o r m s . My  been somewhat e n r i c h e d by  My  s u c h an  me  analytically environment.  *****  Late at night,  faced with the p r o j e c t  often  i f i t was  wondered  really  l o u d s p e a k e r s came S c h u b e r t ' s contemplation was  j o u r n e y . But through.  I  knew  worth the e f f o r t .  String  of the w o r l d  a struggle  f o r meaning  even  Schubert  Schubert!  I immersed m y s e l f  Quintet  emotional in l i f e  i n C.  Through I t was  retained  a l o n g and  a sense  the a  yet r e s t r a i n e d . I t lonesome  i n t h e d a r k e s t moments a beam o f hope always  in, I  of  optimism.  shone  viii  ABBREVIATIONS  The  following  notes.  abbreviations  a r e used  i n the text  B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l d e t a i l s are given  and i n t h e  i n the bibliography,  BT  M . H e i d e g g e r , B e i n g a n d Time.  CES  J.Habermas, C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d t h e E v o l u t i o n of Society.  "CT a n d H"  D.Misgeld, " C r i t i c a l Hermeneut i c s " .  DC"  Theory.and  fl  D . M i s g e l d , " D i s c o u r s e and Conversation".  "1844 MSS"  K.Marx, "Economic a n d P h i l o s o p h i c a l M a n u s c r i p t s o f 1844".  "GH"  D . M i s g e l d , "On Hermeneutics".  "H-G D e b a t e "  J . M e n d e l s o n , "The Debate".  KHI  J.Habermas, Knowledge a n d Human  Gadamer's Habermas-Gadamer  Interests. LC  J.Habermas, L e g i t i m a t i o n  PhH  H-G.Gadamer, P h i l o s o p h i c a l Hermeneutics. G.W.F.Hegel, Phenomenology o f S p i r i t .  PhS "Postscript  t o KHI"  Crisis.  J.Habermas, "A P o s t s c r i p t t o Knowledge a n d Human I n t e r e s t s " .  "Retreat"  D . M i s g e l d , "Habermas' Hermeneutics".  Retreat  "Review o f TM"  J.Habermas, "A Review o f Gadamer's T r u t h a n d Method".  TM  H-G.Gadamer, T r u t h  a n d Method.  from  ix  TP  J.Habermas, T h e o r y  TRS  J.Habermas, Toward A Society.  "Utopian  Content"  and  Practice.  Rational  D . M i s g e l d , " S c i e n c e , H e r m e n e u t i c s and the U t o p i a n Content o f the L i b e r a l Democratic T r a d i t i o n " .  X  NOTE ON TRANSLATIONS  Many o f t h e l i t e r a r y  sources u t i l i z e d  have German o r i g i n s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y  i n the present  translations  research  of important  t e r m s have n o t been s t a n d a r d i z e d . The u s e o f d i f f e r e n t translations confusing, readers,  o f a key t e r m  of  i s not only  i t tends t o obscure t h e o r i g i n a l meanings,  and make a sound argument v i r t u a l l y  Standardization the  i n t h e same e s s a y  difference  of t r a n s l a t i o n s  mislead  impossible.  i s not always p o s s i b l e  due t o  i n t h e r a n g e s o f meaning between t h e c l o s e s t  pair  G e r m a n - E n g l i s h w o r d s . But i n many c a s e s t h i s p r o b l e m c a n be  mitigated. this  Although published  translations  e s s a y , e f f o r t h a s been made t o c h e c k c r u c i a l  terms a g a i n s t these  t h e o r i g i n a l German t e x t s .  translations  scheme w i t h o u t are  English  Whenever  are modified according  further  notice.  are c i t e d i n technical necessary  to the following  Comments on o t h e r  translations  made i n n o t e s .  Bildung  self-formation  or c u l t u r e  ( d e p e n d i n g on c o n t e x t ) Bildungsprozess  self-formative  Geist  Spirit  Naturwissenschaft  natural  Geisteswissenschaft Vorurteil (as u s e d by Gadamer)  human s c i e n c e prejudgment  science  process  1  CHAPTER  ONE  INTRODUCTION  The for  purpose of t h i s  planning  philosophy, Jurgen  study  i s to discuss the s i g n i f i c a n c e  o f t h e d e b a t e between two c u r r e n t German s c h o o l s o f critical  theory  and h e r m e n e u t i c s , a s d e v e l o p e d  Habermas a n d H a n s - G e o r g Gadamer r e s p e c t i v e l y . The  relevance planning school,  of c r i t i c a l literature.  l e t alone  1  theory  has a l r e a d y  theorists.  o f t h e d e b a t e between  the study  between p l a n n i n g  theories At activity  considered  proceeds t o explore  and s o c i a l  of t h i s  by  planning t h e o r y and  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  e v o l u t i o n . I t i s intended  deepen and e x t e n d  in  i t and h e r m e n e u t i c s ,  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f c r i t i c a l  hermeneutics,  exploration  been a d d r e s s e d  But t h e r i c h n e s s i n t h e c o n c e p t s  a p p e a r s n o t t o have been a d e q u a t e l y  the i n s i g h t s  of s o c i a l  that  this  learning  of p l a n n i n g . a general  l e v e l , we may c o n c e p t u a l i z e p l a n n i n g  by w h i c h s o c i e t y s t e e r s i t s e l f ,  toward a d e s i r a b l e f u t u r e . E s s e n t i a l l y , level  directly planning  considered  at a societal  community,  r e g i o n and n a t i o n , and e x c l u d i n g  individual  person,  to  by  (including  entities  such as  entities  believe this  indirectly,  here i s  p r i v a t e group and c o r p o r a t i o n )  be a g o a l - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t y . We  or  a s an  such as  and i s taken  definition is  sufficiently and  broad  to  include p r a c t i c a l l y  p r o f e s s i o n a l planning  Social Learning The general entirely  literature.  l e a r n i n g concept  in planning  I t c o n s i s t s of a g r o u p o f  consistent in d e t a i l s .  2  o u t l i n e d below i s  t h e o r i e s which are  Well-known  theorists  J o h n F r i e d m a n n , D o n a l d Schon, E d g a r Dunn, C h a r l e s Turner, in  Donald Michael,  recent  years  limitations Due  of  as  a result  rational  - p r o b l e m s and  granted.  This  attempt  changing  of  and  the  their  severe of  planning.  reality  and  can  no  social  longer  be  learning  l e a r n i n g , groups  even  taken  for  theorists and  play active roles in  behaviors  a separate  in  ways of c o n f r o n t i n g - or  In s o c i a l  perceptions  - assists  r e c o g n i t i o n of  u n p r e d i c t a b l e changes o c c u r i n g  in a situation  Often,  include  Hampden-  comprehensive concepts  social  not  l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s emerged  opportunites  with.  involved  situation.  planners  i s the  to grapple  individuals  Social  3  society, standardized  defining  the  etc.  t o t h e many r a p i d and  industrial  i n academic  Theories  social one.  a l l views  party  i n order  to  - l e t us c a l l  the p a r t i e s d i r e c t l y  confront them  affected in their  chang  process. T h e o r i s t s promoting the eschew t h e  terms  social  " p l a n n i n g " and  l e a r n i n g concept  "planner"  planning  - and  the  c o n f o u n d e s t a b l i s h e d images w i t h "planning"  and  "planner"  theorists new  have s h i f t e d  to  since i t i s different  f r o m t h e more e s t a b l i s h e d ones - e s p e c i a l l y comprehensive  tend  rational do  not  o n e s . " The  and  wish  to  m e a n i n g s of  significantly  i n the  past  3  and of  will time  these  probably continue i n h i s t o r y , there  terms mean.  5  mentioned e a r l i e r , learning  concept  The  basic  involved  t o do so i n t h e f u t u r e . A t any p o i n t has never  I f we c o n s i d e r  been a c o n s e n s u s on what  planning  i n the broad  sense  t h e n t h e t e r m c a n accomodate t h e s o c i a l  as w e l l .  assumption  of s o c i a l  learning  i n a s i t u a t i o n possesses valuable  i s that,  exclusive  each  party  knowledge.  Hence no s i n g l e p a r t y  nor an o u t s i d e r  unilaterally  s o l u t i o n t o a predicament. Furthermore, i t  is  the best  assumed t h a t  priori;  i t can only  learning  is  be a c q u i r e d  their  planning  involved  learning,  fundamental q u e s t i o n i n g  and  learning  involved  intertwined.  in social in social  a r e s u l t of the short  a developmental ideas  controls  6  t h e o r i e s , many s i g n i f i c a n t  related  learning,  may have t o be b a c k e d up by some government  regulations. As  reorganiza-  are completely  In p r a c t i c e , however, a c t i o n s  parties  t h e s t a t u s quo  government does n o t have t o be an a c t o r  learning.  last  i s t o have  process and implementation  The  and  approach  social  i n n a t u r e . The  Due t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l n a t u r e o f s o c i a l  planning  a  t h r o u g h e x p e r i e n c e . Hence  own p r o b l e m s . W i t h s o c i a l  n o t immune a g a i n s t  tion.  knowledge c a n n o t be d e r i v e d  i s bound t o be somewhat e x p e r i m e n t a l  purpose of t h i s solve  much v a l u a b l e  i s i n a p o s i t i o n to decide  stage.  h i s t o r y of s o c i a l  ideas  i n these  But o u t s i d e  have been e x p l o r e d  learning  theories  the f i e l d  are s t i l l in  of p l a n n i n g  and s e r i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d  closely i n the  two c e n t u r i e s . We a r e r e f e r r i n g t o t h e German p h i l o s o p h i c a l  tradition  w h i c h b e g i n s w i t h Kant a n d c u l m i n a t e s  i n the current  4  debate  between c r i t i c a l  brings  into  concerning central debate  f o c u s a number o f key p h i l o s o p h i c a l social  be  learning  can c o n t r i b u t e  of the debate  - Jurgen  a d e q u a t e l y comprehended tradition  Critical evolutionary here  governed imply  i d e a s emerging  t o which they  i n a broad  from  theory  can only  7  r e v o l v e around  sense.  continuity  It refers  in society  over  the debate,  social  evolution  to social time;  or progress. With  changes  i t does not  the h e l p of  we c a n s i t u a t e p l a n n i n g i n t h e  of s o c i a l  Setting  o f t h e Habermas-Gadamer D e b a t e  evolution.  1960 t h e H e i d e l b e r g s c h o l a r H a n s - G e o r g Gadamer p u b l i s h e d  magnum opus, W a h r h e i t  current  learning  - whose t h o u g h t  belong.  context  his  this  i s drawn t o t h e two  frameworks d e r i v e d from H e g e l . S o c i a l  by a b a s i c  on  i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e German  the n o t i o n s of t e l e o l o g y  In  a study  Habermas o f c r i t i c a l  t h e o r y and h e r m e n e u t i c s  i s understood  debate  issues  t o the development of s o c i a l  H a n s - G e o r g Gadamer o f h e r m e n e u t i c s  intellectual  The  issues are also  t h e o r i e s we b e l i e v e  In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y a t t e n t i o n  protagonists and  development. S i n c e these  to s o c i a l  theories.  t h e o r y and h e r m e n e u t i c s .  movement  tradition  und M e t h o d e ,  i n hermeneutics.  of H e g e l i a n d i a l e c t i c s  8  which  Building  s t a r t e d the  on t h e  and H e i d e g g e r i a n  humanist existential  phenomenology, Gadamer opened up a new p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e phenomenon o f human u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d t h e n a t u r e o f human sciences.  9  T h i s book  study of s o c i e t y  is potentially  and s o c i a l  rich  i n consequences  d e v e l o p m e n t . The F r a n k f u r t  f o r the  5  philosopher  and  achievement  of Gadamer and  concepts  socioloigist  t o c o n s t r u c t h i s own rejected  toward hermeneutics  was  In t h e  some of t h e  critical  made e x p l i c i t  same y e a r  1 0  t h e o r y . On  the  i n the a r t i c l e  Ideologiekritik",  S i n c e then  further  debate,  which  Instead view,  going  T h e s e w i l l be  shall  theories. collide  the  other now  famous  an  t o examine  we  shall  Habermas. The  p l a c e d on  other  them.  theorists'  development, study  of Habermas' and  means t o p l a n n i n g .  key  the  compare  present  where t h e  p o i n t of  the  e x p o s i t i o n of  approaches to s o c i a l  to s c r u t i n i z e a l l aspects  what t h i s  paper  development.  a historical  a d i s c u s s i o n of two  E m p h a s i s w i l l be  and  from  Gadamer; t h e n  f o l l o w e d by alternative  joined  the  the  today.  begin with  i d e a s of b o t h Gadamer and attempt  on  p l a c e and  be more r e w a r d i n g  of Habermas and  p r o p o s a l s on  indirectly  of a n a l y z i n g t h e d e b a t e  i n v o l v e d . We  theories  not  is s t i l l  i t would p r o b a b l y  issues  on  e x c h a n g e s have t a k e n and  Logik  repudiating  1 1  Habermas' t h e r a p e u t i c a p p r o a c h t o s o c i a l  have d i r e c t l y  h i s view  "Zur  with  especially  theorists  other  Thus Habermas i n i t i a t e d  Gadamer c o u n t e r a t t a c k e d  " R h e t o r i k , H e r m e n e u t i k und  the  latter's  p a r t o f Gadamer's t h o u g h t ;  Sozialwissenschaften" in 1967.  debate.  Habermas a c k n o w l e d g e d  borrowed  hand, Habermas a l s o  der  Jiirgen  two  based  does  Gadamer's  theories  6  Variations  o f a Theme by  In o r d e r let  to e l u c i d a t e the  us e x t r a c t a u n i f y i n g  i s Hegel's  Hegel  concept  of  i d e a s of Habermas and  theme f r o m  the  two  t h e o r i e s . The  of B i l d u n g , w h i c h means f o r m a t i o n ,  cultivation  and  the  judgment". society.  1 3  historical it  culture.  "maturation,  stream  of 1 2  time  In H e g e l i a n  fulfilment,  and  an  philosophy  education, Bildung  joy, suffering,  also  a drenching  in  emergence t o t h e p l a t e a u o f  I t i s a profound  For Hegel  theme  s e l f - f o r m a t i o n . " S e l f - f o r m a t i o n " i s the  translation  connotes  Gadamer,  holistic  developmental  (1770-1831), c u l t u r e  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process  concept  i s the product  ( B i l d u n g s p r o z e s s ) of  of  of a  mankind;  i s continuously evolving. Self-formation involves progressive  development  o f human c o n s c i o u s n e s s ,  f r e e d o m and  s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . Such d e v e l o p m e n t can continuous  interaction  between  occur  only  i n d i v i d u a l s and  rationality through society:  A c t i o n i s a l w a y s i n d i v i d u a l ; i t i s a l w a y s I who a c t . I t i s my p u r p o s e w h i c h I want t o f u l f i l . T h i s p u r p o s e may be a good one, a u n i v e r s a l aim; on t h e o t h e r hand, t h e i n t e r e s t may be a p a r t i c u l a r , a p r i v a t e one. T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y o p p o s e d t o t h e u n i v e r s a l g o o d . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e u n i v e r s a l must be a c t u a l i z e d t h r o u g h the p a r t i c u l a r . " 1  But e a c h i n d i v i d u a l i s a l s o t h e c h i l d of a p e o p l e a t a d e f i n i t e s t a g e o f i t s d e v e l o p m e n t . One c a n n o t s k i p o v e r t h e S p i r i t of h i s p e o p l e Only through h i s own e f f o r t c a n he be i n harmony w i t h h i s s u b s t a n c e ; he must b r i n g t h e w i l l demanded by h i s p e o p l e t o h i s own c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t o a r t i c u l a t i o n . The i n d i v i d u a l d o e s not i n v e n t h i s own c o n t e n t ; he i s what he i s by a c t i n g o u t t h e u n i v e r s a l a s h i s own content. 1 5  On  t h e one  action;  and  themselves  hand, s o c i e t y on  e v o l v e s as a r e s u l t  t h e o t h e r hand,  of  i n d i v i d u a l s can  o n l y w i t h i n the g e n e r a l  framework of  individual develop society.  1 6  As  we  7  shall  see,  influence  the H e g e l i a n on  the  Habermas and  theoretical  many o t h e r  Self-formation biological of  an  individual have an  human s p i r i t  embodied  the  sum  of  unconsciously, people society, Social in  practice  practices  society  alone  p i c k up  them and  Hegelian  movement of  can of  take  action,  b e h a v i o r s and  Spirit  To  the  them on  is  extent  Spirit  does  not is  and  attitudes  from  to future generations.  of S p i r i t  exists  the  Spirit  However, S p i r i t  Consciously  i n the heads of  t h i n k i n g the  1 7  individuals.  - t h e embodiment  speaking,  as p a r t of  i t i s the m a n i f e s t a t i o n  practices.  pass  t h e e x i s t e n c e of e a c h  In  construed  individuals.  r a t h e r than  Alternatively after,  of Marx, Gadamer,  i n s o c i e t y . For Hegel,  in social  human b e i n g s  decisive  theorists.  t o be  e x i s t e n c e independent  not merely  s e l f - f o r m a t i o n has  foundations  social  i s not  of  e v o l u t i o n of mankind. R a t h e r ,  omnipresent  necessarily  concept  - are  thus  sustained  individuals. prior  t o , and  remains  individual. s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process  i s the  Spirit:  S p i r i t i s n e v e r a t r e s t but a l w a y s engages i n e v e r p r o g r e s s i n g motion The s e l f - f o r m a t i v e S p i r i t (der s i c h b i l d e n d e G e i s t ) m a t u r e s s l o w l y and q u i e t l y t o w a r d t h e new form, d i s s o l v i n g one p a r t i c l e of t h e e d i f i c e of i t s p r e v i o u s world a f t e r the o t h e r , while i t s t o t t e r i n g i s s u g g e s t e d o n l y by some symptoms h e r e and t h e r e The g r a d u a l c r u m b l i n g w h i c h d i d n o t a l t e r t h e physiognomy of t h e whole i s i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e b r e a k o f day t h a t , l i k e l i g h t n i n g , a l l a t once r e v e a l s t h e e d i f i c e of t h e new w o r l d The b e g i n n i n g o f t h e new S p i r i t i s t h e p r o d u c t of a f a r - r e a c h i n g r e v o l u t i o n i n e v e r so many f o r m s o f c u l t u r e and e d u c a t i o n ( B i l d u n g s f o r m e n ) ; i t i s t h e p r i z e f o r an immensely t a n g l e d p a t h and an e q u a l l y immense amount of e x e r t i o n and t o i l . 1  Hegel  i s d e s c r i b i n g how,  i n the  8  self-formative process,  mankind  8  struggles  toward  rationality. culminating  higher levels  The  o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s , freedom  process e n t a i l s  incessant gradual  i n s t a g e s o f quantum l e a p s ,  on  the accomplishment  is  cancelled,  t h e o l d one  o f t h e p r e v i o u s one.  a b o l i s h e d ; but a t t h e  a r e p r e s e r v e d and and  with each  it:  1  changes stage  t h e new  building  old cultural  same t i m e c e r t a i n  a f f i r m e d , so t h a t  transcends  The  and  form  rudiments  emerges  from  9  In t h e S p i r i t who s t a n d s on a h i g h e r l e v e l t h a n a n o t h e r , t h e l o w e r c o n c r e t e e x i s t e n c e has been r e d u c e d t o an i n s i g n i f i c a n t moment; what f o r m e r l y was t h e m a t t e r i t s e l f has become a s i m p l e s h a d e . This  i s the p a t t e r n of S p i r i t  Spirit  i s none o t h e r t h a n  form  in action.  And  the a c t i o n  the s e l f - d e v e l o p m e n t  2 0  of  of mankind:  The c r i t e r i o n o f S p i r i t i s i t s a c t i o n , i t s a c t i v e e s s e n c e . Man i s h i s own a c t i o n , t h e s e q u e n c e o f h i s a c t i o n s , t h a t i n t o w h i c h he has been making himself. 2 1  B o t h Habermas and Gadamer r e a l i z e concept  of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n  t o the a n a l y s i s of without  embracing  similarities best  and  illuminated  variations  Hegelian  a l l of Hegel's differences i f their  e s s a y we  concept  the p e n e t r a t i n g i n s i g h t  s o c i e t y . They  of the H e g e l i a n  In t h i s  and  take  outlined  used; each  from  one  thought.  We  believe  theories  s t r e s s e s one  i t offers concept  the  Gadamer can  a r e p e r c e i v e d as  be  two  theme. self-formation above a s w e l l  t o be  as  variation  to the concept  of  the g e n e r a l  i t s variations referred  the c o n t e x t . S e v e r a l i n t e r r e l a t e d  they a l l belong  the  i n t e r n a l i z e much of t h e  between Habermas and  Marx, Habermas, Gadamer, e t c . The be p l a i n  the p r o f u n d i t y of  to should  terms w i l l  self-formation,  a s p e c t of the c o n c e p t .  in  be  although  Self-formative  9  process  (Bildungsprozess) refers  movement o v e r  time.  formative process, people, point  together  Culture  i s the t o t a l i t y  with  their  material  with people  individual  and n a t u r e ;  perception  refers  practice  certainly  of a  involves  i t i s subject to  i n everyday  t h a t have l a s t i n g  and b e h a v i o r .  2 2  Tradition  Other  the past  w o r l d an  life;  effects  the past;  t o the p r e s e n t , and hence,  terms such  as h i s t o r y  of the  i t p l a c e s an on i n d i v i d u a l  (Ueberlieferung) stresses  i s handed down o r t r a n s m i t t e d from from  a l s o a product  t o the c u l t u r a l  or a group encounters  e m p h a s i s on e x p e r i e n c e s  related  practices  i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e meanings, a t a g i v e n  L i f e - w o r l d (Lebenswelt),  self-formative process,  well.  of s o c i a l  of t h e s e l f -  c o n s t r a i n t s ( p h y s i c a l - c h e m i c a l laws a n d b i o l o g i c a l  requirements).  a link  i t s e l f , the  (Bildung), a product  i n the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process. Social  interaction  what  t o the process  and s o c i e t y  i t establishes  t o t h e f u t u r e as  are obviously  also  to self-formation.  NOTES  See e . g . J . F o r e s t e r , " C r i t i c a l T h e o r y a n d P l a n n i n g P r a c t i c e " , J o u r n a l of t h e American P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , v o l . 4 6 , pp.275-86, 1980; a n d , G.C.Hemmens and B . S t i f t e l , " S o u r c e s f o r t h e Renewal o f P l a n n i n g T h e o r y " , J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , v o l . 4 6 , pp.341-5, 1980. The term " s o c i a l l e a r n i n g " h e r e i s n o t t o be c o n f u s e d w i t h the k i n d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b e h a v i o r a l psychology - P a v l o v i a n and S k i n n e r i a n c o n d i t i o n i n g . Sometimes t h e term " s o c i a l guidance" i s used f o r t h i s approach, but i t i s a l s o u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , s i n c e i t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e i s an a c t i v e g u i d e t o be f o l l o w e d by t h e p a s s i v e l y g u i d e d .  10  F r i e d m a n n , R e t r a c k i n g A m e r i c a , G a r d e n C i t y , N.Y.: Anchor, 1973; F r i e d m a n n , The Good S o c i e t y , C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: MIT P r e s s , 1979; Schon, Beyond t h e S t a b l e S t a t e , New York: N o r t o n , 1971; Dunn, Economic and Soc i a l D e v e l o p m e n t , B a l t i m o r e and London: J o h n s H o p k i n s P r e s s , 1971; HampdenT u r n e r , R a d i c a l Man, G a r d e n C i t y , N.Y.: Anchor,1971; M i c h a e l , L e a r n i n g t o P l a n and P l a n n i n g t o L e a r n , San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1973. E.g. F r i e d m a n n , The Good S o c i e t y , o p . c i t . , u s e s t h e t e r m s " r a d i c a l p r a c t i c e " and " r a d i c a l p r a c t i t i o n e r " , and Dunn, o p . c i t . , u s e s t h e terms " c r e a t i v e s o c i a l l e a r n i n g " and " e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l l e a d e r s of s o c i a l l e a r n i n g s y s t e m s " . C f . J . F r i e d m a n n and B.Hudson, "Knowledge and A c t i o n " , J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , v o l . 4 0 , pp.2-16, 1974; and, M.Rein, " S o c i a l P l a n n i n g : The Search for L e g i t i m a c y " , J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , v o l . 3 5 , pp.233-44, 1969. T e r r y Moore - i n "Why A l l o w P l a n n e r s t o Do What They Do? A J u s t i f i c a t i o n from Economic T h e o r y " , J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , v o l . 4 4 , pp.387-98, 1978 o f f e r s a good s y n o p s i s of why government c o n t r o l s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y . W h i l e t h e s e m e a s u r e s do have t h e i r r o l e s i n s o c i e t y , by t h e m s e l v e s t h e y a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r c o p i n g w i t h a s o c i e t y t h a t i s no l o n g e r i n a " s t a b l e state". The t e r m " c r i t i c a l t h e o r y " u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o a f a m i l y o f r e l a t e d t h e o r i e s d e v e l o p e d by members of t h e F r a n k f u r t S c h o o l , i n c l u d i n g H o r k h e i m e r , A d o r n o , M a r c u s e , Habermas, S c h m i d t , W e l l m e r and o t h e r s . In t h e p r e s e n t e s s a y t h e t e r m c r i t i c a l t h e o r y i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e t h e o r y of Habermas. In t h e p a s t few y e a r s p l a n n i n g t h e o r i s t s - s u c h a s J . F o r e s t e r , G.Hemmens and B . S t i f t e l - h a v e shown some i n t e r e s t i n t h e work of Habermas. But t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n Habermas i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from what i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s e s s a y . They seek t o a p p l y Habermas' c o n c l u s i o n s ; we c r i t i c a l l y examine Habermas' t h e o r i z i n g . T r a n s l a t e d a s T r u t h and Method, New Y o r k : C r o s s r o a d , The t r a n s l a t i o n w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o as TM.  1975.  In t h i s e s s a y t h e t e r m "human s c i e n c e s " i s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of G e i s t e s w i s s e n s c h a f t e n w h i c h i n c l u d e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s and c e r t a i n d i s c i p l i n e s i n the humanities (other t r a n s l a t i o n s f o u n d i n l i t e r a t u r e i n c l u d e c u l t u r a l s c i e n c e s , s c i e n c e s of man, human s t u d i e s , h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l s t u d i e s , humanistic s t u d i e s , e t c . ) G e i s t e s w i s s e n s c h a f t i s used i n c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n to Naturwissenschaft (natural science). One c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e h u m a n i s t t r a d i t i o n i s i t s o b j e c t i o n t o p o s i t i v i s m which a p p l i e s the n a t u r a l s c i e n c e m e t h o d o l o g y t o human s c i e n c e s . Gadamer a t t r i b u t e s t h e  b e g i n n i n g o f modern h u m a n i s t t r a d i t i o n p h i l o s o p h e r G.B.Vico (1668-1744).  to Italian  T r a n s l a t e d a s "A Review o f Gadamer's T r u t h a n d Method", i n Understanding and S o c i a l I n q u i r y , F.R.Dallmayr and T . A . M c C a r t h y ( e d . ) , N o t r e Dame a n d L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e Dame P r e s s , 1977. The t r a n s l a t i o n w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o a s "Review o f TM". T r a n s l a t e d a s "On t h e Scope a n d F u n c t i o n o f H e r m e n e u t i c a l R e f l e c t i o n " , i n P h i l o s o p h i c a l Hermeneutics, D.E.Linge ( e d . ) , Berkeley and Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1976. P h i l o s o p h i c a l H e r m e n e u t i c s w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o a s PhH. G.A.Kelly, I d e a l i s m , P o l i t i c s and H i s t o r y , London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969, p.342. The t r a n s l a t i o n o f B i l d u n g i s n o t s t a n d a r d i z e d . I n f a c t , due t o i t s m u l t i f a r i o u s m e a n i n g s , i t c a n n o t be r e p r e s e n t e d , by a s i n g l e s t a n d a r d i z e d E n g l i s h e x p r e s s i o n . We deem J . S h a p i r o ' s t r a n s l a t i o n o f B i l d u n g i n t o s e l f - f o r m a t i o n most s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h e p r e s e n t p u r p o s e . But even s o , sometimes B i l d u n g h a s t o be r e n d e r e d i n t o some o t h e r words i n o r d e r t o c o n v e y t h e meaning more a d e q u a t e l y . G.W.F.Hegel, Reason i n H i s t o r y , R.S.Hartmann I n d i a n a p o l i s : B o b b s - M e r r i l l , 1953, p . 3 5 . Ibid.,  (trans.),  pp.38-9.  One may n o t e t h a t K a r l Popper - i n The Open S o c i e t y a n d I t s E n e m i e s , L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d Kegan P a u l , 1945 - p o r t r a y s H e g e l i a n p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y a s t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m . As W a l t e r Kaufmann - i n "The H e g e l Myth a n d I t s Method", P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review, v o l . 6 0 , pp.459-86, 1951 - b r i l l i a n t l y d e m o n s t r a t e s , Popper has g r o s s l y d i s t o r t e d H e g e l . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Popper's r e a d i n g of Hegel has exerted a t r e m e n d o u s i n f l u e n c e on t h e E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g w o r l d . F o r some o f t h e b e s t r e c e n t c o m m e n t a r i e s on H e g e l ' s p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t , s e e C h a r l e s T a y l o r , H e g e l , C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, a n d , S . A v i n e r i , H e g e l ' s T h e o r y o f t h e Modern S t a t e , C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972. T h i s i s what C h a r l e s T a y l o r c a l l s " t h e p r i n c i p l e o f n e c e s s a r y embodiment", o p . c i t . , p . 8 3 . He a p t l y s t r e s s e s t h e c e n t r a l i t y of t h i s p r i n c i p l e i n the Hegelian concept of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n . See T a y l o r ' s l u c i d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f embodiment o f S p i r i t i n o p . c i t . , Ch.3. The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e p r i n c i p l e o f embodiment i s a l s o e m p h a s i z e d by J o h n O ' N e i l l , i n "Embodiment and H i s t o r y i n H e g e l a n d Marx", i n S o c i o l o g y a s a S k i n T r a d e , New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row, 1972. " S p i r i t " i s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f G e i s t . I n t h e p a s t G e i s t was  1 2  o f t e n r e n d e r e d "mind", w h i c h i s i n a c c u r a t e a n d m i s l e a d i n g . The commonly a c c e p t e d E n g l i s h e q u i v a l e n t t o d a y i s S p i r i t . G.W.F.Hegel, " P r e f a c e t o Phenomenology", i n H e g e l : T e x t a n d Commentary, W.Kaufmann ( t r a n s . ) , G a r d e n C i t y , N.Y.: A n c h o r , 1966, pp.20-2. T h i s c o n c e p t i s c a p t u r e d i n H e g e l ' s use o f t h e word A u f h e b u n g , w h i c h means s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c a n c e l l a t i o n , p r e s e r v a t i o n and u p - l i f t . T h e r e i s no s a t i s f a c t o r y E n g l i s h e q u i v a l e n t f o r Aufhebung. I b i d . , p.44. Reason  i n History,  o p . c i t . , p.51.  The t e r m L e b e n s w e l t was n o t u s e d by H e g e l h i m s e l f ; i t was c o i n e d by E . H u s s e r l i n t h e 1930s i n r e a c t i o n t o H e i d e g g e r ' s e x i s t e n t i a l t h i n k i n g . We borrow t h i s term f r o m H u s s e r l without endorsing h i s philosophy.  13  CHAPTER  TWO  HABERMAS: CRITIQUE OF  Knowledge and 1968,  other  systematically shall  start  roots  and  on  books p r i o r t o t h a t , sets  suggest not  be  t e n d s t o borrow His  of his  a  writings, his  and  comments on he  works, by  "analyst".  areas  i n the  Marx  theory,  i n KHI  contrast,  3  Habermas of  he  has  It i s d i f f i c u l t in his  changes are  early  and  become more to  grasp  earlier  S e c o n d , a l t h o u g h Habermas has the  should  usually brief  himself,  t h i n k i n g without a background e s p e c i a l l y KHI.  influence  from a m u l t i t u d e  f i n d i n g s are  characterizes  framework s i n c e KHI,  problematic  these  his position.  t r a d i t i o n s . We  K a n t , H e g e l and  recent  intellectual  i n t o systems  intellectual  We  two  most e n d u r i n g  expansion  other  t h a n an  his  he  theory.  t h i s work, f o r  the  findings extensively  "synthesizer" recent  later  In h i s  sometimes v a g u e . As  his c r i t i c a l  much of  in  had  that  arguments to c l a r i f y  h i s a n a l y s i s of  overlooked.  sources.  framework of  Marx p r o b a b l y e x e r t  i n German  A l t h o u g h he  2  Habermas r e v e a l s  his  published  i t i s i n KHI  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  philosophy  that  the  rigorous  Habermas d e s p i t e  analytical  up  i n KHI  presents  K a n t , H e g e l and  first  " e a r l y " major w o r k .  w i t h an  reasons. F i r s t ,  1  Human I n t e r e s t s ,  i s Habermas'  published  IDEOLOGY  made t o d e a l  framework. W i t h o u t  modified  with  some  knowing what  14  he  changes  f r o m , one  There w o u l d be first  i s no  the  i f one  what he  involved  theorists,  For  In  to the c r i t i c a l  with KHI  the  he  predecessors  Kant  scientific  of  In o r d e r  how  L e g a c y o f K a n t and Despite  however,  Habermas w i t h o u t tradition.  the  Adorno,  purpose,  We  t o be  we  relating  shall  he  the  knowledge w h i c h s t a r t e d  not  be  latest with  t o g r a s p Habermas' t h o u g h t  p e r c e i v e s t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s and and  intentions  t h e w r i t i n g s of  especially  Habermas c o n s i d e r s h i s p r o j e c t  c e n t u r i e s ago.  century,  with  the p r e s e n t  theory  of Habermas'  latter.  toward a c r i t i q u e  t r a c e how  changes t o .  understanding  i t i s possible to interpret  thought  effort  Marcuses  tell  is familiar  generation c r i t i c a l  believe  two  doubt  enhanced  H o r k h e i m e r and  his  cannot  d e f i n e s h i s own  task  l e t us  failures  in this  Kant  of h i s  book.  Hegel  the p r e v a l e n c e  of e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e s i n t h e  (1724-1804) r e f u s e d t o t a k e  knowledge b a s e d  on  for granted  sense-experience  method r e p r e s e n t s t h e o b j e c t i v e w o r l d .  and  In C r i t i q u e  18th  that  scientific of  Pure  Reason Kant w r i t e s : But t h o u g h a l l our knowledge b e g i n s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e , i t d o e s not f o l l o w t h a t i t a l l a r i s e s o u t of e x p e r i e n c e . F o r i t may w e l l be t h a t even our own f a c u l t y o f knowledge ( s e n s i b l e i m p r e s s i o n s s e r v i n g m e r e l y a s t h e o c c a s i o n ) s u p p l i e s from i t s d e l f Knowledge t h a t i s t h u s i n d e p e n d e n t o f e x p e r i e n c e and e v e n o f a l l i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e s e n s e s ... i s e n t i t l e d a p r i o r i , and d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e e m p i r i c a l , w h i c h has i t s s o u r c e s a p o s t e r i o r i , t h a t i s , i n experience." Further, while  the matter  of a l l a p p e a r a n c e  i s g i v e n t o us  a  15  p o s t e r i o r i o n l y , i t s f o r m must l i e r e a d y s e n s a t i o n s a p r i o r i i n the mind.  f o r the  5  As  opposed  there of  i s a subjective  this  way  to the e m p i r i c i s t  position,  dimension  s u b j e c t i v e dimension  For  postulates  t o a l l knowledge,  i s t h e human m e n t a l  a person e x p e r i e n c e s the world  subjective  Kant  i s governed  and  that that  faculty.  by  part The  such  elements.  Kant,  "pure r e a s o n " i s  t h a t w h i c h c o n t a i n s t h e p r i n c i p l e s whereby we know a n y t h i n g a b s o l u t e l y a p r i o r i . An o r g a n o n of p u r e r e a s o n would be t h e s u m - t o t a l o f t h o s e p r i n c i p l e s a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h a l l modes o f p u r e a p r i o r i knowledge c a n be a c q u i r e d and a c t u a l l y b r o u g h t i n t o being. 6  Kant  i s concerned with "the c r i t i q u e  r e a s o n " . He essential  considers a c l a r i f i c a t i o n  for judging  the r e l i a b i l t y  the  unqualified  the  groundless assertions  are  equally groundless." Considering  achievement  historian  The Kant's free  or c r i t i c  knowledge "Otherwise  judgments  upon which  of t h o s e days,  Kant's  s h o u l d n o t be u n d e r r a t e d . I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t h a t t o be h i s p o i n t  account of the c r i t i q u e  investigation  Hegel  implicitly  of d e p a r t u r e f o r a of  knowledge.  criticized  into a p r i o r i  c o n t r a r y . Habermas c o n d e n s e s  physics,  i s passing  climate  K a n t i a n e p i s t e m o l o g y was  Kant  o f knowledge.  pure  7  from p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s ,  First,  of a p r i o r i  of  o f o t h e r s by means o f h i s own,  the i n t e l l e c t u a l  Habermas t a k e s Kant historical  of the f a c u l t y  by H e g e l . A l t h o u g h  knowledge  finds  i s presumed t o be  e v i d e n c e s t o the  H e g e l ' s argument  a c c e p t s the v a l i d i t y  adopts the s c i e n t i f i c  into  three  points.  of mathematics  p r o c e d u r e , and  uses  their  and  16  generalized  form a s  assumes a c o m p l e t e , socio-historical  the b a s i s of h i s i n q u i r y . fixed  context. Third,  critique  he  Hegel  observes  human c o n s c i o u s n e s s continuous validity to  the  action). that  fails  shaped  inquiry  subject  by  into  the  i s always  self-formative  something  consideration  t h e outcome o f a  e r a , the a  historical,  rational  "Hegel  U n f o r t u n a t e l y Hegel  and  t h e movement  given",  radicalizes  subjecting  also  the  the  are that  toward  Absolute  o r d e r . "In t h i s i n which  i t has  self-  develop. of  1 0  9  knowledge i s  something  that  the approach  of  i t s presuppositions to  Kant the self-  Habermas t r u l y a p p r e c i a t e s .  smuggles  knowledge. For H e g e l ,  the u n i v e r s a l  and  argues  s t a g e s of  critique  T h i s i s a breakthrough  mankind p r o c e e d s  then,  priori  actions  p r o c e s s . Hegel  only through  Kant's  prior  o f knowledge by 1 1  the  knowledge must b e g i n w i t h e x p e r i e n c e , o f  for granted.  criticism."  (and  judged with r e s p e c t  historical  knowledge and  t h u s shows t h a t  "dependent on  of  knowledge from  into  on e x p e r i e n c e s can c o n s c i o u s n e s s  Hegel  - Absolute  of  to take  s u b j e c t i s always  i n the l i f e - w o r l d ;  reflection  critique  of the a c t i n g  of h i s t o r y ,  knowledge  governing both  taken  e n t e r t a i n s a concept  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process. According to Hegel,  of s c i e n t i f i c  phenomena  has  Kant  of i t s  8  s t a n d a r d of a p a r t i c u l a r  concepts  the  that  i s a product  knowledge of a knowing  always  from  Kant  separates the c r i t i q u e  of r a t i o n a l  Kant  knowing s u b j e c t , i n d e p e n d e n t  knowing s u b j e c t d i f f e r e n t correspondingly,  Second,  i n h i s own p r e s u p p o s i t i o n  the s e l f - f o r m a f i v e p r o c e s s of knowledge, t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l o f  knowing shaped  ... S p i r i t  itself."  1 2  has  The  concluded  evolvement  of  mankind comes t o an e n d . I n t h i s "appearance  becomes i d e n t i c a l  c o i n c i d e s with the ultimate idea  that  Spirit  "history  emptied  final  stage of h i s t o r y ,  with e s s e n c e " ;  truth.  Hegel  1 3  even  human  e n t e r t a i n s the  i s a conscious, self-mediating  out i n t o Time". * 1  knowledge  process -  I n o t h e r words, t h e s e l f -  f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s a n d i t s e v e n t u a l outcome h a s been p l o t t e d o u t all in  a l o n g as p a r t a sense Hegel  another  of the cosmic radicalizes  the c r i t i q u e  s e n s e he abandons t h e c r i t i q u e  t h e A b s o l u t e . Habermas p o i n t s appreciated revive  o r d e r . I n Habermas' v i e w ,  the r a d i c a l  them.  o f knowledge, i n  o f knowledge by p o s i t i n g  o u t : i t was Marx  elements  while  (1818-1883) who  i n Hegel and attempted t o  1 5  The M a r x i a n P r o b l e m a t i c For Kant,  t h e knowing and a c t i n g  only. Hegel p o s t u l a t e s a h i s t o r i c a l to the f i n i t e ,  individual  applauds Hegel  for this  subject,  o n e . Marx a d o p t s  formation as the s e l f - c r e a t i o n he  subject  i s the i n d i v i d u a l Spirit,  in addition  the concept of s e l f -  o f mankind t h r o u g h i t s own  "outstanding  achievement":  labor;  1 6  H e g e l g r a s p s t h e s e l f - c r e a t i o n o f man a s a" p r o c e s s , o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n as l o s s of the o b j e c t , as a l i e n a t i o n and t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f t h i s a l i e n a t i o n , a n d ... he, t h e r e f o r e , g r a s p s t h e n a t u r e o f l a b o r , and c o n c e i v e s o b j e c t i v e man ( t r u e , b e c a u s e o f r e a l man) a s t h e r e s u l t o f h i s own l a b o r . The r e a l , a c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n o f man t o h i m s e l f a s a r e a l s p e c i e s b e i n g ( i . e . a s a human b e i n g ) i s o n l y p o s s i b l e so f a r a s he r e a l l y b r i n g s f o r t h a l l h i s s p e c i e s - p o w e r s (which i s o n l y p o s s i b l e through the c o o p e r a t i v e e n d e a v o r s o f mankind and a s an outcome o f h i s t o r y ) and t r e a t s t h e s e powers a s o b j e c t s , w h i c h c a n o n l y be done a t f i r s t i n t h e form o f a l i e n a t i o n . 1 7  However, Marx a c c u s e s H e g e l o f " m y s t i f y i n g "  the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e  18  process that the  by p o s i t i n g  Spirit  as the h i s t o r i c a l  H e g e l p l a c e s undue emphasis on t h e s p i r i t u a l s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process,  dimension.  1 8  Marx  material  i n d i c a t e s t h a t Hegel pays l i t t l e  real,  fact  s e n t i e n t , o b j e c t i v e being  has r e a l ,  that  Hunger,  f o r example,  n e e d t h a t h a s t o be s a t i s f i e d  human body. F o r M a r x , " t h e  of  t h a t man with  attention to i s a human  by o b j e c t s o u t s i d e t h e i s an embodied,  living,  n a t u r a l powers, means t h a t  sensuous o b j e c t s as t h e o b j e c t s of h i s b e i n g , or  he c a n o n l y e x p r e s s  T h u s Marx r e f o r m u l a t e s material  dimension  a t the expense of the m a t e r i a l  human m a t e r i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s ,  he  s u b j e c t ; he a r g u e s  h i s being  the concept  in real,  sensuous o b j e c t s " .  1 9  of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n with h i s  emphasis: H i s t o r y i s n o t h i n g but t h e s u c c e s s i o n of t h e s e p a r a t e g e n e r a t i o n s , each of which e x p l o i t s the m a t e r i a l , the c a p i t a l funds, the p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e s handed down t o i t by a l l p r e c e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n s , a n d t h u s , on t h e one hand, c o n t i n u e s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t y i n c o m p l e t e l y c h a n g e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d , on the other, m o d i f i e s the o l d circumstances with a c o m p l e t e l y changed a c t i v i t y . 2 0  Like Hegel, by  Marx o b s e r v e s  new o n e s : e a c h o f t h e s e  transcended. the  Again  that o l d c u l t u r a l  superseded  forms i s c a n c e l l e d , p r e s e r v e d a n d  l i k e Hegel,  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process  forms a r e  Marx s t r e s s e s t h a t e a c h s t a g e o f  c a n o n l y emerge from t h e p r e v i o u s  one: Men make t h e i r own h i s t o r y , b u t t h e y do n o t make i t j u s t a s t h e y p l e a s e ; t h e y do n o t make i t under c i r c u m s t a n c e s c h o s e n by t h e m s e l v e s , b u t under circumstances d i r e c t l y encountered, given and t r a n s m i t t e d from t h e p a s t . The t r a d i t i o n o f a l l t h e dead g e n e r a t i o n s weighs l i k e a n i g h t m a r e on t h e b r a i n of the l i v i n g . 2 1  What Marx r e j e c t s a r e t h e H e g e l i a n Absolute;  f o r him, the h i s t o r i c a l  n o t i o n s of S p i r i t subject  and t h e  i n the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e  19  process  i s t h e human s p e c i e s  a t an a b s o l u t e formation,  level.  With the Marxian  human d e v e l o p m e n t  manifestation  of the cosmic  W h i l e Marx a c c e p t s independent the  social The  i s no l o n g e r  the existence  he h o l d s  that  subjects  as  of  that  exists  transcending has a c c e s s  knowledge a n d a c t i o n - o n l y upon t h e l a b o r  through  process.  i s seen by Marx a s t h e mechanism o f s e l f -  on t h e one hand,  transformed,  of a nature  t h e human s p e c i e s  c a t e g o r i e s , which a r e dependent  formation:  conceived  order.  - i n terms of both  labor process  terminate  v e r s i o n of s e l f -  o f t h e mind a n d t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y  laws o f n a t u r e ,  to nature  whose e v o l u t i o n does n o t  i t g o v e r n s t h e way n a t u r e i s  and on t h e o t h e r  themselves  hand,  i t transforms  the laboring  ( t h e human s p e c i e s ) :  Labor i s , i n the f i r s t p l a c e , a process i n which b o t h man and N a t u r e p a r t i c i p a t e , and i n w h i c h man o f h i s own a c c o r d s t a r t s , r e g u l a t e s , and c o n t r o l s t h e m a t e r i a l r e - a c t i o n s between h i m s e l f and N a t u r e . He o p p o s e s h i m s e l f t o N a t u r e a s one o f h e r own f o r c e s By t h u s a c t i n g on t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d a n d c h a n g i n g i t , he a t t h e same t i m e c h a n g e s h i s own nature. 2  3  Thus t h e s e l f - f o r a m t i o n o f mankind evolution  of nature.  In f a c t  i s not separated  Marx c o n s i d e r s  nature,  modes o f p r o d u c t i o n  aspects  o f t h e same h i s t o r i c a l  the e v o l u t i o n s of  and human c o n s c i o u s n e s s process:  from t h e  t o be  2 4  H i s t o r y i t s e l f i s a r e a l part of n a t u r a l h i s t o r y , of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n a t u r e i n t o man. N a t u r a l s c i e n c e w i l l one day i n c o r p o r a t e t h e s c i e n c e o f man, j u s t a s t h e s c i e n c e o f man w i l l i n c o r p o r a t e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e ; t h e r e w i l l be a s i n g l e s c i e n c e . 2 5  H e r e Marx  i s not proposing  the reduction  o f human s c i e n c e s t o  natural  sciences,  i n t h e manner o f p o s i t i v i s m ; r a t h e r , he  intends  t o show t h a t n a t u r a l a n d human s c i e n c e s a r e c o m p l e t e l y  2 2  20  intertwined. F u r t h e r , Marx m a i n t a i n s process,  t h a t , i n the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e  t h e mode of p r o d u c t i o n  consciousness,  as  the  former  i s more p r i m a r y  shapes the  than  human  latter:  Men a r e t h e p r o d u c e r s of t h e i r c o n c e p t i o n s , i d e a s , e t c . - r e a l , a c t i v e men, a s t h e y a r e c o n d i t i o n e d by a d e f i n i t e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i r p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e s and t h e i n t e r c o u r s e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e s e , up t o i t s f u r t h e s t f o r m s . C o n s c i o u s n e s s can n e v e r be a n y t h i n g e l s e than c o n s c i o u s e x i s t e n c e , and the e x i s t e n c e o f men i s t h e i r a c t u a l l i f e - p r o c e s s . 2 6  To  this  extent,  an  when i t r e a l i z e s context  s u b j e c t can  its historically  comprehend  conditioned social  t h i n k i n g each stage  of h i s t o r y  i t s d i s t i n c t i v e mode o f p r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h  combination  the  of  force,  labor  f o r c e s and  production  force;  institutions production wealth  and  are  relations  is a  control  these  two  and  imposed  2 9  be  As  Habermas  c o n s i s t s of  knowledge f o r o r g a n i z i n g  of p r o d u c t i o n a r e  indirectly,  how  social f o r c e s of  socially  produced  2 8  Marxian concepts,  Habermas  a result  satisfied;  s u f f e r i n g s such  action is related  as  introduces  communicative  a c t i o n i s p r o d u c t i v e work a i m i n g  n e e d s can  instrumental  and  i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t i o n and  of n a t u r e .  material nature  i n the  specific  of p r o d u c t i o n .  mechanisms w h i c h d e t e r m i n e how  utilized,  o f h i s own:  Instrumental  technology  relations  2 7  is distributed.  B a s e d on two  role  only  is characterized  e x p l a i n s t h e M a r x i a n t e r m s : f o r c e s of p r o d u c t i o n labor  itself  of m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n .  In M a r x i a n by  individual  at  the  action. technical  o f p r o d u c t i v e work, human humans can hunger and  t o f o r c e s of  free  themselves  cold.  Hence  production.  3 0  from  21  C o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n i s human i n t e r a c t i o n of  social  institutions:  relationship  through  w i t h i n t h e framework  i t i n c l u d e s t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f human  e s t a b l i s h e d norms a s w e l l a s s o c i a l and  political  s t r u c t u r e s . Hence c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n i s c o n n e c t e d  relations  of p r o d u c t i o n .  that  certain  3 1  Habermas p r o b a b l y  human a c t i o n s a r e e x c l u s i v e l y  others are exclusively seem t o c o n s i s t  communicative;  of both  i n order  components, a l b e i t  t o diagnose  i s not suggesting  instrumental  while  i n f a c t most human a c t i o n s  p r o p o r t i o n s . Habermas makes a d i s t i n c t i o n concepts  to  with  varying  between t h e s e  a s e r i o u s problem  two  inherent i n  Marx. Marx p l a c e d  so much e m p h a s i s on m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n  seemed t o have t a k e n in  order  words,  t o serve  f o r granted  that  social  institutions  the purpose of m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n ;  f o r c e s of production  and r e l a t i o n s  i n other  of p r o d u c t i o n  process.  exist  appeared  t o him d i f f e r e n t  aspects  no means a n a i v e  t h i n k e r . The H e g e l a n d Marx s c h o l a r Shlomo  Avineri  of a u n i f i e d  t h a t he  But Marx was by  observes: [Marx] a t t r i b u t e s t o human mind t h e c a p a c i t y t o e v o l v e a model o f t h e f i n a l p r o d u c t p r i o r t o t h e p h y s i c a l e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p r o d u c t i t s e l f . The way i n w h i c h Marx t r e a t s t h i s p r o b l e m s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t he d i d n o t l o s e s i g h t o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l dilemma i n v o l v e d , t h o u g h he d i d n o t s p e l l o u t t h e p r o c e s s t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e i d e a l model i s c r e a t e d i n man's mind p r i o r t o m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n . 3 2  Marx was aware o f t h i s d i f f i c u l t y of h i s t o r y , attempts  but unable  to grapple  out. According failure  to solve  with  in hismaterialist  i t . The p r o b l e m t h a t Habermas  i s similar  t o t h e one A v i n e r i  t o Habermas, t h e d i f f i c u l t y  to distinguish  conception  arises  points  from M a r x ' s  i n s t r u m e n t a l and c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n s a s  22  two  types  its  own  of a c t i o n ,  development  each  having  i n the  i t s own  logic  self-formative  of o p e r a t i o n  p r o c e s s . He  and  maintains  i  that  t h e two  d e v e l o p m e n t s do  interdependent. on  this  In a l a t e r  3 3  not  converge,  although  they  work, Habermas c l a r i f i e s  are  h i s view  relationship: The r u l e s of c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n do d e v e l o p i n r e a c t i o n t o c h a n g e s i n t h e domain of i n s t r u m e n t a l and s t r a t e g i c a c t i o n ; but i n d o i n g so t h e y f o l l o w t h e i r own l o g i c . 3  Thus t h e  4  " i d e a l m o d e l " of p r o d u c t i o n f o l l o w s t h e l o g i c  communicative  action,  not  did  n o t e n t e r t a i n . The  it,  i s not a u n i f i e d  independent  instrumental action  - a concept  latter's ideas  p r o c e s s but  a product  of  two  sees  relatively  processes.  of the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e  critique  in society  Marx c a r r i e s thoughts  Marx  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s , as Habermas  I n Habermas' v i e w , a m a j o r c o n s e q u e n c e of Marx's conception  of  of  process  i d e o l o g y . We  have seen  a r e c o n d i t i o n e d by  i t further;  he  of t h e d o m i n e e r i n g  i s that  i t vitiates  the  f o r Marx,  t h e mode o f p r o d u c t i o n . But  claims these class  that,  inadequate  in that  ideas represent particular  mode o f  production: The i d e a s of t h e r u l i n g c l a s s a r e i n e v e r y e p o c h t h e r u l i n g i d e a s , i . e . the c l a s s which i s the r u l i n g m a t e r i a l f o r c e o f s o c i e t y , i s a t t h e same t i m e i t s ruling intellectual force. 3 5  A certain  type  of r u l i n g  ideas i s necessary  position.  In o t h e r words, a r u l i n g  to j u s t i f y  a  ruling  class  i s compelled, merely i n order to c a r r y through i t s a i m , t o r e p r e s e n t i t s i n t e r e s t a s t h e common i n t e r e s t of a l l t h e members of s o c i e t y , t h a t i s , expressed in i d e a l form. 3 6  This  i s t h e use  of  ideology.  23  • The M a r x i a n c r i t i q u e premises. F i r s t , the  ruling  ruling  there  of i d e o l o g y  i s a definite  c l a s s and the n o n - r u l i n g  i s b a s e d on t h r e e class structure  c l a s s c o n t r o l s t h e means o f m a t e r i a l  ruling  without position In  with  an  liberal  c a p i t a l i s m , t h e two b a s i c  i s the p r i n c i p l e  mode o f p r o d u c t i o n )  has  acknowledges.  been g r a d u a l l y  correspondingly,  class justifies  of l i b e r a l  exchange of l a b o r and  of p o l i t i c a l  economy  liberal  (the  c a p i t a l i s m . To t h i s  ideology  capital-  extent,  - an a c c o m p l i s h m e n t  3 7  the late replaced  according  19th c e n t u r y ,  liberal  capitalism  by s t a t e - r e g u l a t e d c a p i t a l i s m . And t o Habermas, t h e i d e o l o g y o f  e x c h a n g e h a s been s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h  background  ideology.  theory  its  t h e former c o n t r o l l i n g the  equivalent  Marxian  production,  has demonstrated t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of  e x c h a n g e under  However, s i n c e  with  of equivalent  Marx h a s unmasked t h e b o u r g e o i s Habermas  (although  classes are the  The l e g i t i m a t i o n b a s i s  c o m m o d i t i e s . Marx's c r i t i q u e  equivalent  This i s  ideology.  means o f p r o d u c t i o n .  ist  class(es)  i t ) . T h i r d , the r u l i n g  b o u r g e o i s e and t h e p r o l e t a r i a t ,  capitalism  production.  c l a s s a l s o s u f f e r s under t h i s mode o f  its realizing  in society:  c l a s s ( e s ) . Second, t h e  performed a t the expense of t h e n o n - r u l i n g the  related  Now t h e q u e s t i o n  a technocratic  Habermas r a i s e s i s , c a n  adequately perform a c r i t i q u e  of t h i s  new  ideology. Under t h e new i d e o l o g y , societal stability  goal  Habermas o b s e r v e s ,  i s system maintenance: t h i s  the primary  includes  economic  a n d g r o w t h a s w e l l a s i n d i v i d u a l employment  security.  24  income s t a b i l i t y ,  social  m o b i l i t y . To  end,  elimination the  of  system".  capitalism for  this  the  Thus t h e  3 8  this  fetish"  the  of  questions  on  an  gratification expressed  whether  out:  to  want of  they d e s i r e ;  i t i s by  ideology.  The  no  defined.  He  The  that,  material  of  to  mankind. completely  whether  we  p a c i f i c a t i o n and first  i t i s continuously s o c i e t y . The the  question  being  second kind  question  of  society  Hence  communication that  worked  the  among the  new  question.  unlike  the  c a s e of  in state-regulated  argues that  new  i t shuts  3 9  whether we  the  the  new  form o f d i s t r i b u t i n g s o c i a l 1  i t "makes a  means a t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n .  second  society  measures c o n t r i b u t e  answer t o t h e  unrestrained  threaten  Habermas i s  technology;  i s Habermas' c o n t e n t i o n  the  of  For  p o t e n t i a l , but  capitalist  class structure  mass l o y a l i t y " . " privatized  0  that  state-regulated  f a r as  i s not  purpose of  the  manipulation  members' r e f l e c t i o n s on  Habermas n o t i c e s  "a p o l i t i c a l  and  of  self-formation  question  i n t e c h n i c a l terms;  eliminates  clearly  i n the  f o r the  society. It  capitalism,  i s an  creatable  i t necessitates  members of ideology  risks  science  existence.""  societal  answer t o  a v o i d a n c e of  technocratic  "The  in state-regulated  refers  be  thinking  a v a i l a b l e ' or  c h o o s e what we  out  of  p r o g r e s s of  Habermas p o i n t s  is  toward  s y s t e m m a i n t e n a n c e . As  way  f o r upward  is "oriented  legitimation basis  human d e v e l o p m e n t  utilize  and  opportunity  i s exclusively technocratic  p u r p o s e of  overall  and  politics  dysfunctions  concerned,  out  welfare  system  liberal capitalism  ideology  thrives  rewards t h a t  furnishes  goods, l e i s u r e t i m e and  everybody  cannot on  guarantees with  achievement  25  opportunities skilled  and  so  that  capitalists,  managers, p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,  u n s k i l l e d workers a l i k e s h a r e the  maintaining  the  system. B e s i d e s ,  mechanism makes t e c h n o c r a t i c  the  political distribution  adjustments according  demands. Hence s t a t e - r e g u l a t e d  c a p i t a l i s m does not  framework of M a r x i a n a n a l y s i s . A c c o r d i n g fundamental problem with technical  one  as  differentiate instrumental no  logic  of  one.  public  f i t into  t o Habermas, i s not  Since  communicative  a c t i o n , Habermas c o n c l u d e s  to  the  the  so much a  Marx d i d  action  not  from t h a t  that Marxian  of  theory  is  longer e f f e c t i v e .  Against  Positivism  Despite to  s o c i e t y today  a communicative  the  same i n t e r e s t i n  the  concept  thinkers its  the  significant  of  and  simultaneously  20th  s t r i p p e d the permitted  centuries.*  critique  p o s i t i v i s m to  p o s i t i v i s m as  achievements of  sciences  for granted;  the  sciences  ( i . e . r e s u l t s of  method); the  limits  of  of  the  knowledge c o r r e s p o n d  knowing s u b j e c t  that  philosophy  scientific  i n the  in  the  i s not  of  the as  limits  of  the  potentially verifiable  science.  methodology;  name of  i t takes  is defined  to the  i s rendered meaningless. P o s i t i v i s m  improving  of  scientific  by  aims a t  fluorish  knowledge  method; a n y t h i n g  e p i s t e m o l o g y w i t h the  these  knowledge  follows:  scientific science  Marx made  2  Habermas c h a r a c t e r i z e s  f i n d i n g s of  H e g e l and  knowledge, Habermas l a m e n t s t h a t  c u t t i n g edge. T h i s  19th  contributions  The  replaces latter  i t obliterates  only the  o b j e c t i v i t y . Thus i n Habermas'  26  view, the  positivist  pre-Kantian  level."  Certainly attitude But  he  concept  of  knowledge  to  the  3  Habermas r e a l i z e s t h a t  toward  is a regression  science,  d o e s not  denounces p o s i t i v i s m ' s  positivism, a particular  coincide  l a c k of  with  science  itself.  fundamental q u e s t i o n i n g  of  sc i e n c e : By m a k i n g a dogma of t h e s c i e n c e s ' b e l i e f i n t h e m s e l v e s , p o s i t i v i s m assumes t h e p r o h i b i t i v e f u n c t i o n of p r o t e c t i n g s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y f r o m epistemological self-reflection. 1  It  i s clear that  part  of  the  reinforce  Habermas c o n s i d e r s  technocratic  each o t h e r .  For  Habermas' p r i m e t a r g e t Against  the  late  reflection  the  pioneers in  the  human  in this  natural  19th  century  and  in his c r i t i q u e  of  ideology  knowledge.  of p o s i t i v i s m , a c c o r d i n g saw  the  beginning  Habermas i d e n t i f i e s  d i r e c t i o n as  sciences  this  integral  r e a s o n p o s i t i v i s m becomes  attack  sciences.  p o s i t i v i s m and  an  Charles  of  two  selfof  Sanders P e i r c e  Wilhelm D i l t h e y  to  the  (1839-1914)  (1833-1911) i n  the  sciences.  Peirce's  R e f l e c t i o n on  Peirce toward  the  was  established the  was  procedure  to  of  natural  to c l a r i f y  framework, P e i r c e  established. This addition  Natural  Sciences  somewhat c a u t i o u s  validity  major concern  into  of  this  main c u r r e n t  Habermas, t h e of  ideology:  p o s i t i v i s m t o be  about  sciences.  the  took a s t e p  sciences  to  take  themselves.""  positivist  While the  scientific  i n which s c i e n t i f i c l e d him  the  positivists'  method w i t h i n  b e y o n d . He  theories  i n t o account In  other  attitude  the  inquired  were scientists  words,  Peirce  in  27  introduced  an  Instead  r e l y i n g on  Peirce  of  i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e element  defined  an  objective  scientific  in his  scientific  knowledge t o be  information  whose v a l i d i t y  a community  of  logic  i s accepted  i n q u i r e r s . Habermas  of  inquiry.  method  the  kind  through the  alone,  of consensus  of  explains:  T r u e means f o r him [ P e i r c e ] i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t have s t o o d up t o i n d e f i n i t e l y r e p e a t e d t e s t s and a r e i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e l y r e c o g n i z e d i n t h e l o n g r u n . From t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of r e a l i t y P e i r c e can c o n c l u d e t h a t e v e r y t h i n g r e a l i s knowable and t h a t , i n s o f a r as we know r e a l i t y , we know i t as i t i s . 4  Since  consensus  obtained cannot  i s subject  be  always o b t a i n e d  t o change, v a l i d i t y  d e f i n i t e a t any  confidence He  i s not  i n the  believed  that  point  scientific  i n q u i r y proceeds  scientific  method g r a n a n t e e s  c e r t a i n about  is  subject  inquiry;  fulfilled:  6  Put  4 7  Peirce's  assumption  i f one  of  objectivism  he  had progress.  structure  crucial  the  of  nobody  f i n d i n g s , whose  notion  process  of  forthcoming.  of  knowledge  condition in  can  validity  is  is  scientific  Habermas a r g u e s ,  d i d not  knowledge  available i f  actual progress  With t h i s assumption,  succumbed t o an  Peirce  differently,  i n p r i n c i p l e a d e f i n i t e answer  "the  scientific  r e v i s i o n s t h r o u g h the  makes s e n s e o n l y  knowledge".  4  consensus  in s c i e n t i f i c  f a r enough: t h e  Habermas o b s e r v e s t h a t acquisition  method and  it.  any  t i m e . But  individual scientific  to continuous  yet  of  a d e f i n i t e answer w o u l d be  p r o c e s s of  be  of  and  5  Peirce  realize:  The f a c t o f s c i e n t i f i c p r o g r e s s i n d u c e s P e i r c e t o define universal propositions exclusively in r e l a t i o n t o t h e a n t i c i p a t e d end of t h e p r o c e s s of i n q u i r y as a whole and y e t t o assume a t t h e same t i m e t h a t , i n i n c r e a s i n g measure, we o b j e c t i v e l y a r r i v e a t the t r u e s t a t e m e n t s even b e f o r e the consummation of t h i s p r o c e s s - d e s p i t e s u b j e c t i v e  28  u n c e r t a i n t y about the t r u t h one o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s . "  v a l u e of e v e r y  single  8  What P e i r c e  d i d was  a softening  o f t h e edges  s c i e n c e s w i t h o u t r e n o u n c i n g them; he inquiry  kept t h e d o o r open  on a community  of i n q u i r e r s  introduced  the concept of i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y  scientific  knowledge.  individual  community  was  subject  independent of the  affected  was  i n Habermas' view P e i r c e a d v a n c e d  of  based  on  life-world, of a  by e x p e r i e n c e s i n t h e beyond  life-  Kant i n  respect. N e v e r t h e l e s s , Habermas i n d i c a t e s  adequately conceptualize investigators  attempt  to bring  problems".* grounded logic  Peirce  b a s e d on t h e i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y  of s c i e n t i s t s  w o r l d . Thus  which  to  to the c r i t i q u e  U n l i k e K a n t , whose c r i t i q u e  knowing  Peirce's critique  this  objective  at a l l times.  With h i s emphasis  the  of  9  that  According  consensus about  of i n s t r u m e n t a l  situated  action,  in  when'they  metatheoretical  t o Habermas, t h i s  i n communicative  d i d not  "the ground of i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y  are always a l r e a d y  about  Peirce  intersubjectivity  which does not  follow  is  the  action:  The c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s r e q u i r e s t h e use of language t h a t i s not c o n f i n e d t o the l i m i t s of t e c h n i c a l c o n t r o l over o b j e c t i f i e d n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s . I t a r i s e s from s y m b o l i c i n t e r a c t i o n between s o c i e t a l s u b j e c t s who r e c i p r o c a l l y know and r e c o g n i z e e a c h o t h e r as u n m i s t a k a b l e i n d i v i d u a l s . 5 0  I n t h e way weakness  that  he c r i t i z e s Marx, Habermas f i n d s P e i r c e ' s  in his inability  communicative human s c i e n c e s  and  t o make a p r o p e r d i s t i n c t i o n  instrumental actions.  - which d e a l  major  between  I n Habermas' v i e w ,  w i t h communicative  action  - can  only shed  29  light  on t h e i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y w h i c h has been p r e s u p p o s e d  natural  science;  reflection  since  5 1  of n a t u r a l  Peirce  sciences  d i d not see t h i s , lacked  i n any  his self-  a g e n u i n e b i t e on .  positivism.  Dilthey's  R e f l e c t i o n on Human  One o f D i l t h e y ' s sciences  the  most renowned c o n t r i b u t i o n s  i s h i s formal  sciences.  distinction  object  a natural  systematic  o f s t u d y . He p o i n t s  science  cut that,  and p s y c h o l o g y  whereas t h e l a t t e r  formulation  of e x p e r i e n c e s  r e l a t i o n s h i p s so t h a t  becomes p o s s i b l e the  t o him, i s n o t so much i n  c o g n i t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n of n a t u r a l  causal  i s a human  science  situations  of expressions  in life.  is  into natural  expressions  established  clarification matter  5  6  appropriate  i n which  valid".  o f c o g n i t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s , two k i n d s  f o r sciences  5 5  i s g o v e r n e d by a  and o r d e r l y p r o c e d u r e s f o r r e a l i z i n g  and a c c e p t e d a s u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y  world  so t h a t  under  of expressions  5 3  laws o f  i s "understanding":  becomes p o s s i b l e  Reproduction  5 2  In c o n t r a s t ,  5  s y s t e m o f i n t e r a c t i o n s (Wirkgunqszusammenhanq) "common v a l u e s  science.  "explanation":  of i t s l a w s . "  of i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y i n l i f e  reproduction  for instance,  c o n t r o l of the n a t u r a l  through the study  subject  s t u d y humans, t h e f o r m e r  c o g n i t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n o f human s c i e n c e  grasping  a n d human  o f s t u d y a s i n t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e knowing  although both physiology  The  t o human  between n a t u r a l  The d i f f e r e n c e , a c c o r d i n g  toward t h e o b j e c t  is  Sciences  them a r e 5 7  With  this  of s u b j e c t -  c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d :  The r a n g e o f human s c i e n c e s i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of l i f e i n the e x t e r n a l world.  30  S p i r i t can only understand Nature, the subject-matter embraces t h e r e a l i t y w h i c h of t h e a c t i v i t y o f s p i r i t . has a c t i v e l y i m p r e s s e d h i s m a t t e r o f human s c i e n c e s .  what i t h a s c r e a t e d . of t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s , has a r i s e n independently E v e r y t h i n g on w h i c h man stamp forms t h e s u b j e c t -  5 8  Hailing  the Hegelian  p r o f o u n d and f o r t u n a t e own c o n c e p t world  o f embodiment o f S p i r i t  creation",  of o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n  as m a n i f e s t a t i o n  society  notion  5 9  Dilthey modified  of l i f e .  of the cosmic  as the t o t a l i t y  Instead  order,  o f human l i f e  "a  i t into h i s  of s e e i n g t h e  Dilthey  perceives  expressions;  i  We must s t a r t f r o m t h e r e a l i t y o f l i f e : l i f e c o n t a i n s t h e sum o f a l l m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s ( d i e T o t a l i t a e t d e s s e e l i s c h e n Zusammenhanges). H e g e l c o n s t r u c t e d m e t a p h y s i c a l l y , we a n a l y z e t h e g i v e n . W h i l e human s c i e n c e s Dilthey sciences of  s t r e s s e s t h a t they  mental  a r e not independent  activities,  of nature:  "human  embrace many p h y s i c a l f a c t s and a r e b a s e d on knowledge  the p h y s i c a l w o r l d " .  human  are concerned with  6 0  6 1  Thus D i l t h e y d e s c r i b e s  h i s approach t o  sciences: I s t a r t from t h e p h y s i c a l w o r l d a s I s e e i t , I n o t i c e t h a t m e n t a l f a c t s have t h e i r p l a c e i n t h e temporal and s p a t i a l arrangements o f t h e e x t e r n a l world T h i s i s the o r i g i n of the s c i e n t i f i c a p p r o a c h which p r o c e e d s from t h e e x t e r n a l t o t h e i n t e r n a l , from m a t e r i a l t o m e n t a l c h a n g e s . 6 2  This approach in  the natural Dilthey s 1  its  follows  from t h e n o t i o n  main  interest  i n human s c i e n c e  is objectified  methodology of t h e former  the e m p i r i c a l - a n a l y t i c  i s inappropriate  t h e knowing s u b j e c t  c a n n o t be c l e a r l y  i s the study of  of the d i f f e r e n c e i n o r i e n t a t i o n  between n a t u r a l and human s c i e n c e s  study  life  world.  m e t h o d o l o g y . As a r e s u l t  human s c i e n c e s  that  separated.  f o r t h e l a t t e r . In  and t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r This  i s due t o t h e  of  31  peculiarity there  of " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " .  In D i l t h e y ' s  i s an i n t i m a t e i n t e r r e l a t i o n  expression  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  way o f t h i n k i n g  (Zusammenhang) o f  which m a n i f e s t s  i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication and i n s o c i a l  itself  life, i n everyday  structures:  6 3  We c a n o n l y know o u r s e l v e s t h o r o u g h l y t h r o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; b u t we c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d o u r s e l v e s and o t h e r s e x c e p t by p r o j e c t i n g what we have a c t u a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d i n t o e v e r y e x p r e s s i o n o f our own a n d o t h e r s ' l i v e s . So man becomes t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f human s c i e n c e s o n l y when we r e l a t e e x p e r i e n c e , e x p r e s s i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o each other.«• For D i l t h e y  the proper  hermeneutics. The  f o r understanding  (or p a r t of i t ) i s c a l l e d  hermeneutical of  f o r human s c i e n c e s i s  6 5  subject-matter  life-world  methodology  t h e term  s c i e n c e s . There  text.  In t h e e a r l y  i s a historical  written  S i n c e t h e 18th c e n t u r y  understanding  interpreter life-world Dilthey in  of that  extended  particular  t h i s concept  of i t ) - resembles  methodology,  text  historical  of study  a written text  Hermeneutical  understanding  the  some g i v e n e x p r e s s i o n " :  self  into  dealt  with the  literature, i.e.  r e q u i r e s the t o be p a r t o f t h e era in question.  of understanding  the task of hermeneutics  f o r the use  i t was g e n e r a l l y h e l d  h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f  g e n e r a l , whose s u b e j e t - m a t t e r  part  and c l a s s i c  of a h i s t o r i c a l  t o imagine  reason  days hermeneutics  of h o l y s c r i p t u r e s  that,  as the  i n the context of  interpretation texts.  i s a "text",  6 6  t o human s c i e n c e s  - the l i f e - w o r l d (or  i n many w a y s . i s text  6 7  As  interpretation.  " c a n be d e s c r i b e d a s a p r o j e c t i o n o f 6 8  I t c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d s i m p l y a s an a c t o f thought; t r a n s p o s i t i o n , r e - c r e a t i o n (Nachbilden), r e - e x p e r i e n c i n g (Nacherleben), - these f a c t s pointed  32  t o w a r d t h e t o t a l i t y o f m e n t a l l i f e w h i c h was a c t i v e in i t . In t h i s r e s p e c t i t i s connected with e x p e r i e n c e which, a f t e r a l l , i s merely a becoming aware o f t h e whole m e n t a l r e a l i t y i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . So a l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o n t a i n s s o m e t h i n g i r r a t i o n a l b e c a u s e l i f e i s i r r a t i o n a l ; i t c a n n o t be r e p r e s e n t e d by a l o g i c a l f o r m u l a . 6 9  To  the extent  herself (to  the i n t e r p r e t e r  re-create i t , re-experience  validity  here  other  understand,  nor can t h e  empirically.  t o m e r e l y one p a r t o f t h e c o n t e n t  i t i s impossible  f o r anyone t o g r a s p  text at the beginning  attempt  be v e r i f i e d  to  of the t e x t  i s a dilemma. On t h e one hand, an i n t e r p r e t e r h a s  immediate a c c e s s time:  i t ) i n order  way t o u n d e r s t a n d ,  o f any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  Now  entire  imagine h i m s e l f or  t o become p a r t o f t h e s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s  t h e r e c a n n o t be a s t a n d a r d  a  o f a t e x t must  t o understand  of a text a t  the content  o f a r e a d i n g ; he o r she c a n o n l y  t h e t e x t g r a d u a l l y , p a r t by p a r t . On t h e  hand, s i n c e e v e r y  p a r t of a t e x t  i s an e x p r e s s i o n  life-world,  and t h e meaning o f an e x p r e s s i o n c a n n o t be  established  o u t s i d e of the context  the  expression  without  belongs,  understanding  hermeneutics possible  of  might  always  a part  of the  t o which  of p a r t s i s impossible i s a problem p e c u l i a r t o circle":  " i t [ i s ] only  i n terms of i t s p l a c e  in a  [ c a n ] o n l y become c o m p r e h e n s i b l e  larger  i n terms  7 0  the hermeneutical  first  practical  understanding  the whole. T h i s  to understand  its parts". But  of the l i f e - w o r l d  known a s t h e " h e r m e n e u t i c a l  w h o l e , y e t t h e whole  of the  appear  relation  circle  t o be. T h i s to l i f e .  i s not a v i c i o u s c i r c l e ,  i s due t o h e r m e n e u t i c s '  immediate  D i l t h e y p o i n t s out t h a t s o c i a l  f o l l o w s some p r i n c i p l e  as i t  of o r g a n i z a t i o n ; i t i s never  life  33  completely can  occur  c h a o t i c . He a r g u e s only because there  that a p r i n c i p l e i s meaning  of o r g a n i z a t i o n  in l i f e :  The c a t e g o r y o f meaning d e s i g n a t e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n h e r e n t i n l i f e , o f p a r t s o f a l i f e t o t h e whole The meaning o f a p a s t moment ... i s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r communal l i f e b e c a u s e t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v e n e d i n t h e s h a p i n g o f mankind c o n t r i b u t e d t o i t with h i s e s s e n t i a l being The p a r t i c u l a r moment g a i n s meaning from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e whole, f r o m t h e c o n n e c t i o n between p a s t a n d f u t u r e , between i n d i v i d u a l and m a n k i n d . 7 1  It  i s the e x i s t e n c e of a coherence  rise  to a principle  social a  in social  meaning t h a t  gives  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . B u t n e i t h e r meaning n o r  organization i s fixed;  they  keep b u i l d i n g  on t h e p a s t i n  self-formative process: Our v i e w o f t h e meaning o f l i f e c h a n g e s c o n s t a n t l y . E v e r y p l a n f o r y o u r l i f e e x p r e s s a view o f t h e meaning o f l i f e . The p u r p o s e s we s e t f o r t h e f u t u r e a r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e meaning we g i v e t o t h e p a s t .  7 2  Now  the i n t e r r e l a t i o n  understanding  of experience,  c a n be b e t t e r i l l u s t r a t e d  m e a n i n g . "An e x p e r i e n c e  i s a unit  common meaning" a n d " e v e r y is  a s i g n which  life". of  7  3  life,  This  e x p r e s s i o n and  signifies  With experience,  w i t h t h e concept of  made up o f p a r t s l i n k e d  e x p r e s s i o n h a s a meaning  i s t h e way one u n d e r s t a n d s  t o approach the hermeneutical  start  out with  inadequate experiences individual  of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r  this this  parts  t o the whole.  t h e meaning o f an e x p r e s s i o n . I n  order  some p r e c o n c e i v e d  circle  conception life-world,  an i n t e r p r e t e r  must  of the p r i n c i p l e of no m a t t e r  how  c o n c e p t i o n may b e . A s t h e i n t e r p r e t e r life-world,  expressions  i t  i s part of  how c e r t a i n  r e p r e s e n t e d by e x p r e s s i o n s , a r e c o n n e c t e d  organization  i n so f a r  or p o i n t s t o something t h a t one c a n u n d e r s t a n d  by a  he o r s h e a t t e m p t s  i n terms o f t h i s  to integrate  conception.  Further  34  experience  r e v e a l s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s between e x p r e s s i o n s a n d t h e  p r e c o n c e i v e d c o n c e p t i o n , which l e a d s t o a c o r r e c t i o n latter.  Attempts  a r e a g a i n made t o i n t e g r a t e  experiences i n  terms of t h e c o r r e c t e d c o n c e p t i o n . With each procedure  the i n t e r p r e t e r ' s  progressively gradually under  resembles  study. Consequently circle  way o f a p p r o a c h i n g characterized  self-formative  i n meaning  process  he o r she i n the l i f e - w o r l d  h i s or her understanding  improves: the  does not r e t u r n t o i t s s t a r t i n g  the hermeneutical  a s "a s p i r a l  circle  approximation  of t h i s  point. This  h a s been  toward  greater  accuracy  knowledge". " 7  Although  t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l method l a c k s t h e r i g o r  empirical-analytic not  repetition  the kind i n the t e x t ;  d i s c o v e r s the coherence  hermeneutical  and  imagined  of the  method o f t h e n a t u r a l  of the  sciences, Dilthey d i d  abandon t h e n o t i o n o f o b j e c t i v i t y : Every science i m p l i e s a c l a i m to v a l i d i t y . I f there a r e t o be s t r i c t l y s c i e n t i f i c human s c i e n c e s t h e y must a i m more c o n s c i o u s l y a n d c r i t i c a l l y a t validity. 7 5  Dilthey  realized  objectivity these  is a conflict  between t h e g o a l o f  i n human s c i e n c e s and t h e n o t i o n t h a t  sciences arises  solved each  there  from  life.  He b e l i e v e d  by c o n s i d e r i n g an o b j e c t i v e  system  knowledge i n  t h i s problem  c a n be  of i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n  culture: I f i n d the p r i n c i p l e f o r the settlement of the c o n f l i c t w i t h i n these s c i e n c e s i n the understanding of t h e h i s t o r i c a l w o r l d a s a s y s t e m o f i n t e r a s t i o n s c e n t e r e d on i t s e l f ; e a c h i n d i v i d u a l s y s t e m o f i n t e r a c t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n i t has, through the p o s i t i n g o f v a l u e s and t h e i r r e a l i z a t i o n , i t s c e n t e r w i t h i n i t s e l f , but a l l a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y l i n k e d i n t o a whole i n w h i c h t h e meaning o f t h e whole web o f t h e s o c i a l - h i s t o r i c a l w o r l d a r i s e s from t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e  35  of t h e i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s ; thus every value-judgment and e v e r y p u r p o s e p r o j e c t e d i n t o t h e f u t u r e must be b a s e d e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e s e s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n ships . 76  Thus D i l t h e y be  was c o n v i n c e d  and s h o u l d  that' t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l method  be o b j e c t i v e  i n i t s own  fashion:  i f the  interpreter  keeps w o r k i n g  eventually,  i n p r i n c i p l e , the hermeneutical c i r c l e  dissolved  on t h e p a r t - w h o l e r e l a t i o n ,  and t h e s o c i a l - h i s t o r i c a l  present  itself  Dilthey  assumed t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  individual as  points  could  w o r l d under  c a n be  study would  then  t o the i n t e r p r e t e r o b j e c t i v e l y . Put d i f f e r e n t l y , of a n e u t r a l  i n t e r p r e t e r s take t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e of d e p a r t u r e ,  observer: initial  while situations  t h e y a r e s u p p o s e d t o a r r i v e a t t h e same  destination. Habermas a p p r e c i a t e s human  sciences.  What D i l t h e y sciences the  t h e advancement D i l t h e y  But he a l s o  ignored,  exposes  according  regarding  major  weakness.  t o Habermas, was t h a t a l l  a r e g o v e r n e d by " i n t e r e s t s " . Here Habermas  c o n c e p t s o f t e c h n i c a l and p r a c t i c a l c o g n i t i v e  former governs the v i e w p o i n t is  the l a t t e r ' s  made  the cognitive  basis  of n a t u r a l  effective  i n t e r e s t behind sciences.  communication;  communicative  of p o s s i b l e  action  not i n t h e o r d i n a r y  and t h e  interest  o f human s c i e n c e s .  Habermas s p e a k s o f p r a c t i c a l c o g n i t i v e "practical"  action  governs the viewpoint of  i t i s the c o g n i t i v e  and t h e b a s i s  i n t e r e s t s . The  technical control; i t  instrumental  The l a t t e r  introduces  behind When  7 7  i n t e r e s t he u s e s t h e t e r m  sense but i n a Kantian  sense. In  F o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e M e t a p h y s i c s o f M o r a l s and C r i t i q u e o f Practical action;  Reason Kant d i s c u s s e s  what  the morality  of i n d i v i d u a l  i s p r a c t i c a l t o him i s a l w a y s t i e d  to  morality.  7 8  36  Certainly notion word  Habermas does n o t s u b s c r i b e  of m o r a l i t y ,  "practical".  anchored  b u t he i n h e r i t s  t o the Kantian  institutions;  requires observation  t h a t he c a l l s  communicative a c t i o n p r a c t i c a l .  priori  i n t h e same way  defines This,  o f norms. I t i s i n t h i s  the l e v e l  that  according we  shall  see l a t e r ,  Gadamer  and r e - e x p e r i e n c i n g  conversation information  oneself  Dilthey:  interest  from t h e t e x t ; he o r she h e l p s  not see t h a t  i s governed  8 2  human s c i e n c e s  sciences  at a higher  distinction i s crucial Largely  own c a t e g o r i e s  receive  i t . Learning  argument a g a i n s t  t h e i n t e r p r e t e r a s an  observer  with the  process  itself  Thus i n Habermas' v i e w D i l t h e y ' s  way o f t h i n k i n g e l i m i n a t e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  The  interpretation i s  create  the hermeneutical  by n o r m s .  a  i n t o the t e x t , r e -  i n s t e a d of a p a r t i c i p a n t communicating  t e x t , he c o u l d  8 1  to r e a l i z e .  p a r t n e r s . The i n t e r p r e t e r does n o t s i m p l y  since Dilthey perceived  the t e x t  a  i n t e r p r e t e r and t e x t a s  f r o m Gadamer, Habermas d e v e l o p s a s i m i l a r  theory.  itself  shows t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g  the t e x t . Rather,  with  sense  practical  of hermeneutics  t o Habermas, i s what D i l t h e y f a i l e d  analogous t o a d i a l o g u e ,  itself  "The  8 0  the t e c h n i c a l c o g n i t i v e  i s not a matter of t r a n s p o s i n g  creating  of  i s always  t h e framework o f t h e e m p i r i c a l - a n a l y t i c s c i e n c e s . "  As text  defines  of the  effective  communication  interest  priori  the moral c o n n o t a t i o n  F o r Habermas, human i n t e r a c t i o n  7 9  i n norms and s o c i a l  cognitive  a  of s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n of  level.  D i l t h e y made between n a t u r a l and human t o the foundation  b a s e d on t h i s  o f Habermas'  distinction  critical  Habermas d e v e l o p s h i s  o f a c t i o n and c o g n i t i v e i n t e r e s t .  While  37  instrumental to n a t u r a l  technical cognitive  communicative  i n t e r e s t correspond  Dilthey's  Notion  and  sciences,  cognitive that  action  of  influence  cognitive  the  but  t h e y do  was  the  the  two  H e g e l who  d i r e c t i o n of  self-formative progressing  thinking  therefore of  can  see  mankind can  level  the  the  of  tell  83  of  by  society.  historical  the  functioning  a third  overcome  concept  the this  of mankind moving  freedom through  reality turns  Hegelian  rationality  beauty of  on  act  of  of Reason  next one". *  8 5  It  and  reveals  advance to a  higher  i n Habermas' v i e w , i t p e r m i t s mankind  u n o b s c u r e d by  the  self-reflection  ideology that  is  This  8  experiences.  Reason,  i t contains;  future  seen  in i t s contradictions, i n t o the  in  self-reflection  notion  i t s a d v e r s i t i e s and  power  e p o c h . "The  element,  p r o c e s s . More p r e c i s e l y , m a n k i n d was  R e a s o n . The  of  Marx.  f r e e d o m , c o n s c i o u s n e s s and  is self-reflection  for a brighter  For  i n t e r e s t s . Habermas d e r i v e s  developed  follows  f r e e d o m . The  two  d i r e c t i o n i n which  introduced  f r o m H e g e l and  each l e v e l  self-reflective  search  reveal  toward g r e a t e r  which  thinking  "lower"  greater  a process guided  kind  can  emancipatory c o g n i t i v e ' i n t e r e s t , which guides  It  "the  not  t h i s r e a s o n he  h i s theory  the  f o r a c r i t i q u e of  quo  t o be  On  above m e n t i o n e d c o n c e p t  status  element of  how  the  interests e s s e n t i a l l y explain  of  in  immense.  two  directions  in  Habermas i s  these  called  practical  t o human s c i e n c e s .  i n t e r e s t s inadequate  s o c i e t y moves. F o r  the  and  correspond  Emancipation  Habermas c o n s i d e r s  him,  on  action  interest  of  is to any  'changes a  38  life'  i s a movement o f e m a n c i p a t i o n . "  i n c o r p o r a t e s Reason  i n t o h i s own  cognitive  which  interest,  "aims a t t h e p u r s u i t n o t i o n s , Reason self-formative of  can  of  cognitive  natural  necessity  other humans.  nature-imposed emancipation undistorted action,  interest that  from  that  action.  technical  9 0  accurately,  s h o u l d say these  not e x t e r n a l communication  clear  includes  freedom  interfering  power  while emancipation  from  in instrumental action,  cognitive  i n emancipation.  interests  9 1  requires  through  interests, More  a r e embodied  in a l l  interest i s  F o r Habermas,  freeing  self-reflection;  i t is  o f a change o f t h e mode o f p r o d u c t i o n . I t i s  Habermas' n o t i o n o f e m a n c i p a t i o n  t o Marx.  from  emancipation  Marx h a s a l r e a d y  a s Habermas s t r e s s e s ,  from d i s t o r t i o n  content  Hence a l l knowledge and  t o knowledge a n d a c t i o n .  not a by-product  8 8  level  and p r a c t i c a l  g u i d e d by an i n t e r e s t  since,  that  c a n o n l y be a c h i e v e d  are u l t i m a t e l y  knowledge and a c t i o n  world.  i s achieved  human r e p r e s s i o n  and i n d e e d ,  i n the  the s p e c i f i c  He m a i n t a i n s  as w e l l as freedom  communicative  we  L i k e many o t h e r H e g e l i a n  at the s o c i e t a l  requirements  and  t h e n o t i o n o f Reason p l a c e s  Habermas a r g u e s  89  freedom  evolves.  i n the m a t e r i a l  human f r e e d o m  toward  i t h a s t o be a c t u a l i z e d  e m p h a s i s on t h o u g h t .  shown t h a t  8 7  thus  emancipatory  p r o c e s s . By t h e same t o k e n ,  o n l y be r e a l i z e d  from  of r e f l e c t i o n " .  Habermas o b s e r v e s  excessive  t h e o r y as  i s an o r i e n t a t i o n  i s not f i x e d ;  emancipatory But  Habermas  8 6  owes a s much t o H e g e l  as  39  The P s y c h o a n a l y t i c In o r d e r the  societal  Model  to f a c i l i t a t e level,  Habermas  science. This science a "deviant  reflection;  i n other  to generate  a  words, 9 3  critical  knowledge f o r  self-formative process"  of mankind.  psychoanalysis  systematically at  seeks to d e v e l o p  i s intended  redirecting  emancipation  self-reflection  9 2  through  self-  i t i s t o be a v e h i c l e f o r t h e To t h i s  end Habermas  a s t h e model o f h i s c r i t i c a l  adopts  science:  P s y c h o a n a l y s i s i s r e l e v a n t t o us as the o n l y t a n g i b l e example o f a s c i e n c e i n c o r p o r a t i n g m e t h o d i c a l s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n . The b i r t h o f p s y c h o a n a l y s i s opens up t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a r r i v i n g at t h e d i m e n s i o n t h a t p o s i t i v i s m c l o s e d o f f , and of d o i n g so i n a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l manner t h a t a r i s e s o u t of t h e l o g i c of i n q u i r y . " 9  Dream a n a l y s i s - t h e h a l l m a r k  of psychoanalysis  text  considers psychoanalysis  interpretation.  modified former  Habermas  hermeneutical  t o be a  s c i e n c e ; but he a l s o p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e  i n c l u d e s a dimension  While D i l t h e y r e s t r i c t e d expressions  - i s a type of  not found  h i s inquiry  i n the l i f e - w o r l d ,  Freud  i n D i l t h e y ' s methodology. to consciously  intended  (1856-1939) f o c u s e d h i s  attention  on u n c o n s c i o u s  disclosed  i n h i s p a t i e n t ' s dreams. F o r D i l t h e y , a s u b j e c t ' s  expressions subject  they  can i n p r i n c i p l e  itself.  distortions  f r o m what  omissions  systematically left  be c o m p l e t e l y  i s intended,  "dream  After  life  by t h e  expressions, i . e .  are considered accidents;  i n the methodology. For  and d i s t o r t i o n s  analyzed.  a r e the r e a l  role  (Sinnzusammenhaenge)  understood  Inadequate or u n i n t e l l i g i b l e  p l a y no s i g n i f i c a n t  however,  meaning s t r u c t u r e s  i n a. dream  Freud,  t e x t must  a screening process,  the  be contents  s y m b o l s " , w h i c h a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  40  their  resistence  symbols  to  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Yet  i s p r e c i s e l y the  task  of  observes that,  unlike Dilthey's  the  a possibly  meaning o f  searches  f o r the  Let  us  undistorted  patient  the  from t h e  manifested  social  norms, so  communication;  by  c o r r e c t s h i s or normal.  9  To  and  self-formative  h i s or  her  logic the  model  expressions  process  source of  p r o c e s s and  are  as  the  the  distorted  patient  life  then  becomes  6  the  patient,  extent  the  therapist  resist  i n t e r p r e t i n g p r o c e s s has  and  then d e c i d e  dream symbols  the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by  t o be  outcome s u g g e s t e d t o t h e  to accept  or  r e j e c t the  performed patient,  by  who  the a  must  interpretation:  The i n t e l l e c t u a l work i s s h a r e d by p h y s i c i a n and p a t i e n t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: The f o r m e r r e c o n s t r u c t s what has been f o r g o t t e n from t h e f a u l t y t e x t s o f t h e l a t t e r , from h i s dreams, a s s o c i a t i o n s , and r e p e t i t i o n s , w h i l e t h e l a t t e r , a n i m a t e d by t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s s u g g e s t e d by t h e p h y s i c i a n as h y p o t h e s e s , remembers Only the p a t i e n t ' s r e c o l l e c t i o n d e c i d e s t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e construction. 9  If  the  patient  is  t o be  s o u g h t and  interpretation  7  r e j e c t s the the  interpretation, further  process  i s a c c e p t e d by  repeated  the  until  patient.  The  a  of  has  in psychoanalysis  t h i s d i s t o r t i o n , the  self-formative  of  communication,  r e a l i z e s the  correcting  her  the  r e p r e s e n t e d by  i n dreams, becomes d i s t o r t e d ;  self-reflects  9 5  under w h i c h a l l l i f e  patient's  discovers  psychoanalysis  a text d i s t o r t i o n .  norms a r e  dream  Habermas  hermeneutics, which  Habermas p e r c e i v e s  communication,  comprehensible; deviated  meaning of  the  psychoanalysis.  distorted text,  summarize how  psychoanalysis:  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  information  final  patient's  self-  41  reflection  i s then  complete.  9 8  Freud extended h i s psychology normality the  or  deviance  institutional  individual  in  relation This  to other  to material  of  accomplished  structure  of  which  subtle  of  pathology.  1 0 0  organization  i s the  the  according the  no  be  to c o r r e c t  bring  longer  social  technological  be  i s the  people  social  so  rigidified  In  norms i s  i n mankind's  root  that  is  of  human technical technical  power s t r u c t u r e  short,  society  the  in  obsolete;  a c t i o n has  d i s t o r t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n . The with  the  societal  r a t i o n a l i z e s i t become  in line  that  through  l e g i t i m i z e d . Hence p o l i t i c a l  the  so  art; this distorted  p u r p o s e of  nature,  due  establishment  p r i c e mankind p a y s  ultimate  that  institutions level.  of  s t y l e s and  which  the  determined  survive;  need f o r r e p r e s s i o n . W i t h  t o him,  ideology  they can taken  imposition  the  c o n t r o l of  the  theory:  the  i s a necessary e v i l  but  p r o g r e s s would reduce the  and  be  to  u n c o n s c i o u s manner,  human i n s t i n c t s ,  F r e u d assumed t h a t  in order  impose demands on  i d e a l s , values,  nature,  to  9 9  the  and  communication  The  this  that  can  s c a r c i t y requires  repressed;  rites,  repression  society  self-foramtion  cultures.  t o combat  in a  against  progress,  same t o k e n , F r e u d h e l d  societal  institutions,  religions,  s o c i e t y to which  s c a r c i t y p e o p l e must work  wishes are  struggle  the  the  Habermas i n t e r p r e t s F r e u d ' s s o c i a l  effort  social  their  s t a t e of  i s how  collective  by  theory.  i n d i v i d u a l i s judged a c c o r d i n g  framework of  belongs;  pathological  of an  into social  goal  i s to  achieved  should  seek t o  to  minimize  42  repression  o f human i n s t i n c t s  technological  achievements.  In Habermas' v i e w , o v e r M a r x ' s i n one communicative that  Freud's  institutions,  naturalistic  from  itself  certain This,  which  does 1 0 2  he  by c u l t u r e ,  failed that  control  of r e p r e s s i o n  t h i n k i n g . Marx, on  refuses  i s always  attempts  to c a p i t a l i z e  prime  drives  never  theory that justified.  knew from t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s :  senses  i s t h e work o f a l l p r e v i o u s  i n the humanist  centering  "the  flaw i n Freudian  not  tradition  fall  into  o f H e g e l , Marx  the  naturalistic  of F r e u d .  o f e x t e n d i n g p s y c h o a n a l y s i s from t h e  level  Freud's  t o be  from F r e u d ' s  to share the pessimism  societal  from  by  and h e r m e n e u t i c s , Habermas does  Instead  f o r a change i n  human needs and  i s t h e major  cultivation  Educated  realized  S i n c e mankind can  1 0 3  in society  "The  he  Freud  t h e f o r m o f s u c h n e e d s and d r i v e s i s  human n a t u r e i s c o n d i t i o n e d  "  improvement  follow automatically  t o see t h a t  t h e o t h e r hand,  of the f i v e  current  separates  Y e t Habermas r e j e c t s  that  trap;  not  nature, i t follows  a c c o r d i n g t o Habermas,  1 0  action.  s t a n c e . F r e u d took human i n s t i n c t s  degree  history."  the former  i s required  the p r o d u c t of c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  completely  t h e o r y i s an  instrumental  innovations.  mover o f h i s t o r y " ; shaped  social  important respect:  action  technological  t h e framework o f  1 0 1  a s e p a r a t e course of a c t i o n  social  are  within  individual  on t h e c o n c e p t o f i n s t i n c t ,  on t h e c o n c e p t o f  Habermas  self-reflection:  J u s t a s i n t h e c l i n i c a l s i t u a t i o n , so i n s o c i e t y , p a t h o l o g i c a l c o m p u l s i o n i t s e l f i s a c c o m p a n i e d by t h e i n t e r e s t i n i t s a b o l i t i o n . Both the p a t h o l o g y of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h a t o f i n d i v i d u a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s r e s i d e i n t h e medium o f l a n g u a g e and o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n and assume t h e f o r m o f a  to  a  43  s t r u c t u r a l d e f o r m a t i o n o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h a t i s why for t h e s o c i a l system, t o o , the i n t e r e s t i n h e r e n t i n t h e p r e s s u r e o f s u f f e r i n g i s a l s o i m m e d i a t e l y an i n t e r e s t i n enlightenment; and r e f l e c t i o n i s the o n l y p o s s i b l e dynamic t h r o u g h w h i c h i t r e a l i z e s itself. 1 0 5  The  methodology of s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n  concludes, despite  i s Freud's true c o n t r i b u t i o n to s o c i a l  the fact  critical  t h a t Freud  i s to follow the i t can f r e e  t o Recent  s o c i e t y from  Writings pages we d i s c u s s e d Habermas' c o n c e p t  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process, mainly  of  by f o l l o w i n g h i s argument i n  Knowledge a n d Human I n t e r e s t s . E s s e n t i a l l y  he p o i n t s o u t t h e r e  two b a s i c components i n t h e s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s :  i n s t r u m e n t a l and communicative neither is  theory,  was unaware o f i t . The  model o f p s y c h o a n a l y s i s ;  In t h e p r e c e d i n g  are  Habermas  ideology.  From E a r l y  the  himself  s c i e n c e Habermas has i n mind  therapeutic its  in psychoanalysis,  of these  a third  formative three  components c a n be r e d u c e d  component, e m a n c i p a t i o n , process  types  knowledge  a c t i o n s . Although  to the other.  three  Habermas c l a s s i f i e s  spheres:  There  which c o r r e c t s the s e l f -  when i t becomes d e v i a n t . C o r r e s p o n d i n g  of a c t i v i t i e s ,  into  interrelated,  t o the  scientific  n a t u r a l , human and c r i t i c a l  s c i e n c e s . The o r i e n t a t i o n s o f t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f knowledge and  action,  interests embedded these the  a c c o r d i n g t o him, a r e g o v e r n e d by t h r e e c o g n i t i v e  - technical,  practical  and emancipatory - which a r e  i n a l l knowledge and a c t i o n .  interests,  The s p e c i f i c  however, a r e n o t f i x e d :  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process;  i n other  they  contents of  a r e outcomes o f  words, t h e y  a r e c u l t u r a l as  44  well  as  historical.  KHI  establishes  This  does not  fact  he  has  on  "A  indicates  the  new  the  t o be  entirely  shifting  few  his  years  critique  able  a theory  t o work out  soon)".  e s s a y s on  theory.  h i s concept  Reconstruction  of  1 0 6  This  of H i s t o r i c a l  other  recent  works, t h e r e  renounced the contrary,  tripartite  h i s recent  incoherent  orientation in i s now  only  the  ( w h i c h I hope  of  l e a s t developed the  i n t e n t i o n of  "What I s social  evolution  i n d i c a t i o n he  essay  has  established  t o p i c s are  i n terms "Toward a  t o KHI  there.  considered  critique  in Legitimation  in  completely On  the  i n t e n t i o n becomes  p o s i t i o n . For  r a t i o n a l planning  his  t o p i c s would seem f r a g m e n t a r y  d e v e l o p or modify h i s e a r l i e r of  aspects  Universal  i n c l u d i n g the  themselves; h i s  i f these  needed  Materialism".  model he  research  i f t a k e n by  intelligible  i s no  explains  w r i t e r s have made  A l t h o u g h Habermas s e l d o m makes d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e his  ones.  Thus Habermas w i s h e s t o d i r e c t  s u c h as  communication,  elements,  e n d e a v o r s . He  communication  clarifies  his exploration  new  with e a r l i e r  scientistic  considers  communication  and  of  In  emphases,  l e s s u r g e n t . What  of  t o w a r d what he  future  the  then.  Human I n t e r e s t s " Habermas  several  of  writings.  since  incorporating  consistent  d i r e c t i o n of  construction  Pragmatics?", of  not  i n the  his c r i t i c a l  later  changed h i s views  "which makes c r i t i c i s m  his effort of  not  h i s p o s i t i o n by  preceding  much headway  is  has  of Habermas' l a t e r  P o s t s c r i p t t o Knowledge and  i n the  society  foundation  d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s and  which are  In  that  mean he  modified  elaborating some of  the  e f f o r t s to  example, Crisis  his is  an  and  45  elaboration  of h i s c r i t i q u e  "Toward a R e c o n s t r u c t i o n  of  technocratic  of H i s t o r i c a l  reformulation  of  own  notion  self-formation. Besides,  the  s t r u c t u r e of  Universal unless this  of  Pragmatics?"  one  is familiar  reason,  Materialism"  the Marxian c o n c e p t i o n  s p e e c h a c t s and  KHI  would with  KHI  Habermas' c r i t i c a l  his detail  import  for  be  found  "Postscript to  analyze  KHI.  But  critical rest  the  important and  that  For  our  materials  present  and of  distinction of d i s c o u r s e .  communicative  the  basic shall  Practice  i t i s not  necessary  written  since  framework of discuss  and  1 0 7  these  his in  the  Discourse the  earlier  between t h e In KHI  model Habermas makes realm  was  not  critique  of  ideology,  u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ; i t has discourse  i s given  he  that  could  finds this  t o be a  yet  considered  a c t i o n . T h e r e Habermas a r g u e d  such as  an  o f a c t i o n and  Habermas had  t h r o u g h c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n . Now  formulation,  research d i r e c t i o n s  t h a t Habermas has  " d i s c o u r s e " . Speech communication  vague and  For  chapter.  revision  reflection,  theory  understanding  purpose  d e s e r v e a t t e n t i o n . We  Experience  In a  to s o c i a l  t o T h e o r y and  changes that a f f e c t  theory  of  Action,  t o KHI".  a few  Is  theory.  in his Introduction  a l l the  his  a n a l y s i s of  " P o s t s c r i p t t o KHI".  R u d i m e n t s of many of Habermas' r e c e n t can  is a  i n "What  irrelevant  and  and  of h i s t o r y b a s e d on  utterances  seem  i s of p r i m a r y  ideology,  modified.  special,  experience  defined  part  of  selfonly  take  concept  too  With the  somewhat  place  new  independent  46  status act  from  and  the realm  experience.  According communicative naively also  In  t o Habermas, when p e o p l e  a c t i o n s a r e based  accept  o t h e r words, t h e r e social  With h i s hermeneutical  were j u s t i f i a b l e :  governing critical  he s i m p l y  the process  issues concerning  1 1 0  potentially  reasoning  experience This  intersubjectively  accepted  actions are  unreflective  a p p r o v a l of  investigated  them a s t h e y  i n t o account itself.  social  norms  were.  t h e r e were  F o r Habermas,  these  separated  from  to the extent  action.  i n the l i f e - w o r l d i t c a n be  means t h a t a d i f f e r e n t something  similar  under  i s due t o t h e a p r i o r i  must  intersubjectively person can similar  knowledge t h a t i s  shared:  Whenever I p e r c e i v e s o m e t h i n g , t h i s e x p e r i e n c e n e c e s s a r i l y has t h e o b j e c t i v i t y by v i r t u e o f t h e c a t e g o r i c a l framework i n w h i c h I i n t e r p r e t my e x p e r i e n c e a p r i o r i a s an e x p e r i e n c e o f o b j e c t s i n the w o r l d . l T l  When Habermas s p e a k s o f e x p e r i e n c e experience  in practical  norms  norms must be t a c k l e d i n a c o u r s e o f  that experience  He p r o b a b l y  circumstances.  on t r u e i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e y  method, D i l t h e y  of i n q u i r y  t o be o b j e c t i v e ,  shared.  they  1 0 9  d i d not take  Habermas a r g u e s claim  life,  But he d i d n o t q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e s e  Dilthey  argumentative  people  f o r judging actions are appropriate.  i s an i m p l i c i t ,  practices.  norms o f a c t i o n .  where  participate in  t h a t t h e norms o f t h e i r  and t h a t t h e norms  Furthermore,  practice  and i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t i o n s i n d a i l y  uncritically  existing  social  1 0 8  assume t h e i r  correct  of everyday  life,  he u s u a l l y  as d i s t i n c t  refers to  from, say, data  47  acquired action  experiments.  in life  world. like  from  whereas t h e l a t t e r  Habermas c o n t e n d s  1 1 2  action, To  is directly  i s withdrawn  that experience  is essentially  the extent  capable  The f o r m e r  related to  from  the everyday  i n everyday  life,  unreflective.  humans a r e s p e a k i n g  o f making s t a t e m e n t s  about  s u b j e c t s , they a r e  a c t i o n s and e x p e r i e n c e s . The  subject-matter  of a statement  between p e o p l e  and t h i n g s , o r r e l a t i o n s h i p among p e o p l e .  it  covers  action,  the sphere  about  error  judged taken  i s free  by e x p e r i e n c e  main c o n c e r n  here  in practical  Habermas a r g u e s ,  1 1 3  determined  error  the o b j e c t i v i t y  merely In  provides order  the concept  a due p r o c e s s  observes:  is a  possibility  statement  or d e c e p t i o n cannot  be  t h e outcome o f a c t i o n s informs  the actor  of s t a t e d experience  of a s t a t e m e n t " .  The l a t t e r  1 1 0  i s not  cannot  of reasoning. S t a t e d  be  sxperience  information f o r reasoning.  to question v a l i d i t y  c l a i m s , Habermas  o f d i s c o u r s e . When t h e v a l i d i t y  p r o p o s i t i o n a l content a d i s c o u r s e . At t h i s  i s i n question, stage,  of a statement  after  introduces  of a statement  i t i s presented  the content  a fact  with  as p a r t o f  of the statement  c o n s i d e r e d h y p o t h e t i c a l o n l y . "What we c a l l content  He  of the s t a t e d experience. Yet,  the " o b j e c t i v i t y  without  i s the kind of  In h i s v i e w , whether a  from  Hence  communicative  t o be o b j e c t i v e t h e r e  alone. Certainly,  same a s t h e t r u t h  relationship  life.  on t h e b a s i s o f a s t a t e d e x p e r i e n c e  something about  the  claims  or d e c e p t i o n . "  about e x p e r i e n c e  1  experience  "Since experience of  of instrumental a c t i o n ,  or both. Habermas  statements  may be t h i n g s ,  is  i s the  i t h a s been s u b j e c t e d t o a  48  discourse  that  i s now  ( f o r the time being) concluded.  what we want t o a s s e r t a s t r u e a f t e r Obviously  i n f l u e n c e d , by P e i r c e , Habermas t a k e s  s o m e t h i n g whose v a l i d i t y community truth".  T h i s consensus  1 1 6  assume t h a t The  the ultimate  be  follow".  an " i d e a l  the d i s c o u r s e .  speech s i t u a t i o n " .  For  The  I t can a l s o  truth claims.  This  action.  of a s t r u c t u r e and a i s what  I t c o n s i s t s of  w h i c h make r e a s o n i n g  communication  details  unfolded.  i s an i n q u i r y i n t o t h e  presupposes the e x i s t e n c e  of l i n g u i s t i c  present  among  a t a consensus  as w e l l as communicative  the  our  Habermas "structural  possible".  P e i r c e d i d not p r o p e r l y  In order  1 1 8  work o u t  t o go beyond P e i r c e ,  Habermas  speech s i t u a t i o n . F o r  p u r p o s e , we do n o t have t o be i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e structural  e l e m e n t s Habermas  Habermas, a d i s c o u r s e  c o m m u n i c a t i o n . He d e l e g a t e s  In  f o r the purpose of  t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f an i d e a l  of those  of  P e i r c e , Habermas does n o t  words, a d i s c o u r s e  that  investigates  agreement  i s to arrive  KHI Habermas c o m p l a i n e d  validating  "a c o n s e n s u s t h e o r y  t r u t h i s g r a d u a l l y being  elements of communication  logic  the consensus of a  o f norms f o r a c t i o n " and " t h e  of r u l e s governing  calls  t r u t h t o be  c l a i m through argumentative reasoning.  spheres of instrumental A discourse  1 1 5  o f norms f o r v a l u a t i o n w h i c h we a r e t o  In other  1 1 7  test."  c a n be " t h e t r u t h o f u t t e r a n c e s " .  "the c o r r e c t n e s s  appropriateness  set  i s an e x p l i c i t  p u r p o s e of a d i s c o u r s e  in question  through  called  of the d i s c o u r s e . U n l i k e  about a p r o b l e m a t i c claim  i s accepted  of i n q u i r e r s - a concept  participants s  a discursive  A fact i s  is a specific  discovered. type  statements expressing  of speech a c t i o n and  49  experience these  to  the  realm  s t a t e m e n t s do  claims  about  not  dispute  experience;  Discourse,  then,  experience  as  operates  of a c t i o n and  must be  w e l l as  at a  level  they  the  experience  itself.  norms of a c t i o n nor  operate  a t an  verify  unreflective level.  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from a c t i o n  statements expressing  that permits  For  and  them. A  discourse  reflection:  B e c a u s e of t h e i r c o m m u n i c a t i v e s t r u c t u r e , d i s c o u r s e s do n o t compel t h e i r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a c t . Nor do t h e y a c c o m o d a t e p r o c e s s e s whereby i n f o r m a t i o n can be a c q u i r e d . They a r e p u r g e d o f a c t i o n and experience. The r e l a t i o n between d i s c o u r s e s and i n f o r m a t i o n i s one where t h e l a t t e r i s f e d i n t o the f o r m e r . The o u t p u t o f d i s c o u r s e s , on t h e o t h e r hand, c o n s i s t s i n r e c o g n i t i o n or r e j e c t i o n of p r o b l e m a t i c t r u t h c l a i m s . D i s c o u r s e s produce n o t h i n g but a r g u m e n t s . 1 1 9  In a d i s c o u r s e , search  f o r t r u t h are  As claims can  a result can  be  a l s o be  discourses society  only  p o s s i b l e . But  see The  cognitive problems reasoning  use  the  1 2 0  through d i s c o u r s e s ,  norms o f a c t i o n and  evaluative  Habermas b e l i e v e s t h a t way  that  discourse  cooperative  renders i s not  of d i s c o u r s e s  the  use  criteria of  self-reflection the  same as  i s a necessary  condition for s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n  of  truth  of  self-  but  s o c i e t y , as  we  later. realm  knowledge,  again  settled,  The  t h a t of  of c o n s e n s u s r e a c h e d  i s the  insufficient  is  excluded".  justified.  reflection.  shall  " a l l motives except  of d i s c o u r s e , which g e n e r a t e s  i s l i n k e d to the interests.  i n the  realm  o f a c t i o n and  experience  Technical cognitive interest  s p h e r e of  instrumental  i n a d i s c o u r s e . The d i r e c t e d by  theoretical  this  a c t i o n to  theoretical  interest  subjects argumentative  knowledge t h u s  back t o t h e  by  specific  gained content  50  of  a p p l i c a t i o n i n everyday  Similarly, function  practical  i n the  life,  cognitive  i . e . instrumental  i n t e r e s t serves  action.  the  corresponding  s p h e r e of c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n . T h e s e  cognitive  interests can be c o n c e i v e d as g e n e r a l i z e d m o t i v e s f o r s y s t e m s of a c t i o n , w h i c h a r e g u i d e d by means of t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n of s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h can be t r u e . A c t i o n s a r e c h a n n e l e d by t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of c l a i m s t o v a l i d i t y t h a t can be r e s o l v e d d i s c u r s i v e l y . 1 2 1  This  notion  extension  of  the  c o n n e c t e d to the  There  is a third  w h i c h aims a t  "the  model t o  discursive  reasoning.  see  how  he  In  In  KHI  this  dialogue has  order  i n KHI;  i t is  now  emancipatory,  Habermas a d o p t e d i n t e r e s t . Now  i s not  t o be to  an  discourse.  i n t e r e s t , the  realize  self-reflection  interests is  c o n c e p t of  cognitive  psychoanalytic  argues that  new  self-reflection.  psychoanalytic  have t o  "lower" c o g n i t i v e  o f what Habermas p r e s e n t e d  integrally  that  two  he  the points  a discourse".  achieved  out  He  1 2 2  independently  of  f o l l o w Habermas' a r g u m e n t ,  we  differentiates reconstruction  from  self-  reflection.  Reconstruction  and  Self-reflection  In Habermas' v i e w , t h e developed be the  i n KHI  modified. term  He  - an  knowledge, w h i c h he admits  that  Now  considers  he  inheritance  points  "reflection"  i n KHI  out  the  that  covers  claims he  c o n c e p t of  had  two  from Kant and  in t r a d i t i o n a l  distinction  German  as  between t h e s e  those two  to  philosophy  self-  usually confuse.  same t r o u b l e  he  H e g e l - has  d i f f e r e n t forms o f  scholars the  self-reflection  Habermas scholars.  forms  of  51  self-knowledge clarify both  crucial  h i s concept  to c r i t i c a l  t h e o r y . He  of r e f l e c t i o n ,  which  t h u s has  to  i s intended to  include  forms: On t h e one hand, i t d e n o t e s t h e r e f l e c t i o n upon t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s o f a knowing, s p e a k i n g and a c t i n g s u b j e c t a s s u c h ; on t h e o t h e r hand, i t d e n o t e s t h e r e f l e c t i o n upon u n c o n s c i o u s l y produced c o n s t r a i n t s t o which a d e t e r m i n a t e s u b j e c t (or a d e t e r m i n a t e g r o u p o f s u b j e c t s , o r a d e t e r m i n a t e s p e c i e s s u b j e c t ) succumbs i n i t s p r o c e s s of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n . 1 2 3  Habermas i n d i c a t e s knowledge  that Kant's  search for a p r i o r i  (and m o r a l i t y ) i s r e f l e c t i o n  of the  first  inquires  t h e c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h a c q u i s i t i o n  possible  and  the  form  found  reveal  r u l e s and  cognitive  communication Hegel also  that  a t any  of  form  embraced a c o n c e p t  sense  is  linguistic  of r e f l e c t i o n ,  reflection.  particular  point  the second  i s oriented  of r e f l e c t i o n  emancipation  from held  in history. n o t i o n of  method o f p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . The  but  he  T h i s i s the  o f knowledge and  - illusions collectively  Freud developed  therapeutic  communication  i n which  g u i d e d by R e a s o n , t h a t  i d e a o f an a n a l y t i c a l  society  sense  of the p r e s e n t  o t h e r words, he  1 2 5  rules  takes place.  attitude,  illusions"  form  be  to d i s c o v e r  1 2  i n c o r p o r a t e d the K a n t i a n  transcendence  can  schemata". " Generative  schemata show t h e  i n t r o d u c e d a second  critical  the  cognitive  I t seeks  t h e c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h l i n g u i s t i c  possible;  A c c o r d i n g to  i n t h i s mode o f r e f l e c t i o n  i n the p h i l o s o p h y of language.  "generative  kind. It  o f knowledge i s  i n w h i c h knowledge a p p e a r s .  Habermas, r e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t  grounds of  toward  action.  the  "In  which c o n t a i n s  objective by a l l members o f Habermas  reflection  observes into  F r e u d i a n method  the aims  52  at  r e s c u i n g the In KHI  reflection,  individual  Habermas f o c u s e d w h i c h he  called  extended the F r e u d i a n was  t o emancipate  self-reflection. first  n o t i o n of  suffered  develop  priori  the  t h e o r y . He  c o n d i t i o n s of  justified  and  reasoning,  second n o t i o n  b e l i e v e s he with  forms of  the  i t i s important  result  Since to f i n d  out  Kant d i d not  knowledge - i n c l u d i n g  to in a  is  i s a process  of  pre-theoretical t o c a r r y out  perform. a priori  t h a t Habermas i s most c o n c e r n e d mode of  theory  rigorous  of e x p e r i e n c e "  the  the  the  for application  a discourse  pre-theoretical  Kantian  through  basis for  Kant's  from t h o s e  i s a task  transformed  theory: society  t h a t a " s e p a r a t i o n of t h e  discourse. This  this  He  that c r i t i c a l  theoretical  knowledge p a r t i c i p a n t s must have i n o r d e r  reasoning  or c r i t i c i s m .  previously neglected  reflection  reasoning 1 2 6  of  knowledge, Habermas s e e k s  i s convinced  necessary.  had  I n s p i r e d by  s e n s e of  illusions.  i t s objective illusions  l a c k of a s o l i d  the K a n t i a n  critical  he  from  reflection,  of  this  self-reflection  self-reflection.  investigation  on  method i n t o h i s c r i t i c a l  itself Now  from t h e  p u r p o s e of  p a t i e n t from h i s or h e r  with  reflection  Hence  a i t i s the  knowledge - of here.  He  calls  rational  reconstruction: R e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t r y t o u n d e r s t a n d anonymous s y s t e m s of r u l e s w h i c h c a n be f o l l o w e d by any s u b j e c t a t a l l p r o v i d e d i t has t h e r e q u i s i t e c o m p e t e n c e s . 1 2 7  A branch field logic, own  of s t u d y  dealing with  i s what Habermas c a l l s general  theory  of  linguistics  reconstructions in a  particular  r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e . He  and  u n i v e r s a l pragmatics  speech communication) as  examples  of  cites  (Habermas'  53  reconstructive While and  the  sciences. notion  of  i s much i n f l u e n c e d  from t h e  reconstuction  by  K a n t i a n mode of  him,  owes i t s o r i g i n  reflection.  Kant's c r i t i q u e  of  The  a priori  Kant d i s c o v e r e d  In  contrast,  belongs to t h i s ...  do  not  subject.  rule  However, any  s y s t e m s and  them. F o r of  logic  instance, or  subject  acquire  general  reasoning an  life not  rules  or  often  without seek  a level  linguistics that  implicit follow  being  to create  not  They  are  belong to  any  of  competence  competently  i n the  apply  after properly  these use  other  learning  subjects. words,  them. for  It exists in  competent  anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s i n t h e i r  everyday  them. Hence a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  r u l e s . Rather,  i t attempts  of  the p r i n c i p l e s  p r e - t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge  f o r m . In  aware of  1 2 8  l e a r n t o comply w i t h  a l w a y s e x i s t s among c o m p e t e n t  intuitive  subjects  can  p e o p l e can  Habermas m a i n t a i n s  knowledge  encompass s u b j e c t i v i t y " .  c o n c e r n e d w i t h anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s w h i c h do subject.  Kant  i t is significantly different  knowledge s t a r t s w i t h a knowing s u b j e c t .  "reconstructions  to  to  render  does implicit  explicit: A s u c c e s s f u l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ... r a i s e s an " u n c o n s c i o u s l y " f u n c t i o n i n g r u l e system to c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n a c e r t a i n manner; i t r e n d e r s e x p l i c i t t h e i n t u i t i v e knowledge t h a t i s g i v e n w i t h competence w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r u l e s i n t h e form of "know h o w " . 1 2 9  For sciences  Habermas, t h e  seek t o u n d e r s t a n d a r e  reconstruction means an in  anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s  incorporates  inquiry  empirical  not  purely  reconstructive  a priori.  a p o s t e r i o r i elements as  i n t o anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s  f i n d i n g s . According  A well.  is partially  t o Habermas, what  is  This rooted  54  reconstructed c a s e of a  sentence  The the  s u b s t a n t i a t e d by theory,  say,  competent  competent  with  the  j u d g m e n t s of c o m p e t e n t  than  general  the  theories  linguistic  (such  theory  anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s t o be  as  theory  are  held  be  those  linguistics,  of a p a r t i c u l a r  discovered  if  1 3 0  i n mind a r e  general  the  tell  must  speakers.  r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e s Habermas has of  s u b j e c t s . In  s p e a k e r s can  i s g r a m m a t i c a l . Hence a g r a m m a t i c a l  level  rather  be  grammatical  consistent  at  can  language). to  The  be  universal: R e c o n s t r u c t i o n s r e l a t e t o p r e - t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge of a g e n e r a l s o r t , t o u n i v e r s a l c a p a b i l i t i e s , and not o n l y t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o m p e t e n c e s o f i n d i v i d u a l g r o u p s or t o t h e a b i l i t y of p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i duals. 13 1  Since  a reconstruction  capability,  a general  i n q u i r e s at the  level  of  "a  cognitive, linguistic,  or  interactive  c o m p e t e n c e " , Habermas d e c l a r e s at  "the  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of  The  a priori  universal:  species  knowledge Kant  i t i s shared  possesses t h i s  by  every  knowledge s i m p l y  human s p e c i e s . R e c o n s t r u c t i v e not  assume t h a t  possesses the  that  every  reconstructive sciences  competences". searched  one  acquire  potential  on  knowing, a c t i n g and  the  other  speaking  everybody  hand,  by  Habermas s p e a k s of  universal  subjects.  1 3 3  these  n e c e s s a r i l y so;  It i s in t h i s  capabilities.  do  explicit  competence t h r o u g h l e a r n i n g . E v e r y b o d y has  t o become c o m p e t e n t  the  subejct  s u b j e c t s conform to  i s c o m p e t e n t , or  be  One  i s a member o f  p r e - t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge r e p r e s e n t e d  s y s t e m s . Not can  f o r i s supposed t o  b e c a u s e one  sciences,  aim  1 3 2  s i n g l e knowing s u b j e c t .  anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s . O n l y competent rule  general  sense  but  the that  55  Hence a c r u c i a l competence, which  concept  is built  R e c o n s t r u c t i o n s attempt s y s t e m s as p r a c t i c e d by  incompetent  determined  knowledge and "  by competent  That  drawing The  cannot  which a r e  or l i n g u i s t i c s  speakers;  wish  but  t o s o l v e s i m p l y by  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s do  systems of  for  competent  s u b j e c t s would  He  not  self-reflection.  consequences:  I acquire theoretical  t h e r e b y change my 1 3 5  rules.  knowledge g e n e r a t e d  no p r a c t i c a l  knowldge,  previous practice  become more e f f e c t i v e  gain insight  learning  rule  in  "By  p r o b a b l y means t h a t p e o p l e  s y s t e m s can  t h e y do  modes o f  intended to replace  required  learning  anonymous r u l e  priori  sciences.  t o Habermas, t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  reasoning or s p e a k i n g . "  on a  in  by a d h e r i n g t o t h e s e e x p l i c i t  s c i e n c e s a r e not  not  systems  that  t h e s e two  incompetent  Reconstructive  i n g e n e r a l I do  the  maintained.  i t i s hoped t h a t  s c i e n c e s has  or  be  be  knowledge becomes  between  of r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  sciences,  Otherwise  anonymous r u l e  reconstructive  learn  rule  practiced  reconstructed rule  i s the purpose  logic  those  between d r a w i n g  sharp d i s t i n c t i o n  t o become competent  According  but  basis.  on a p o s t e r i o r i  rendering implicit  critical  not  is  former.  anonymous  Habermas i n d i c a t e s  "the d i s t i n c t i o n  subjects e x p l i c i t , learn  empirical  T h i s i s why  knowledge made by Kant By  of t h e  implicit  subjects,  between competence and  reconstruction,  1 3  the d e f i n i t i o n  to understand  on an  w o u l d be c i r c u l a r .  blurred".  into  with reconstruction  o n e s . Whether a s u b j e c t i s c o m p e t e n t c a n n o t  solely  relationship  associated  into  systems.  of  who  reasoners  the problem  they  Hence  not o b v i a t e s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n s .  However,  self-  56  reflections  s h o u l d n o t be a r b i t r a r y :  theoretical  b a s i s p r o v i d e d by r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  g i v e s an  they, must  rely  on t h e  sciences.  Habermas  example: A u n i v e r s a l pragmatic c a p a b l e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the c o n d i t i o n s of why l i n g u i s t i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s a t a l l p o s s i b l e h a s t o be t h e t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r explaining systematically distorted communication and d e v i a n t p r o c e s s e s o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n . 1 3 6  The p o i n t  i s : one must have a p r e - n o t i o n ,  understanding, can  trace  relates  o f what u n d i s t o r t e d  systematic d i s t o r t i o n s .  self-reflection  d i s c o u r s e s a l o n e - which insufficient  or  rough  communication This  i s t h e way  to reconstruction. a r e based  i s b e f o r e one  on r u l e  Habermas  It also  explains  systems  - are  why  for emancipation.  Reconstructive Sciences One  o f t h e most  important r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  s e e k s t o d e v e l o p i s what he c a l l s general  t h e o r y of speech communication.  universal  pragmatics studies  linguistics individual speech  "universal  studies  language  similar  a sentence  to general  in general rather  i s the elementary  than  u n i t of u n i t of  1 3 7  Habermas successful  A c c o r d i n g t o him,  i n a way  (language  Habermas  pragmatics" - a  l a n g u a g e s ) . An u t t e r a n c e i s t h e e l e m e n t a r y  i n the sense t h a t  language.  speech  sciences  claims there are four  speech communication.  general presuppositions i n  First,  the sentence  uttered  must be c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . T h i s means t h e words u s e d b e l o n g t o a natural  language  and t h e s e n t e n c e  i s constructed  w i t h t h e grammer o f t h e l a n g u a g e . The s e n t e n c e  i n accordance  i s comprehensible  57  to the extent language.  This  i t claims that  words, t h e  Third,  speaker  imparts  to the honesty,  speaker.  The  Finally,  what  speaker  refer  pertinent  t o some r e a l i t y  reality  i s true.  some knowledge t o t h e  sincerity  speaker  to t r u s t  relate  to pragmatics:  they  take  hearer.  him  of or  the her.  has  to  norms speak  t o . Habermas p o i n t s out  since l i n g u i s t i c s  three a d d i t i o n a l  In  to recognized s o c i a l  four p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , o n l y the  to l i n g u i s t i c s ,  in  intends.  or t r u t h f u l n e s s  the h e a r e r  t h e h e a r e r can  u t t e r a n c e s . The  peculiar  the  s e l f - i m a g e s . T h i s means t h e s p e a k e r s  i n a manner t h a t of t h e  expects  of  i n the world  i s u t t e r e d must c o n f o r m  or t o a c c e p t e d  not  something  i n t h e use  t h e u t t e r a n c e must r e p r e s e n t what t h e  refers  that,  i s competent  S e c o n d , t h e u t t e r a n c e must  the w o r l d : other  the h e a r e r  first  one  is  studies sentences,  p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s are  i n t o account  i n which the u t t e r e d sentence  the  i s embedded.  social 1 3 8  These  four  p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , Habermas c l a i m s , a r e a l w a y s a l r e a d y i m p l i c i t any  speech  pragmatics,  act oriented  unit, acts  understanding. Universal  as a r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  Much o f t h e e s s a y detail  toward  analysis  of t h e  s c i e n c e , makes them  explicit.  "What I s U n i v e r s a l P r a g m a t i c s ? " structure  of  speech  and  consists  o n l y of  differentiated  speech  acts that  are  c a t e g o r y he  explicit,  c o n t e n t s a r e not and  institutionally  independent  focuses  something  unbounded  d e f i n e d i n terms of p a r t i c u l a r context  speech on  propositionally  ( i . e . t h e y make c l a i m s a b o u t  world), verbal,  institutions)  o f c a t e g o r i e s . The  is a  i t s elementary  t h e u t t e r a n c e . In t h e e s s a y Habermas c l a s s i f i e s into a variety  in  i n the ( i . e . the  social  ( i . e . t h e m e a n i n g s do  not  58  shift the  according  anonymous  to c o n t e x t ) .  r u l e system  1 3 9  Habermas r i g o r o u s l y r e c o n s t r u c t s  for u t i l i z i n g  speech a c t s  in this  category. This detail digression it  a n a l y s i s o f s p e e c h a c t s seems t o be a  from Habermas' o t h e r  i s undertaken  discourse  for a definite  i s a process  the v a l i d i t y  claims  mentioned a b o v e . " 1  discourse  0  reasoning  t o him, t h i s  successful  the four  speech communication  the  special  category  all  p a r t i c i p a n t s of a discourse  speakers before  category  general  of speech speaker  in a  in universal  and t h e anonymous  are required  can f u l f i l  acts  presuppositions  of speech a c t s . F u r t h e r ,  the discourse  to a  s t r u c t u r e i s the  I t f o l l o w s t h a t a competent  specifically,  examines  must c o n f o r m  has t o o b s e r v e t h e r u l e s r e c o n s t r u c t e d  pragmatics,  that  f o r s t a t e m e n t s t o be  Habermas a r g u e s , t h e y  r u l e system of the s p e c i a l  realize  As we have s e e n , a  of argumentative  structure. According  anonymous  reason.  o f s t a t e m e n t s . In order  examined e f f e c t i v e l y , certain  w r i t i n g s , i f we do n o t  of  r u l e system of  i t follows  that  t o be c o m p e t e n t  i t srole  in c r i t i c a l  theory. Universal pragmatics  i s not the only  reconstructive  Habermas d e v e l o p s a s a component o f c r i t i c a l the  i d e a o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t o two o t h e r  and  social  e v o l u t i o n . We  Convinced that  shall  briefly  areas:  describe  " b a s i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  c o n c e p t s c a n be i n t e r w o v e n  r e q u i r e one a n o t h e r " " 1  1  He  extends  ego d e v e l o p m e n t these.  sociological  because the p e r s p e c t i v e s  them o f an autonomous ego and an e m a n c i p a t e d reciprocally  theory.  science  projected in  society  - a theme t h a t has been  59  pursued  by  earlier  reconstruct According  critical  theorists  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l development  t o the  D e v e l o p m e n t and consciousnes  Ego  Identity",  there are  i n the developemt  of ego  individual  i s t o be  these  the lowest  stage,  s t a g e s . At  - o n l y a c t s i n reponse  rewards. usually  As m o r a l  individual validity  the  participates  i s not  "Moral  s t a g e s of  with  respect to  - in this  punishments  the s c a l e - the  concerned  moral  The  1 4 2  individual  of a c h i l d  autonomous and  in  determined  to anticipated  occurs with maturation  the h i g h e s t stage - which  seven  to  individual.  identity.  c o n s c i o u s n e s s moves up  becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y At  of an  r e c o n s t r u c t e d model, p r e s e n t e d  competence of an  a child  - Habermas d e c i d e s  case  and  - which  individual  about  always a t t a i n e d  principles. -  the  i n d i s c o u r s e s t o q u e s t i o n and  justify  claims: The meaning of t h e t r a n s i t i o n s e v e n t h s t a g e can be f o u n d i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e no l o n g e r a r e drawn i n t o t h e d i s c u r s i v e  Habermas t h u s individual  sees  distinguish relatively latter's  proper  p s y c h o l o g i c a l development  is essential  i f the  individual  in turn i s c r u c i a l  Habermas c r i t i c i z e d i n s t r u m e n t a l and independent  capitalism.  Marx's t h e o r y of historical materialism  social  communicative  attempts  1 4 4  He  of  the  which  to  a c t i o n s as result  that  is inapplicable  Habermas does not  evolution,  3  emancipation.  Marx f o r h i s f a i l u r e  evolution  But  materialism. and  to  4  i s to c o n t r i b u t e to a  p r o c e s s e s , w i t h the  t h e o r y of s o c i a l  regulated  1  that  d i s c o u r s e , which I n KHI  from t h e s i x t h t o t h e t h e f a c t t h a t need assumed a s g i v e n , b u t f o r m a t i o n of w i l l .  to  completely  two the stateabandon  i s p o p u l a r l y known  s e e s much m e r i t  in  as  historical  to reconstruct i t . Besides  employing  60  the  term r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  science,  Habermas  i n the  s e n s e of  a  reconstructive  explains:  In t h e p r e s e n t c o n n e c t i o n , r e c o n s t r u c t ion s i g n i f i e s t a k i n g a t h e o r y a p a r t and p u t t i n g i t b a c k ' t o g e t h e r a g a i n i n a new f o r m i n o r d e r t o a t t a i n more f u l l y the g o a l i t has s e t f o r i t s e l f . T h i s i s t h e n o r m a l way of d e a l i n g w i t h a t h e o r y t h a t needs r e v i s i o n i n many r e s p e c t s but whose p o t e n t i a l f o r s t i m u l a t i o n has s t i l l not been e x h a u s t e d . 1 4 5  What he  does  including  i s the  the  incorporation  concept  of  of  a communicative  competence,  into  dimension,  historical  materialism. In  the  essays  "Historical  Materialism  and  the  of N o r m a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s "  and  Historical  Habermas draws a p a r a l l e l  social  Materialism",  evolution  extends the  and  ego  Development  "Toward a R e c o n s t r u c t i o n  of  between  d e v e l o p e m t . W i t h some p r e c a u t i o n s ,  reconstruction  of  the  latter  into that  of  he  the  former: One c a n see h e r e t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e c o n s c i o u s s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a r e , on t h e one hand, embodied i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s of laws and m o r a l i t y and t h a t a r e , on t h e o t h e r hand, e x p r e s s e d i n the m o r a l judgments and a c t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s . 1 4 6  The  link  between t h e  intersubjectivity learning: its  "the  on  relationship  i s the  the  two  linguistically  established  u n d e r s t a n d i n g which p e r m i t s s o c i o c u l t u r a l  reproduction  members a r e  dependent  of  two  aspects  of  s o c i e t y and  of  the  same s t r u c t u r e s . "  between t h e  the  socialization  same p r o c e s s ; 1 4 7  There  they  are  is a reciprocal  two:  I t i s t h e p e r s o n a l i t y s y s t e m t h a t i s t h e b e a r e r of the o n t o g e n e t i c l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s ; and i n a c e r t a i n way, o n l y s o c i a l s u b j e c t s c a n l e a r n . But s o c i a l s y s t e m s , by d r a w i n g on t h e l e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s of s o c i a l s u b e j c t s , c a n f o r m new s t r u c t u r e s i n o r d e r t o s o l v e s t e e r i n g problems that t h r e a t e n t h e i r  of  61  c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e . To t h i s e x t e n t t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s o f s o c i e t i e s i s d e p e n d e n t on the c o m p e t e n c e s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t b e l o n g t o them. The l a t t e r i n t u r n a c q u i r e t h e i r c o m p e t e n c e s not as i s o l a t e d monads but by g r o w i n g i n t o the s y m b o l i c s t r u c t u r e s of t h e i r l i f e - w o r l d s . " 1  With concepts and  in reconstructive  competence - Habermas e l a b o r a t e s  interaction  between  i n d i v i d u a l and  I n Marx's t h e o r y stages characterized (consisting level of  of  of  forces  of by  social their  f o r c e s and of  d e t e r m i n e s the criticizes  Marx f o r not  communicative  forces  social  can  give  systems. * 1  rise  Within  9  structures  through consensus logic  are  the  of  forces  separation  A l t h o u g h he progress  the  logic  f o l l o w s Marx  i n t o h i s theory  maintains  that  necessarily require  of  words, the  the  out  r a n g e some rational,  conform to the  of h i s t o r y n e i t h e r  the  evolution,  i t a c t u a l l y occurs, logic  of  same  social  unilinearity  of  structures others  nor  not.  a r r i v e d at of  the  1 5 0  materialism  d y n a m i c s of  level  Habermas  independent  of h i s t o r i c a l  social  each  instrumental  to a c e r t a i n range  in incorporating  h i s t o r y , as  earlier,  production.  from the  of  For  t o Habermas, t h e  this  in  former l a r g e l y  l o g i c s of  which are  of  of  production  r a t i o n a l ones; they a r e  Habermas' r e c o n s t r u c t i o n a  modes o f  production).  considered  in discourses,  of d e v e l o p m e n t  notion  society progresses  have p o i n t e d  separating  Hegelian  corresponds a s p e c i f i c  i n other  g o v e r n i n g human r e l a t i o n s a r e Normative  evolution  there  we  the  system  society.  a c t i o n s . According  of p r o d u c t i o n  possible  As  - anonymous r u l e  distinctive  production  latter.  on  r e l a t i o n s of  r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n ;  and  sciences  8  involves  development. idea 1 5 1  of  social  Habermas  does  progress:  not "we  necessity,  need neither  62  continuity  nor i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y . "  r e a c h a c o n s e n s u s on n o r m a t i v e normative and  structures  morality  individuals, logical  course.  version the  I t follows  development  that  of f o r c e s  of h i s t o r i c a l  logic,  modifies  social  o f i n d i v i d u a l s and o b s e r v a t i o n  of the  progress  in discourses,  of production. materialism  i n addition to  We may s a y Habermas'  i s teleological  i n terms of  but not t h e dynamics, of development. T h i s  reconstructive  become an i n t e g r a l p a r t  Advocacy  i s how he  sciences:  1 5 3  historical  of c r i t i c a l  Crisis  He r e a l i z e s t h a t  homogeneous, t h a t conflicting  u n i v e r s a l p r a g m a t i c s , ego  society  h i s advocacy  i s not n e c e s s a r i l y  i t p o s s i b l y c o n s i s t s of groups  with  i n t e r e s t s . Here Habermas i s n o t r e f e r r i n g t o t h e cognitive  t o be u n i v e r s a l , b u t t o t h e i r  t h i s context  have  theory.  Habermas i n t r o d u c e s  c o n c e p t s of t e c h n i c a l and p r a c t i c a l claims  materialism,  Model  In L e g i t i m a t i o n  he  judgments and a c t i o n s o f  proper  d e v e l o p m e n t and r e c o n s t r u c t e d  model.  o f laws  H e g e l a n d Marx.  The  The  these  requires  of u n i v e r s a l p r a g m a t i c s  development  when  i n the i n s t i t u t i o n s  i n the moral  members  would t h e developemt o f s o c i e t y p r o c e e d a l o n g i t s  psychological rules  s t r u c t u r e s , and o n l y  a r e embodied  and e x p r e s s e d  O n l y when s o c i e t a l  1 5 2  he  i n t e r e s t s , which  specific  contents.  In  writes:  I u s e t h e t e r m " i n t e r e s t s " f o r needs t h a t a r e - t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f l e g i t i m a t i o n and t h e r i s i n g of the consciousness of c o n f l i c t - rendered s u b j e c t i v e and d e t a c h e d , a s i t were, f r o m t h e c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n s o f commonly s h a r e d v a l u e s s u p p o r t e d by t r a d i t i o n ( a n d made b i n d i n g i n norms o f  63  action). Habermas b e l i e v e s in  common  of v a r i o u s  common o r " g e n e r a l i z a b l e "  elaborate  no l o n g e r  Habermas c a l l s  such  discourses  or detached  ascertained found  social  norms t h a t  norms a n d c l a i m s  society  critical  that  are generalizable are whole. interests  1 5 6  As l o n g  a s no c o n f l i c t i s  such d i s c o u r s e s  do t a k e  u n p r o b l e m a t i c . As soon a s c o n f l i c t  theory  makes  of g e n e r a l i z a b l e  the assumption  that  there i s  i n t e r e s t s " , o r an i d e o l o g y , i n  1 5 7  One c a n s e e t h a t  i n LC Habermas m o d i f i e s  ideology  he p r e s e n t e d  Society.  In LC, i d e o l o g y  interests; ideology  that  w h i c h we  norms w h i c h do n o t e x p r e s s  discourses.  i s considered  "suppression  society.  This  o f i n t e r e s t s , i n Habermas' v i e w , c a n o n l y be  in practical  discovered  i n society.  express generalizable  that  i n t h i s manner, p r o v i d e d  place,  i n t e r e s t s are the  from t h e s o c i e t a l  i n t e r e s t s a r e " b a s e d on f o r c e " . Conflict  from p a r t i c u l a r  - a type of d i s c o u r s e  1 5 5  on s h o r t l y . I n t e r e s t s  subjective  "justifiable"  interests exist  i s t h e outcome o f a c o n s e n s u s t o be a r r i v e d a t  through p r a c t i c a l shall  groups. G e n e r a l i z a b l e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f needs o f a l l p e o p l e  interpretation  a  that  s o c i e t y a n d c a n t h e o r e t i c a l l y be s e p a r a t e d  interests  is  1 5 0  i n the e a r l i e r i s defined  i t c a n be c o n f i r m e d  of s t a t e - r e g u l a t e d  exclusively  technocratic  only  work Toward A R a t i o n a l i n terms o f g e n e r a l i z a b l e i n discourses.  capitalism  manipulation  of  system maintenance. T h i s  of  unrestrained  ideology  communication  h i s concept of  i s taken of s o c i e t y  I n TRS t h e  t o be f o r the purpose  e x i s t s as a r e s u l t of lack  i n s o c i e t y . The q u e s t i o n o f  64  overall this of  human d e v e l o p m e n t  ideology  ideology  interests.  of  state-regulated  b a s e d on  the  Suppressed  because the  i s thus n e g l e c t e d .  society  notion  of  "thematization  claims".  In TRS  1 5 8  communicative  action,  discourse.  framework  i n the  in  interests,  had  not  he  yet  ideological  counterfactually  separated  worked out  modification  early seventies  she  the  assumption  a social  considers  individuals  of  the  the  the  same t i m e  discourse  form  p r i n c i p l e s of  critical  e n a b l e s him  or  t o be  "hidden  g r o u p s " and  society".  a critic  outcome o f  As  h i s or her  hypothetical  practical  theory  to define  ideology  before At  practical  discourse,  ideology  point  we  discourse.  For  the  s y s t e m of  theorist offers  the  he  involved  public  and  consensus  involved  i n the  a  the  recommends  advocated hypothesis  people  would  through conflict  1 6 0  perhaps c l a r i f y him,  what  n o r m a t i v e power  institutional  a c c e p t e d by  valid.  should  reconstructs  "the  to  norms. The  among the  i t i s considered this  of  generalizable  i n t e r e s t p o s i t i o n s of  i n t o the  c o n f i r m e d and  discourse  advocate  reconstrution  justifiable  t h e n have t o be  suppressed  identifies  force] built  1 5 9  of  t h e o r i s t qua  [norms b a s e d on  by  i n t e r e s t s are  t e s t i n g of d i s c u r s i v e - v a l i d i t y  nor His  generalizable  a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d manner. B a s e d on  or  and  considers  a s p e c i a l case  i n t e r e s t s " while at  Habermas had  practical  suppressed  " e i t h e r a s s e r t s or  s u p p o s e s a g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of avoids  c a p i t a l i s m t o be  generalizable  involved  Habermas  there  namely, t h e o r e t i c a l and  are  what Habermas means  two  kinds  of  practical:  In t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e s - w h i c h s e r v e t o g r o u n d a s s e r t i o n s - consensus i s produced a c c o r d i n g to  65  r u l e s o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e o b t a i n i n g i n p r a c t i c a l d i s c o u r s e s - which serve t o j u s t i f y recommended norms. However, i n b o t h c a s e s t h e g o a l i s t h e same: a r a t i o n a l l y m o t i v a t e d d e c i s i o n about the r e c o g n i t i o n (or r e j e c t i o n ) of validity claims. 1 6 1  In a t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e , action  s t a t e m e n t s about e x p e r i e n c e and  a r e e x a m i n e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s who  consensus about t h e t r u t h c l a i m s reflection  i s not i n v o l v e d .  hypothetical advocate  social  conflict  of i n t e r e s t s ) .  consensus to accept said  and  action;  Hence  t h e recommended  reasoning  reconstruction  and  norms, s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n i s  materialism  involves  experience norms.  required i s  both  patterns  structures".  This  sciences.  of development  means t h a t  historical  justifiable  s u b j e c t i v e l y . R a t h e r , he o r In h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of  Habermas a r g u e s t h e r e  reconstructible  from r e c o n s t r u c t e d  of d i s c o u r s e  i n t e r e s t p o s i t i o n s and  adheres to r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  1 6 2  the input f o r  self-reflection.  norms t h e t h e o r i s t d o e s n o t t h e o r i z e  historical  reach a  i t c o n s i s t s o f recommended  a process which  In w o r k i n g o u t h i d d e n  she  discourse  (the nature of the  In t h e f o r m e r c a s e ,  case,  by an  generalizable  c o n s i s t s of statements about  i n the l a t e r  discourse,  of  i n question  i n t h e a d v o c a c y model, t h e k i n d  practical  a n d recommended  When p a r t i c i p a n t s e v e n t u a l l y  t o have been a c h i e v e d .  argumentative  discourse,  and p a r t i c i p a n t s o f t h e  i n s i g h t i n t o the problem  Self-  As a r e s u l t o f t h e  the s u p p r e s s i o n  i n t e r e s t s comes t o l i g h t acquire  In a p r a c t i c a l  norms a r e i n t r o d u c e d  suggestions,  to reach a  of the statements.  for p a r t i c i p a n t s to j u s t i f y .  advocate's  attempt  are "systematically  of normative  justifiable  materialism,  norms a r e d e r i v e d and i n d i r e c t l y ,  from  66  ego  d e v e l o p m e n t and  hypothesis  is scientifically  c a s e of c o n f l i c t The  of  a social  of  The  b a s e d and  advocacy  system that  i s that  argues that  there  are  among t h e  parties involved  i f both c o n d i t i o n s  level  and  the  of  outcome of  a compromise would r e m a i n  t o compromise  i s made on  generalizable,  Without  1 6 3  indeed  determined  major a s p e c t s  to  psychoanalysis,  this  are  i n s o c i e t y and  heterogeneity. deviations  there  The  i n the  be power the  a b a l a n c e o f power,  repressive.  I f an  of  itself  attempt  whether  to  "an  the  they  impene-  value  orientations".  satisfies  these  two  through  had  be  considered  described  i s only  one  psychoanalytic  to  unlike patient,  take  a  i n KHI.  groups with p o s s i b l y  t h u s has  1 6  "  conditions  discourse.  refinement. F i r s t ,  where t h e r e  model r e c o g n i z e s interests  model he  He  ultimate  Habermas' a d v o c a c y model c a n psychoanalytic  non-  ones.  a b a l a n c e of  interests regardless  apparently  compromise  t o be  met;  s o c i e t y would r e s i g n  p l u r a l i s m of  has  compromise.  n o n - g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  interests e x i s t . "  the  for a  to g e n e r a l i z a b l e  are  negotiated  the  a given  a compromise of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s can  "only  again  society  particular interests, i.e.  interests, in addition  justified  Whether  the p a r t i c u l a r  i t helps  i s r a t i o n a l at  a d v o c a c y model makes p r o v i s i o n  generalizable  trable  to  production.  Habermas r e c o g n i z e s  are  adapted  advocate's  interests.  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  establish forces  u n i v e r s a l p r a g m a t i c s . Thus t h e  refinement There are  the the  case  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s of  four  of  advocacy  conflicting  i n t o account  model aims a t  of  this  correcting  society. This  notion  67  becomes vague once s o c i e t y - which group this  in society  p r o b l e m by  interests  defining  t o be  suppression.  social  i s no  longer  i s deviant? the  The  of  The  advocate  justifiable  reconstructs  among g r o u p s a r e  advocate  historical  These are should  he  help  can  communication symptom of patient's  the  in s o c i e t y .  social  t o be  resolved  psychoanalysis Keeping  by  in  the  since  in  pragmatics. proposes  i n mind t h i s  in parallel  a division  of  labor:  and  p a t i e n t , and  and  social  evolution  i n the  g r o u p s . The only  of  a  of  before  professional  can  tell  psychoanalytic  a d v o c a c y model  or  help  interests qua  e x i s t in at the  a  time. advocacy  model. Both  involve  i t i s between  therapist  i t i s between  advocate  therapist reconstructs "yes"  of  theorist  i s involved one  the  interests. A  social  patient  refinement  says  are  advocacy model,  for seeking  in psychoanalysis  i n the  patient  help  t o the  the  undistorted  same t o k e n a c o n f l i c t  one  of  reconstructive  i s s u e o f compromise does not only  the  systematically distorted  reason  the  other  what  is conflict  with the  model r u n s  the  universal  social  Third,  1 6 5  s u f f e r i n g i s the  advocate. Fourth,  scene;  the  pathology  from a p s y c h o a n a l y s t ; has  c a r r i e d out  i n Habermas' v i e w ,  of  s t a g e s of  correct  and  since,  have a p r e - n o t i o n  i s and  she  utilized  i n t e r e s t p o s i t i o n s and  materialism  necessary  communication or  are  such  norms i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s  reconstructed sciences.  hidden  removing  sciences  a c c o r d a n c e w i t h anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s of  solves  generalizable  i t aims a t  Second, r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  homogeneous  a d v o c a c y model  suppression  pathology;  advocacy model. D i s c o u r s e s  t a k e n t o be  "no".  the  The  childhood  advocate  68  reconstructs b a s e d on  i n t e r e s t p o s i t i o n s and  reconstructive  reject  the  social  g r o u p s do  theories  hypothesis  psychoanalytic  own  by  a d v o c a t e has  improvements t o revised  the  w o u l d t h e n be  Approach to  realistic  is finally  information  general  problems  perhaps understand  the  of  the clarify  accepted  by  psychoanalytic and  model  -  make  rounds, u n t i l critique  h i s appraoch to planning  a brief  account  of  the  of  ideology  from the  advocacy  approach a g a i n s t  Luhmann's s y s t e m s t h e o r y .  s o l u t i o n to f r o m the  approach to and  this  societal  interference  problems  that  i s to  free  of p a r t i c i p a t o r y  i t s capacity  t o d e t e r m i n e how  i n s u c h a way  the  to  ability  s o c i e t y can  public  and  process  s o c i e t y must a d a p t the  to  the  administration  to handle function  the  politics.  i s to take a s c i e n t i f i c  increase  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and  Observing  the  s o c i e t y Luhmann a r g u e s t h a t  c h a n g i n g e n v i r o n m e n t . I t i s assumed t h a t the  the  a c c e p t e d . The  autonomous a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  systematic  they c r i t i c i z e  do  i s not  in further  o f modern i n d u s t r i a l  administration This  not  Planning  b a c k d r o p of N i k l a s  only  patient  the  complete.  gives  complexity  Neither  more i n f o r m a t i o n  hypothesis  Habermas d e r i v e s m o d e l . He  or  Habermas does not  from the  norms  confirm  logic  advocated hypothesis  to acquire  hypothesis  can  the  instance,  consensus. Presumably - l e a r n i n g the  one  observing  model. For  what happens i f t h e  fact  justifiable  groups only  t h e o r i z i n g ; nor  t o them. In  a d v o c a c y model b e t t e r  social  through d i s c o u r s e .  their  offered  sciences;  proposes  has  societal smoothly.  To  69  this  extent,  not  superfluous,  systems theory up  i s i n p u t from  the p u b l i c  Habermas' major c o m p l a i n t  1 6 6  spells  "the  end  the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  of t h e  between power and  differently,  social  systems t h e o r y d e a l s w i t h from  treats  nature  control  the p e r s p e c t i v e of and  transforms behavior".  1 6  thoery.  procedure the  and  this  In s o c i a l  critically  examined through of n o r m a t i v e  theory  of  a d d r e s s i n g complex the  i n terms of  systematic, Systems  1 6 8  into questions  same t i m e  component. The  social  public  theory  of  norms has  social  he  1 7 0  problems  remedy, i n h i s v i e w ,  be  human r e l a t i o n s .  former  activities  in society  The  be  "this  connected  to  words,  in industrial  society,  systems  the  but  theory  i s responsible for  latter  - including  in  self-reflective  i s to couple  i n the c o n t r o l  organizing  in his  norms must  In o t h e r  condemns i t s l a c k o f a  strategies  permit  systems t h e o r y ' s p o t e n t i a l  technical  be  i f i t i s to c o n t r i b u t e to a  evolution."  with  to  d i s c o u r s e . However,  g e n e s i s must, of c o u r s e ,  w i t h t h e a d v o c a c y m o d e l . The administrative  of  d e v e l o p m e n t , Habermas a r g u e s ,  Habermas i s i m p r e s s e d  at  Put  1 6 7  development  i s s o m e t h i n g Luhmann does not  systems-theoretic approach  suitable  in favor  9  F o r Habermas, t h e v a l i d i t y justified,  truth  reflection".  system m a i n t e n a n c e .  " q u e s t i o n s of v a l i d i t y  that i t  instrumental action; i t  human r e l a t i o n  f o r t h e p u r p o s e of  i s that  individual",  from  exclusively  the  here  of a n a t u r e - l i k e development withdrawn  both  domain  i t u n d e r m i n e s t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  administration.  "gives  only  of nature  deals with related  and  in  reflective  i s s u e s of  70  justifiability critique  o f norms, s u p p r e s s i o n  of g e n e r a l i z a b l e i n t e r e s t s ,  o f i d e o l o g y a n d compromise - t h r o u g h  discourse.  In p r a c t i c a l  systematic  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has taken  administration  discourse people  reflect  f o r granted  on what a and thus  deprive  o f i t s autonomous s t a t u s . T h i s m a r r i a g e o f  s y s t e m s t h e o r y and t h e a d v o c a c y model reconstructive  practical  approach  to p l a n n i n g .  i s Habermas'  critical-  1 7 1  NOTES  1  The c h a p t e r t i t l e "Habermas: The C r i t i q u e o f I d e o l o g y " a n d t h e n e x t one "Gadamer: The H e r m e n e u t i c s o f t r a d i t i o n " a r e t a k e n from P a u l R i c o e u r , " H e r m e n e u t i c s a n d t h e C r i t i q u e o f I d e o l o g y " , i n H e r m e n e u t i c s a n d t h e Human S c i e n c e s , J.B.Thompson ( e d . ) , C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981. T h e s e t i t l e s seem t o c a p t u r e t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e debate.  2  Knowledge and Human I n t e r e s t s , B o s t o n : B e a c o n , 1971. H e r e a f t e r i t w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s KHI.  3  "The D i a l e c t i c s o f R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n : An I n t e r v i e w J u r g e n Habermas", T e l o s , no.49, 1981, p p . 3 0 - 1 .  with  4  C r i t i q u e o f P u r e R e a s o n , N.K.Smith S t . M a r t i n ' s , 1929, p.41-3.  York:  5  I b i d . , p.66.  6  I b i d . , p.58.  7  I b i d . , p.60.  (trans.),  New  8  KHI, pp.13-8.  9  G.W.F.Hegel, Phenomenology o f S p i r i t , A . V . M i l l e r ( t r a n s . ) , O x f o r d a n d New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977. H e r e a f t e r i t w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s PhS. The word Kant e m p l o y e d f o r " e x p e r i e n c e " was E r f a h r u n g , by w h i c h he meant c e r t a i n immediate p a r t i c u l a r s e n s a t i o n . E r l e b n i s a c q u i r e d a  71  t e c h n i c a l meaning and g a i n e d p o p u l a r i t y w i t h W . D i l t h e y and h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a f t e r t h e 1870s, t o s e t i t s e l f a p a r t from E r f a h r u n g . In a d d i t i o n t o a s e n s e o f immediacy E r l e b n i s ( e x p e r i e n c e , sometimes c a l l e d l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e ) c o n n o t e s a c o n t e n t t h a t has e n d u r i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e . "As a g a i n s t t h e a b s t r a c t i o n o f t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g and t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t y of p e r c e p t i o n or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h i s concept i m p l i e s the c o n n e c t i o n with t o t a l i t y , w i t h i n f i n i t y " (Gadamer, TM, p.57 ). H e g e l u s e d t h e word E r f a h r u n g o n l y . But o b v i o u s l y what he means i s c l o s e r t o E r l e b n i s t h a n t o E r f a h r u n g i n the Kantian sense. KHI,  p.8.  Ibid., PhS,  p.19.  p.490.  Ibid.,  p.57.  Ibid.,  p.492.  KHI,  pp.19-24.  T h e r e i s a t h e o r y about t h e " e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l b r e a k " i n Marx - e s p o u s e d e s p e c i a l l y by s t r u c t u r a l M a r x i s t s ( A l t h u s s e r , G o d e l i e r , e t c . ) - m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t "mature" M a r x i a n p h i l o s o p h y i s n o n - H e g e l i a n . But e v i d e n c e i s a g a i n s t t h i s t h e o r y . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n A f t e r w o r d t o t h e S e c o n d German E d i t i o n o f C a p i t a l I_, c o n s i d e r e d one o f Marx's m a t u r e works, Marx r e m a r k s o f H e g e l : "I t h e r e f o r e o p e n l y avowed myself the p u p i l of t h a t mighty t h i n k e r " . A l s o , the r e c e n t p u b l i c a t i o n o f G r u n d r i s s e , Marx's p e r s o n a l n o t e b o o k s o u t l i n i n g many o f h i s m a t u r e works, v i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m a t u r e Marx i s no l e s s H e g e l i a n t h a n t h e young Marx ( s e e e s p e c i a l l y F o r w a r d t o G r u n d r i s s e by M a r t i n N i c o l a u s ) . I n our p r e s e n t s t u d y , we assume a c o n t i n u i t y i n Marx's w r i t i n g s and draw on t h e e n t i r e c o r p u s o f h i s w o r k s . A l t h o u g h Habermas a d m i t s he has " l e a r n e d s o m e t h i n g f r o m M a r x i s t s l i k e G o d e l i e r " ( C o m m u n i c a t i o n and t h e E v o l u t i o n o f S o c i e t y , B o s t o n : Beacon, 1979, p.124; h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as C E S ) , he d o e s n o t a c c e p t t h e s t r u c t u r a l M a r x i s t a n t i h u m a n i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Marx. Habermas' r e a d i n g o f Marx i s c l o s e r t o t h a t o f " t h e H e g e l i a n - M a r x i s t t r a d i t i o n from L u k a c s t o A d o r n o " ( I b i d . ) . K.Marx, "Economic and P h i l o s o p h i c a l M a n u s c r i p t s of 1844" i n E a r l y W r i t i n g s , T . B . B o t t o m o r e ( e d . and t r a n s . ) , New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1964, pp.202-3. The M a n u s c r i p t s w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o a s "1844 MSS". A c c o r d i n g t o Marx, H e g e l c o n c e i v e s t h e s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s m a i n l y a s "movements o f t h o u g h t " . T h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n i s i n a c c u r a t e : we have seen t h a t S p i r i t  is  72  n e c e s s a r i l y embodied i n s o c i a l p r a c t i c e s . Marx was p o s s i b l y aware of t h i s f a c t ; he was e m p l o y i n g p o l e m i c s a g a i n s t H e g e l i n o r d e r t o b r i n g out h i s own i d e a s . R i c h a r d B e r n s t e i n - i n P r a x i s and A c t i o n , P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania P r e s s , 1971 - c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s out t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e between H e g e l and Marx i s b e s t seen as a m a j o r s h i f t i n e m p h a s i s . F o r a s i m i l a r v i e w , see a l s o J o h n O ' N e i l l , "Embodiment and H i s t o r y i n H e g e l and Marx", o p . c i t . 1 9  "1844  MSS",  p.207  2 0  K.Marx and F . E n g e l s , The German I d e o l o g y , New I n t e r n a t i o n a l P u b l i s h e r s , 1970, p.57.  2 1  K.Marx, The E i g h t e e n t h B r u m a i r e of L o u i s P r o g r e s s P u b l i s h e r s , 1934, p.10.  2 2  One of t h e b e s t c o m m e n t a r i e s t h a t c l a r i f i e s t h i s c o n c e p t i s A l f r e d S c h m i d t , The C o n c e p t of N a t u r e i n Marx, L o n d o n : NLB, 1971. Habermas a d o p t s a s i m i l a r v i e w .  2 3  K.Marx, C a p i t a l , 3 v o l u m e s , Moscow: P r o g r e s s 1954-9, v o l . 1 , p.173.  2 t t  Marx was much i n f l u e n c e d by biological evolution.  2 5  "1844  MSS",  Charles  York:  B o n a p a r t e , Moscow:  Publishers,  Darwin's theory  of  p.164.  2 6  Marx and E n g e l s , o p . c i t . , p.47. The p o p u l a r n o t i o n h e l d by c e r t a i n Marxists that " s o c i a l existence determines consciousness" i s an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f Marx's t h o u g h t .  2 7  U s u a l l y the concept f o r c e s of p r o d u c t i o n a l s o i n c l u d e s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s and t o o l s . C f . M . G o d e l i e r , "System, S t r u c t u r e and C o n t r a d i c t i o n i n C a p i t a l " , i n The S o c i a l i s t R e g i s t e r 1967, B . B r e w s t e r ( t r a n s . ) , R . M i l i b a n d and J . S a v i l l e ( e d . ) , New Y o r k : M o n t h l y Review P r e s s , 1967, p.92.  2 8  CES,  2 9  The t e r m " c o n t r o l of n a t u r e " s h o u l d p e r h a p s be c l a r i f i e d . F o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s t h e t e r m might c o n n o t e some k i n d of b r u t a l i t y t o w a r d t h e w i l d e r n e s s : damming o f r i v e r s , d e n u d i n g of f o r e s t s , and so on. But f o r Habermas and many o t h e r s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s t h e t e r m t a k e s on a d i f f e r e n t meaning. T h e r e a r e n a t u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r human s u r v i v a l (e.g., f o o d c o n s u m p t i o n ) . C a r r y i n g out o f a c t i v i t i e s t o s a t i s f y such requirements (e.g. food p r o d u c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g g a t h e r i n g o f w i l d f r u i t s ) i s t h e c o n t r o l of n a t u r e . I t may o r may n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r t h e e c o l o g i c a l b a l a n c e of n a t u r e , d e p e n d i n g on how i t i s c a r r i e d o u t .  pp.138-9.  73  In a s l i g h t l y l a t e r work, Toward A R a t i o n a l Society, Habermas e l a b o r a t e s on t h e c o n c e p t o f "work", w h i c h he r e defines as p u r p o s i v e - r a t i o n a l a c t i o n . This concept includes instrumental a c t i o n and s t r a t e g i c a c t i o n . The f o r m e r r e f e r s t o t e c h n i c a l means t o a c h i e v e a g o a l w h i l e t h e l a t t e r r e f e r s t o t h e p r o c e s s o f g o a l - s e t t i n g . See Toward A R a t i o n a l S o c i e t y , B o s t o n : B e a c o n , 1970, pp.91-2. H e r e a f t e r t h i s book w i l l be c i t e d a s TRS. I n o u r p r e s e n t s t u d y we use the term i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t i o n i n i t s broader sense t o i n c l u d e b o t h g o a l - s e t t i n g and g o a l - a c h i e v i n g . T h i s w o u l d be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Habermas' t e r m i n o l o g y i n KHI and would a l s o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h i s l a t e r t h i n k i n g . "Work" h e r e i s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f A r b e i t ; t h e same word has been t r a n s l a t e d as " l a b o r " i n r e l a t i o n t o Marx. " L a b o r " s u g g e s t s manual l a b o r , w h i c h was e s s e n t i a l l y how i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t i o n was c a r r i e d out back i n t h e d a y s o f Marx; b u t t h i s i s no l o n g e r t r u e t o d a y , s i n c e many p e o p l e i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o n t r o l o f n a t u r e are p r o f e s s i o n a l s , t e c h n i c i a n s , bureaucrats, e t c . KHI,  p.53.  A v i n e r i , The S o c i a l and P o l i t i c a l Thought o f K a r l Marx, C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968, p . 8 1 . KHI,  p.55.  CES,  p.148.  Marx and E n g e l s , o p . c i t . , p.64. Ibid.,  pp.65-6.  Habermas a n a l y z e s t h e i s s u e o f l i b e r a l c a p i t a l i s m a n d s t a t e - r e g u l a t e d c a p i t a l i s m i n TRS, f i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n German i n 1968, t h e same y e a r a s KHI. I n t h i s a n d t h e n e x t few p a r a g r a p h s we draw on TRS, w h i c h complements t h e a n a l y s i s o f i n s t r u m e n t a l a n d c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n s i n KHI. TRS,  pp.102-3.  Ibid.,  p.111.  Ibid.,  p.119.  Ibid.,  P.112.  F o r an i l l u s t r a t i o n , s e e A l v i n G o u l d n e r ' s The Coming C r i s i s of W e s t e r n S o c i o l q y , New Y o r k : B a s i c Books, 1970, w h i c h c o n t a i n s an a c c o u n t o f how p o s i t i v i s m h a s d o m i n a t e d s o c i o l o g y u n t i l v e r y r e c e n t l y a n d how i t i s s t i l l i n f l u e n t i a l t o d a y . See a l s o A n t h o n y G i d d e n s , " P o s i t i v i s m and I t s C r i t i c s " i n S t u d i e s i n S o c i a l a n d P o l i t i c a l T h e o r y , L o n d o n : H u t c h i n s o n , 1977.  KHI,  pp.67-90.  Ibid.,  p.67.  Ibid.,  p.107.  Ibid.,  pp.92-3.  Ibid.,  p.92.  Ibid.,  p.100.  Ibid.,  p. 137.  Ibid. Ibid.,  p. 140.  W . D i l t h e y , S e l e c t e d W r i t i n g s , H.P.Rickman ( e d . and t r a n s . ) , C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1976, p . 1 7 1 . Ibid.,  p.89.  Ibid.,  p.172.  Ibid.,  p.89.  One of t h e most p r e v a l e n t terms i n D i l t h e y ' s w r i t i n g s i s Zusammenhang, w h i c h means c o h e r e n c e , c o n n e c t i o n , r e l a t i o n , c o n t i n u i t y , c o n t e x t , o r d e r , p a t t e r n . He u s e s t h i s t e r m by i t s e l f and i n v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s . E s s e n t i a l l y he i n t e n d s t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t e v e r y a s p e c t of human e x i s t e n c e ( l i f e , e x p e r i e n c e , e x p r e s s i o n , a c t i o n , understanding,. meaning, s o c i e t y , h i s t o r y , etc.) i s connected to every other aspect. T h i s c o m p l e x i t y of human l i f e c a n n o t be r e d u c e d t o c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s . When t r a n s l a t e d , Zusammenhang a p p e a r s a s a number of d i f f e r e n t E n g l i s h words. Thus t h e e m p h a s i s D i l t h e y i n t e n d s i s n o t so w e l l p r o n o u n c e d . Zusammenhang i s a l s o one o f Habermas' f a v o r i t e t e r m s . Ibid.,  p.197.  I b i d . , p . 1 9 2 . "To f o r m " h e r e i s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f b i l d e n , which i s the verb of B i l d u n g . D i l t h e y i m p l i e s the s u b j e c t m a t t e r of human s c i e n c e s i s t h e p r o d u c t of t h e s e l f f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s of mankind. Ibid.,  pp.192-3.  Ibid.,  p.194.  Ibid.,  p.163.  I b i d . , p.164.  75  6 3  6  "  I b i d . , p.175. I b i d . , p.176.  6 5  I b i d . , p.228.  6 6  See e . g . Gadamer,  6 7  TM,  pp.153ff.  R e c e n t s t u d i e s on t h e e x t e n s i o n of w r i t t e n t e x t t o t h i s b r o a d e r c o n t e x t c a n be f o u n d i n C h a r l e s T a y l o r , " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and t h e S c i e n c e s o f Man", Review o f M e t a p h y s i c s , v o l . 2 5 , no.1, pp.3-51, 1971, a n d P a u l R i c o e u r , "The M o d e l o f t h e T e x t " , i n H e r m e n e u t i c s and t h e Human Sciences,  op.cit.  6 8  D i l t h e y , o p . c i t . , p.226.  6 9  I b i d . , p.230.  7 0  H.P.Rickman, W i l h e l m D i l t h e y : P i o n e e r o f t h e Human S t u d i e s , L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1979, p.34.  7 1  D i l t h e y , o p , c i t . , pp.235-6.  7 2  I b i d . , p.236.  7 3  Ibid.  7 4  H.P.Rickman, I n t r o d u c t i o n o p . c i t . , p.11.  7 5  Dilthey,  7 6  Ibid.,  7 7  KHI,  7 8  7 9  to Dilthey's Selected  Writings,  o p . c i t . , p.183.  pp.183-4.  p.176.  I . K a n t , C r i t i q u e o f P r a c t i c a l Reason and O t h e r W r i t i n g s i n M o r a l P h i l o s o p h y , L.W.Beck Ted. and t r a n s . ) , C h i c a g o : The U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1949. In f a c t t h e m o r a l s e n s e o f " p r a c t i c a l " c a n be t r a c e d t o A r i s t o t l e ' s Nicomachean E t h i c s , M.Ostwald ( t r a n s . ) , I n d i a n a p o l i s : B o b b s - M e r r i l l , 1962, Book S i x . P h r o n e s i s ( p r a c t i c a l wisdom) i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t e c h n e ( f r o m w h i c h we g e t t h e words t e c h n i c a l and t e c h n o l o g y ) . The l a t t e r i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h p r o d u c t i o n ; t h e f o r m e r i n v o l v e s what i s virtuous. The t e r m Habermas u s e s i s d a s p r a k t i s c h e Erkenntnisinteresse (practical cognitive interest). J.Sharipo p o i n t s out, i n the preface to h i s t r a n s l a t i o n of Habermas' Toward A R a t i o n a l S o c i e t y : " I n c u r r e n t E n g l i s h , ' p r a c t i c a l ' o f t e n means ' d o w n - t o - e a r t h ' o r ' e x p e d i e n t ' . In  76  t h e t e x t , t h i s s e n s e o f ' p r a c t i c a l ' would f a l l under ' t e c h n i c a l ' . ' P r a c t i c a l ' ( p r a k t i s c h ) always r e f e r s t o symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n a normative order, t o e t h i c s and p o l i t i c s " (TRS, p . v i i ) . 8 1  KHI, p.178.  8 2  Ibid.,  pp.179ff.  8 3  C e r t a i n l y a major i n f l u e n c e on Habermas i s Hannah A r e n d t , who " s t r e s s e s p a r t i c u l a r l y t h r e e f e a t u r e s : t h e f a c t o f human p l u r a l i t y , t h e s y m b o l i c n a t u r e o f t h e web o f human r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and t h e f a c t o f human n a t a l i t y , t h e c o u n t e r p a r t o f m o r t a l i t y " (Habermas, "On t h e G e r m a n - J e w i s h H e r i t a g e " , T e l o s , no.44, 1980, p.128. But D i l t h e y D i l t h e y ' s f o r m u l a t i o n p r o b a b l y g i v e s Habermas' model a more f o r m a l structure.  6 U  Charles  8 5  KHI,  8 6  I b i d . , p.212.  8 7  I b i d . , p.198.  8 8  I b i d . , p.211.  Taylor,  H e g e l , o p . c i t . , p.116.  pp.l97f.  8 9  B e s i d e s t h e s e two a s p e c t s o f f r e e d o m , I . M e s z a r o s i n d i c a t e s there i s a t h i r d a s p e c t : freedom t o d e v e l o p i n d i v i d u a l p o t e n t i a l . The p r e r e q u i s i t e s o f t h i s i n d i v i d u a l a s p e c t o f f r e e d o m a r e t h e two s o c i a l o n e s : b a s i c m a t e r i a l needs must be s a t i s f i e d a s a r e s u l t o f s o c i a l p r o d u c t i o n a n d a f a v o r a b l e s o c i a l - p o l i t i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t must e x i s t . See M e s z a r o s , Marx's T h e o r y o f A l i e n a t i o n , 4 t h e d . , L o n d o n : M e r l i n p r e s s , 1975, pp.153-4.  9 0  KHI_, p . 5 3 .  9 1  I b i d . , pp.196f.  9 2  I b i d . , p.189.  9 3  9  "  Habermas r e a l i z e s t h a t e m a n c i p a t i o n h a s two components: from n a t u r a l n e c e s s i t y and from human d o m i n a t i o n . He f o c u s e s on t h e s e c o n d component p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e he b e l i e v e s t h a t t e c h n o l o g y today has advanced t o such a l e v e l t h a t t h e f i r s t component i s no l o n g e r a major p r o b l e m . C f . Habermas, L e g i t i m a t i o n C r i s i s , B o s t o n : B e a c o n , 1975, p p . 1 1 9 - 2 0 . H e r e a f t e r L e g i t i m a t i o n C r i s i s w i l l be c i t e d a s LC. KHI, p.214.  77  9 5  I b i d » . pp.215-21.  9 6  Ibid.,  pp.223-37.  Ibid.,  p.230.  9 7  9 8  9 9  The a c t u a l t h e r a p e u t i c p r o c e s s i s more c o m p l i c a t e d . L e t us m e n t i o n one d e t a i l t h a t has s i g n i f i c a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s on c r i t i c a l t h e o r y . Habermas p o i n t s o u t , t h e p a t i e n t ' s r e j e c t i o n o f t h e t h e r a p i s t ' s h y p o t h e s i s d o e s n o t mean t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s n e c e s s a r i l y wrong. O f t e n , i t o n l y indicates t h e p a t i e n t has n o t y e t overcome h i s o r h e r r e s i s t e n c e t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In o t h e r words, t h e t h e r a p y i s i n c o m p l e t e . On t h e o t h e r hand, a " y e s " f r o m t h e p a t i e n t must a l s o be t a k e n c a u t i o u s l y . F o r t h e p a t i e n t may want t o c o n c e a l t h e i l l n e s s ; he o r she p r e t e n d s t o a c c e p t t h e h y p o t h e s i s e v e n t h o u g h he o r she i s n o t r e a l l y c o n v i n c e d o f i t s a c c u r a c y . See i b i d . , p.267-9. Habermas' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t h e r a p e u t i c process r e v e a l s h i s p e r c e p t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c r i t i c a l t h e o r i s t and s o c i e t y . Ibid.,  p.274.  Ibid.,  pp.275-9.  1 0 1  Ibid.,  pp.280-4.  1 0 2  Ibid.,  pp.281-4.  1 0 3  Ibid.,  pp.285-6.  1 0H  "1844 MSS",  1 0 0  1 0 5  1 0 6  1 0 7  los  KHI,  p.161.  p.288.  "A P o s t s c r i p t t o Knowledge and Human I n t e r e s t s " , P h i l o s o p h y of t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , v o l . 3 , pp.157-89, 1973, p.105. H e r e a f t e r t h i s a r t i c l e w i l l be c i t e d a s " P o s t s c r i p t t o KHI". * T h e o r y and P r a c t i c e , r e f e r r e d t o a s TP.  B o s t o n : B e a c o n , 1973,  hereafter  " P o s t s c r i p t t o KHI", p.168. Habermas' use o f t h e t e r m " a c t i o n " c a n be c o n f u s i n g . W h i l e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g discourse from a c t i o n , he sometimes c l a s s i f i e s d i s c o u r s e a s c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n , sometimes n o t . F o r e x a m p l e , i n CES, p.209, t h e s c h e m a t i c shows d i s c o u r s e t o be a k i n d o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n . Y e t on t h e same p a g e , i n t h e n o t e " A c t i o n v s . D i s c o u r s e " , d i s c o u r s e i s used i n c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n . To make t h i n g s more c o m p l i c a t e d , he sometimes u s e s d i s c o u r s e a s o p p o s e d t o c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( C f . TP, p.19; a n d , " P o s t s c r i p t t o KHI", p. 174). However, Habermas d o e s i n t e n d t o make a d i s t i n c t i o n  78  between a c t i o n a n d d i s c o u r s e i n t h e s e n s e we p r e s e n t h e r e . What he means by a c t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n o t h e r p l a c e s w i l l depend on c o n t e x t . 1 0 9  "Postscript  t o KHI_", p.168; a n d , TP, p.18.  1 1 0  "Postscript  t o KHI.", pp.168-9.  111  Ibid.,  p.169.  1 1 2  Ibid.  1 1 3  Ibid.,  p.168.  Ibid.,  p.169.  1 1 5  Ibid.,  p.168.  1 1 6  TP, p . 1 9 .  1 1 7  Ibid.,  1 1 8  "Postscript  1 1  «  p.18. t o KHI",  p.168.  t o KHI",  p.182.  Ibid.  1 1 9  1 2 0  LC, p.108.  1 2 1  TP, p . 2 1 .  1 2 2  Ibid.,  123  "Postscript  p.22.  Ibid.  1 2 a  1 2 5  Ibid.,  1 2 6  i b i d . , p.172. Habermas e l a b o r a t e s on t h i s p o i n t i n CES, pp.21f f .  W7  "postscript  128  r£p  129  1 3 0  I  r  p  p.183.  t o KHI",  p.183.  .22.  p.23. "Know how" i s a t e r m Habermas b o r r o w s f r o m t h e InTIytical philosopher G i l b e r t Ryle. I t r e f e r s to c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f i m p l i c i t r u l e s . See CES, p p . i ^ -5. b  i  d  CES,  1 3 1  Ibid.  1 3 2  Ibid.  p.14.  79  1 3 3  Habermas' i d e a o f r u l e f o l l o w i n g and c o m p e t e n c e i s d e r i v e d from t h e l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y o f Noam Chomsky.  1 3 4  Ibid.,  p.24.  1 3 5  Ibid.,  p.23.  1 3 6  "Postscript  t o KHI, p.184.  1 3 7  CES, p.26.  1 3 8  Ibid.,  pp.27-9.  1 3 9  Ibid.,  pp.36-40.  1 4 0  Ibid.,  p.64; a l s o ,  1 4 1  CES, p.71.  1 4 2  Habermas' i d e a o f s t a g e s o f m o r a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s e s s e n t i a l l y an e x t e n s i o n o f L a w r e n c e K o h l b e r g ' s c o g n i t i v e developmental psychology.  1 4 3  Ibid.,  TP, p.17.  p.93.  1 4 4  Marx n e v e r u s e d t h e t e r m h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l i s m . The t e r m was c o i n e d by M a r x i s t s . Marx c a l l e d h i s t h e o r y o f s o c i a l e v o l u t i o n t h e m a t e r i a l i s t c o n c e p t i o n o f h i s t o r y . Habermas opts f o r the popular term.  1 4 5  Ibid.,  p.95.  1 4 6  Ibid.,  p.99.  1 4 7  1 4 8  Ibid. Ibid.,  p.154.  1 4 9  Habermas p r e f e r s n o t t o a d o p t t h e t e r m r e l a t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n s i n c e " t o speak o f t h e r e l a t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n m i s l e a d i n g l y s u g g e s t s a narrow e c o n o m i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " (LC, p . 1 7 ) .  1 5 0  CES, p.120.  1 5 1  Ibid.,  p.142.  1 5 2  Ibid.,  p.140.  1 5 3  U s u a l l y "advocacy" r e f e r s t o the notion of advocating i n t e r e s t s o f p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p s i n s o c i e t y . See e . g . P . D a v i d o f f , "Advocacy a n d P l u r a l i s m i n P l a n n i n g " , J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s , v o l . 3 1 , pp.331-8, 1965. Habermas u s e s t h e t e r m i n a d i f f e r e n t s e n s e . See LC,  p.117. F o r him, " a d v o c a c y " r e f e r s t o t h e n o t i o n o f a d v o c a t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y a s a w h o l e , n o t t h o s e of p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p s . LC,  pp.113-4.  Ibid.,  p.108.  Ibid.,  p.111.  Ibid.,  p.113.  Ibid.,  pp.112-3.  Ibid.,  p.114 and p.113.  Ibid.,  p.108 and pp.113-4.  Ibid.,  p.107.  CES, p.98. LC,  p.112.  Ibid.,  p.108.  Habermas i n d i c a t e s t h i s p r e - n o t i o n o f u n d i s t o r t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y even f o r p s y c h o a n a l y s i s a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l - a p o i n t he had n e g l e c t e d when w r i t i n g KHI (See " P o s t s c r i p t t o KHI/', p . 1 8 4 ) . LC,  pp.131-8.  Ibid.,  p.136.  In LC Habermas u s e s t h e t e r m s " s y s t e m s i n t e g r a t i o n " and " s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n " ; i t r e v e a l s h i s i n f l u e n c e by s y s t e m s t h e o r y . These terms roughly c o r r e s p o n d t o i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i v e a c t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y , a l t h o u g h Habermas d o e s n o t c l a r i f y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . See pp.1-8. Ibid.,  p.6.  Ibid.,  p.140.  Ibid.,  p. 1 41 .  81  CHAPTER  THREE  GADAMER: HERMENEUTICS OF  TRADITION  L i k e Habermas, Gadamer knowledge and a c t i o n , d e v e l o p m e n t . In f a c t intellectual profoundly  theory  s c i e n c e and t e c h n o l o g y t h e two s h a r e  h e r i t a g e . No l e s s  indebted  T h i s concept  c a n be c o n s i d e r e d  social  similar  Habermas, Gadamer i s concept  of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n .  the backbone of both  1  critical  b u l w a r k a g a i n s t any  f o r o b j e c t i v e knowledge a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l c o n t r o l o f  n o t i o n of the Absolute w h i c h Reason o p e r a t e s ; In r e g a r d  same s i d e o f t h e f e n c e .  philosophy  would d e f e n d  Habermas and Gadamer  2  to their  of p h i l o s o p h y  s c h o l a r s today  nor t h e cosmic p r i n c i p l e  stances  s c i e n c e , one c a n r e a d i l y  role  than  i t i s their  s o c i e t y . However, few H e g e l  of  as w e l l as  a somewhat  t o the H e g e l i a n  and h e r m e n e u t i c s ;  argument  i s i n v o l v e d i n the problems of  3  tell  according to  a r e no  toward p o s i t i v i s m  exceptions.  and  philosophy  t h e two t h i n k e r s a r e on t h e  They even h o l d s i m i l a r  i n contemporary  i s t o perform  the  society.  the c r i t i q u e  v i e w s on t h e  F o r Habermas,  of ideology:  P h i l o s o p h y i s p r e s e r v e d i n s c i e n c e as c r i t i q u e . A s o c i a l t h e o r y t h a t p u t s f o r t h t h e c l a i m t o be a s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n of the h i s t o r y of the s p e c i e s cannot simply negate p h i l o s o p h y . Rather, the h e r i t a g e of philosophy issues i n the c r i t i q u e of ideology, a mode o f t h o u g h t t h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e method o f s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s i t s e l f . O u t s i d e of c r i t i q u e ,  82  however, p h i l o s o p h y F o r Gadamer, p h i l o s o p h y  retains  no  is a universal  right." agent  f o r a w a k e n i n g of  consc i o u s n e s s : The t a s k of making c o n s c i o u s n e s s aware of e x t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between p e o p l e s and n a t i o n s assumes a p r i o r i t y i n a w o r l d where [ r a t i o n a l ] p l a n n i n g and p r o g r e s s seem t o g u a r a n t e e t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of a l l d e s i r e s . Such a a w a k e n i n g of c o n s c i o u s n e s s , however, i s now h a r d l y e v e r p e r f o r m e d by s c i e n c e . I t i s more r e a d i l y a r e s u l t of a c r i t i q u e of s c i e n c e To awaken a c o n s c i o u s n e s s of what i j ; , n e c e s s a r i l y s u p p o s e s t h e a w a k e n i n g of c o n s c i o u s n e s s a s t o what s c i e n c e i s . But i t e q u a l l y i n c l u d e s p r e s e r v i n g t h e o p e n n e s s of one's own c o n s c i o u s n e s s , and t o be c o g n i z a n t of t h e f a c t t h a t not e v e r y t h i n g j j s , i s o r c o u l d become t h e o b j e c t o f s c i e n c e . 5  Both  t h i n k e r s are gravely concerned  technocratic of  m a n i p u l a t i o n of  thinking at Dilthey  w i t h t h e t r e n d of  society  and  increasing  they c h a l l e n g e t h a t  i t s foundations.  i s no d o u b t a m a j o r p r e c u r s o r of b o t h Gadamer  Habermas. Habermas a p p l a u d s  "Gadamer's f i r s t - r a t e  and  critique  of  t h e o b j e c t i v i s t i c s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e human s c i e n c e s " which  i s r e p r e s e n t e d by D i l t h e y .  penetrating interest  critique  theory  7  In f a c t , that  by h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s  distinction  to t h e i r  Gadamer's  venture  critical  theoretical and  two  current thinkers  between n a t u r a l  of t h e p r o c e s s  between n a t u r a l  i n the  to  b o t h Gadamer and Habermas have  h a r d l y deny D i l t h e y ' s d i s t i n c t i o n  indispensable  6  s t i m u l a t e d Habermas'  o b j e c t i v i s m , these  h i s concept  i t was  which p e r m i t t e d the l a t t e r  Although  Dilthey's  s c i e n c e s and  and  untrodden  tradition.  transcended can  of D i l t h e y  i n hermeneutics,  in a d i r e c t i o n  way  and  of u n d e r s t a n d i n g  backgrounds. With  human are  this  human s c i e n c e s i n mind, Habermas  Gadamer a r e a b l e t o c r i t i c i z e  technocracy  without  83  obliterating For  them, t h e  found of  the  i n the  romantic of  i n t o the  philosophy, and  answer t o  utilization  falls  of  as  hardly  technology.  i s not  critique  for s o c i a l Besides,  of  science  The  be  study  development  there and  to  is  technology,  general.  p a y s any  validity  of  attention  a social  model. I n s t e a d ,  phenomenological  problems  technology  Habermas, Gadamer d i s p l a y s  psychoanalytic  studied  and  and  a p r e - i n d u s t r i a l era.  human s c i e n c e s .  which s e r v e s  Unlike  doubts the  image of  science  in  of modern s c i e n c e  today's s o c i e t a l  r e a l m of  society  Marx; he  contributions  tradition  under H e i d e g g e r  teacher's  a n a l y s i s of  existence  to the  the  societal  to Peirce  theory  influence and  b a s e d on  Gadamer has  of H u s s e r l  i n the  little  and  seriously the  inherited  the  Heidegger.  Having  1920s, Gadamer e x t e n d s  fundamental c o n d i t i o n s level,  w i t h the  help  from  of  of  his  human Hegelian  philosophy. In  Truth  and  Method Gadamer e x a m i n e s the  modern h e r m e n e u t i c s and current theory we  hermeneutical  It  w i t h the was  that  latter's  methodology of  But  human s c i e n c e s :  Gadamer's own  of  foundation  intend  r e l a t i o n s h i p to that  of  to contrast  seek t o  instead,  possible  he  the  that  Dilthey.  Gadamer e n d e a v o r s t o  Gadamer does not  fundamental c o n d i t i o n s  we  the  of  of Gadamer, i t i s r e a s o n a b l e  mentioned e a r l i e r  beyond D i l t h e y .  much of  thinking. Since  o f Habermas w i t h  start  l a y s out  evolvement  improve  go  Dilthey's  investigates  human u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  the In  words:  The h e r m e n e u t i c s d e v e l o p e d h e r e i s n o t , t h e r e f o r e , m e t h o d o l o g y o f human s c i e n c e s , but an a t t e m p t t o  a  84  u n d e r s t a n d what t h e human s c i e n c e s t r u l y a r e , beyond t h e i r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , a n d what c o n n e c t s them w i t h t h e t o t a l i t y o f o u r e x p e r i e n c e o f world I t i s n o t my i n t e n t i o n t o make p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r s c i e n c e s o r the conduct of l i f e , b u t t o t r y t o c o r r e c t f a l s e t h i n k i n g a b o u t what t h e y are. 8  Hence Gadamer's work c a n n o t Dilthey's other for  effort.  explores  granted.  place  be seen a s a d i r e c t  One was o c c u p i e d  with  shifting  of d i r e c t i o n  of U n d e r s t a n d i n g  But a l l b a s i c c o n c e p t s  been  aspects  o f human e x i s t e n c e , i n research  just  direction.  area  fora priori  i s basically  of r e s e a r c h has represents  o u t , so t h a t  true  constituted", rather 9  Heidegger  knowledge t o be a s t e p  considers  in this  a s l o n g a s t h e i n q u i r y does n o t t a k e  t h e meaning o f human e x i s t e n c e  Heidegger c l a i m s  areas,  " i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e ways i n  in information".  Nevertheless,  into account  involve  human  i s scientific  knowledge w h i c h  Heidegger p o i n t s  should  "an i n c r e a s e  Kant's quest  i n each area  shaped by p r e s c i e n t i f i c  which each p a r t i c u l a r than  i n t o many s u b j e c t  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n each of which  already  progress  insights.  (1889-1976) o b s e r v e s t h a t  knowledge h a s been c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z e d  research.  takes  i n Heidegger  and Time H e i d e g g e r  systematic  - has taken  i n hermeneutics  when Gadamer i n c o r p o r a t e s H e i d e g g e r ' s  In B e i n g  the  m e t h o d o l o g y whereas t h e  what m e t h o d o l o g y - any m e t h o d o l o g y  This  Fore-structure  c o n t i n u a t i o n of  i t remains  "naive  i n general,  and o p a q u e " .  1 0  H i s reasoning  goes a s f o l l o w s . A basic c h a r a c t e r i s i t i c individual  o f human e x i s t e n c e  i s that  each  e x i s t s i n a w o r l d . By " w o r l d " h e r e H e i d e g g e r d o e s n o t  85  mean t h e p h y s i c a l  or o b j e c t i v e  something  like  relations  an i n d i v i d u a l  herself.  1 1  world.  a personal world:  Rather,  i t i s the t o t a l i t y  has w i t h e n t i t i e s  He i l l u s t r a t e s  the concept  of  "serviceability, The  equipment  This  by i t s e l f  with the  he o r s h e l e a r n s a b o u t  ( i . e . without  that  pieces  i s always a l r e a d y acquainted with  having  some k i n d o f a t t i t u d e  something,  producing  exists  or c o n c e r n s involved  toward  entities  giving  something  determining  or otherwise. According a s knowing a t a l l ,  which know."  Hence "knowing  ",  new a t t i t u d e  1 5  The a p r i o r i  fundamental. toward  up and l e t t i n g  These  1 3  attitudes  the i n d i v i d u a l  any knowledge,  " i t belongs  These e n t i t i e s  t o so w i t h  interrogating,  t o Heidegger,  i s grounded beforehand"  human e x i s t e n c e . t h e most  14  entities  them: " h a v i n g  a r e a l w a y s o p e r a t i v e , whether  such a t h i n g  i n a w o r l d , he o r  surrounding  i s aware o f them. They p r e c e d e  scientific  1 2  a n d o t h e r humans) i n t h e s e n s e o f  something,  discussing,  its  i s meaningless.  nor s u b j e c t i v e .  go, u n d e r t a k i n g , a c c o m p l i s h i n g , e v i n c i n g ,  considering,  in  manipulability", etc.  people)  an i n d i v i d u a l  himself or h e r s e l f  i s embedded  usability,  i s neither objective  t o the fact  (including  not  h i m s e l f or  grows up and becomes  t o the i n d i v i d u a l  conduciveness,  i s why a w o r l d Due  it  o f meaning  e q u i p m e n t : what t h e y a r e f o r and how t h e y a r e u s e d . The  meaning o f t h e e q u i p m e n t  she  around  of the world  example o f e q u i p m e n t . As an i n d i v i d u a l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the environment,  he r e f e r s t o  i f there i s  solely  he r e f e r s  t o those  t o a r e humans.  i n the everyday  knowledge Kant  searched  mode o f for  F o r i n knowing, one s i m p l y a d o p t s  the world  one h a s a l r e a d y d i s c o v e r e d .  1 6  is a To  86  t h i s e x t e n t , Heidegger  maintains that an a n a l y s i s of the  s t r u c t u r e s of huamn e x i s t e n c e - or e x i s t e n t i a l  structures - i s  in o r d e r . He c a l l s the outcome of such an a n a l y s i s ontology".  "fundamental  1 7  A c c o r d i n g t o Heidegger's  a n a l y s i s , one of the key  e x i s t e n t i a l structures i s "understanding".  T h i s n o t i o n of  18  understanding, u n l i k e that of D i l t h e y , does not r e f e r t o any methodology. Rather, t h i s understanding tic  i s a basic  characteris-  of human e x i s t e n c e , r e g a r d l e s s of what methodology i s  employed i n the p u r s u i t of knowledge. The d i f f e r e n c e between the two n o t i o n s of understanding  is crucial  Gadamer's " o n t o l o g i c a l t u r n " from For Heidegger, understanding. governed  19  interpretation  since i t underlies  Dilthey. i s the e x p l i c i t  An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an e n t i t y  form of  i s always  by three b a s i c c o n d i t i o n s : some comprehension of the  t o t a l i t y of involvement h a v i n g " ) , the i n i t i a l  i n which the e n t i t y  step that the e n t i t y  i s embedded ("forei s approached  s i g h t " ) , and an a n t i c i p a t i o n that determines i s conceived  ("fore-  the way the e n t i t y  ( " f o r e - c o n c e p t i o n " ) . These three b a s i c c o n d i t i o n s  c o n s t i t u t e what i s known as the f o r e - s t r u c t u r e of understanding.Thus "an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n apprehending  i s never a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n l e s s  of something  presented to u s " .  2 0  These  p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s depend on how the person i n v o l v e d p e r c e i v e s the o b j e c t of understanding world. Heidegger  i n the context of other e n t i t i e s i n the  terms the t o t a l i t y of these presuppostions the  "hermeneutical s i t u a t i o n " .  2 1  Put simply, " a l l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,  which i s supposed t o generate understanding or knowledge, must  87  itself  be b a s e d  through  on p r i o r  understanding  interpretation".  does n o t t a k e  Since Dilthey's  hermeneutical  i n t o account  the e x i s t e n t i a l  s t r u c t u r e of  The  relegates  accepts Heidegger's  develops  i t into  brief  a critique  i t to a derivative comment on D i l t h e y ;  of s c i e n t i f i c  existential  argues  structures  that  t h e most  him,  "time"  i s more  fundamental  i s t e m p o r a l i t y , so t h a t  human e x i s t e n c e must be g r o u n d e d than  i n the concept  more  t h a n what one r e a d s  directly  encountered,  or her f u t u r e ,  entities about  from a c l o c k  "time"  he  i n the world. Although  - individuals  same i n d i v i d u a l ,  There conform  priority  Heidegger  of t i m e . " For 2  objective  an i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s  integrated  into a  attitude  meaningful  toward  t h e r e i s a g e n e r a l agreement  t o time d i f f e r e n t l y .  p o i n t s out, c e r t a i n  o t h e r s . Hence t i m e  or a  Even f o r t h e  t i m e may  i s neither  be  seen  objective  2 5  are d i f f e r e n t  possibilities  t o the p r i n c i p l e  of the f u t u r e " .  the future.  the a n a l y s i s of  - a s i n t h e u s e of a c l o c k  relate  t o be more p r e c i o u s t h a n subjective.  basis of  of events take p l a c e ,  i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  t h e measurement o f t i m e  calendar  of  2 3  o r a c a l e n d a r . When  i s t h e way  p a s t and p r e s e n t  whole. I t i s r e f l e c t e d  all  status.  in general.  t h e o r d i n a r y n o t i o n o f an  measure o f d u r a t i o n s i n w h i c h s e q u e n c e s  nor  method  method  H e i d e g g e r i a n View of Time a n d H i s t o r y Heidegger  his  i s t o be known  2 2  understanding, Heidegger Gadamer  o f what  2 6  It i s this  i n t e m p o r a l i t y . But t h e y  o f what H e i d e g g e r  One  c a l l s "the  t h i n k s and a c t s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n  anticipation  that  shapes  the  88  individual's perception the  world  in this  temporality  Occassionally  future,  exist  alone  I n many c a s e s ,  individualsare  basis.  i n the s c a l e of t h e i r This  2 7  fundamental  according  c o n s t i t u t i o n of human  First  as w e l l as  t h e immediate o r t h e immediate  think  links  and t h e p r e s e n t  The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f u t u r e i n  cases.  and p r e s e n t ,  Heidegger history.  with  they  on t h a t past  temporal  context.  v a r i e s with  concerned mainly  decision  of t h e p a s t  individual  lifetime  a n d make  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  to Heidegger,  i s the  existence. existence  o f a l l , he r e c o g n i z e s  i n the world: there  future.  that  are other  t o the concept of an i n d i v i d u a l  does not  humans a r o u n d . As one  grows up, one g r a d u a l l y e s t a b l i s h e s one's w o r l d , d i r e c t l y a n d indirectly,  with  form o t h e r s  how p i e c e s  that  the world  "the  world  one  of others.  Others".  F o r one e n c o u n t e r s  2 9  This  a basic characteristic  i n d i v i d u a l s c a n make t h e i r  ways, t h e y  finitude  existential  others  social  o f human  3 0  Although various  When  2 8  i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n one's w o r l d ; a s H e i d e g g e r  o f humans i s c o n s i d e r e d  existence.  out,  with  i t , "Others a r e encountered e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y " .  nature  the  I share  that  i n s o l i t u d e , one h a s a l r e a d y  the existence  through  one l e a r n s  i s n o t s u b e j c t i v e . H e i d e g g e r now c l a r i f i e s  t h i n k s o r a c t s , even  simply  For instance,  o f e q u i p m e n t a r e u s e d . We h a v e m e n t i o n e d  i s a l w a y s t h e one t h a t  presupposed  puts  the help of o t h e r s .  do n o t have c o m p l e t e  of i n d i v i d u a l  existence  s t r u c t u r e s one c a n n o t  choices  and a c t  in  f r e e d o m . In a d d i t i o n t o  one h a s t o f a c e a n d t h e  transcend,  Heidegger  points  one i s g o v e r n e d by t h e " d e s t i n y " o f o n e ' s community o r  89  people. Destiny individual;  does not  i t is also  person. Besides being the  past,  destiny  existence  in  c o l l e c t i v e action  case of  t e r m s of  does t h e  w o u l d one  historically  be  possible.  link  between  systematically t h e s e two, is a  lack  writings and  or  i n the of  analysis  properly  of  temporally  a people  is required:  fact that  power of  able  from  and  destiny  in  present.  human  I t guides " i n to  alter  communicating  become f r e e " .  Heidegger  As  3 1  sees h i s t o r y  in  a n t i c i p a t e s one's f u t u r e ,  to act  in order  to  r e a l i z e what  he is  3 2  of  h i s t o r y , Heidegger e s t a b l i s h e d  explicitly s e n s e of  address  s o c i e t y . Yet  explore  the  on  did  not  done b e f o r e him. whether  societal issues.  formally  he  a  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  what H e g e l had  in t h i s respect.  i t and  society.  "only  in  i n which a  past  constituted.  c o n s e n s u s among s c h o l a r s  ideas  future,  single  particular  s h a r e d way  to the  i n d i v i d u a l and  Time i s s u g g e s t i v e  central  due  O n l y when one  With t h i s concept certain  the  individual existence,  temporality.  indicates,  any  any  i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d e n c o u n t e r . In o r d e r  in struggling the  of  of  c o l l e c t i v e d e e d s of  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  and  doing  control  outcome of  i s human r e a l i t y  a d v a n c e " what an  and  the  s h a p e d by  is socially  destiny,  beyond  i s the  p e o p l e grasps the Hence d e s t i n y  r e s u l t from the  3 3  Heidegger's  Nevertheless,  Gadamer e x t r a c t s  extends these  There  ideas  to  Being  some the  90  Prejudgments Gadamer existential  i s convinced that structures  i s an immensely  s t u d y on t h e h e r m e n e u t i c s  of c u l t u r a l  the c o n t e x t of the problem societal  level.  grounded  in cultural  Heidegger's  valuable tool tradition.  of understanding  handed down t h r o u g h  concept  tradition.  the ages.  prejudgments "  i s broadened  of f o r e - s t r u c t u r e  is  and l i m i t a t i o n s , a r e what  d e r i v e d from t h e  of u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  has e x p l a i n e d t h a t  understanding  history  i s never  i s possible  temporal  constitution  show how  p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s develop h i s t o r i c a l l y  free  due t o t h e  o f human e x i s t e n c e , Gadamer goes on t o in society  o f t h e s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s . In H e i d e g g e r ' s  the world  t o the  These c o n d i t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e  from p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s and t h a t  result  Gadamer,  In o t h e r words, c o n d i t i o n s o f  - a concept  3  Heidegger  With  f o r h i s own  Human u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a s Gadamer p e r c e i v e s i t ,  u n d e r s t a n d i n g , which d e f i n e p o s s i b i l i t i e s  Gadamer c a l l s  a n a l y s i s of  i s not s u b j e c t i v e ;  i t i s something  an  as a  conception,  individual  s h a r e s w i t h o t h e r s . Gadamer e l a b o r a t e s on and s t r e s s e s t h e intersubjective  n a t u r e o f human u n d e r s t a n d i n g when he i n t r o d u c e s  the concept  o f p r e j u d g m e n t . F o r him, t h i s  the product  of c u l t u r a l  way an i n d i v i d u a l individual, The  understands.  Gadamer  concept  tradition,  shifts  which e s s e n t i a l l y  While  Heidegger  shapes t h e  f o c u s s e s on t h e  the emphasis t o s o c i e t y .  o f prejudgment  terms o f Gadamer's a n a l y s i s Romanticism,  intersubjectivity is  be c l a r i f i e d i n  of the Enlightenment  two i n t e l l e c t u a l  c e n t u r i e s . The E n l i g h t e n m e n t  can perhaps  movements  and  i n t h e 1 8 t h and 19th  e l e v a t e s reason  t o supremacy: " i t  91  is  not  tradition,  source  without  regard to reason;  establish 3 6  i s that  by  i n the  through  Conversely,  historical  terms,  constantly  dependent 3 8  Romanticism  To  may  never  and  "an  reason  t o be  a b l e t o be  rational fully  well  in concrete,  master, but  i n which i t  completed".  Gadamer m a i n t a i n s  they  that  prejudgments  famous  task  are  Prejudgments  be m o d i f i e d i n  of p r e j u d g m e n t  following  still  3 9  they are omnipresent.  of the concept i n the  and  prejudgments  which always stands w i t h i n t r a d i t i o n .  expressed  remains  knowledge, even t h o u g h t h e  e l i m i n a t e d , a l t h o u g h they can  significance  not  inconspicuous  the Enlightenment  never  reason,  diametrically  t h o u g h an  i t s own  in tradition:  with  a r e not  f o r us o n l y  inherent be  i t is  F o r Gadamer, " t r u e p r e j u d g m e n t s must by  to  t o r e c o g n i z e , Gadamer  the given c i r c u m s t a n c e s  the e x t e n t both  Essentially  the  " a f f i r m e d , embraced,  exists  i . e . i t i s not  justified  tradition  i t , seeking  i s o l d , simply because  a c t of r e a s o n ,  "reason  on  to  t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of  r e f u s e t o acknowledge t h e i r  be  adheres  f o l l o w i n g manner. " T r a d i t i o n d o e s  i t has  succumb t o i l l u s i o n s . be  blindly  movements f a i l  tradition  nature";  operates".  the u l t i m a t e  t h e o t h e r hand, R o m a n t i c i s m , a  " i t shares  of what  two  argues  cultivated"  finally  On  constitutes  o n l y r e v e r s e s the e v a l u a t i o n of  the v a l i d i t y  o p p o s e d . He  3 7  and  What t h e s e  reveals,  persist  3 5  that  a g a i n s t the Enlightenment,  Enlightenment  one".  reason  of a l l a u t h o r i t y " .  reaction  old".  but  can  accordance  The  to hermeneutics  is  passage:  I n f a c t h i s t o r y d o e s n o t b e l o n g t o us, b u t we b e l o n g t o i t . Long b e f o r e we u n d e r s t a n d o u r s e l v e s t h r o u g h t h e p r o c e s s o f s e l f - e x a m i n a t i o n , we u n d e r s t a n d o u r s e l v e s i n a s e l f - e v i d e n t way i n t h e f a m i l y ,  92  s o c i e t y and s t a t e i n w h i c h we l i v e . The f o c u s o f s u b j e c t i v i t y i s a d i s t o r t i n g m i r r o r . The s e l f awareness of the i n d i v i d u a l i s o n l y a f l i c k e r i n g i n t h e c l o s e d c i r c u i t s o f h i s t o r i c a l l i f e . T h a t i s why p r e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , f a r more t h a n h i s judgments, c o n s t i t u t e the h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y of h i s being. 4 0  Analogous t o Heidegger's e x i s t e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s , are  cast  reality  in ontological o f human  terms: they a r e part  and  of prejudgment  level,  thinking  rather  a s we have j u s t  relatively  as  an a s p e c t  homogeneous among p e o p l e  prejudgments are a l s o Heidegger's  inquiry  situations  each  d e t e r m i n e d component individual are  exactly  features  those  sharing  sharing  differentiated  into  t h e same  t h e same  the fore-structure  individual  a l i k e , although they  i f the i n d i v i d u a l s  Gadamer's w r i t i n g s  common f e a t u r e s  inherited  of understanding  a t the  to explain  individuals  s h a r e many common  t o t h e same  culture.  are mainly concerned with the  from t r a d i t i o n . He p r o b a b l y  Heidegger has s u f f i c i e n t l y c o v e r e d order  basis,  the c u l t u r a l l y  i s refined  inevitably  belong  sub-culture.  e x p e r i e n c e s and t h e  confronts,  of prejudgments  culture,and  on an i n d i v i d u a l  l e v e l . Thus t h e p r e j u d g m e n t s o f no two  Nevertheless,  In  i t . At the s o c i e t a l  of contemporary  s u g g e s t s . Due t o a d i v e r s i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l unique  on H e i d e g g e r ' s  d i s c u s s e d . As s u c h , p r e j u d g m e n t s a r e  p e r h a p s even more so among But  r e a l i z e that the  intends to b u i l d  than r e p l a c i n g  prejudgments c o n s t i t u t e  culture,  on i t , we  c a n be seen a t two l e v e l s : t h e s o c i e t a l  t h e i n d i v i d u a l . F o r Gadamer  existential  of the i r r e d u c i b l e  existence.  W h i l e Gadamer does n o t e l a b o r a t e concept  prejudgments  the i n d i v i d u a l  the dynamics  involved  thinks  level.  i n the  93  transformation  of p r e j u d g m e n t s , Gadamer u t i l i z e s  horizon,  which  i s "the  that  be  can  vantage and  seen  from  p o i n t one  individual  situation.  range  of v i s i o n  a vantage  takes  Now  point".  i s s h a p e d by  e x p e r i e n c e s and  that  are  Gadamer c l a i m s t h a t  4 1  the concept  of  includes everything  He  implies that  one's c u l t u r a l  influenced  by  the  background  the c u r r e n t  a h o r i z o n i s not a  rigid  frontier: The h i s t o r i c a l movement of human l i f e c o n s i s t s i n t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s n e v e r u t t e r l y bound t o any one s t a n d p o i n t , and hence can n e v e r have a t r u l y c l o s e d h o r i z o n . The h o r i z o n i s , r a t h e r , s o m e t h i n g into w h i c h we move and t h a t moves w i t h u s . H o r i z o n s change f o r a p e r s o n who i s m o v i n g . 4 2  Gadamer goes on  to c l a i m that  connected  awareness of one's prejudgments:  t o an  t h e movement of a h o r i z o n i s  the present  i s being c o n t i n u a l l y  continually  to test  not  obvious,  u n l e s s we  consciousness  Hegel's  According  merely of  of  prejudgments".  relate  we  have  These c l a i m s  4 3  them t o H e g e l ' s  analysis  are  of  how  Consciousness  to Hegel,  entities,  consciousness  in that  develops.  Dialectic  independent  a l l our  formed,  " t h e h o r i z o n of  and  consciousness knowledge  to these e n t i t i e s .  knowledge o f e n t i t i e s ,  distinguishes  i s what  But  f o r one  itself  from  relates  human c o n s c i o u s n e s s  i s not  i s c o n s c i o u s of the  knowledge a s w e l l . Hence c o n s c i o u s n e s s can  be  seen  truth  i n i t s two  capacities: ' c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s , on t h e one hand, c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t h e o b j e c t , and on t h e o t h e r hand, c o n s c i o u s n e s s of i t s e l f ; c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f what f o r i t i s t h e T r u e , and c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f i t s knowledge of t h e t r u t h . 4 0  94  Hegel method of  illustrates  the p r o g r e s s i o n of c o n s c i o u s n e s s  i n q u i r y . Whatever  t h e g o a l of c o n s c i o u s n e s s  with  the  i s , an  inquiry c a n n o t t a k e p l a c e w i t h o u t some p r e s u p p o s i t i o n w h i c h can s e r v e a s i t s u n d e r l y i n g c r i t e r i o n . F o r an e x a m i n a t i o n c o n s i s t s i n a p p l y i n g an a c c e p t e d s t a n d a r d , and i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r s o m e t h i n g i s r i g h t o r wrong on t h e b a s i s of t h e agreement o r disagreement of the t h i n g examined." 5  Put to  differently, be  operationalized  criterion first  embodied  i s met  an  in social  and  the c r i t e r i o n  consciousness not  reached,  i s posited  external entity,  "the  itself".  t o i t s own  about  of d e s p a i r " ,  state  a r e o b s t a c l e s on struggle  thereby replaced  then  4 7  immediately  arisen".  4 8  appearance that m a n i f e s t s  itself  other  the development  Contradiction  thus  results  itself,  not  inadequate  But  i n the a t t a i n m e n t  of  there  the form  criterion  assumes and  must  removal has is  an  knowledge of  t h e s e changes a r e  of c o n s c i o u s n e s s  by  "brings  realizes  outcome: "a new  4 9  judges  alerts  For Hegel,  more f u l l y ,  becomes more a c c u r a t e .  the  inadequate.  This situation  the e n t i t y  the e n t i t y than  If  i t s goal: consciousness  The  by a more a d e q u a t e one,  in i t s  becomes a c o m p a r i s o n  for consciousness  a determinate  - a  capacity  is  by c o n s c i o u s n e s s  toward  has  there i s a  the c r i t e r i o n  incompleteness.  the path  has  Consciousness,  A contradiction  4 6  a goal  criterion  i n i t s second  t o overcome t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n .  contradiction  inquiry,  with the c r i t e r i o n .  investigation  consciousness a  i n any  practice.  It follows that  consciousness with  of  that  i n t e r m s of some i m p l i c i t  the g o a l i s s t i l l  "contradiction". Since  indicates  c a p a c i t y , compares an e n t i t y  criterion that  Hegel  none  itself. of a h i g h e r  level  95  of c o n s c i o u s n e s s . contradiction  The  i n d i v i d u a l s can and  In o t h e r  We  have seen  develop  society  themselves  develops  the  h i s t o r y - , and  any  Hence a t  the  societal  developmental  process  That  i s the  level  parallel  t o be  the  a process  consciousness  i s a component  t o the  one  and  at the  action.  moment i n  of  Spirit.  the  individual  of m a n k i n d .  Hegel  progression  the c o m p l e t i o n  an  s p e a k s of  which r e s u l t s  of t h e  in a higher  contradiction  I f one  and which  series".  undeniable  reality,  i n the Hegelian  sense.  the  5 0  the e x i s t i n g  would o t h e r w i s e  p r e j u d g m e n t s can  no  of  Gadamer s p e a k s o f of h o r i z o n  a situation  which  p r e j u d g m e n t s and then  there  I n o t h e r words,  remain u n n o t i c e d " . l o n g e r be  yet  and does  the  is a  w i t h o t h e r ' s h o r i z o n s makes us aware of a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t they  presupposed  level  expansion  encounters  according to e x i s t i n g  i s an  testing  improved c r i t e r i o n ,  prejudgments.  not make s e n s e  seated  framework o f  unreal consciousness"  p r e j u d g m e n t s w h i c h l e a d s t o an  situation  outcome of  Horizons  criterion,  modified  a  consciousness  that p a r t i c u l a r  forms of t h e  t h e manner t h a t H e g e l  testing  the  individual  individual  "the n e c e s s a r y  b r i n g to pass  In  at  of  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e process  "will  itself  of  there  of  of  l o n g as  achievement c o n t r i b u t e s to  interconnection  Fusion  as  only w i t h i n the  as a r e s u l t  Spirit  individual  c o n s i d e r s the p r o c e s s  by  itself  that, in Hegelian thinking,  words, t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  always s t a r t s with  level.  repeats  o c c u r s , w i t h e a c h s t e p d e p e n d i n g on  t h e p r e v i o u s one.  society  process  "collision so  5 1  justified:  deepT h i s means they  must  96  be  transformed  i n s u c h a way  enough t o a c c o u n t the  for this  that  the  situation.  consists  of  existing  prejudgments, c o n f i r m a t i o n  incorporation transcended untiring  of  new  5 2  man  Unless  one  willingness  existing  i s not  t o open up  i n the  that  be  the  elements,  and  "It is  process  a new  of  are  the  being  preunderstandchallenge  susceptible  to  seen t h a t the m o d i f i c a t i o n  automatic: mind.  "situation"  limits  of  c l o s e s one's mind t o the  I t can  one's  elements  o l d prejudgments  prejudgments are  entirely  Gadamer d e f i n e s standpoint  other the  becomes b r o a d  transformation  of Aufhebung).  that  stubbornly  alterations.  prejudgments  of  i s c e a s e l e s s l y forming  situations,  continuous  This  that  concept  power o f e x p e r i e n c e ,  horizon  inappropriate  e l e m e n t s so  (the H e g e l i a n  instructed, ing".  c a n c e l l a t i o n of  of new  new  i t d e p e n d s on  of  one's  5 3  t o be  possibility  something r e p r e s e n t i n g of v i s i o n " .  He  "a  explains:  The v e r y i d e a of a s i t u a t i o n means t h a t we a r e n o t s t a n d i n g o u t s i d e i t and h e n c e a r e u n a b l e t o have any o b j e c t i v e knowledge of i t . We a r e a l w a y s w i t h i n t h e s i t u a t i o n , and t o throw l i g h t on i t i s a t a s k t h a t i s never e n t i r e l y c o m p l e t e d . " 5  In a h e r m e n e u t i c a l interpreter  situation  interprets a text.  i s a l w a y s g o v e r n e d by  Heidegger, a hermeneutical presuppositions Emphasizing  one  involved  a  limitation  i n an  presuppositions  operating  at  in  regard  try  ourselves  to u n d e r s t a n d " .  represents  an  aspect  5 5  The of  For  i n t e r p r e t a t i v e process.  situation  find  of v i s i o n .  s i t u a t i o n c o n s i s t s of a l l  Gadamer d e f i n e s a h e r m e n e u t i c a l w h i c h we  The  with text  t o be  tradition  and  the  societal  t o be  to the  "the  level, situation  tradition  that  we  i n t e r p r e t e d always hence must be  seen  in that  97  context.  R e f l e c t i o n on  understanding  presuppositions  of a t e x t  n e v e r comes t o an  end:  i s necessary  i s d e s i r e d . But presuppositions  i f true  i t i s a process can  only  be  that  changed,  not  eradicated. What  reflection  Certainly,  the  quantitative in  a new  leads  formation  to  o f an  c h a n g e . W i t h a new  light.  a writer, a conversation  past.  For  the  t e x t t o be  world, e t c . which the speaker which  or a c t o r  a  the  horizon. i s not  simply  situation  situation,  partner,  what be  i t the  the  " f u s i o n of  belongs.  t o h i s or her  d e t e r m i n e d by one  cultural  cultural  And  horizon  other  party's  horizons".  horizon.  He  5 6  life-  tradition  horizon  Hence i n to  This  elaborates  i s what  on  the  T h i s p l a c i n g of o u r s e l v e s i s n o t the empathy o f one i n d i v i d u a l f o r a n o t h e r , nor i s i t the a p p l i c a t i o n t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n o f our own c r i t e r i a , but i t a l w a y s i n v o l v e s t h e a t t a i n m e n t of a h i g h e r u n i v e r s a l i t y t h a t o v e r c o m e s , n o t o n l y our own p a r t i c u l a r i t y , but a l s o that of.the other One l e a r n s t o l o o k b e y o n d what i s c l o s e a t hand - not i n o r d e r t o l o o k away f r o m i t , but t o see i t b e t t e r w i t h i n a l a r g e r w h o l e and i n t r u e r p r o p o r t i o n . 5 7  can  derived As  readily  tell  the  concept of  from H e g e l ' s a n a l y s i s of how with  f u s i o n of h o r i z o n s consciousness  H e i d e g g e r , Gadamer d o e s n o t  consider  is  develops. an  the  encompass  concept:  One  to  writer,  particular  extends one's h o r i z o n  be  historical  the  tradition.  a  i s seen  i s to  a c u l t u r e or a  from the  or a c t o r  i s confined  r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n of  Gadamer c a l l s  horizon,  another h o r i z o n ,  isolated  of u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of  i n t e r p r e t e d - w r i t i n g , speech,  w r i t e r , speaker  is largely  process the  i s never  expansion  expanded h o r i z o n  In a h e r m e n e u t i c a l  understood always r e p r e s e n t s of  i s an  act  of  98  understanding is  t o be an a c q u i s i t i o n  r a t h e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f a new  already  something  attitude  a c q u a i n t e d w i t h . Thus a f u s i o n  corresponding w h i c h a new  by  " a l lunderstanding  Historical  attitude  i s adopted.  D i m e n s i o n of  have s e e n  that  levels.  contribute  to the  one  is  i s the  the  mechanism  i s what Gadamer means 5 8  Hermeneutics understanding  But  It  a self-understanding".  d e p e n d s on  which are p r o d u c t s of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n , individual  new.  the world  of h o r i z o n s , w i t h  This  is ultimately  entirely  toward  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of p r e j u d g m e n t s ,  by  We  of  individual  prejudgments,  a t both the  societal  a c t s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g  self-formative process  t h e s e a c t s a r e c o n s e q u e n t i a l a t the  of mankind, so  societal  and  also that  level:  In a t r a d i t i o n t h i s p r o c e s s of f u s i o n i s c o n t i n u a l l y g o i n g on, f o r t h e r e o l d and new c o n t i n u a l l y grow t o g e t h e r t o make s o m e t h i n g o f l i v i n g v a l u e , w i t h o u t e i t h e r b e i n g e x p l i c i t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e other. 5 9  Gadamer's c o n c e p t  of s e l f - f o r m a t i o n  he  d e c l a r e s : "Hegel  in  which the problem Hegel  not  observes  has  thought  through  of h e r m e n e u t i c s that  the  - but  must  identify  transcends parallel  with S p i r i t ,  individual  human i s a  individual  finitude.  of H e g e l :  the  t o t h e embodiment consciousness  So  dimension  finite  e x i s t e n c e - which  the h i s t o r i c a l  subject  of S p i r i t .  concept  being,  i s obviously  an  individual  that  f a r Gadamer's t h o u g h t  former's  that  6 0  i n t e r m s of c o n s c i o u s n e s s . T h i s i s why  to that  corresponds  the h i s t o r i c a l  is rooted."  individual  o n l y i n t e r m s of b i o - p h y s i c a l  true  owes so much t o H e g e l  of  in  tradition  F o r Gadamer, t h e  i s an a s p e c t o f t h e o n g o i n g  runs  finite  cultural  99  tradition Spirit  t o which the i n d i v i d u a l  m a n i f e s t s the cosmic  s e r v e s no p u r p o s e progression absolute  6 1  But H e g e l  of consciousness of S p i r i t  level;  "this  last  company w i t h  the Hegelian  order - a "necessity",  outside i t s e l f .  knowing".  6 2  tradition  goes f u r t h e r : t h e  eventually  shape o f S p i r i t "  knowing" o r " c o m p r e h e n s i v e  r e a c h e s an  i s "absolute  Here Gadamer t r u l y  parts  Hegel.  Learning finitude  belongs. While  from N i e t z s c h e  of i n d i v i d u a l  ( 1 8 4 4 - 1 9 0 0 ) , Gadamer e l u c i d a t e s t h e  consciousness with the concept  o f memory:  F o r g e t t i n g b e l o n g s w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f remembering and r e c a l l i n g F o r g e t t i n g ... i s a c o n d i t i o n of t h e l i f e o f mind. O n l y by f o r g e t t i n g d o e s t h e mind have a c h a n c e o f t o t a l r e n e w a l , t h e c a p a c i t y t o see e v e r y t h i n g w i t h f r e s h e y e s , so t h a t what i s l o n g f a m i l i a r c o m b i n e s w i t h t h e new i n t o a many l e v e l l e d unity. 6 3  N i e t z s c h e ' s n o t i o n o f memory a t t h e s o c i e t a l by  eminent N i e t z s c h e s c h o l a r W a l t e r  level  i s captured  Kaufmann:  A p e o p l e w i t h a b s o l u t e l y no memory o f t h e i r p a s t w o u l d be u n a b l e t o a b i d e by a p r o v e n way o f l i f e , and t o keep t h e law; a c u l t u r e w i t h no t r a d i t i o n , w i t h no memory o f p a s t t e c h n i q u e s o r c u s t o m s , would be s i m i l a r l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d . On t h e o t h e r hand, a people or c u l t u r e without the a b i l i t y t o forget w o u l d be u n a b l e t o make d e c i s i o n s , t o a c t , a n d t o be creative. 6 4  Hegel is  saw o n l y one s i d e  the i n s i g h t  Gadamer  of the c o i n ;  N i e t z s c h e saw b o t h .  incorporates into  6 5  This  hermeneutics:  Remembering, f o r g e t t i n g , a n d r e c a l l i n g b e l o n g t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o f man a n d a r e t h e m s e l v e s p a r t o f h i s h i s t o r y and h i s s e l f - f o r m a t i o n . 6 6  Hence f o r Gadamer h i s t o r y  i s not o r i e n t e d  g o a l and t h e s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s never the  same t o k e n , p r e j u d g m e n t s  continuously  always  being transformed  exist,  t o adapt  toward  any u l t i m a t e  comes t o a h a l t . By although they a r e  t o changing  s o c i e t a l and  100  individual  Notion  conditions.  of  Application  A l t h o u g h Gadamer's a n a l y s i s understanding,  i t s h o u l d be c l e a r  knowledge and a c t i o n . and  treats  c e n t e r s on t h e p r o b l e m that  F o r he l i n k s  he i s c o n c e r n e d  interpretation  o f human with  both  to application  them a s d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l  phenomenon. How  one i n t e r p r e t s  application  of t h i s  intention  from  i t s implications  perceived  6 7  depends on t h e i n t e n d e d  interpretation,  this  situation.  a text  whether one i s c o n s c i o u s o f  o r n o t : one does n o t i n t e r p r e t and then a p p l y  The i d e a  that  implications  i s s h a p e d by i t s  a s an e x t e n s i o n o f  Heideggerian concepts. According t o the concept  of f o r e -  structure  o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , when one u n d e r s t a n d s  perceives  i t i n the context of the t o t a l i t y  implications involvement  o f an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as w e l l :  sees  an e n t i t y  something  totality. expected  6 8  a r e no d o u b t  part  in anticipation  of time,  of the f u t u r e ,  i f one  t h e n one  " i n a d v a n c e " a s an i n t e g r a l component o f t h e  Naturally  applications  o f an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e  of the future.  Hence a c o n s i d e r a t i o n  outcomes o f an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  interpretation  of t h i s  they a r e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s i n the  t o become p a r t  the p o s s i b l e  an e n t i t y one  o f i n v o l v e m e n t . The  i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p r o c e s s . According t o the concept interprets  free  i t to a concrete  an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  c a n be seen  something  a f f e c t s the  itself.  On t h e o t h e r hand, any a p p l i c a t i o n  of c u l t u r a l  elements  of  101  s u c h as norms, already To  ideals,  embodied an  laws and  interpretation  the e x t e n t a person  inappropriate, already good. A t "cannot case  right  implicitly the be  ...  because  Ultimately everyday  rules".  inevitably  a judgment  practice,  rests  on  something  i s often  the person  only practiced from c o n c e p t s up  rules  l e a d s t o an something  that  has  not  or  judgment  from  case  to  i s able to  to  guide  guide  infinite  that  escapes  expressed  6 9  i s a p p r o p r i a t e or  i s appropriate, right  Setting  7 0  has  elements.  Gadamer p o i n t s o u t ,  demonstration  of r u l e s  interpretation  what  level,  life  of t h e s e c u l t u r a l  action  i n g e n e r a l , but  of  to d a i l y  o r wrong, good o r bad,  interpreted  no  the a p p l i c a t i o n application  f e e l s an  fundamental  taught  scriptures  regress.  i s presupposed  theorizing.  i n words, but  Thus  in  in  an  action  itself. We  have seen  the e x p l i c i t further  form  p o i n t s out  interpretation", of  7 1  interpretation.  itself  in action,  interpretation.  that  Heidegger  considers interpretation  o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h i s Gadamer a g r e e s . that  "understanding  a l t h o u g h i t may An  implicit  sometimes be  interpretation  which e s s e n t i a l l y  Hence t o the two  hermeneutical act that  Heidegger  interpretation  It  and  f u s e d t o g e t h e r i n any unified  process".  i s worth n o t i n g that  one  an  implicit  often  form  manifests of  the  mentions - understanding  understanding,  "one  He  i n t e g r a l components o f a  - Gadamer a d d s a t h i r d  comprise  be  an  is application  interpretation  components  i s always  to  one:  application.  application single  are  and  For  him,  three  h e r m e n e u t i c a l a c t : they  7 2  of the admirers  of t h i s a s p e c t  102  of  Gadamer  i s Habermas, who b r i n g s o u t t h e f o r m e r ' s  idea  lucidly: I f i n d Gadamer's r e a l a c h i e v e m e n t i n t h e demonstration that hermeneutical understanding i s l i n k e d with transcendental necessity to the a r t i c u l a t i o n o f an a c t i o n - o r i e n t i n g selfu n d e r s t a n d i n g . The immanent c o n n e c t i o n o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p l i c a t i o n c a n be seen i n t h e examples o f t h e o l o g y a n d j u r i s p r u d e n c e . B o t h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e i n p r e a c h i n g and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p o s i t i v e law i n a d j u d i c a t i o n serve s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a s g u i d e p o s t s o f how t o a p p l y t h e e v i d e n c e i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . The p r a c t i c a l l i f e r e l a t i o n t o the s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the c l i e n t s i s not s i m p l y a s u b s e q u e n t c o r o l l a r y t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Rather, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s r e a l i z e d i n the a p p l i c a t i o n itself. 7 3  Based on h i s a n a l y s e s o f l e g a l and hermeneutics, life.  He o b s e r v e s  implicitly and no  Gadamer e x t e n d s  interpretation  world,  i n accordance i s free  that  which  from  world": * 7  t o a l l a s p e c t s of  moment o f l i f e ,  the s i t u a t i o n  with t h i s  i n turn  one c o n f r o n t s  prejudgments, n e i t h e r  level, history  i s grounded  proceeds  Since  i s any in a  of t h e i r  i n t r a d i t i o n . Recognizing the  Gadamer c l a i m s t h a t  hermeneutics  " t h e mode o f t h e whole human e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e the hermeneutical  one  interpretation.  i s s h a p e d by human i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  power o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , involves  single  interprets  Thus a t t h e s o c i e t a l  direction  this principle  i n every  or e x p l i c i t l y  takes a c t i o n  action.  that,  theological  phenomenon  i s universal.  103  Critique  of  Scientific  Much of method has concepts  the  groundwork  been l a i d  s u c h as  application,  Method  out  Gadamer  i s able  method. One  and  is Dilthey.  In D i l t h e y ' s of  a  text  relation through the  an  fusion  h i s major  inherent  the  i n the  of  to c a r r y  methodology of  i s b a s e d on  the  entire text  objective  pointing  assumption t e x t . The  serious  about  naively  believes  transposition,  the  of  other the  that  of  kind  of  be  and  Truth  part-whole  life  explored  implicated  whole and  fully  understood  in  hermeneutical c i r c l e  weaknesses  in Dilthey's Dilthey  form  re-experiencing,  is  thinking is  not  human c o n s c i o u s n e s s .  i n the  in  the  words, t h e  f i n i t u d e of  of  interpretation  r e l a t i o n i s t o be  understanding,  re-creation  in  a meaningful  r e l a t e d problems. F i r s t ,  notion  analysis  attack  movements between t h e  Gadamer s e i z e s two  a critical of  own  and  human s c i e n c e s ,  would e v e n t u a l l y  manner. In  out  out  scientific  with his  horizons  target  imagined p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the  dissolved. by  of  t e x t . With s u c c e s s i v e  parts,  Heidegger. Together  prejudgment,  scientific Method  by  f o r Gadamer's c r i t i q u e of  He  of can  overcome  the  finitude: He s e e s one's own w o r l d o f e x p e r i e n c e as t h e mere s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r an e x p a n s i o n t h a t , i n a l i v i n g t r a n s p o s i t i o n , f i l l s out t h e n a r r o w n e s s and f o r t u i t o u s n e s s o f one's own e x p e r i e n c e by t h e i n f i n i t y of what i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e re-experiencing of the h i s t o r i c a l w o r l d At any r a t e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t D i l t h e y d i d not r e g a r d the f a c t t h a t f i n i t e h i s t o r i c a l man was t i e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e and p l a c e a s any f u n d a m e n t a l i m p a i r m e n t o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of knowledge i n t h e human s c i e n c e s . 7 5  C o n s e q u e n t l y Gadamer i n d i c a t e s t h a t illusion  that  Dilthey  p o t e n t i a l understanding  falls  into  i s beyond any  the  limitation.  1 04  Second, D i l t h e y t h i n k s the immaterial  to the  final  starting  point  of any  inquiry is  outcome:  He d e c l a r e s t h a t o n l y sympathy makes t r u e understanding p o s s i b l e D i l t h e y speaks about u n i v e r s a l sympathy ... w h i c h fundamentally t r a n s c e n d s the b a r r i e r s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i v e a c c i d e n t of p r e f e r e n c e and a f f i n i t y f o r an o b j e c t h a s s e t t o understand. 7 6  Instead  Gadamer shows t h a t  experiences  the  This  a barrier  i s not  world  the  starting  - i s a l w a y s s h a p e d by that  can  be  method, as D i l t h e y b e l i e v e s . F o r objectify  experience  element". that  these  that  Scientific  7 7  basic  i t no  method  experiences  a complete  r e l i a n c e on  concept  prejudgment.  of  not  the  same as  understanding  science  conversation  empathy or  a text partner  transcended " i t i s the  longer  can  - the  one's  be  can  contains  one  prejudgments. any  of  scientific  science  any  n e v e r do  by  justice  to  argues  ... Hence  7 8  the  f u s i o n of h o r i z o n s ,  sympathy. He  to  historical  anyone".  i s analogous to understanding in a  way  to guarantee  repeated  is a  by  aim  i s "concerned  F o r Gadamer, u n d e r s t a n d i n g is  point  which  that one's  dialogue:  J u s t a s i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n , when we have d i s c o v e r e d the s t a n d p o i n t and h o r i z o n of t h e o t h e r p e r s o n , h i s i d e a s become i n t e l l i g i b l e , w i t h o u t our n e c e s s a r i l y h a v i n g t o a g r e e w i t h him, t h e p e r s o n who thinks h i s t o r i c a l l y comes t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g o f what has been handed down, w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r i l y a g r e e i n g w i t h i t , or s e e i n g h i m s e l f i n i t . 7  In  order  respect the  to p r o p e r l y the  o n l y way  partner's to  understand a conversation i d e a s as  l e a r n about  the  he  or  she  other's  t o what the  t e x t has  t o say  partner  presents  one  must  i t . This  p o i n t o f v i e w . In  same manner, when i n t e r p r e t i n g a t e x t , t h e attention  9  is the  i n t e r p r e t e r must  t o him  or h e r ,  rather  pay than  105  simply  extracting  interpreter  can  i n f o r m a t i o n from  i t or p r e t e n d i n g the  t r a n s p o s e h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f  Gadamer warns one  a g a i n s t an  text  " t o our  text  t o "make i t s own  into  the  "overhasty a s s i m i l a t i o n "  e x p e c t a t i o n s of m e a n i n g " . meaning h e a r d "  o f h o r i z o n s t a k e p l a c e . In t h i s  of  when one  the  permits a  would an a d e q u a t e  8 1  sense  Only  8 0  text.  text  fusion  interpretation  has  a  dialogic character. In r e g a r d t o t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l c i r c l e , it  " i s not d i s s o l v e d  contrary,  i s most  in perfect  fully  understanding  one  what  understood  i s t o be  u n d e r s t a n d i n g b u t , on  realized".  d o e s not a t t a i n  interpreter's culturally  Gadamer c l a i m s  8 2  Hence even  objective  the  in perfect  knowledge;  comes i n t o t h e b e s t l i g h t and  that  rather,  under  the  h i s t o r i c a l l y conditioned  subjectivity. Gadamer f u r t h e r of  e x p l i c a t e s what he  hermeneutical experience  calls  i n t e r m s o f an  the h i g h e s t  I-Thou  type  relationship:  In human r e l a t i o n t h e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g i s ... t o e x p e r i e n c e t h e Thou t r u l y a s a Thou, i . e . n o t t o o v e r l o o k h i s c l a i m and t o l i s t e n t o what he has t o say t o u s . To t h i s end, o p e n n e s s i s n e c e s s a r y W i t h o u t t h i s k i n d of o p e n n e s s t o one a n o t h e r t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e human r e l a t i o n s h i p . 8 3  This,  a c c o r d i n g t o Gadamer, i s t h e p r o p e r  conversation  as w e l l  opinion, Dilthey's lower is  as a t e x t  interpretation.  behind  to o b j e c t i v e  i s of a  knowledge o f o t h e r  o f o p e n n e s s t o what t h e s e p e o p l e  a  In Gadamer's  n o t i o n of h e r m e n e u t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e  type. For a c l a i m  a denial  principle  people  say:  One c l a i m s t o e x p r e s s t h e o t h e r ' s c l a i m and even t o understand the other b e t t e r than the o t h e r understands himself The c l a i m t o u n d e r s t a n d the o t h e r person i n advance performs the f u n c t i o n of k e e p i n g the c l a i m of the o t h e r p e r s o n a t a d i s t a n c e  106  I t i s l i k e t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e I and the T h o u . A p e r s o n who r e f l e c t s h i m s e l f o u t o f t h e m u t u a l i t y of s u c h a r e l a t i o n c h a n g e s t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p and d e s t r o y s i t s m o r a l bond. A p e r s o n who r e f l e c t s h i m s e l f out of a l i v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t r a d i t i o n d e s t r o y s the t r u e meaning of t h i s t r a d i t i o n i n e x a c t l y t h e same w a y . 8 4  In one  stroke  Gadamer p r o n o u n c e s t h e  m e t h o d o l o g y and to a higher  elevates  level  concept  of  Dilthey's  of h e r m e n e u t i c a l  experience  of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .  Gadamer's c r i t i q u e equally  the  limitation  to n a t u r a l  of methodology  i n human s c i e n c e s  applies  sciences:  The h i s t o r y of m a t h e m a t i c s o r of t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s i s a l s o a p a r t of the h i s t o r y of the s p i r i t and r e f l e c t s i t s d e s t i n y .  human  8 5  The  image o f  what of  i s known i n any  the  human. of  scientific  scientist" 86  this  science  who  Consequently  i t s research field  objectivity  has  t o be  "certainly  i n a d v a n c e , and  A l t h o u g h Gadamer d o e s not  by  fact  the  world,  very  it".  8  clarified  individual  by  identifies  of  science  the  the  can  i t s intended science  by  s c i e n t i s t s may  application,  a  see  foundation. concept  with  not  think  method employed and  of  8 8  that each  science, the  a p p l i c a t i o n . T h i s does technology.  does n o t .  scientists  field  of  i t a t t e m p t s t o u n d e r s t a n d a s p h e r e of  h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t he  application  one  a  Hence i n Gadamer's v i e w  7  mention  connection,  i s conditioned  mean Gadamer  and  being  t o have knowledge  even n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s have a h e r m e n e u t i c a l  in this  creature  " e a c h s c i e n c e , a s a s c i e n c e , has  i s t o have power o v e r  since  a l s o embraces t h e  i s above a l l a l i v i n g  s e t out  application  shattered,  8 9  The  In  fact  the  has  intended  i s a s u b t l e one. explicitly  he  not  While  i n terms  research  of  t o p i c s chosen  107  are  reflections  of t h e i r  prejudgments.  Gadamer's a t t i t u d e s h o u l d toward  science  reveals  n o t be t a k e n a s h i s a n i m o s i t y  p e r s e . In f a c t ,  "the l i m i t a t i o n  9 0  the concept  of prejudgment  o f 'method', b u t n o t t h a t  only  of s c i e n c e " :  What t h e t o o l o f method d o e s n o t a c h i e v e must - a n d e f f e c t i v e l y c a n - be a c h i e v e d by a d i s c i p l i n e o f q u e s t i o n i n g and r e s e a r c h , a d i s c i p l i n e t h a t guarantees t r u t h . 9 1  Here Gadamer r e f e r s t o a need t o r e c o g n i z e tradition other to  a critical  words, Gadamer m a i n t a i n s  be j u d g e d c r i t i c a l l y  context one  and t o t a k e  i n the c u l t u r a l  the t r u t h of  a t t i t u d e toward  that  the v a l i d i t y  and c o n t i n u o u s l y tradition.  science.  with  of s c i e n c e has  respect  Each science  consistent  with  Thus t h e d e v e l o p m e n t the o v e r a l l  human  between n a t u r a l a n d human s c i e n c e s .  study,  the basic d i f f e r e n c e s 9 2  Yet the l a t t e r  between t h e s e  Gadamer a d d s a new d i m e n s i o n  scientific, embedded  tradition.  9 3  refuses to  Rather  two m a j o r  knowledge  than  f i e l d s of  to i t - the notion  as w e l l as n o n - s c i e n t i f i c ,  in cultural  i n everyday  o f s c i e n c e must be  e n d o r s e any m e t h o d o l o g y ' s c l a i m t o o b j e c t i v i t y . the d i s t i n c t i o n  only  spirit.  L i k e D i l t h e y , Gadamer p e r c e i v e s  obliterating  to i t s  represents  s p h e r e o f knowledge, w h i c h h a s i t s f o u n d a t i o n  human e x i s t e n c e .  In ;  that  i s always  108  Critique  of Rational  Planning  Gadamer's v i e w s on p l a n n i n g a r e w e l l e x p r e s s e d "Notes on P l a n n i n g a rebuttal  f o r the F u t u r e "  This c r i t i q u e  of r a t i o n a l  t h a t they  believe create  which a r e necessary  and  science model. characteristic scientific  We  9 6  social  "notion  in  i s probably  laws.  of r a t i o n a l  they  possibilities  of t h i n g s " .  9 5  By  to natural sciences  the environment of t h i s  certified  t o Gadamer,  there  the concept  of r a t i o n a l  planning:  truth,  temporal  c o n d i t i o n of those  rational  model, a c o u r s e  as the  establish b a s e d on t h e scientific  attitude  by t h e  9 7  i s an i n t r i n s i c c o n t r a d i c t i o n " t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n between  i s sought a f t e r who  legitimized  rationality".  by s c i e n c e , a n d t h e  utilize  science."  9 8  In a  of a c t i o n i s chosen not s i m p l y  i s p o s s i b l e ; i t h a s t o be f e a s i b l e . implicitly  t r a d i t i o n s and  what D i l t h e y o b s e r v e d  According  planners  scientists  follow the n a t u r a l  planning: planning  of a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y  which  9  i s what Gadamer c o n s i d e r s t o be t h e  timeless  it  referring  The a d o p t i o n  order. *  the science  control  of t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e model:  laws a n d c o n t r o l  When  methods a n d  s c i e n c e s , which  recall  development  foundation  from prejudgments, those  and  s e e n a s an e x t e n t i o n  cultural  f o r the s c i e n t i f i c  social  knowledge o f s u c h in  be r a t i o n a l l y  objectivity.  of t h e i r  only with  Gadamer  positivistic  i s best  of s c i e n t i f i c  are free  " i s concerned  here  planning  are products  t h a t they  science  should  r e g u l a t e d f o r the purpose of m a i n t a i n i n g  of Gadamer's c r i t i q u e ignore  which, t o a l a r g e e x t e n t , i s  of the i d e a that the world  systematically  i n h i s paper  p r e s u p p o s e , Gadamer  Contrary  t o what  because rational  p o i n t s out, the c r i t e r i a  109  for by  feasibility a  temporal  are  by  no  condition  a p a r t i c u l a r point  of  means e t e r n a l  i n the  form of  truths;  they are  c u l t u r e or  shaped  sub-culture  at  history:  F o r what i s f e a s i b l e i s n o t s i m p l y what i s p o s s i b l e o r , w i t h i n the realm of the p o s s i b l e , the p u r e l y a d v a n t a g e o u s . M o r e o v e r , e v e r y a d v a n t a g e and preference i s weighed a c c o r d i n g to a d e f i n i t e s t a n d a r d w h i c h one p o s i t s , o r w h i c h has a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d . I t i s t h e a g g r e g a t e of what i s s o c i a l l y a d m i s s i b l e : t h e norms, e v o l v e d from e t h i c a l and p o l i t i c a l c o n v i c t i o n s and f o r t i f i e d by t r a i n i n g and s e l f - e d u c a t i o n , which determine t h i s standard." Gadamer t h u s a c c u s e s neglecting  the  supporters  crucial  f a c t o r s of  prejudgments which are There  is a  of  second aspect  of  s i t u a t i o n . How  one  on  one's c u l t u r a l  b a c k g r o u n d , but  t h u s a l w a y s g o v e r n e d by "tension is  between a  associated  knowledge of latter  with what  Rebuking "piloting" consists  or  of  the  of and  encounters. A  a teachable  concept  the  situation is This  good f o r o n e s e l f " .  fails  to  take  Steuerns).  creates  and 1 0 0  the The  kind  of  into  account.  The  the  model  latter  notions:  the maintenance of e q u i l i b r i u m , which o s c i l l a t e s i n a p r e c i s e l y s e t a m p l i t u d e , and g u i d a n c e , t h a t i s , t h e s e l e c t i o n of a d i r e c t i o n w h i c h i s p o s s i b l e w i t h i n the o s c i l l a t i n g e q u i l i b r i u m . 1 0 1  The  first  notion  is a  recognition  that  a  e v e r y o n e , as i t  r a t i o n a l m o d e l , Gadamer p r o p o s e s  integral  the  science,  situation; i t is this  (Mode11 d e s  process.  i t a l s o d e p e n d s on  knowledge a v a i l a b l e t o  r a t i o n a l model  steering  two  planning  individual's horizon.  concept  a given  the the  formal  i n t o the  and  s i t u a t i o n c e r t a i n l y depends  present  is practical  d e p e n d s on  knowledge t h a t  the  for  tradition  temporal c o n d i t i o n :  interprets a  e x p e r i e n c e and  r a t i o n a l model  cultural  always b u i l t  of  individual's  the  each s o c i e t y  operates  of  110  under the  i t s own  dynamics: s o c i a l  human s p i r i t  in that  society.  preserved  i f the  human s p i r i t  where t h e  forces  of  of  human v o l i t i o n  Obviously  behind  p r a c t i c e s are  i s not  d e s i r e be  this  i s the  of  t o be  any  idea  within  Yet  framework t h e r e  this  general  directions  that  the  take. of  Thus t h e  violating grounded t o be  action  i t . In i n the  piloting  that  other  does not  the  tradition  self-formative process; p r o c e s s when s e r i o u s  of  introduce  rather,  societal  factors  1 0 3  people  can  this  society the  human s p i r i t  the  can  choosing  rather  than  be  p e o p l e whose l i v e s  Gadamer, t h e  something  model  foreign  are  of  into  i t endeavors to c o r r e c t  problems  society.  different possible  d e v e l o p m e n t must  development. For  seek t o  the  r e f e r s to  enhances the  be  framework of  are  of p i l o t i n g  words, s o c i a l  cultural  a f f e c t e d by  general  s e l f - f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s of  second n o t i o n  a c o u r s e of  that  of  "only  consequence."  develop themselves only within  destroyed:  m a i n t a i n e d can  Hegelian the  embodiment  Such d y n a m i c s must  1 0 2  e q u i l i b r i u m are  and  the  the  the  occur:  When t h e bounds a r e e x c e e d e d t h e b a l a n c e i s o f f s e t c o m p l e t e l y and, i f a t a l l p o s s i b l e , must be c o r r e c t e d by a new e x p e n d i t u r e of e f f o r t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the r e - e s t a b l i s h m e n t of e q u i p o i s e i s n o t h i n g more t h a n the r e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f an oscillating equilibrium. " 1 0  By  selecting a d i r e c t i o n within  piloting according  restores  the  inherent  t o Gadamer, c a n n o t  management or Gadamer of p i l o t i n g : assumptions  planning  the  societal  be  b a s e d on  immediately  i n any  framework,  This,  centralized  scientific objectivity. the  " t h i s model a l s o c a n n o t goals  societal  dynamics.  achieved  declares  - knowledge of  general  and  l i m i t a t i o n s of hide  the  kinds  the  model  of  d i r e c t i o n s - which  are  111  necessary situation, of  who  for p i l o t i n g . "  Besides  1 0 5  w h i c h Gadamer has  carries  out  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  task  the  i s s u e s of c u l t u r e and  inquired, there of p i l o t i n g ,  intellectuals  and  is s t i l l  i n other  the  the  words,  general  issue the  public.  Gadamer m e n t i o n s t h e need f o r s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w h i c h means the in  p u b l i c ' s knowledge o f g o a l s and contemporary  that  their  society,  i m p l i c a t i o n s are  In Gadamer's v i e w t h i s which  s c i e n c e and  i s the  not  directions technology  readily  He  are  understood  r e q u i r e s an a w a k e n i n g of  t a s k of p h i l o s o p h y .  is essential. so by  But  pervasive everybody.  consciousness,  d i s c u s s e s what t h i s  entails:  W i t h j u s t i f i e d a n x i e t y one may a s k what t h e a w a k e n i n g o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s t o t h e s e p r o b l e m s , as l o n g as t h e y r e m a i n c o n f i n e d t o s m a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l c i r c l e s , i s to accomplish The p r o b l e m of i n t e l l e c t u a l s i s a p r o b l e m i n i t s e l f . But, what i s mirrored i n t h e i r understanding - t h e i r naive s u p e r i o r i t y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g - c a n become t h e c o n s c i o u s p r o p e r t y of e v e r y o n e . 1 0 6  There  still  remains the q u e s t i o n  understanding This of has  reflects  is a crucial  piloting not  he  not  intellectuals' and  clarified.  l e a v e s a number o f  tackled.  the  public's experiences  p o i n t Gadamer has  proposes  seriously  the  of w h e t h e r  situations. 1 0 7  important  The  model  issues  he  11 2  NOTES  1  See TM,  e . g . Gadamer's own pp.10-9.  historical  analysis  of B i l d u n g i n  2  Cf. Charles Taylor, Hegel, o p . c i t . ,  3  See Gadamer's w r i t i n g s , e.g. TM, p p . 4 0 8 f f ; "Notes on P l a n n i n g f o r t h e F u t u r e " , D a e d a l u s , v o l . 9 5 , 1966, p.588; and, Reason i n t h e Age o f S c i e n c e , Cambridge, M a s s . : MIT P r e s s , 1981, pp.151-69.  ft  KHI,  pp.537ff.  p.63.  5  "Notes  on P l a n n i n g f o r t h e F u t u r e " , o p . c i t . ,  6  "Review o f TM",  pp.587-9.  p.344.  7  F o r a n a l y s e s of why Habermas was a t t r a c t e d t o h e r m e n e u t i c s i n o r d e r t o c a r r y on t h e m i s s i o n o f t h e F r a n k f u r t S c h o o l , see D . M i s g e l d , " C r i t i c a l T h e o r y and H e r m e n e u t i c s : The D e b a t e between Habermas and Gadamer", i n On C r i t i c a l T h e o r y , J o h n O ' N e i l l ( e d . ) , New Y o r k : S e a b u r y P r e s s , 1976; J . M e n d e l s o n , "The Habermas-Gadamer D e b a t e " , New German C r i t i q u e , no.18, pp.44-73, 1979; and, Habermas, " T e c h n o l o g y and S c i e n c e as ' I d e o l o g y ' " , i n TRS.  8  TM,  9  M . H e i d e g g e r , B e i n g and T i m e, J . M a c q u a r r i e and E . R o b i n s o n ( t r a n s . ) , New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row, 1962, p.29. H e r e a f t e r i t w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as BT. In o r d e r t o s i m p l i f y t h e d i s c u s s i o n h e r e , we s h a l l a v o i d much o f H e i d e g g e r ' s c o m p l i c a t e d s p e c i a l v o c a b u l a r y , e s p e c i a l l y terms l i k e D a s e i n , B e i n g , and many h y p h e n a t e d e x p r e s s i o n s . We a t t e m p t t o summarize some o f H e i d e g g e r ' s b a s i c i d e a s w h i l e k e e p i n g t h e number o f t e c h n i c a l t e r m s t o a minimum. The s o l e p u r p o s e h e r e i s t o f u r n i s h some b a c k g r o u n d f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g Gadamer, who does n o t a d o p t H e i d e g g e r ' s e s o t e r i c vocabulary.  0  Ibid.,  p.31.  1  Ibid.,  pp.91-5.  2  Ibid.,  pp.95-102.  3  Ibid.,  p.83.  *  Ibid.,  p.87.  Ibid.,  p.88.  p.xiii.  1 13  I b i d . , p.90. Ibid.,  pp.33-4.  Ibid.,  p.182.  Ibid.,  pp.188-90.  Ibid.,  pp.191-2.  Ibid.,  p.275.  J . L . M e h t a , M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r : The Way and t h e V i s i o n , H o n o l u l u : The U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s o f H a w a i i , 1976, p.161. BT,  p.450.  Ibid.,  p.277.  Ibid.,  p.471.  Ibid.,  p.378.  I b i d . , pp.372-8. " A n t i c i p a t i o n " i s a term H e i d e g g e r r e s e r v e s f o r t h e c a s e o f an i n d i v i d u a l c o n s i d e r i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s and making a c h o i c e - a mode o f e x i s t e n c e he c a l l s " a u t h e n t i c " . He u s e s t h e t e r m " a w a i t i n g " f o r t h e c a s e of an i n d i v i d u a l n o t c o n s i d e r i n g - p o s s i b i l i t i e s and s i m p l y f o l l o w i n g t h e p o p u l a r t r e n d o r l e t t i n g t h i n g s be - a mode o f e x i s t e n c e he c a l l s " i n a u t h e n t i c " . Even i n t h e c a s e o f i n a u t h e n t i c t e m p o r a l i t y , one s t i l l has t h e f u t u r e i n mind, a l b e i t t o a l e s s e r degree. Ibid.,  p.155.  Ibid. In BT H e i d e g g e r d o e s n o t u s e t e r m s l i k e " s o c i a l " o r " s o c i e t y " . In order t o a n a l y z e the fundamental s t r u c t u r e of human r e l a t i o n s he u s e s h i s own e x p r e s s i o n s s u c h a s " B e i n g w i t h " , " B e i n g - w i t h - O t h e r s " , " D a s e i n - w i t h " and " w i t h - w o r l d " . Ibid.,  p.436.  Ibid.,  p.437.  E . g . D.C.Hoy a n d M . B l i t z , i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e ways, a r g u e t h a t BT h a s p r o f o u n d p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . N . R o t e n s t r e i c h , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s n o t c o n v i n c e d t h a t H e i d e g g e r ' s a n a l y s i s d e m o n s t r a t e s any i n s i g h t c o n c e r n i n g s o c i e t y . See Hoy, " H i s t o r y , H i s t o r i c i t y , and H i s t o r i o g r a p h y i n B e i n g and T i m e " , i n H e i d e g g e r and Modern P h i l o s o p h y , M.Murray ( e d . ) , New Haven a n d L o n d o n : Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1978; B l i t z , H e i d e g g e r ' s B e i n g and Time and t h e  1 14  P o s s i b i l i t y o f P o l i t i c a l P h i l o s o p h y , I t h a c a and L o n d o n : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981; and, R o t e n s t r e i c h , "The O n t o l o g i c a l S t a t u s of H i s t o r y " , American Philosophical Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 9 , pp.49-58, 1972. " P r e j u d g m e n t " i s t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of V o r u r t e i l , w h i c h i s o f t e n t a k e n l i t e r a l l y t o be " p r e j u d i c e " . But Gadamer s t r e s s e s t h a t h i s use o f t h e word d o e s n o t c a r r y the n e g a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n of f a l s e or u n f o u n d e d judgment, as p r e j u d i c e d o e s . By V o r u r t e i l Gadamer r e f e r s t o a " p r o v i s i o n a l d e c i s i o n " , w h i c h "can have a p o s i t i v e and a n e g a t i v e v a l u e " (TM, p . 2 4 0 ) . In o r d e r t o a v o i d t h i s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g we f o l l o w t h e s u g g e s t i o n of D . M i s g e l d and r e n d e r V o r u r t e i l i n t o p r e j u d g m e n t . See M i s g e l d , "On Gadamer's H e r m e n e u t i c s " , P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , v o l . 9 , 1 979;, p.221n. TM,  p.241.  Ibid.,  p.242.  Ibid.,  p.250.  Ibid.,  p.245.  Ibid.,  p.242.  Ibid.,  p.245.  Ibid.,  p.269.  Ibid.,  p.271.  Ibid.,  p.273.  Hegel,  PhS,  Ibid.,  p.52.  Ibid.,  p.53.  Ibid.,  p.50.  Ibid.,  p.51.  p.54.  To i l l u s t r a t e H e g e l ' s way o f t h i n k i n g l e t us c o n s i d e r an e x a m p l e . A g o a l may be t h e "good l i f e " and t h e c r i t e r i o n would be embodied i n s o c i a l p r a c t i c e p r o b a b l y as a c e r t a i n k i n d of p e r s o n a l p o s s e s s i o n , s o c i a l s t a t u s , p l e a s u r e , e t c . Such c r i t e r i o n u s u s a l l y c a n n o t be made c o m p l e t e l y e x p l i c i t ; i t d e f i e s p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n . I f p e o p l e have a c q u i r e d t h e k i n d of p o s s e s s i o n , s o c i a l s t a t u s , p l e a s u r e , e t c . t h a t i s s u p p o s e d t o be t h e e s s e n c e of t h e "good l i f e " and y e t t h e y do n o t f e e l t h e y h a v e r e a l l y a t t a i n e d t h e "good l i f e " , t h e n  115  t h e c r i t e r i o n must be i n a d e q u a t e . But t h e c r i t e r i o n i s s e t by p e o p l e , i t can be c h a n g e d by p e o p l e . W i t h an i m p r o v e d c r i t e r i o n , l i f e would be e x p e r i e n c e d i n a new and more f u l f i l l i n g manner. Ibid.,  p.50.  D.E.Linge, E d i t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n Hermeneutics, o p . c i t . , p . x x i . Gadamer, PhH,  t o Gadamer's  Philosophical  p.38.  Gadamer c o i n s t h e term W i r k u n g s g e s c h ' i c h t e , w h i c h i s t r a n s l a t e d v a r i o u s l y as e f f e c t i v e - h i s t o r y , h i s t o r i c a l i n f l u e n c e , h i s t o r y of e f f e c t s , e t c . E s s e n t i a l l y i t r e f e r s t o t h e e f f e c t of p r e j u d g m e n t s on any h e r m e n e u t i c a l a c t and s t r e s s e s t h a t p r e j u d g m e n t s a r e a p r o d u c t of h i s t o r y . He a l s o c o i n s the term w i r k u n g s g e s c h i c h t l i c h e s B e w u s s t s e i n , w h i c h i s t r a n s l a t e d v a r i o u s l y as e f f e c t i v e - h i s t o r i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s , c o n s c i o u s n e s s of . h i s t o r i c a l i n f l u e n c e , c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e h i s t o r y of e f f e c t s , c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t i s a u t h e n t i c a l l y h i s t o r i c a l , e t c . With t h i s c o n s c i o u s n e s s , p r e j u d g m e n t s do not r e m a i n f i x e d . Yet t h i s c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s f i n i t e and i s a l s o s h a p e d by h i s t o r y . The i d e a s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e s e two t e r m s a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e we have d i s c u s s e d c o n c e r n i n g p r e j u d g m e n t s and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of p r e j u d g m e n t s . TM,  p.269.  Ibid. Ibid.,  p.273.  Ibid.,  p.272.  Ibid.,  p.231.  Ibid.,  p.273.  Ibid.,  p.310.  Ibid.,  pp.1  Hegel,  PhS,  TM,  Off. p.485.  p.16.  W.Kaufmann, N i e t z s c h e , 4 t h e d i t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974, p.145.  Princeton:  Princeton  N i e t z s c h e ' s c r i t i q u e of t h e h i s t o r i c a l a t t i t u d e was d i r e c t e d m a i n l y a g a i n s t German s c h o l a r s o f h i s own d a y s . I t a l s o p o i n t e d to a c e r t a i n u n d e s i r a b l e "Hegelian" influence on t h o s e s c h o l a r s , who p l a c e d an e x c e s s i v e e m p h a s i s on  1 16  d e t a i l h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r c h . I n The Use and Abuse o f H i s t o r y N i e t z s c h e a r g u e s : w h i l e one must l e a r n from t h e p a s t , what i s t r u l y i m p o r t a n t i s t h a t one t a k e s a c t i o n t o l i v e i n t h e p r e s e n t . In o r d e r n o t t o be o v e r l y b u r d e n e d w i t h t h e p a s t one must be a b l e t o f o r g e t a s p e c t s of t h e p a s t . As N i e t z s c h e p u t s i t : "we w o u l d s e r v e h i s t o r y o n l y so f a r a s i t s e r v e s l i f e " ( t r a n s , by A . C o l l i n s , I n d i a n a p o l i s : BobbsM e r r i l l , 1957). 6 6  TM,  p.16.  6 7  Ibid.,  6 8  BT,  p.364.  6 9  TM,  pp.274-8.  7 0  Ibid.,  p.30.  7 1  Ibid.,  p.274.  7 2  Ibid.,  p.275.  7 3  "Review o f TM",  7fl  PhH,  7 5  TM,  pp.274-8.  p.351.  p.15. pp.205-6.  Ibid.  7 6  7  I b i d . , p. 31 1 .  8  Ibid.  9  I b i d . , p.270.  0  I b i d . , p.272.  1  Ibid.  2  I b i d . , p.261 .  3  I b i d . , p.324.  *  I b i d . , pp.322-4.  5  I b i d . , p.251 .  6  7  I b i d . , p.410. Ibid. Thomas Kuhn's c e l e b r a t e d  analysis  on p a r a d i g m  shift  11 7  d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t even a "hard" s c i e n c e l i k e p h y s i c s i s not i n d e p e n d e n t of human i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d : t h e h i s t o r y of p h y s i c s i s p a r t of human h i s t o r y . See Kuhn, The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n , 2nd e d i t i o n , C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1970. In a symposium Gadamer c o u n t s Kuhn as one of h i s a l l i e s : "When Thomas Kuhn p u b l i s h e d The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n , I was v e r y p l e a s e d b e c a u s e i t s u p p o r t e d my v i e w . The framework of t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions which guide s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n has a c o m m u n i c a t i v e s i d e w h i c h i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s i s c o n n e c t e d t o l a n g u a g e . T h a t argument s u p p o r t s t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l a p p r o a c h " (Gadamer e t a l , Summation of " H e r m e n e u t i c s and S o c i a l S c i e n c e " , C u l t u r a l H e r m e n e u t i c s , v o l . 2 , 1975, p.336. Ibid.,  p.335-6.  An i n t e r e s t i n g s o c i o l o g i c a l s t u d y on t h e community of s c i e n t i s t s by R.Boguslaw r e v e a l s some o f t h e p r e j u d g m e n t s of s c i e n t i s t s and s u b t l e i n t e n d e d a p p l i c a t i o n s of s c i e n c e . See B o g u s l a w , " V a l u e s i n the R e s e a r c h S o c i e t y " , i n The R e s e a r c h S o c i e t y , E . G l a t t and M.W.Shelly ( e d . ) , New York: Gordon and B r e a c h , 1968. TM,  p.447.  Ibid.,  pp.251-3.  The new d i s t i n c t i o n between n a t u r a l and human s c i e n c e s one t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e i d e a of p r e j u d g m e n t - has been e l a b o r a t e d by C h a r l e s T a y l o r , a l t h o u g h T a y l o r d o e s n o t make d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o Gadamer. See T a y l o r , " U n d e r s t a n d i n g i n Human S c i e n c e " , Review o f M e t a p h y s i c s , v o l . 3 4 , no.1, pp.25no  A r\n f\  —————  T h i s p a p e r was p r e s e n t e d a t the C o n f e r e n c e on C o n d i t i o n s of W o r l d O r d e r , 1965, and p u b l i s h e d i n E n g l i s h i n 1966 as "Notes on P l a n n i n g f o r t h e F u t u r e " , o p . c i t . A r e v i s e d German v e r s i o n a p p e a r e d i n 1967. Among t h e c o n f e r e e s , n a t u r a l s c i e n t i s t s and e c o n o m i s t s ( s u c h as C o n r a d W a d d i n g t o n and J a n T i n b e r g e n ) t e n d e d t o f a v o r r a t i o n a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l planning f o r world order; other s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ( s u c h as Raymond A r o n and Henry K i s s i n g e r ) were g e n e r a l l y s k e p t i c a l o f t h i s i d e a . Gadamer was most s t e a d f a s t l y a g a i n s t any s y s t e m a t i c r a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e w o r l d . A l t h o u g h Gadamer's p a p e r i s m a i n l y a b o u t p l a n n i n g a t t h e g l o b a l l e v e l , many o f t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e n a t i o n a l and s u b - n a t i o n a l l e v e l s . In Gadamer's p a p e r , t h e t e r m " p l a n n i n g " r e f e r s t o r a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g . Gadamer's p r e f e r r e d a p p r o a c h t o s o c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t i s " p i l o t i n g " . In c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h our t e r m i n o l o g y we s h a l l i n c l u d e t h i s a p p r o a c h as p l a n n i n g . Ibid.,  p.576.  1 18  9 6  C f . Gadamer's view on i n PhH, p.40.  9 7  "Notes on  9 8  Planning  for  the the  status  of  Future",  today's op.cit.,  social  sciences  p.580.  Ibid. Ibid.,  pp.580-1.  1 0 0  Ibid.,  pp.581-2.  1 0 1  Ibid.,  p.582.  1 0 2  In t h i s p a p e r Gadamer u s e s c o n c e p t s i n p h y s i c s ( e q u i l i b r i u m , o s c i l l a t i o n , a m p l i t u d e ) and b i o l o g y ( s e l f c o r r e c t i v e s y s t e m s of l i v i n g o r g a n i s m ) r a t h e r t h a n a c o n c e p t l i k e human s p i r i t . T h i s i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e s i n c e the p a p e r aimed a t n a t u r a l and s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s who probably were u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e h u m a n i s t t r a d i t i o n . I t i s c l e a r what Gadamer has i n mind i s t h e c o n c e p t of B i l d u n g , w h i c h c a n n o t be a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n e d i n p h y s i c a l or b i o l o g i c a l t e r m s . T h i s i s why we i n t e r p r e t t h i s p a p e r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f Gadamer's o t h e r w r i t i n g s .  9 9  1 0 3  Ibid.,  pp.583-4.  1 0 5  Ibid.,  p.583.  1 0 6  Ibid.,  p.588.  1 0 7  In t h e l a t e r German v e r s i o n Gadamer d e l e t e d h i s b r i e f remark on t h e r o l e of i n t e l l e c t u a l s . He does not d i s c u s s t h i s i s s u e e l s e w h e r e . A p p a r e n t l y t h i s i s s o m e t h i n g he has not p r o p e r l y t h o u g h t o u t .  1 0  "  Ibid.  119  CHAPTER FOUR THE  DEBATE BETWEEN CRITICAL THEORY AND  The  B a s i c D i f f e r e n c e between Habermas and In t h e p r e c e d i n g  of  a theme by H e g e l .  self-formation In  are  chapters  constituted ideology  people  people  life-world. on  is  when i t has  continuous  tradition,  According  is  control  to c o r r e c t  and  how  of n a t u r e  s h o u l d not  blindly  whereas i n  socio-historically  later  of the  the s e l f - f o r m a t i v e  application  of  cultural  to the c u r r e n t  i s embedded  Gadamer  life-world.  in tradition:  indicates  f o l l o w e d : reason  d e c i d e whether a s p e c t s  of t r a d i t i o n  changed. N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  reason  itself  o u t s i d e of t h e c o n t e x t  must be  a r e t o be  that  what  and  tradition  employed  to  preserved  or  i s embedded  a s Gadamer p o i n t s o u t : what makes s e n s e determined  action.  i t i s c o n t r o l l e d a r e g o v e r n e d by s o c i e t y ' s  of t r a d i t i o n .  be  behind  t o Habermas, a c r i t i q u e  which g i v e s r i s e  appropriation be  forces  communicative  nature the  variations  become d e v i a n t . F o r Gadamer, s e l f - f o r m a t i o n  interpretation  c o n t r o l l e d and  and  two  t h e model of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s and  a process  Even t e c h n i c a l  control  interpret  a d v o c a c y model - i s r e q u i s i t e process  have w i t n e s s e d  instrumental action  action  - based  Gadamer  F o r Habermas, t h e d r i v i n g  instrumental action  communicative  we  HERMENEUTICS  in  be  tradition,  what does n o t  of t r a d i t i o n .  to  This  is  cannot why  120  Gadamer c l a i m s  the  u n i v e r s a l i t y of  f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s of h e r m e n e u t i c s t o be difference central  Limits  i n the  issues  of  one  component  the  of  of  the  self-formation  Habermas-Gadamer  P r e j u d g m e n t s and  process.  not  the  similarities  same. F o r  interests  govern  also constitute Similarly action.  So  between t h e s e  instrumental b a s e s of  and  natural  far there  i n t e r e s t . When s o c i e t y has  formative process, c r i t i c a l  are  we  back t o  embodied  p r a c t i c e s as  detach The  in social well  that  itself  of  concept  of  prejudgment.  two  concepts,  but  concept  they  actions;  human  t h i s i s the  as  thoughts are  claims  from t h e of  to  we  i n the to  emancipation.  see  that,  deviated.  critical  the  deviated  c u l t u r a l background  from w h i c h  ideas  social self-  society  must  i t arises.  i s p r e c i s e l y denied  p r e j u d g m e n t . Gadamer c l a r i f i e s  bring The  since  society  Any  self-  emancipation.  in a deviated  transcend  such detachment  third  i s required  interest in  thinking  practices,  of  and  two  is a  become d e v i a n t  self-reflection  they  sciences.  between t h e  act  are  practical cognitive  t o Habermas, t h e r e  Gadamer's l i n e , of  possibility  concept  the  and  i t s n o r m a l p a t h - an  i n t e r e s t behind  follow  reflection  the  i s no. major q u a r r e l  cognitive  If  to  f o r Gadamer p r e j u d g m e n t s shape a l l knowledge  However, a c c o r d i n g  cognitive  fact this  l u r k s behind a l l  communicative  thinkers.  society  In  action  Habermas, t e c h n i c a l and  the  takes  Self-reflection  i n t e r e s t , Gadamer r e l a t e s them t o  There are  self-  debate.  W h i l e Habermas r e l a t e s knowledge and of  i n the  mankind whereas Habermas o n l y  concept  of  hermeneutics  his position,  by  the  probably  121  having  Habermas i n mind but  without  mentioning  the  latter  by  name: A c r i t i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t p o i n t s t o a l l s o r t s of p r e j u d g m e n t and d e p e n d e n c y , but one t h a t c o n s i d e r s i t s e l f a b s o l u t e l y f r e e of p r e j u d g m e n t and independent, n e c e s s a r i l y remains ensnared i n i l l u s i o n s . For i t i s i t s e l f motivated i n the f i r s t p l a c e by t h a t o f which i t i s c r i t i c a l . I t s d e p e n d e n c y on t h a t w h i c h i t d e s t r o y s i s inescapable. 1  Thus Gadamer a r g u e s : self-reflection cultural He  that  has  that  "a  transparent  But  2  i n the  self-reflection that  cannot  manifests present thing" that  This  be  and  transparent  first  on and  claims  to the  no  prejudgment  f u n c t i o n as  p r e j u d g m e n t s can  tradition  social  i s an  p r a c t i c e s of  brings  "something  Habermas, as  life  being  i s not  ideology  any  infinite  process.  source  Tradition the  past,  - but  not  i s " i n e s c a p a b l y more b e i n g  i s never  fully  t h i n k i n g , both  i s not  manifest".  every  something  false  is a societal  t h e whole t r u t h ;  but  than  Gadamer  elements of  the  persistently  a partial  everybody  truth.  m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  i t i s the  says  3  Habermas and  supposed to stay  a  become  r e m i n d s Habermas t h a t  o r b e y o n d a p p e a r a n c e . " " Hence what a p p e a r s t o  daily  accept.  T h i s i s what Gadamer means when he  tradition  "essence  one's  person's  or  longer  v a r i o u s a p p e a r a n c e s or phenomena t o be  whole t r u t h :  truth  one  Habermas c a n n o t  in a r e f l e c t i v e  i n everyday  Following Hegelian  in  while  future; reflection  consciousness,  behind  p l a c e . He  exhausted  reflection  can  Gadamer wonders how  to consciousness.  consider  of a l l b e l o n g s  is a position  is finite,  itself  critical  s t r u c t u r e of p r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g  been r e n d e r e d  prejudgment".  m a t t e r how  is, i t first  tradition.  insists  no  For  partial  outcome of s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  122  distorted him,  communication  is a correction  science. of  For  horizon.  the  w o u l d be  of  is  i n r e l a t i o n to the any  i s always p a r t i a l , vantage p o i n t  for  t o a number o f  i n Knowledge and  this  h i s c r i t i q u e of  t o T h e o r y and  Question  on  of  can  in later  critics  knowledge and  interpretation  the  any  whole  does not be  truth  the  truth  exist  a  judged  as  he  Practice  runs  of  indirectly  to  c r i t i q u e of  i s i n a d e q u a t e . He  clarifies and  in  thus  basis  his  " P o s t s c r i p t t o KHI".  into d i f f i c u l t y  - a point  we  But  shall  sections.  Language  b o t h Gadamer and  within  truer  to provide a normative  Language o c c u p i e s a s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n  all  things  knowledge of  - and  h i s concept  sciences  ideology,  r e v i s e d model a l s o  elaborate  Since  Human I n t e r e s t s  reconstructive  Introduction  in a  a l t h o u g h the  i n Gadamer's v i e w , t h e r e  Gadamer - Habermas a d m i t s t h a t  introduces  parts  totality,  human b e i n g .  horizon  or  distorted.  response  ideology  or  from which communication  systematically In  e x p a n s i o n of  i n a broader context,  by  narrowness  i s t o promote u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,  W i t h an  to  critical  t r u t h a r i s e s from the  remedy, t h e n ,  unattainable  s o l u t i o n , according  such d i s t o r t i o n through a  horizons.  seen  proportion  of  Gadamer, p a r t i a l The  fusion  i n s o c i e t y . The  of  Habermas. As action  t o be  g o v e r n e d by  i s of  t r a d i t i o n to e x i s t  theories  h a v e s e e n , Gadamer  t h e i r t r a d i t i o n . He  t r a d i t i o n , language  n a t u r e of  we  i n the  of  considers  people's  further  argues  that,  prime s i g n i f i c a n c e : " i t i s  i n the  medium of  language,  so  123  that  the  one".  5  preferred  This  material no  object  does not  being  of  itself  to  linguistically that  the  interpretation is a  mean t h a t  representation  power of  language  language u n d e r l i e s unconscious  force  interpreter  of  It only  i s u n i v e r s a l . In  the  Gadamer p u t s  that  other  human l i f e ;  self-formative  there  that  t h i s r e a s o n Gadamer  a l l a s p e c t s of behind  forces,  in a consciousness For  6  " a l l the  suggests that  with a l l i t s concrete  articulated."  linguistic  language determines  life-practice.  societal reality,  bring  of  does  is not  is maintains  words,  it is  the  force.  One  i t nicely:  E v e r y h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n e l i c i t s new a t t e m p t s t o r e n d e r t h e w o r l d i n t o l a n g u a g e . E a c h makes i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n , but i s i t s e l f i n e v i t a b l y c h a r g e d w i t h new unspoken p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t d r i v e our t h i n k i n g f u r t h e r and c o n s t i t u t e t h e r a d i c a l c r e a t i v i t y of t r a d i t i o n . 7  The  r o l e of  t h e o r y has  language  i n the  been compared  Habermas has self-formation; universality.  no  but  to  self-formative the  Hegelian  doubt about he  refuses  to  W i t h h i s model o f  e m a n c i p a t i o n , Habermas i n d i c a t e s two  other  the  key  grant  process  Spirit. r o l e of  8  language  language the  communication, that  i n Gadamer's  work  Gadamer has  in  status  of  and  neglected  the  dimensions:  S o c i a l a c t i o n s can o n l y be comprehended o b j e c t i v e framework t h a t i s c o n s t i t u t e d by l a n g u a g e , l a b o r and d o m i n a t i o n .  i n an conjointly  9  What d i s t u r b s of  Habermas most  i s Gadamer's e n c o m p a s s i n g  language, e s p e c i a l l y statements  like  the  conception  following:  A fundamental c o n v e r s a t i o n i s n e v e r one t h a t we want to conduct The p e o p l e c o n v e r s i n g • a r e f a r l e s s t h e l e a d e r s of i t t h a n t h e l e d . No one knows what w i l l "come o u t " i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n A c o n v e r s a t i o n has a s p i r i t of i t s own, and ... t h e  124  l a n g u a g e u s e d i n i t b e a r s i t s own t r u t h w i t h i n i t , i . e . i t r e v e a l s something which h e n c e f o r t h e x i s t s .  1 0  Language a l w a y s f o r e s t a l l s any o b j e c t i o n t o i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t s u n i v e r s a l i t y k e e p s pace w i t h t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y of r e a s o n Language i s t h e l a n g u a g e of From c h i l d h o o d on medium o f  reason  people  language.  To  learn  this  a tool  utilize  cannot  c o n c e p t u a l i z e the w o r l d that p a r t i c u l a r  1 1  about  extent  simply  built into language.  people  itself.  their  world  language  to express  through  i s by  no  themselves.  other  than  t h e way  language:  they  are  the  means For  that  people i t is  "possessed  by"  the  1 2  In Habermas' o p i n i o n . t h i s c o n c e p t i o n undermines the p o s s i b i l i t y reflection. already  He  accuses  embodied  in  of  of  emancipation  Gadamer of not  language  through  seriously  self-  l o o k i n g beyond what i s  language:  Language becomes a c o n t i n g e n t a b s o l u t e This power becomes o b j e c t i v e i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of h o r i z o n s of p o s s i b l e e x p e r i e n c e . The  result  i s t h a t Gadamer's h e r m e n e u t i c s  the  t r a n s c e n d i n g power of  hermeneutical  This  to being a  foundation of  Habermas h o l d s  and  social  force";  "deception with  operative" in  Gadamer r e p l i e s too  social  t h a t "language  processes  hence  "language  language",  is also  narrowly:  relations  ideological".  a c c o r d i n g t o Habermas, i s  realize.  t h a t Habermas t a k e s  the  and  i s a l s o a medium o f  power; i t s e r v e s t o l e g i t i m a t e  s o m e t h i n g Gadamer does not  hermeneutics  i s also  recognize  1  institutions,  of o r g a n i z e d  that  to  experience. *  In a d d i t i o n  domination  reflection  "fails  1 3  s c o p e of  1 5  125  From t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l s t a n d p o i n t , rightly understood, i t i s a b s o l u t e l y absurd to regard the c o n c r e t e f a c t o r s o f work a n d p o l i t i c s a s o u t s i d e t h e scope of h e r m e n e u t i c s . 1 6  Even  the c r i t i q u e  itself  of ideology,  a linguistic  maintains  that  a c t of r e f l e c t i o n . "  there  i s "reason  consensus of e s t a b l i s h e d a  forced  hence a c r i t i q u e  out  within  Therapeutic  from  of e s t a b l i s h e d  approach t o s o c i a l  social  a representative  the  psychoanalytic  Gadamer o b s e r v e s , social society entire  tradition  cannot  1 8  be c a r r i e d  i s one who h a s d e v i a t e d  thus attempts  from  t o bring the  t r e a t s the l a t t e r i n  norms. I n o t h e r  of s o c i e t y  on t h e l a t t e r ' s  o f a l l a member o f s o c i e t y ,  back t o s o c i e t y : t h e f o r m e r  is  pseudo-communication";  development. At t h e i n d i v i d u a l  is first  norms. The p s y c h o a n a l y s t  accordance with  the background  on Habermas f o c u s e s  w h i c h h a s c e r t a i n norms. A p a t i e n t  patient  Habermas  t o S o c i a l Development  the psychoanalyst  social  Nevertheless  framework.  Gadamer's d i r e c t a t t a c k therapeutic  1 7  "is in  t r a d i t i o n s a n d o f language-games may be  the Gadamerian  Approach  t o Gadamer,  t o assume t h a t  consensus which r e s u l t e d  and  level  according  words, t h e p s y c h o a n a l y s t  i n the therapeutic  process.  model i s e x t e n d e d t o t h e s o c i e t a l the s i t u a t i o n i s altogether  t h e o r i s t qua t h e r a p i s t b e l i e v e s  that  When  l e v e l , as  d i f f e r e n t . The  communication i n  i s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d i s t o r t e d . He o r s h e r e g a r d s t h e s o c i e t y as p a t i e n t  i n order  H e r e t h e t h e o r i s t c a n no l o n g e r accordance with distorted);  social  norms  to correct this  t r e a t the p a t i e n t  distortion. (society) i n  (which a r e c o n s i d e r e d  he o r s h e i s no l o n g e r  a representative  t o be of s o c i e t y .  126  This  situation  society is  and  thus  i m p l i e s the  theorist  stands  i s superior to s o c i e t y . According  t o Gadamer,  where Habermas' p s y c h o a n a l y t i c model b r e a k s  societal  level.  Paraphrasing  1 9  o u t s i d e of  down a t  Gadamer, a c r i t i c  this  the  writes:  S e r i o u s or i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t s between s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l g r o u p s a r e not s i m p l y t h e r e s u l t o f d i s t o r t e d communication, of a temporary d i s r u p t i o n of m u t u a l c o m p r e h e n s i o n ; r a t h e r , t h e y a r e g r o u n d e d " i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e of c o n c r e t e i n t e r e s t s and t h e d i s c r e p a n c y of e x p e r i e n c e s " . To assume a t h e r a p e u t i c posture in t h i s context betrays a considerable measure of d o c t r i n a i r e a r r o g a n c e : t h e c h a r g e t h a t opponents are m e n t a l l y incompetent or deranged i m p l i e s a "monopoly of m e n t a l r e c t i t u d e " - a c l a i m w h i c h can be v i e w e d as "a s p e c i a l c a s e o f derangement". 2 0  In  his indirect  himself argues  from  Leninism  that c r i t i c a l  organization; heads of  response  t o Gadamer, Habermas  - via a critique theory  i t does not  i s not  seek t o  implant  t h e masses, as L e n i n a d v o c a t e s . model r e q u i r e s a t h e o r y  to  by  be  of G e o r g L u k a c s .  a theory  psychoanalytic accepted  t h e masses b e f o r e  Habermas' r e p u d i a t i o n of L e n i n i s m  i s unequal  from  no  satisfactory  i s t o be  model p o s e s s e v e r e answer t o  Instead,  spare  this.  into  the  the by  i t i s considered  d o e s not  He  party  consciousness  him  theorists valid.  2 1  from  t h a t the d o c t o r - p a t i e n t  the very b e g i n n i n g .  p a r t n e r s h i p among e v e r y b o d y psychoanalytic  of  worked o u t  Gadamer's a c c u s a t i o n . Gadamer p o i n t s out relation  dissociates  If equal  social  a t t a i n e d , the  problems.  2 2  Habermas p r o v i d e s  127  Rehabilitation  of  Authority  Habermas a g r e e s w i t h  "the  understanding  "cannot  relationships  to t r a d i t i o n " .  concept the  of  simply  tradition,  rehabilitation  authority  i s not  hermeneutical  leap over But  2 3  Gadamer  interpreter's  i n a s s o c i a t i o n with  introduces  o f a u t h o r i t y . He  blind  the  i n s i g h t " that  his  a provocative  argues that  the  idea  essence  of  obedience:  The a u t h o r i t y o f p e r s o n s i s b a s e d u l t i m a t e l y , not on t h e s u b j e c t i o n and a b d i c a t i o n o f r e a s o n , but on r e c o g n i t i o n and knowledge - knowledge, namely, t h a t t h e o t h e r i s s u p e r i o r t o o n e s e l f i n judgment and i n s i g h t and t h a t f o r t h i s r e a s o n h i s judgment t a k e s p r e c e d e n c e , i . e . i t has p r i o r i t y o v e r o n e ' s own. T h i s i s c o n n e c t e d w i t h the f a c t t h a t a u t h o r i t y c a n n o t a c t u a l l y be bestowed, b u t i s a c q u i r e d and must be a c q u i r e d , i f someone i s t o l a y c l a i m t o it. " 2  He  cites  the  examples of  representing considers and  authority  the  authority  Gadamer he  attempts  to  of  no  favors with  little  a l s o be  the  the  respect  of  transmitted the  outcome of  Gadamer  from the  respect  for  of  of  tradition  criticize  power to  camp. Habermas s t a r t s w i t h i t . On  the  i t s dominative and  reason; and  f o r other  reason  contrary,  the  are  way  he  preservation  and  place  tradition he  not- t o  be  consistently of  tradition  a l t e r n a t i v e s - which  - reveals  of  character.  authority but  past  for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n  wonder Habermas i s i n c l i n e d  for authority  consideration  people  fields.  t h e o r i s t s who  tradition use  as  respective  f o r him  to preserve  rid tradition  without  the  face  conservative  Gadamer b e l i e v e s followed  experts  for authority. A c a l l  i n the  desire  and  something  tradition;  i n s o c i e t y . No  i n the has  t o be  respect  flies  domination  but  authorities in their  i s thus part  includes  teachers  his conservative  can bias.  128  This attitude target  i s what Gadamer  o f Habermas'  Gadamer ultimate  "traditionalism"  2 5  replies  to c r i t i c s  who  i n the drawing  He a d m i t s h i s emphasis  "feel  the lack  truth  thinking  Moving  of c o n c l u s i o n s "  on t h e p a s t  from h i s  i s one-sided.  ignores  Habermas' n o t i o n limits,  not  t h e power o f  tradition.  to s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n .  of c r i t i c a l  2 6  p o i n t s out  In h i s o p i n i o n ,  self-reflection  exceeds  such  and t h u s becomes an i l l u s i o n . W h i l e Habermas would n o t  that  critical  self-reflection  c l a r i f y what t h e l i m i t s  adequately exploring direction the  t h e p r e v a i l i n g ' modern  us e p i t o m i z e t h e d e b a t e a s f o l l o w s . Gadamer  there are l i m i t s  claim  against  i t has  Beyond Habermas and Gadamer  Let that  of a c o r r e c t i v e "  which  major  o f an  N e v e r t h e l e s s he d e f e n d s h i s o n e - s i d e d n e s s by c l a i m i n g "the  - a  criticism.  radicality  analysis.  calls  he  a r e . Habermas a c c u s e s Gadamer  various p o s s i b i l i t i e s  o f human d e v e l o p m e n t ;  latter's  i s d e v o i d of l i m i t s ,  in fact,  c o n c e p t i o n of language  does  of not  i n the future  the former argues  virtually  that  e x c l u d e s such  possibilities. B o t h Gadamer  and Habermas have r a i s e d  issues concerning s o c i a l  development.  i g n o r e d . Y e t t h e two p o s i t i o n s adoption the that  o f one p o s i t i o n  t h e two p o s i t i o n s  o t h e r and t o be g i v e n  Neither  one s h o u l d be  seem t o be m u t u a l l y  automatically  o t h e r . So t h e r e c a n n o t  key p h i l o s o p h i c a l  implies  the r e j e c t i o n of  be a happy compromise,  a r e both c o r r e c t ,  exclusive:  i n the sense  complementary  roughly equal weight. E c l e c t i c i s m  t o each c a n be  129  achieved extent  only  the  at  two  respective  the  cost  logical  protagonists  stances,  objections.  of  of  neither  the  one  I t remains the  task  inconsistency.  debate  i s able of  refuse  To  the  to modify  t o overcome t h e  other  t h e o r i s t s to  their  other's  solve  this  impasse. Commentators of conclusion. without  Those who  2 7  little  not  a r r i v e at a  unanimous  s i d e w i t h e i t h e r Habermas or  to the  r e s o l u t i o n . The  social  d e b a t e do  s e r i o u s l y answering  contribute its  the  the  objections  of  f u r t h e r development  w o r k i n g out  development cannot  of  the of  Gadamer  other  the  would  debate  a s a t i s f a c t o r y theory  a f f o r d to  ignore  the  key  or  of  issues  raised.  A n a l y s e s by  Misgeld  and  Mendelson  Gadamer's c o n s e r v a t i v e thinkers the  from t a k i n g  who  Dieter  realize has  as the  the  e s s a y s on  point  of  the  aspect  existence, The  shell".  Several  of  t h e o r i s t who  h i s theory  has  written  - Misgeld  of  a  Gadamer  argues that  answer Habermas' c h a l l e n g e .  v i r t u e of  theory  such p o t e n t i a l i s  discarding his traditionalism -  one's s e l f - r e f l e c t i v e  hermeneutical  discovered  Habermas-Gadamer d e b a t e . T a k i n g  i m p r o v e d h e r m e n e u t i c s can by  in developing  social  d e p a r t u r e and  shows t h a t ,  "mystical  radical  i s untapped p o t e n t i a l i n hermeneutics.  a Toronto  conservative  theory  Hegel's  made some headway  Misgeld,  number o f  there  discourage  s e r i o u s l y ; a f t e r a l l , Marx  "rational kernel" within  thinkers One  him  f a c a d e does not  o n e ' s i n d i v i d u a l and power  social  an  Gadamer's social  is necessarily limited.  development  suggested  by  130  Misgeld  recognizes  this  unalterable reality,  maximize the development formative  process  "politically  and  hermeneutics. There  2  of human p o t e n t i a l  yet endeavors i n the  self-  whenever p o s s i b l e . In s h o r t , i t s e e k s existentially  radicalize"  8  i s another  attempt  to r e s o l v e the  impasse  in  hermeneutically-enlightened c r i t i c a l  p r o p o s e d by  Mendelson.  Jack  theory  hermeneutics,  can  Mendelson  2 9  although  he  realizes  theory  b a s e d on that the  with  life-world.  attention  Mendelson  position  share  i n approaching  w i t h Habermas' o f Habermas and  insights.  The  similar In t h e  of  Misgeld  two  and  with  the  two  this  t o pay  other  but  not  address we  more  opposite  starts  converge;  of  gap.  attempts to  i n c o r p o r a t e s some of do  idea  upon one's e x p e r i e n c e  to bridge  o f Gadamer and i d e a s ; the  of  theory  t h e Habermas-Gadamer d e b a t e .  of t h i s c h a p t e r  Mendelson  stage  recent  b e l i e v e s t h a t Habermas has  directions  concerns,  rest  i s incompatible  i n order  than  Habermas'  latter's  Mendelson r e p r e s e n t  from t h e p o s i t i o n  partially  i s the  a c t i o n are dependent  Thus M i s g e l d and  starts  systems  to hermeneutics  directions  theory  reconstructive sciences: a social  anonymous r u l e  knowledge and  that  fundamental problems i t  i s c a u t i o u s about  model, h i s major c o n c e r n  the  theory"  t h a t a t the p r e s e n t  encounters  must overcome. W h i l e M e n d e l s o n  preoccupation  i s convinced  become a more a d e q u a t e s o c i a l  development c r i t i c a l  earlier  to  Gadamer's  debate: a " t r u l y  critical  to  One  improve i t ,  from  the  Gadamer's sometimes  they  them i n d i f f e r e n t  manners.  shall  arguments  i n some d e t a i l .  examine t h e They do  not  cover a l l  131  issues  raised  believe  by e v e r y o n e  they b r i n g  Prejudgments As we  and  to l i g h t  can  two  of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . "  attempts also  to d i s s o l v e  conceded  impossible  bringing  are not  doubts  theorist.  possibility that  against  implies  ought  would  that  distorted  critical  it.  critical critical  Assuming  have t o see  the l i n e  theory  and  he  the  of drawing  t h e o r y and theory  that  this is  i f i t i s viable.  between t h e two "false".  Like  such a l i n e  kinds  Gadamer,  by a  up an o b j e c t i v e  ideal  " i t i s with r e g a r d to the  s u c h a n o t i o n o f an  will  theory".  stresses  that  amount t o s e t t i n g  t o be, and  hermeneutics  Misgeld  still  "inevitable"  of f o r m u l a t i n g  critical  beyond  i s drawing  the p o s s i b i l i t y  For t h i s  of what l i f e  life  the  false  i n t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s an  incompatible; in fact,  obvious d i f f i c u l t y  Misgeld  everything  we  derive  those  in systematically  into  type through s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n ;  on h e r m e n e u t i c s and g o e s  of prejudgments:  and  maintains that  thus  i n d e e d Habermas' p o s i t i o n , One  can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d  in culture,  the second  t a s k . Mendelson  hermeneutics builds  that  He  3 0  position.  p r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g s which  are anchored  that  comes t o  the l a t t e r ' s  prejudgments  from one's p a r t i c i p a t i o n  preconceptions which forms  i s involved.  Reconsidered  re-interpreting  to Mendelson,  we  Gadamer r e j e c t s Habermas' c l a i m  t y p e s : "those i n e v i t a b l e  simply  what  become t r a n s p a r e n t . M e n d e l s o n  Habermas' r e s c u e by According  i n t h e d e b a t e . But  the g i s t . o f  Self-reflection  noted e a r l i e r ,  prejudgments  interested  take  its final  ideal  critical  form of stance over  3 1  hermeneutics  does  not e x c l u d e  132  criticism  of t r a d i t i o n ;  valuable  to s o c i a l  tradition. isolated based  from  the t r a d i t i o n  notes  social,  economic o r p o l i t i c a l  3 4  than  o f v a r i o u s modes o f l i f e  realizing  Heidegger  based  possible  3 3  But M i s g e l d form  p o i n t s out t h a t  choosing to r e a l i z e  ( " a u t h e n t i c " ) and t h e c a s e ("inauthentic").  3 6  s i m p l y because i t of a c o n s e r v a t i v e , attention to  on p e o p l e ' s  self-  futures. i n the process of understanding 3 5  For Heidegger,  human e x i s t e n c e . He makes a d i s t i n c t i o n  given  form  o n e ' s p o s s i b i l i t i e s i s an i m p o r t a n t  individual  the past - a  i s on p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n  d i s c o v e r s one's p o s s i b i l i t i e s .  realizing  be  h i s bias  what t r a d i t i o n a l  However, Gadamer p a y s l i t t l e  u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; h i s emphasis  one  from  one. T h i s i s not t h e p o s i t i o n  Misgeld.  exploration  rather  i t cannot  Gadamer r e v e a l s  Gadamer does n o t s p e c i f y  the e x i s t i n g  argues  No doubt  cultural  i s t o be p r e s e r v e d . Gadamer d o e s n o t d e f e n d any  particular is  f r o m w h i c h emerges;  ideal.  attitude  i s never  that Misgeld refuses to e n d o r s e .  that  content  a critical  emerges from  p r e s e r v a t i o n o f what i s handed down  traditionalism  or  that  extent, valuable c r i t i c i s m  on an o b j e c t i v e  toward  also  change n e c e s s a r i l y  To t h i s  3 2  i t does b e l i e v e  characteristic  of  between t h e c a s e o f an  h i s or her p o s s i b i l i t i e s  o f an i n d i v i d u a l  There  c h o o s i n g and  simply a c c e p t i n g the  i s no i n t r i n s i c  incompatibility  between t h e c o n d i t i o n s g o v e r n i n g t h e a c t o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g ( t h e f o r e - s t r u c t u r e s of understanding)  and a c h o i c e among  different  modes o f human e x i s t e n c e b a s e d  on u n d e r s t a n d i n g . By t h e same  token,  s h o u l d not p r e v e n t  the weight  choosing  of t r a d i t i o n  i t s own d e s t i n y . A l t h o u g h Gadamer b u i l d s  society on  from  Heidegger's  133  t h o u g h t , he  l a r g e l y ignores  futures. This for  he  does not  refuses  preoccupation  to  with  Misgeld  considers  development  Authority On points but  out  also  accepts  follow  and  tradition  past  little  useful  only  t o be as  his  room f o r c r e a t i v e ways  seems t o be  Gadamer's t h e o r y  t o be  "inauthentic",  b l i n d l y . Nevertheless,  leaves  s i t u a t i o n s . This  possible  one  reason  inadequate  that  for  social  a starting point.  Reconsidered  the  with the  new  inquiry concerning  make Gadamer's p r o p o s a l  with the  to d e a l  the  issue that  of  a u t h o r i t y Mendelson,  authority  i n f o r c e and example of teachings  "may  fear".  an  "on  be  rooted  not  Mendelson  3 7  authority the  following  basis  the  i n knowledge  illustrates  - teacher. of  only  Habermas,  his  Initially  teacher's  a  case student  authority:  In "coming o f age" the s t u d e n t i s a b l e t o r e f l e c t upon t h e u n f r e e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h he f i r s t i n t e r n a l i z e d t h e s e t e a c h i n g s and can examine them i n t h e l i g h t of h i s own m a t u r e d c r i t i c a l c a p a c i t i e s . In t h i s c a s e , a u t h o r i t y and knowledge- do not c o n v e r g e , r a t h e r they are at o d d s . 3 8  A l t h o u g h M e n d e l s o n a c c u s e s Gadamer f o r hot between g e n u i n e n o n - c o e r c i v e b a s e d on similar call  the  force",  first  coercive  from the  respectively.* b a s e d on  himself two  concept  "authoritarian",  is  he  problem with  s e c o n d one derived  3 9  0  recognition  freely  pseudo-recognition  authority.  acknowledged a u t h o r i t y In  fact  the  namely  represent  Gadamer's c o n c e p t  superior  "distinction  Habermas seem t o have a  "authority",  roughly  and  d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t s of  authority.  noun  and  making a  these i s the  knowledge i n a  two  and  adjectives and  concepts  f o r m e r one:  field;  us  the  "authoritative" two  Let  i t has  authority  t o be  acquired  134  and  be v o l u n t a r i l y  authority concept  and knowledge  is essentially  associated from  a c k n o w l e d g e d by o t h e r s . F o r Gadamer,  w i t h power  self-reflection  contradict second  a r e not o p p o s e d t o e a c h o t h e r . the l a t t e r  one: a u t h o r i t y i s a l w a y s  and d o m i n a t i o n ,  so t h a t knowledge  a l s o confuse  acquired  would t u r n a g a i n s t a u t h o r i t y i f t h e two  e a c h o t h e r . I t i s t r u e t h a t Gadamer  concept  Habermas'  of a u t h o r i t y , but t h e n  t h e two c o n c e p t s  ignores the  Habermas and M e n d e l s o n  by n o t c o n s i d e r i n g them  separately. Let first  us r e f e r  concept  students  to the teacher-student  the teacher  recognize t h i s  matured c r i t i c a l  knowledge  authority  i s based  she  has s u p e r i o r knowledge  and a c c e p t  c a p a c i t y , these  teacher's  on knowledge  In t h i s c a s e  the second  t o use f o r c e and i n s t i l l  would o n l y p r e t e n d  probably  would n o t i n t e r n a l i z e  to accept them,  fear  alter  this  knowledge effects case  o f knowledge  among  - t o overcome  students. they  c o n t r a r y t o what  by t h e t e a c h e r  t h e power  an a u t h o r i t y b a s e d  Mendelson  a critical  coerciveness. It requires a different - knowledge c o n c e r n i n g  the teacher  the t e a c h i n g s ;  imparted  to  a u t h o r i t y and  concept  b e l i e v e s . As l o n g a s f o r c e and f e a r p e r s i s t , the f i e l d  I f the t e a c h e r ' s  w i t h an open mind a n d be p r e p a r e d  Students  toward  their  p o i n t out t h a t t h e  or erroneous.  t h e knowledge a s n e c e s s a r y .  in a position  field,  - a s o p p o s e d t o c o e r c i o n - he o r  knowledge a r e n o t a t o d d s . Under is  in a  t h e knowledge. W i t h  s t u d e n t s may  i s inadequate  would r e c e i v e c r i t i c i s m  modify  example. Under t h e  attitude cannot  k i n d of  s t r u c t u r e and i t s  on c o e r c i o n . In  c o e r c i v e a u t h o r i t y i s a t odds n o t w i t h c r i t i c i s m s  this  of the  135  knowledge  imparted  which the  teacher  may  be  present  distinguish problems  i n one  the  not  two  p e r s o n , an  of  does  to  authority  not  to  identify  s p e a k s of a u t h o r i t y  he  r e f e r s t o the  I n t e r p r e t i n g Gadamer, he to  specific  from the  past  individual  can  tradition.  only  has  clarifies  p e r s o n s or  i s accepting  k n o w l e d g e : one  social  authority.  acquire  a  t o depend on  notion  authority  reliable  knowledge. Mendelson  is s t i l l  from  i t s ordinary  usage.  0 2  not  To  Understood  this  way  the  that  of c u l t u r a l  tradition,  empahsizing  a conscious  search  i n d i c a t e s he broad  the  has  s e n s e . But  appropriate  something a u t h o r i t a t i v e or is usually  1  or  that  considered  w i t h the  "authority"  recognition  generally  would merge w i t h  term  from o t h e r s  what a r e  fields."  in this  i t is  first-hand  authority  i f taken  is  amount of  issue  of  authority  learns  I t i s the  first  limited  sources  "authority"  in various  that  institutions:  Anyone who  reliable  point.  kinds  fail  in c u l t u r a l  meaning  t h e s e two  power s t r u c t u r e  involved.  restricted  of  t o the  a n a l y s i s that  c o n c e p t s may  embedded  an  with objections  belongs. Although  When M i s g e l d concept.  but  since  extent  no he  objection  authority  s o m e t h i n g a u t h o r i t a r i a n , and  clarified,  Mendelson  to  wonders i f  i t deviates  that  for  so  the much  can that  seems t o have a  mean the  1 36  The  Advocacy Model  Examined  Gadamer's c r i t i q u e psychoanalytic  of a s o c i a l  model h i t s  theory  based  on t h e  one of Habermas' major weak s p o t s . Few  commentators would d e f e n d  t h i s model w i t h o u t r e s e r v a t i o n .  Mendelson  satisfied  he  i s not e n t i r e l y  g i v e s Habermas c r e d i t  against  complete  uals."  Misgeld's  the  3  superiority  with  f o r attempting  domination view here  of s o c i a l  to provide  criticism  i s similar  of i n t e l l e c t u a l s  t h e model e i t h e r , b u t  by  safeguards intellect-  t o t h a t o f Gadamer's -  i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e model."*  M e n d e l s o n does n o t d i s c u s s t h e a d v o c a c y m o d e l . M i s g e l d , on t h e o t h e r hand, a n a l y z e s Misgeld's  i t in detail.  v i e w on t h e m o d e l ,  Among o t h e r s , W i l l i a m L e i s s theorizing: of  class  the assumption interest  different  society  central  concern  in history  5  i s plausible.  the d i a l e c t i c  According to  of c a p i t a l i s t or  i n h e r e n t l y capable  theory."*  of producing a  of a q u a l i t a t i v e ... was a  6  Like  the e a r l i e r  this  i s s u e . He assumes t h e r e a r e s u p p r e s s e d g e n e r a l i z a b l e  interests  critical  d e p e n d s on  Y e t Marx f a i l e d t o  toward g e n e r a l emancipation  of c r i t i c a l  i n Marx's  e x i s t e n c e o f a c l a s s w i t h an  o r group t h a t can f u n c t i o n as t h e agent  transformation  with  i s in fact  o f Marx.  establishment  e p o c h o f human h i s t o r y "  i n general emancipation".*  bourgeois class  and t h e subsequent  of "the p o t e n t i a l  " t h e i s s u e o f whether  present  p o i n t s o u t a major dilemma  demonstrate t h a t the assumption Leiss,  we  l e t us c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e  consciousness  "a q u a l i t a t i v e l y  Before  theorists,  Habermas i s c o n c e r n e d  i n s o c i e t y . U n l i k e Marx, who h a d c o n f i d e n c e  proletariat,  Habermas h a s no c o n f i d e n c e  i n any s o c i a l  i nthe group i n  137  carrying  out  the  task  of g e n e r a l  hypothesis  s u p p l i e d by  p o i n t s out  t h a t Habermas has  existence such  better  saying  argument"."  7  t h a n Marx. Now  To  t r e a t s the  i n t e r e s t s as Misgeld's  one  they this  the  reflection"." sciences  obliterate  expressed To  For  9  the  in  the  Claiming  suppressed  extent,  the  "sounds l i k e  the  an  a  fare  extent  psychoanalytic  the  basic  that  the  "Habermas'  "objectivist  In  8  form  of  reconstructive  groups have a l r e a d y  a d v o c a c y model  model, and  that  the  articulated  Misgeld  does not  role  intellectuals  latter  argue along  this  i s a refinement  refinement  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e o r i s t  Gadamer's o b j e c t i o n t o t h e  and  does not  societal  Habermas a s s i g n s  but  he  alter  members,  model a p p l i e s t o t h e line,  of  former.  does q u e s t i o n  in c r i t i c a l  theory:  [Habermas] has not r e a l l y r e f l e c t e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e : can t h o s e of whom i t i s s a i d t h a t t h e y have i m p l i c i t l y m a s t e r e d t h e n o t i o n of an i d e a l s i t u a t i o n of d i s c o u r s e , of c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r e e f r o m d o m i n a t i o n , e v e r become c r i t i c s of t h e t h e o r y ? 5 0  Put  differently,  reflection"  be  any  relies  constructed.""  i d e a l s e s t a b l i s h e d by  what s o c i a l  former  of  generalizable  theoretically  is essentially  the  existence  Habermas does n o t  suppressed yet  be  Misgeld  life.  the  of  are  an  to demonstrate  to uphold h i s c l a i m :  model of  this  been a b l e  d i f f e r e n c e i s that  w h i c h can  opinion,  not  believes  i s indispensable.  interests.  reconstructive sciences  argument  or  advocate  generalizable  i n t e r e s t s and  circular  on  of  an  e m a n c i p a t i o n . He  Misgeld  criticized  asks: by  can  an  "objectivist  i t s addressees?  form  of  the  1 38  Norms i n T r a d i t i o n The  working  in c r i t i c a l endeavors. direct  and  out  theory  in Reconstructive  of r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e s and  are  These a r e  the  foci  o f Habermas' more  their  s e v e n t i e s . The  d e b a t e on  is carried  out  by  P e r h a p s we  can  grasp  t h e m e r i t s of  commentators the  o f norm, one  i n the  such  late  places  recent  d i r e c t i o n s Habermas embarked on  c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h Gadamer  concepts  Sciences  sixties  after  his  and  early  reconstructive sciences  a s M i s g e l d and  i s s u e i n t e r m s of two  e s p o u s e d by Gadamer and  Mendelson.  different the other  by  Habermas. Gadamer, who reality  i s convinced  f a r more t h a n  do  b e l i e v e s that the proper independently puts  of  the  i t : "There a r e  concept,  a norm i s n o t  s o m e t h i n g t h a t has though not  people  social  practices.  to the  next,  learn  s o m e t h i n g new  social  of  practices  an  ideal  outcome o f  of  life  social  society  by e v e r y b o d y a r e aware of  using  at the  judged  in society. norms."  strives  5 1  As  Misgeld  Under  this  for; i t is  s o c i e t y as a whole,  i n t h a t s o c i e t y . Norms them; t h e y  are passed  same t i m e  exist  a r e embodied  from  one  them: when  learn  about  in  generation people  the  i t under v a r i o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s .  evolve through  social  naturally  be  transmitted along with  a self-formative process,  Since norms  5 2  F o r Habermas, e x i s t i n g the  way  ahistorical  they  evolve a c c o r d i n g l y .  be  t o a c t cannot  When p r a c t i c e s  norms a r e  appropriateness  way  constitutes  judgments,  a l r e a d y been a c h i e v e d by  necessarily  whether or not  individual  existing no  that t r a d i t i o n  norms may  harbor  systematically distorted  i d e o l o g y ; they  c o m m u n i c a t i o n . He  may is  139  s u s p i c i o u s of the v a l i d i t y and  thus proposes  a different  norms - w h i c h  i s based  generalizable  interests.  justifiable offered  society, from to  concept  on t h e a s s u m p t i o n  critical  existing  theory takes  ones.  justifiable  earlier,  hypothetical  theorist  t h e n c o n f i r m s t h e s e norms  d i s c o u r s e . U n l e s s no c o n f l i c t  of i n t e r e s t s  justifiable  A justifiable  norm  practices  of suppressed  As we have seen  who  in social  o f norm -  norms a r e f o r m u l a t e d by a s o c i a l  t o the p u b l i c ,  practical  o f norms embodied  and through exists in  norms t o be  i s an i d e a l  different  for society  pursue. B o t h M i s g e l d and M e n d e l s o n a r e b o t h e r e d  theoretical takes:  c h a r a c t e r of t h i s  since  justifiable  reconstructive reconstructed existing  recent d i r e c t i o n  norms a r e a r r i v e d  s c i e n c e s such as u n i v e r s a l historical  social  by t h e h i g h l y critical  theory  a t through pragmatics  and  m a t e r i a l i s m , t h e y a r e d i v o r c e d from  practices  and t h u s  lack p o l i t i c a l  relevance.  M e n d e l s o n : D o u b t s on R e c o n s t r u c t i v e S c i e n c e s Mendelson  expresses h i s doubts  Habermas' c o m m u n i c a t i o n  about  the u s e f u l n e s s of  theory:  F o r i t t o become a h i s t o r i c a l l y - e f f e c t i v e s t a n d a r d the r a t h e r formal c r i t e r i a of u n d i s t o r t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n would have t o be a r t i c u l a t e d a s a more c o n c r e t e v i s i o n o f new i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s . 5 3  While  M e n d e l s o n has no o b j e c t i o n  Habermas worked o u t i n u n i v e r s a l is  what t h e y  criteria there  really  to the formal c r i t e r i a pragmatics,  h i s grave  mean i n c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s .  c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d  o r norms concern  Universal  i n m u l t i t u d i n o u s ways t h a t ,  unless  i s an unambiguous method t o a p p l y them t o p a r t i c u l a r  140  cases, of  they  r e m a i n empty n o t i o n s . F o r M e n d e l s o n ,  the u n i v e r s a l  t o the p a r t i c u l a r  gulf"  between  cites  w i t h a p p r o v a l a remark by  commentator  c o n s t i t u t e s an  r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e s and  of  the  "this  social  Paul Ricoeur  -  relation  unbridgeable practices. "  He  5  another  debate:  R i c o e u r has a r g u e d t h a t " t h e r e a r e no o t h e r p a t h s , i n e f f e c t , f o r c a r r y i n g out our i n t e r e s t i n e m a n c i p a t i o n t h a n by i n c a r n a t i n g i t w i t h i n c u l t u r a l a c q u i s i t i o n s . Freedom o n l y p o s i t s i t s e l f by t r a n s v a l u a t i n g what has a l r e a d y been e v a l u a t e d " . O t h e r w i s e , " t h e s e l f - p o s i t i n g of f r e e d o m i s condemned t o r e m a i n e i t h e r an empty c o n c e p t o r a f a n a t i c a l demand". 55  Ricoeur can is  thus  o n l y be not  p o i n t s out determined  something  t h a t t h e meaning of i n the c o n t e x t  t h a t can  be  freedom t o a  of t h a t c u l t u r e :  completely  people  freedom  t h e o r i z e d . Mendelson  t h i n k s Habermas' r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e s have t r o u b l e confronting derived  Ricoeur's  norms a r e  hermeneutical  not  necessarily  Mendelson proposes theory. Convinced  i f i t emerges from  that  critical  theory  democratic late  i d e a l s " and  liberal  societies".  i d e a l s cannot  democratic  the c r i t e r i o n sense  of Hegel  ideals  and  "the e n t i r e parliaments  has  a living  This apparatus  be  realized  apparatus - then  - which  there  Marx. A c r i t i c a l  he  critical relevance argues  apparatus which  of  embodies  presence  would  If research findings  possibly  political  of the  with  "still  5 6  political  practices,  start  which  has  for  social  p a r t i e s and  norms i n p o l i t i c s .  democratic  the  elections,  capitalist  existing  should  direction  theory  existing  theoretically  practical.  alternative  that a s o c i a l  only  constitutions,  an  insights:  in  represent  the  reveal that  under the  present  i s supposed to  be  is a "contradiction"  in  theory  following this  141  direction  would  with large  "both a n t i c i p a t e a b e t t e r  numbers of  critique  would  involved  and  t h e n be  be  ready  Nevertheless, sciences  from  t o be  to  the  M e n d e l s o n does not believes  sciences  may  be  process".  Misgeld: It  be 5  Priority  for that  reconstructive  complementary  the  to ground  Misgeld  see  into c r i t i c a l  "the  only  way  of  to  steps  happen,  sciences  in a  u n d e r m i n e s the about  a p p l i c a t i o n of  t o be  way  practically  action  sciences. of  single  Legitimation theory or  a  6 0  As  from  systems who  Mendelson  reconstructive  sciences  life-world perspective.  the  a p p l i c a t i o n of  is critical  stringent c r i t e r i a  i s not  in  e l u s i v e f o r Habermas,  incorporation  i s cautious  indicates  keep c r i t i c a l  i t in reconstructive  i t , the  some s y s t e m a t i c  he  instrumental  to p r a c t i c e , Misgeld  theories  as  l i f e - w o r l d i s too  theory  While Mendelson principles  theory,  i n t o a theory  decides  for  Should that  58  [his  Practice  i s the  But  in  of  in c r i t i c a l  theory.  that  "concretize  i s c l e a r Habermas wants t o r e t a i n a l i f e - w o r l d  degenerating  and  in certain  9  perspective Crisis,  " a l t e r n a t i v e s but  standard  valuable  to  t h e o r y ] i n t o more d o w n - t o - e a r t h d e m a n d s " .  would not  reconstructive  a critical  a p p r o a c h and  the  into p r a c t i c e .  f u t u r e , Habermas i s a b l e  M e n d e l s o n a r g u e s , h i s own  emerge from  reject  that  resonate  particular situation  incorporated  reconstructive  i f , i n the  Norms t h a t  5 7  pertinent  c o m p l e t e l y . He  derived cases  people".  s o c i e t y and  of  universal  i t . He  for theory  compatible with enlightening".  the 6 1  argues formation  requirement  142  Let  us  perceive  consider  reality  i s governed  t u r n d e t e r m i n e d by well  as  their  by  their  cultural  The  validity  members w i t h o u t  Misgeld  radically  dependent l e t us  sciences.  He  equivalent  puts  universally  valid  advocate universal  people's  i t , can  be  social theories  nor  merely confirm  and  e x p e r i e n c e s of  societal  formulation  justifiable  of  anonymous r u l e s of members d i s c u s s  accept  of  not  the  norms, w h i c h a r e  qua  on  action  sciences.  i . e . observation  room f o r c u l t u r a l  and  advocate.  the  from  of  the  societal  i n the  s p e a k e r s . The  The  the  Besides,  capacity  requirement  stringent  rules,  i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among  Habermas i n d i c a t e s t h a t  i s b a s e d on  to  derived  advocate's hypothesis only  fact  theorist  norms b a s e d  contribute  competence  u n i v e r s a l pragmatics  social  into  they  t h o s e o f f e r e d by  6 2  least a  p r o p o s e norms f o r d i s c u s s i o n ;  of  members. In  at  work  competent  societal  ...  not  what Habermas c o n s i d e r s  little  is  (probably  or  competence,  of  leaves  societal  reconstructive  rendered e x p l i c i t  members do  in speaking,  as  knowledge."  S o c i e t a l members do  reconstructive  the  by  fore-knowledge  communicative  in  i t is situation-  generated  justifiable  evolution.  backgrounds  assessed  anonymous r u l e s y s t e m s . A  p r i n c i p l e s of  own  be  prejudgments),  formulates hypothetical  competence and their  of  people  o r i e n t i n g knowledge  Habermas' use  t o what Gadamer c a l l s  way  p a r t i c u l a r situation in  prejudgments:  upon s i t u a t i o n a l l y  assumes t h a t  portion  the  i t : "Action  consider  significant  historical  norms c a n n o t  involving their  bound. As  Now  of  The  prejudgments, which are  and  i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e s and  question.  out  a life-world perspective.  premise of  h i s theory  homogeneity  of  143  among p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a d i s c o u r s e .  It is  an i d e a l i z e d c a s e . . . i n w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s s h a r e a t r a d i t i o n and t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n s a r e normatively i n t e g r a t e d t o s u c h an e x t e n t t h a t t h e y s t a r t from t h e same d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n and do not d i s a g r e e about the c l a i m s to v a l i d i t y t h a t they reciprocally r a i s e . 6 3  When u n i v e r s a l p r a g m a t i c s in  the  c a s e of  the  advocacy model,  problem. A c o n f l i c t involved  play  is applied  of  to a c o n f l i c t  i t encounters a  interests in society  different social  roles  (such  workers, p r o d u c e r s , consumers, d e v e l o p e r s , These people are life-world  perspective,  a difference discourse, of  the  t o engage  so  that  impossible.  there  theory  Unlike  out,  dealing  people  capitalists,  environmentalists). discourse.  in social  p r e m i s e of  with c o n f l i c t  that  i n e v i t a b l y leads  theory,  theory  the  two,  theory  r o l e s would mean  the  one's h i s t o r i c a l  has  to  single  universal of  interests is  intent  i s , what  priority  knowledge  s i t u a t i o n . The  the  latter  this  of  sciences  h e r m e n e u t i c s d o e s not  b e g i n n i n g , as  definition  and  a  choose.  to p a r t i c u l a r cases.  seeks a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of from t h e  one  "the  the  to i n t e r n a l  of what s o c i e t y  hermeneutics recognizes  From a  seem t o have n o t i c e d  i t follows  Between t h e  critical  then apply  understood,  as  t o embrace b o t h r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  develop a general and  implies  m e r e l y one  v i o l a t e s the  analysis  perspective  inconsistency.  c a n n o t be  Habermas does not  p r o b l e m . From our  life-world  serious  i n p r e j u d g m e n t s among p a r t i c i p a n t s of  s i t u a t i o n . This  critical  in a p r a c t i c a l  a difference  pragmatics. A discourse thus  s i t u a t i o n , as  of  seek  to  i t should  Misgeld  points  practice -  i n w h i c h knowledge knowledge one  has  a r i s e s from t h e  be  and is of  conduct  144  of  life  itself." " 6  theorizing For  Hermeneutics accepts  or r e f l e c t i v e n e s s  Habermas, a n y t h i n g  explicitly  "the l o c a t i o n of  i n contingent a person  starting  points".  6 5  wishes t o express  t o o t h e r s c a n be e x p r e s s e d  in explicit  speech:  In a g i v e n l a n g u a g e , f o r e v e r y i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n t h a t a s p e a k e r wants t o t a k e up e x p l i c i t l y w i t h a n o t h e r member o f h i s l a n g u a g e community, a suitable performative expression i s either a v a i l a b l e o r , i f n e c e s s a r y , c a n be i n t r o d u c e d t h r o u g h a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a v a i l a b l e e x p r e s s i o n s . 6 6  This performative  expression  refers  satisfying  a s e t of requirements  centrality  of e x p l i c i t  speech  t o an e x p l i c i t  speech a c t i o n  Habermas d e l i n e a t e s .  in critical  theory  6 7  The  c a n be s e e n  from t h e way i t i s a p p l i e d , i n t h e form o f d i s c o u r s e , t o politics.  In t h e c o n t e x t  "participation" equal For  justifiable  explicit  of  a c t i o n should  with  t a k i n g p a r t , on t h e b a s i s o f processes  take  through  discourse  Habermas d e f i n e s  place  of w i l l - f o r m a t i o n " .  i n accordance  practical  represented  speech.  6 9  Habermas'  with  i m p l i e s t h a t he b e l i e v e s l i f e  in discourse, a special  I t seems a s t h o u g h v e r b a l l y  become t h e s o l e g u i d e  of l i f e .  Misgeld  6 8  discourse. His  the p o l i t i c a l l y consequential p o r t i o n of l i f e  completely  can  in discursive  norms r e a c h e d  preoccupation least  t o be "a g e n e r a l  opportunity,  him s o c i a l  of p l a n n i n g  - at  - c a n be  a p p l i c a t i o n of articulated  ideas  r e v e a l s the n a i v e t y  position:  E x p l i c i t argument, ... w h i l e o f t e n needed, c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s o f l i f e l i v e d i n common. One would become c o n f u s e d , l o s e one's g r i p on e v e r y d a y e v e n t s , were one t o o r i e n t t o t h i s i d e a o f argument f o r a g r e e m e n t on what n e e d s d o i n g a n d may be done a s t h e o n l y means f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a l i f e t o g e t h e r . 7 0  No c u l t u r e w o r t h s p e a k i n g a b o u t c a n be t h o u g h t o f a s grounded i n t h e e x p l i c i t weighing o f arguments and  145  i n o n l y one p r o c e s s of d e l i b e r a t i o n (a d i s c o u r s e of a t h e o r e t i c a l kind debating "claims"). If e s t r a n g e m e n t from t r a d i t i o n a l c u l t u r e i s not l i v e d , i t c a n n o t m e r e l y be p r o d u c e d by t h e c o g n i t i v e l y p u r e form o f argument Habermas s i n g l e s o u t . 7 1  Here M i s g e l d a g r e e s  w i t h Gadamer's i n s i g h t  r e a c h e s beyond c o n s c i o u s n e s s : itself  i n speech.  politics merely  It follows  that  encompasses the e n t i r e  political  political  apparatus conceived.  as t h e  realm of l i f e .  I f competence  life  are successful  e x p e r i e n c e and  politics  articulated,  result  to notice  that  unorganized,  to bring  with a s o c i a l  not  democratic too  subject to stringent  about  i n those  do  to conduct  For  justice  to  in  i n s t a n c e , competence  articulated  action, and  not  t o open s t r u g g l e . M i s g e l d  some o f t h e most p r o g r e s s i v e c h a n g e s  in society  o f s o c i a l movements ( s u c h a s  environmental  a  society,  t h e competence e s t a b l i s h e d  verbally  of  r e s p e c t s . M i s g e l d shows  i n a l l k i n d s of s o c i a l  movement b e c a u s e  rules  broader  a better  i n mind c a n n o t  from p a s s i v e r e s i s t e n c e  b l a c k and  life,  change t o be  to the a b i l i t y  7  from t h e e f f o r t  feminist,  i s also  deliberation". "  i s manifested  o r g a n i z e d and  believes  of l i b e r a l  for social  refers  or the a b i l i t y  Habermas " f a i l s  daily in  who  thinking  o f t o u c h w i t h t h e much  t h e competence Habermas has  many p e o p l e  manifest  7 3  s c i e n c e s i s out  that  of s o c i a l  competence d e f i n e d i n terms of t h e  meaningful  fully  always  same r e a s o n M i s g e l d  critique  impetus  reconstructive  then  never  spectrum  Habermas' n o t i o n of competence criticism:  can  "being"  in hermeneutical  d i s c o u r s e . For the  c o n s i d e r s Mendelson's proposed  narrowly  life  7 2  that  movements). P e o p l e  its activities  the identify  resonate  with  1 46  these people's experiences, i n c l u d i n g oppression, social life  d e p e n d e n c e and  action  because  exclusion".  7 5  i t e x p r e s s e s o r may  understanding rather  Accomplishments s p e a k e r s who  than  lead  formal  adhere  to the r u l e s  s p e e c h o f p e o p l e engaged the a c t i o n  itself.  intention  to separate discourse  The  fact  mean s p e e c h  that  speech  is politically  insignificant.  constitutes  an  for discourse,  d i s c o u r s e . The consideration other and  rigidity  pays  little  seems as t h o u g h  a  "purged  of  7 7  doubt of  format  both  extreme  cases  In t h e c a s e o f  into different  independent  not  examine t h e n a t u r e o f  they p o r t r a y  to a s p e c i f i c  does  is little  t y p e s so  that  i s considered  of the c o n t e n t of  the  o f t h e f o r m a t p r e c l u d e s any  of c o n t i n g e n c i e s i n a l i f e - w o r l d .  hand, does  be  indispensable part  non-existent in p r a c t i c e .  Habermas, s p e e c h a c t i s c l a s s i f i e d  suitable  There  the p o s i t i o n s  Habermas and Gadamer u n s a t i s f a c t o r y :  conforming  cannot  i s not a l l t h e r e i s t o l i f e  dialogues. Misgeld finds  t h e one  action,  7 6  t o d a y . I t b e h o o v e s us t o f u r t h e r  only  to  be c o n s i d e r e d i n  from communicative  politics  are v i r t u a l l y  traced  C o n t r a r y t o Habermas'  argumentation  that  be  p r a g m a t i c s . Here  cannot  explicit  political  of  discourse.  meaningful d i s c o u r s e concerning the s i t u a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e " .  in  a r e t h e outcome o f  of u n i v e r s a l  in action  from  action  to the kind  o f s o c i a l movements o f t e n c a n n o t  isolation  of  form of  People p a r t i c i p a t e  t h e y d e s i r e . Many o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s  implicit  the  "the l i v e d  not d i s t i n g u i s h d i f f e r e n t attention  to rules  s p e e c h d e f i e s any  the  types of speech a c t  f o r employing analysis.  Gadamer, on  speech. I t  147  Misgeld he  has  presumes t h a t when Gadamer s p e a k s o f  conversation  i n mind a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c u s s i o n . In t h a t  participants partisan  cooperate  interest  personally. respective  to explore  and  do  not  a concept.  take  any  p o s i t i o n s or a t t a c k  outcome o f t h e  conversation  They have  progress  C o n s e q u e n t l y , p a r t i c i p a n t s do others  case,  not  or  no  setback  defend  their  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y . The  i s somewhat u n p r e d i c t a b l e .  Gadamer s t r e s s e s i s t h e o p e n n e s s o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n . But characterization  of p o l i t i c a l  dialogue  in this  What  7 8  a  f a s h i o n would  be  inaccurate. While "objectify content  f o r Habermas t h e reality",  other the  on  the  same as  Misgeld  criteria  a dialogue  Misgeld  8 1  Habermas worked o u t serve  focuses  as  these  r u l e s of  on  w e l l as  those  to  is referring  for  be  the  i s not as  i n what  developing  t o the  four  communication 8 2  These  as  general  general  orientations for  s o l v e problems through  through mutual adjustments of  general,  f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o work  construed  speech cannot  in  i n what Habermas  i n s u c c e s s f u l speech  only  speech  actual situation,  g i v e s Habermas c r e d i t  a common p u r p o s e are  the  the  Gadamer's c o n v e r s a t i o n  in universal pragmatics.  p a r t i c i p a n t s attempting Detail  as  r u l e s of  c o n s i s t s of e l e m e n t s  f o r d i s c o u r s e . He  general presuppositions  t o w a r d . But  Obviously  conversation  discourse.  criteria  One  8 0  discourse  f o r Gadamer:  implicit  Habermas' d i s c o u r s e . In an  p o i n t s out,  general  reverse  reveals  conversation.  particular.  Gadamer c a l l s calls  i t i s the  7 9  of a c o n v e r s a t i o n  that p a r t i c u l a r  u n i v e r s a l r u l e s of  specified  implicit  dialogue.  i n advance. Only  r u l e s as a  result  of  148  understanding discover  one  questioning  involved  another's point and  participants  From The  the content  weighing  be  of view.  Only  o f a r g u m e n t s can  t h r o u g h a p r o c e s s of the s i n c e r i t y  continuities  The  self-formation  of s o c i e t y  than d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s .  p e o p l e would l o s e  their  orientation  in l i f e  inevitably  coherence.  does n o t mean, however, t h a t  the  one  o f t h e s t a t u s quo. "from w i t h i n " :  have a c t u a l l y problems.  "Without  what t o t u r n attitude,  embodied  having l i v e d  in social  explicitly,  Misgeld a point  has  based  remarked  on  their  that  i s s u e s of contemporary  probably w i l l  sense  of  their  meanings  how  well  and  people cannot  be  attitude  have l i v e d  it".  8 f t  i s found  we  through  own  who the  would not  This  know  critical  i n many  social discuss  experiences.  contributed  as  t o Gadamer's t h e o r y i s  i s to p r o p e r l y address the s o c i a l  c o n t i n u e t o do  is  Gadamer's work i s b e s t t r e a t e d  political  doubt  and  change c a n o c c u r , i f p e o p l e  i f hermeneutics  no  and  action,  o f d e p a r t u r e : improvement  has  else  t h e commitment  necessary  himself  so o r  emerges from p e o p l e  t u r n away from  movements. F u r t h e r s o c i a l problems  that  themselves  t o , when we  t o remain  meaningful c r i t i c a l  the k i n d  8 3  committed  The  of more  no m a t t e r  i n t e n d e d , would This  destroy social  of Gadamer's  consists  T h i s has  community. S y s t e m a t i c r e d e s i g n o f s o c i e t y ,  critical  of  of P l a n n i n g  us summarize M i s g e l d ' s r a d i c a l i z a t i o n  hermeneutics.  gradually  determined.  Debate t o Theory  Let  can p a r t i c i p a n t s  industrial to t h i s  so. Although  and  society. Misgeld  undertaking  and  the r a d i c a l i z a t i o n  of  1 49  hermeneutics suggestions in  i s apparently so f a r t o u c h  hermeneutics  learning  still  the very  at a p r e l i m i n a r y stage, heart  seem t o be i n harmony  t h e o r i e s of p l a n n i n g  pursue the r e l a t i o n s h i p  today.  the  o f p l a n n i n g . Many  with  those  ideas  in social  I t makes s e n s e t o f u r t h e r  between h e r m e n e u t i c s and  planning.  NOTES  1  PhH,  pp.93-4.  2  "Review o f TM",  p.358.  3  PhH,  *  G.W.F.Hegel, The L o g i c o f H e g e l ( f r o m t h e E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l S c i e n c e s ) , W.Wallace ( t r a n s . ) , O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1874, p.206.  5  TM,  6  PhH,  7  D . E . L i n g e , E d i t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n t o PhH,  8  See e . g . R i c h a r d P a l m e r , H e r m e n e u t i c s , N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969.  9  p.38.  p.351. p.35.  "Review o f TM", TM,  1 1  Ibid.,  1 2  PhH, pp.62-3; L i n g e ,  1  "  Evanston:  p.361.  1 0  1 3  pp.lv-lvi.  p.345. p.363.  "Review o f TM", Ibid.  1 5  Ibid.,  1 6  PhH,  p.360.  p.31.  E d i t o r ' s I n t r o d u c t i o n t o PhH,  p.359.  p.xxiv.  150  Ibid.,  p.30.  J.Habermas, "The H e r m e n e u t i c C l a i m t o U n i v e r s a l i t y " , i n Contemporary Hermeneutics, J . B l e i c h e r ( e d . ) , London and B o s t o n : R o u t l e d g e and Kegan P a u l , 1980, p.208. PhH,  pp.18-43.  F.Dallmayr, " C r i t i c a l Theory C r i t i c i z e d " , S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , v o l . 2 , 1972, p.223. TP,  pp.30-40.  PhH,  p.42.  "Review TM,  P h i l o s o p h y of the  o f TM",  p.357.  p.248.  Ibid.,  p.250.  I b i d . , p.xxv ( i n F o r e w o r d t o S e c o n d German E d i t i o n included i n the E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n ) .  and  C f . D . M i s g e l d , " C r i t i c a l T h e o r y and H e r m e n e u t i c s : The D e b a t e between Habermas and Gadamer", o p . c i t . , hereafter c i t e d a s "CT and H"; J . M e n d e l s o n , "The Habermas-Gadamer D e b a t e " , o p . c i t . , h e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s "H-G Debate"; P . R i c o e u r , "Hermeneutics and t h e C r i t i q u e of I d e o l o g y " , o p . c i t . ; R.Bubner, " T h e o r y and P r a c t i c e i n t h e L i g h t o f t h e Hermeneutic-Criticist Controversy", C u l t u r a l Hermeneutics, v o l . 2 , pp.337-52, 1975; T . M c C a r t h y , The C r i t i c a l T h e o r y o f J u e r g e n Habermas, C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: MIT P r e s s , 1978, pp.187-93; and, A . G i d d e n s , "Habermas' C r i t i q u e o f H e r m e n e u t i c s " , i n S t u d i e s i n Soc i a l and P o l i t i c a l T h e o r y , L o n d o n : H u t c h i n s o n , 1977. D . M i s g e l d , "Habermas' R e t r e a t from H e r m e n e u t i c s " , C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f P o l i t i c a l a n d S o c i a l T h e o r y , v o l . 5 , no.1-2, 1981, p.10. H e r e a f t e r t h i s a r t i c l e w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as "Retreat". "H-G  Debate",  Ibid.,  p.44.  p.62.  "CT and H",  p.171.  "On Gadamer's H e r m e n e u t i c s " , o p . c i t . , p . 2 2 6 . T h i s w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o as "GH". " R e t r e a t " , pp.10 "GH",  p.226.  and  12.  article  I b i d . , p.68. H e i d e g g e r i n d i c a t e s h i s use of the t e r m s " a u t h e n t i c " and " i n a u t h e n t i c " i s a m a t t e r of t e r m i n o l o g y : i t i s not t o be t a k e n as an e t h i c a l judgment. "H-G  Debate",  p.60.  Ibid. Ibid. P e t e r B o o t h r o y d b r o u g h t t o our a t t e n t i o n t h e use adjective "authoritative" in this connection. "CT  and  "H-G  "CT  p.62n.  pp.67-8. and  H",  p.171; and,  "Retreat",  W . L e i s s , " C r i t i c a l T h e o r y and T h e o r y , v o l . 2 , 1974, p.341. Ibid.,  pp.21-2.  Its Future",  Political  pp.342-3.  "Retreat", Ibid.,  p.29.  Ibid.,  p.30.  Ibid.,  p.20.  "CT  H",  and  the  p.167.  Debate",  Ibid., Cf.  H",  of  p.28.  p.178.  M i s g e l d , i n "GH", shows t h a t t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l n o t i o n of norm i s not t o be c o n f u s e d w i t h t h o s e i n s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n a l i s m and e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y . In s t r u c t u r a l functionalism norms a r e " i m p o s e d " on p e o p l e i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n s t a b i l i t y i n s o c i e t y . Norms a r e i n t r o d u c e d t o p e o p l e who a r e t h e n s u p p o s e d t o i n t e r n a l i z e them f o r g u i d i n g p r a c t i c e . T h e s e norms do n o t a r i s e f r o m p r a c t i c e . E t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y , on the o t h e r hand, i s r e l a t i v i s t i c . I t d o e s not l i n k p r a c t i c e t o i t s h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . "H-G Ibid. Ibid.  Debate",  p.73.  1 52  Ibid.,  p.71.  Ibid.,  p.72.  Ibid.,  p.73 .  Ibid. C f . T . M c C a r t h y , The o p . c i t . , p.355. "Retreat", Ibid., CES.,  Critical  T h e o r y of  J u e r g e n Habermas,  p.15.  p. 1 6. pp.208-9.  "Retreat",  p.17.  D . M i s g e l d , " S c i e n c e , H e r m e n e u t i c s and t h e U t o p i a n C o n t e n t o f t h e L i b e r a l - D e m o c r a t i c T r a d i t i o n " , New German C r i t i q u e , no.22, 1981, p.132. H e r e a f t e r t h i s a r t i c l e w i l l be referred t o as " U t o p i a n C o n t e n t " . CES,  p.40.  Ibid., LC,  pp.36-40.  p.134.  Habermas a r g u e s t h a t n o n - l i n g u i s t i c a c t i o n can o n l y p e r f o r m h i g h l y r e s t r i c t e d f u n c t i o n s . He i m p l i e s a l l n o n - l i n g u i s t i c a c t i o n c a n i n p r i n c i p l e be r e p r e s e n t e d i n e x p l i c i t s p e e c h (CES, p p . 3 7 - 8 ) . Many w r i t e r s , i n c l u d i n g Gadamer, make an i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between "symbol" and " s i g n " . W h i l e a s i g n i s an i n d i c a t o r f o r a c t i o n , a symbol c o n v e y s an e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t t h o u g h t . N o n - l i n g u i s t i c symbols a r e p e r v a s i v e i n l i f e , f r o m f i n e a r t t o e v e r y d a y human a c t i o n . These- s y m b o l s can n e v e r be a d e q u a t e l y e x p r e s s e d l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . C f . e s p . Susanne L a n g e r ' s v i v i d discussion on d i s c u r s i v e and p r e s e n t a t i o n a l symbols, i n P h i l o s o p h y i n a New Key, 3 r d e d i t i o n , C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1957. The k i n d of n o n - l i n g u i s t i c action Habermas r e f e r s t o a r e s i g n s ; he has not seriously c o n s i d e r e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of n o n - l i n g u i s t i c s y m b o l s . "Retreat",  p.9.  Ibid.,  p.10.  Ibid.,  p.9.  "Utopian  Content",  p.132.  153  Ibid.,  p.139.  "Retreat",  p.37.  "Postscript  t o KHI",  p.168  D . M i s g e l d , " D i s c o u r s e and C o n v e r s a t i o n " , Cultural H e r m e n e u t i c s , v o l . 4 , 1977, p.327. H e r e a f t e r t h i s a r t i c l e w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s "DC 7 8  Ibid. ,  7 9  I b i d . , p.329.  8 0  I b i d . , p.333.  8 1  I b i d . , p.327.  8 2  "GH",  8 3  "DC" , p.336.  8 4  Ibid.  pp.326-7.  p.232.  154  CHAPTER  FIVE  A HERMENEUTICAL  Building  THEORY OF  on Gadamer and M i s g e l d  Historically to the l a t t e r ' s society.  h e r m e n e u t i c s h a s been h o s t i l e  image a s c e n t r a l i z e d  But t h e f i e l d  image t h a t  is still  most p l a n n i n g social  PLANNING  rational  to planning  management o f  of p l a n n i n g  has e v o l v e d .  The  generally held  i s no l o n g e r  acceptable to  theorists  today  - particularly  those  stereotyped  i n f l u e n c e d by  l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s o f p l a n n i n g . Hence h e r m e n e u t i c s and  planning  do n o t have t o be a t o d d s . In f a c t  hermeneutics extended  into  i s valuable this  to the f i e l d  field.  On t h e o t h e r  we s h a l l  of planning  show t h a t  a n d c a n be  hand, we s h a l l  h e r m e n e u t i c s needs t o i n c o r p o r a t e the i d e a of p l a n n i n g to the  due  fully  develop  second p o i n t  Misgeld  i t s potential by r e v i e w i n g  concerning  problem  in politics.  argue  that  if i t is  L e t us b e g i n  with  t h e t h o u g h t s o f Gadamer and  s o l v i n g i n contemporary  industrial  society. Gadamer's r e p u d i a t i o n o f r a t i o n a l systematic or  a p p l i e s t o any  r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s o c i e t y , be i t a t t h e g l o b a l  the l o c a l  level;  i t equally applies to sectoral  p r o j e c t s where t e c h n o c r a t s in  planning  t h e name o f s c i e n t i f i c  level  or smaller  d e f i n e p r o b l e m s and f u r n i s h s o l u t i o n s objectivity.  Gadamer c h a r a c t e r i z e s a  155  wholesome s o c i e t a l grounded  dynamic as  in c u l t u r a l  p r o b l e m s t o be solution,  he  an  believes,  calls  general  terms o n l y .  equilibrium does n o t and  the  that  realities  an  to  life,  model of  the  or  which  with the  then  t o have p o s e d  he  i s the  equilibrium  has  same as  the  social fails  relegates then  of  discusses  But  o l d one.  t o do  them t o  p r o b l e m of  these the  role  to  category is  of  awaken  and  presumably i s the  in their  is  self-  everyday  intellectuals.  intellectuals  needs  industrial  i f consciousness  with  Gadamer  conditions,  i t definitely  involved  in  new  to take  philosophy  The  through  i n mind a  I n t e l l e c t u a l s are task  societal  equilibrium.  Gadamer's v i e w t o w a r d t h e  little  the  serious  r a p i d l y changing  people d i r e c t l y  i t has  equilibrium"  - a model he  equilibrium,  of p i l o t i n g .  of  the  piloting  simply  i s ambivalent.  integral part  understanding  restore  the  i s s u e s of c h a n g i n g  today. Further,  consciousness,  to  i s e s s e n t i a l l y the  for dealing  intellectuals  considers  balance  i s to  i n t o account,  inadequate  He  It appears that  I f the  of d i s t u r b a n c e s  "oscillating  model of p i l o t i n g  a d d r e s s the  concerns.  society  tradition.  o f f s e t of  what he  an  Gadamer  without  being  seems  able  to  solve i t . Misgeld  u p h o l d s Gadamer's p o s i t i o n r e g a r d i n g  planning,  but  refuses  viability  of  preserving  critical  attitude  the  can  past  other it  be  new  share the tradition.  "from w i t h i n "  an  important  words, t r a d i t i o n  s e e k s out  to  d i r e c t i o n s of  Misgeld  confidence believes  in  that  the a  t o w a r d what i s h a n d e d down  part  i s not  latter's  rational  of  simply  elaborating preservation  d e v e l o p m e n t as  tradition. of  the  well. This  from In  past; seeking  156  out  o f new  directions  experience as  in l i f e .  belonging  cannot  be  change p r o c e s s  directly of  separated  of  f o r new  must be  they  of  particular  their  conflict.  cannot  i s why  r e s o u r c e . The  of  they  that  no  struggle  offer as  liberation  out  by  of i t ,  those emergence  change a g e n t s i n  societal social  p r o b l e m s . In p u r s u i t g r o u p s may  run  into  access  r a t h e r spontaneous a c t i v i t i e s  s u p p l e m e n t e d by  t h e more  of  formal  planning.  Habermas has his proposal  addressed  t h e p r o b l e m of s o c i a l  - t h e a d v o c a c y model and  the p l a n n i n g  b a s e d on  i t - i s h i g h l y d i s p u t a b l e . When we  process,  we  attempts  to grapple  shall  They see  be  hermeneutics.  important  goals, different  to  interpretation  carried  in  to  g r o u p s may  M i s g e l d c o n s i d e r s the  s o l v e a l l the  movements have t o be  process  own  on  always i n  T h i s o f t e n happens when v a r i o u s g r o u p s demand  t o a common p o o l social  directions  actively  movements a r e  society,  tradition;  from p a r t i c i p a n t s '  s o c i a l movements a good example social  not  m i s e r i e s . S i n c e what c o u n t s  involved. This  While  w h o l e . Due  sub-cultures are  aspects  search  from t h e i r  larger  e x p l o i t e d or e x c l u d e d .  those  them; t h e y  is careful  culture. Certain social  oppressed,  to preserve  liberation  the  larger  i t i s based  s o c i e t y as a whole  Misgeld  s u b - c u l t u r e s w i t h i n the  the  traditionally  against  tradition,  in experiences,  harmony w i t h  reason  no means a r b i t r a r y ;  W h i l e Gadamer t h i n k s of  to a c u l t u r a l  differentiate differences  i s by  should  seriously with,  argue that a theory  take  without  of p l a n n i n g  the  Yet  approach  consider a  i n t o account endorsing  conflict.  planning  issues  he  his proposal.  We  w h i c h b u i l d s on  the  157  thoughts dealing  o f Gadamer and M i s g e l d would be more s a t i s f a c t o r y with  As  similar  level,  which s o c i e t y desirable without  part  steers  future.  itself,  that  and i n d i r e c t l y ,  p l a n n i n g cannot  knowledge o f human p r o b l e m s ,  goals, s o c i a l  attributes  essay, at by  toward  a  proceed  g o a l s a n d ways position,  o r g a n i z a t i o n and d y n a m i c s a r e a l l o f mankind; i t m a i n t a i n s  a r e n o t t o be t r e a t e d a s n a t u r a l  that  these  phenomena, and  i t i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o e x p l o r e them w i t h t h e e m p i r i c a l -  people  method w h i c h  i s characteristic  involved i n planning realize  feeling  and a s p i r a t i o n ,  opposed  t o t h e view t h a t  manipulated they  would s e e t h a t  be s i g n i f i c a n t  Planning  Situation  that  of n a t u r a l  sciences. If  they and o t h e r s have  a r e e x p r e s s i v e and c r e a t i v e  beings, as  t h e y a r e o b j e c t s t o be c o n t r o l l e d and  f o r the purpose  the h e r m e n e u t i c a l can  directly  It i s clear  of the s e l f - f o r m a t i o n  analytic  then  of t h i s  these g o a l s . According t o the hermeneutical  action,  human that  i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n  we c o n c e p t u a l i z e p l a n n i n g a s an a c t i v i t y  an a d e q u a t e  to a t t a i n human  issues.  we have i n d i c a t e d  a general  when  of e f f i c i e n t  societal  the planning process  position.  I t i s apparent  functioning,  i s compatible  now why  with  hermeneutics  t o p l a n n i n g t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e .  as Hermeneutical  B e f o r e we p r o c e e d  Situation  t o examine t h e p e r t i n e n c e o f  i n p l a n n i n g , l e t us e s t a b l i s h  hermeneutics  t h e domain o f o u r i n q u i r y .  Comprehensive p l a n n i n g , w i t h  i t s s y s t e m a t i c f o r m u l a t i o n o f ends  and  means, t o s u c h an e x t e n t  that  how  these  would a f f e c t  no member o f t h e p u b l i c  him o r her i n p r a c t i c e ,  1  knows  i s naturally  158  antithetical on  to hermeneutical  a problem d e f i n e d  involved  i s again  priority  of  domain of  can  be  l e t us  whose l i v e s a r e  With these  as  assume a p r o b l e m  different  not  number of  our  or  expected to  and  discussion,  the  call  a  to  l e t us  no  lack  of  of  situation  the  shall  confine  situation,  which  by  people  be  affected  by  the  problem.  Second,  the  play  interests.  For  3  the  assume t h e s e p e o p l e a r e various  single be  social roles  group i s able a variety  r e s o u r c e s and  g r o u p s . Hence some c o o p e r a t i v e shall  kind  have p a r t i c u l a r  interests. Third,  including  i n mind we  solve  p r o b l e m u n i l a t e r a l l y . T h e r e may  this,  stressing  i s recognized  s o c i a l groups r e p r e s e n t i n g  particular  i s based  those d i r e c t l y  f o r m a homogeneous w h o l e : t h e y  social roles  c o n v e n i e n c e of  that  follows.  These people d e s i r e  2  than  to a p a r t i c u l a r  affected  t h e s e p e o p l e do  the  life.  inquiry  characterized  First,  people other  Planning  i n i m i c a l to a p h i l o s o p h y  everyday  our  problem.  by  thinking.  of  to  and  solve  reasons  oppostiion  of  a  for  other  e f f o r t i s deemed n e c e s s a r y .  s a t i s f y i n g these c r i t e r i a  a  We  planning  situation. To  the  extent  people a f f e c t e d world  depends on that  by  i s implied  people d e f i n e  a planning  involving  a text  p e o p l e . One  it, a  i s defined  p r o b l e m and  objectively,  planning  of  out  the  t h e r e are  to  be  solutions  to  s i t u a t i o n . We  interpreted  differences  but  by  by  life-  s i t u a t i o n . The  i s indeed a hermeneutical  (life-world)  notices  of  figure  interpretation situation  not  socio-historically constituted  in t h i s notion  the  their  a problem  way  i t thus s h a l l show  situation, various  between t h e  planning  159  situation  and  discussion  the  of  Dilthey's  interpretation written  text.  of  planning the  the  of  of  v i e w of  several  situation  i s comparable  to  simultaneously  participants  the  solving.  cannot  and  hermeneutical act.  the by  living  from the  hermeneutical  situation.  are  p e r s o n s . As  text  the  a  planning  who  may  not  text  we  have  interpretation of  the  planning, seen,  and  planning  intention  of  problem  that  integral parts  planning  written  in  calls  several  a written  but  The  text  interpreters, say  from  into  a written  interpretation  application  of  told  fragments  c a s e of several  separated  a complex v a r i a t i o n  First,  one  s t o r i e s " . " Seen t h i s way  Hence t h e  the  participants.  same s t o r y ,  T h i s c o r r e s p o n d s t o Gadamer's n o t i o n  interpretation  as  "the  a n a l o g y between t e x t  be  how  model of  involves  our  e n c o u n t e r s what D o n a l d Schon  speak as  c o n v e r s a t i o n . Furthermore,  In  however.  several  term m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ;  actually  Gadamer draws an  situation  normally  a n o t h e r . S e c o n d , when we  use  the  differences,  participants,  incompatible  a g r e e w i t h one  follow  involves  i n which  and  " s p e a k s " we  text  interpretation.  a l r e a d y mentioned  other  invariably  different  interpreted  two  whereas p l a n n i n g  situation  text  l i f e - w o r l d can  a written  Rashomon e f f e c t ,  point  written  t h e o r y we  There are  interpretation interpreter,  c a s e of  of  s i t u a t i o n can  a  single  be.regarded  interpretation.  It  is a  1 60  Problem  of Nature  In many p l a n n i n g resources water, of  situations  ( i n the broad sense of p l a n t s ,  a i r , s p a c e and t i m e )  perspective,  i s culturally  o b j e c t may have d i f f e r e n t r e s o u r c e s by d i f f e r e n t as p o t e n t i a l  something  aesthetic  situations category little  his  social  o r even  concept  sacred).  difference  this  (an a n i m a l o r p l a n t material,  directly  i n both n a t u r a l  i s s u e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p  isa  a n d human s c i e n c e s . B u t M i s g e l d has not  between mankind a n d  i n h e r m e n e u t i c s . The  o f n a t u r e underwent c o n s i d e r a b l e  development  o f Marx. H e r m e n e u t i c s  from t h e Marxian  r e a l i z e d the  a n d human s c i e n c e s ; y e t  Hegel  can p r o b a b l y  learn  t h e r e a r e laws of  i n d e p e n d e n t o f human knowledge o f them. T h e s e  operative  from  heritage.  B o t h H e g e l and Marx m a i n t a i n e d t h a t  opposed  but i t i s not a  hermeneutics has p a i d  f o c u s e s on t h e l a t t e r .  t h r o u g h Marx t o c r i t i c s  nature  or t r e a s u r e d as  involved,  F o r Gadamer, t h e r e  notion  may be  In other planning  between n a t u r a l  r e m a i n s an u n d e v e l o p e d  something  different  t o the concept of nature. D i l t h e y  h i s analysis  nature  groups  food, b u i l d i n g  hermeneutical dimension  discussed  d e f i n e d . The same  meanings and c o n s i d e r e d  s t u d y i s on t h e l a t t e r .  again  from a h e r m e n e u t i c a l  t o be n e g l e c t e d . H i s t o r i c a l l y  fundamental  animals, minerals,  and h i s t o r i c a l l y  n a t u r e may be l e s s  attention  of n a t u r a l  i s an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e . What a s p e c t  nature counts as a r e s o u r c e ,  treated  utilization  laws a r e  i n a l l c u l t u r e s a n d i n a l l s t a g e s o f h i s t o r y . As  t o "laws o f t h e l a n d " ,  "something p o s i t e d ,  something  which  a r e not a b s o l u t e , but  originated  by men",  5  Hegel  pointed  161  out: The laws o f n a t u r e s i m p l y a r e what t h e y a r e and a r e v a l i d as they a r e ; they a r e not l i a b l e t o e n c r o a c h m e n t , t h o u g h i n c e r t a i n c a s e s man may t r a n s g r e s s them. To know t h e l a w s o f n a t u r e , we must l e a r n t o know n a t u r e , s i n c e i t s laws a r e r i g i d and i t i s o n l y our i d e a s a b o u t them t h a t c a n be f a l s e . 6  Similarly  Marx a s s e r t e d :  No n a t u r a l laws c a n be done away w i t h . What c a n change i n h i s t o r i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s o n l y t h e form i n w h i c h t h e s e l a w s a s s e r t themselves. 7  T h u s t h e laws o f n a t u r e ,  including  c h e m i s t r y and b i o l o g y , l i m i t do  not determine  culture  Implicitly sciences In physical  Hegel from  the l a t t e r  subject to the c o n s t r a i n t s  a n d Marx d e m a r c a t e d t h e r e a l m  that  addition,  discovered in physics,  what humans c a n do. B u t t h e s e  human a c t i v i t i e s :  and h i s t o r y  those  laws  a r e s h a p e d by of the former. of n a t u r a l  o f human s c i e n c e s . Marx p a i d c l o s e a t t e n t i o n  and b i o l o g i c a l  requirements,  t o t h e human  which Hegel  virtually  i g n o r e d . F o r Marx, n o t o n l y d o e s human e x i s t e n c e d e p e n d on nature,  the meaning of l i f e  i s linked  t o i t as w e l l :  Plants, animals, minerals, a i r , l i g h t , e t c . c o n s t i t u t e , from t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a s p e c t , a p a r t o f human c o n s c i o u s n e s s a s o b j e c t s o f n a t u r a l s c i e n c e and a r t ; t h e y a r e man's s p i r i t u a l i n o r g a n i c n a t u r e , h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l means o f l i f e , w h i c h he must f i r s t p r e p a r e f o r enjoyment a n d p e r p e t u a t i o n . So a l s o , from t h e p r a c t i c a l a s p e c t , t h e y f o r m a p a r t o f human l i f e a n d a c t i v i t y . I n p r a c t i c e man l i v e s o n l y from t h e s e n a t u r a l p r o d u c t s , whether i n t h e form o f f o o d , heating, c l o t h i n g , housing, e t c Nature i s t h e i n o r g a n i c body o f man; t h a t i s t o s a y n a t u r e , e x c l u d i n g t h e human body i t s e l f . To say t h a t man l i v e s f r o m n a t u r e means t h a t n a t u r e i s h i s body w i t h w h i c h he must remain i n a c o n t i n u o u s i n t e r c h a n g e i n o r d e r n o t t o d i e . The s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l l i f e o f man, and n a t u r e , a r e i n t e r d e p e n d ent means s i m p l y t h a t n a t u r e i s i n t e r d e p e n d e n t w i t h itself, f o r man i s a p a r t o f n a t u r e . 8  162  It  is clear  t h a t Marx p e r c e i v e d t h e  between m a n k i n d and nature waiting  the  rest  intimate  of n a t u r e . He  in m a t e r i a l production: nature t o be  transformed  by  social  labor.  i n t e r m s of p r o d u c t i o n and  an  peculiar  to c a p i t a l i s t  stressed  is potential  exclusively attitude  relationship  9  the  role  social  of  wealth  T r e a t i n g nature  c o n s u m p t i o n , however, i s  society:  F o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , n a t u r e becomes p u r e l y an o b j e c t f o r mankind, p u r e l y a matter of u t i l i t y ; c e a s e s t o be r e c o g n i z e d as a power f o r i t s e l f Capital d r i v e s beyond n a t i o n a l b a r r i e r s and p r e j u d i c e s a s much a s beyond n a t u r e w o r s h i p , as w e l l as a l l t r a d i t i o n a l , c o n f i n e d , complacent, e n c r u s t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n s of p r e s e n t n e e d s , and r e p r o d u c t i o n s of o l d ways of l i f e . 1  Marx b e l i e v e d "rationally implied  that  in c l a s s l e s s  regulate their  that  the  automatically  0  society,  producers  interchange with n a t u r e " .  i s s u e o f nature-human r e l a t i o n  settled  would  w i t h t h e emergence of  He  1 1  would  be  socialized  p r o d u c t i o n . Marx d i d not  anticipate  the d w i n d l i n g of n a t u r a l  r e s o u r c e s which a r e g e n e r a l l y  r e c o g n i z e d as major problems Even a c l a s s l e s s  society  the environmental  i n contemporary  i s not  satisfying liberates greater  itself  from  nature  consumption.  d i s t o r t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n , he instrumental action  toward  justification  of  1 3  essentially  social  between mankind and  norms would  nature  mankind  Perhaps t o a i n t e r m s of  Preoccupied  leaves t h e o r e t i c a l nature  society.  problems.  nature  sufferings.  t h a n Marx, Habermas v i e w s n a t u r e  m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n and  relationship  imposed  or  in i t s capacity for  human m a t e r i a l n e e d s : by c o n t r o l l i n g  degree  Presumably  industrial  immune a g a i n s t t h e s e  Habermas p e r c e i v e s n a t u r e m a i n l y  crisis  with  i s s u e s on untouched. settle  in addition  to  the those  1 2  163  among humans. Habermas has concept theory  of nature  The  1  ability  i n d e a l i n g with current environmental  An  analysis  shed  concept  light  i n hermeneutics.  ecological  bio-physical  governing addition include  two  as  1 5  of  nature  can  among l i v i n g  There  things  are e c o l o g i c a l  and  chemical  back  in his The  less  would have done so  ones.  In  Considering  1 6  second  point i s related The  to the  amount of n a t u r a l  non-renewable  first  endangered  is potential  one,  and  i s no  resources a v a i l a b l e  r e s o u r c e s a r e not  are d e p l e t e d or d e s t r o y e d landscape,  he  been w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d  (e.g. c l e a n a i r , c l e a n water, hydro  Besides,  nature  had  to  days.  important.  limited  i f ecology  and  principles  M a r x ' s s o p h i s t i c a t e d v i e w of t h e nature-human r e l a t i o n , probably  take  i t i s necessary  laws of n a t u r e .  a  be  of a l l , i t s h o u l d  requirements,  principles  natural  Marx's c o n c e p t  n a t u r e a s much as p h y s i c a l  ecological  and  I t would a l s o h e l p d e v e l o p  relationships  t o human b i o l o g i c a l  the  Habermas'  questioned.  respects. First  environments.  of  f a r as  i n Marx's c o n c e p t  on Habermas' c a s e .  in at least  i n t o account  been s e r i o u s l y  of d e f i c i e n c i e s  of nature  improved  their  gone beyond Marx as  i s concerned. "  r e s o u r c e p r o b l e m s has  would  not  power, a r a b l e  r e p l a c e a b l e once  (e.g. m i n e r a l s , f o s s i l  fuels,  s p e c i e s ) . D e s p i t e Marx's e m p h a s i s  social  wealth,  he  forgot  that  a  is land). they  natural that  certain  quantity  of n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l i s r e q u i r e d f o r m a t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n  and  the q u a n t i t y i s l i m i t e d .  that  1 7  Marx's c o n c e p t u a l  p r e s e n t s no major p r o b l e m s p r o v i d e d t h a t abundant  relative  t o t h e demands o f  natural  society  and  framework  resources that  the  are  1 64  ecological longer  balance  the case  must t a k e nature  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n contemporary  a l t e r e d . This  industrial  i n t o a c c o u n t n o t m e r e l y how  f o r the purpose of m a t e r i a l  i s no  s o c i e t y . Hence one  social  labor  production,  transforms  b u t what t h e  c h a n g i n g n a t u r e means t o s o c i e t y . Marx was a l w a y s aware o f t h e fact  that  social  He r e a l i z e d t h a t as  well  for  traditional  intellectual  A t any r a t e ,  production  may  Recognizing the  quantity  to a l l  i t i s clear of nature  that  f o r t h e sake o f  t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of e c o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s and  of n a t u r a l  resources  a v a i l a b l e i s n o t t h e same a s  these  f a c t o r s a r e t o be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e how  should  live.  No more t h a n o t h e r  there  lack  Furthermore, that  of c e r t a i n n a t u r a l  i s b a s i c a l l y only  But  of l i f e .  resources  i n t o the grand  a free lunch" what  natural  universal  d o e s n o t mean  f a c t o r s by no means  scheme o f  a r e wont  a n d what c o s t  implies  humans must f i t  nature.  1 9  t o s a y : "There  w h i c h means " e v e r y g a i n  i s a gain  The l a c k o r  one a l t e r n a t i v e f o r s o c i e t y .  recognizing  Environmentalists as  way  n a t u r e h a s an " e n d - i n - i t s e l f " s o t h a t  themselves  people  laws of n a t u r e , e c o l o g i c a l  do n o t d i c t a t e a s p e c i f i c  anticipated  as w e l l  well-being.  saying  principles  a society  d r y up t h e s o u r c e s o f m a t e r i a l  n o n - m a t e r i a l a s p e c t s of s o c i a l  1 8  d e p e n d on n a t u r e  a l t h o u g h he was n o t s y m p a t h e t i c  activities.  consumption.  and r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s  ways o f l i f e  concerned with transformation  material as  artistic,  i s more t h a n m a t e r i a l  as p l a i n o l d t r a d i t i o n a l  resources,  solely  well-being  i s won  i s acceptable?  o r e t e r n a l a n s w e r s . " G a i n " and " c o s t "  i s no s u c h a t some  thing  cost".  T h e r e a r e no are abstract  2 0  1 65  notions;  they a c q u i r e  interpreted all  i n concrete  identification  already  when  t e r m s . From a h e r m e n e u t i c a l  "gain"  material  perspective,  resource  framework.  has  Questions  and " c o s t " a r e by no means t e c h n i c a l o n e s . Laws o f of n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s  merely e s t a b l i s h the  c o n s t r a i n t s w h i c h humans c a n n o t  constraints, the  of a substance as a s p e c i f i c  presupposed a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l  n a t u r e and q u a n t i t y  way p e o p l e a c t u a l l y  constraints  transcend.  c u l t u r e and h i s t o r y p l a y c r u c i a l live.  Marx a l s o c o n s i d e r e d  be  s i g n i f i c a n c e only  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a r e g o v e r n e d by c u l t u r e and h i s t o r y . The  very  of  practical  such  r o l e s i n shaping  2 1  natural  f a c t o r s t o be m a t e r i a l  - n o t d e t e r m i n a n t s - o f human  so even a t t h e s u b s i s t e n c e  Within  life.  T h i s was seen t o  level:  The way i n w h i c h men p r o d u c e t h e i r means o f s u b s i s t e n c e depends f i r s t o f a l l on t h e n a t u r e o f the a c t u a l means o f s u b s i s t e n c e t h e y f i n d i n e x i s t e n c e and have t o r e p r o d u c e . T h i s mode o f p r o d u c t i o n must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d s i m p l y a s b e i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of the p h y s i c a l e x i s t e n c e of t h e i n d i v i d u a l s . Rather i t i s a d e f i n i t e form of a c t i v i t y o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s , a d e f i n i t e form o f e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r l i f e , a d e f i n i t e mode o f l i f e on their p a r t . 2 2  Though knowledge o f m a t e r i a l d a y s o f Marx, h i s o b s e r v a t i o n in  c o n s t r a i n t s has expanded s i n c e t h e that  each people e x p r e s s e s  i t s own manner r e m a i n s an i n v a l u a b l e Neither  implications  itself  i n s i g h t up t o t h i s d a y .  Habermas n o r h e r m e n e u t i c s h a s s t u d i e d t h e of m a t e r i a l  constraints  i n the fashion  discussed  a b o v e . Y e t a g e n e r a l i z e d M a r x i a n c o n c e p t o f n a t u r e c a n be incorporated sciences look  i n t o hermeneutics as long  does n o t c o l l a p s e  b e y o n d Marx's  into that  intricate  as the realm of n a t u r a l  o f human  sciences.  a n a l y s i s of d i f f e r e n t  2 3  I f we  stages of  166  history the  we  see  that  c u l t u r e of  tradition. that  nature  material  tradition.  constraints also their  point  i n t e r p r e t and  constraints  On  be  put  the  other  influences  the  it differently,  synthesized  on  n a t u r e o p e r a t e s and create  an  ideal  the  view  basis  re-interpret context  of  hand, knowledge of way  material adequacy  that  knowledge of  what c o n d i t i o n  nature  i s i n . An  humanity. Instead  forsaking  tradition,  reflect  creative within formative  p r o c e s s of p r e s e r v a t i o n ,  of  point  of  analyzed  simultaneously regarding  be  self-  and  n a t u r e and  at  the  life. * 2  Misgeld  have l a i d  to a planning  theory  v i e w . However, n e i t h e r the  demands of  own  S o c i a l Groups  Gadamer and indispensable  their  c o n s t r a i n t s and  cancellation  meet t h e  lead a meaningful  Interaction  only  such c o n s t r a i n t s . Through a c o n t i n u o u s  t r a n s c e n d e n c e , p e o p l e can same t i m e  material  to  cultural  h e r m e n e u t i c s e n c o u r a g e s p e o p l e t o b u i l d on on  how  manner w o u l d  of  be  culture  attempt  tradition,  constantly  of  change would t h e n  hermeneutics denies  in a technocratic  argue  their  p e o p l e judge the social  of  their  detail  their  that  i s a product  of  culture  s t r i p humans o f  history  i n the  e x i s t i n g c u l t u r e . Appropriate  p u r s u e d . To  of  share the  i n t o a c c o u n t , h e r m e n e u t i c s would  people continuously  cultural  hermeneutics  a p e o p l e a t any  Taking  knowledge of  can  Marx and  c a s e of by  a text  out that  one  of  much of  the  adopts a them has  foundation  hermeneutical explicitly  (life-world) interpreted  d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s , although Misgeld's  conversation  and  discourse  points  writing  in this d i r e c t i o n .  167  Since  the  phenomenon of  problem  is crucial  further  explore  m i g h t be  i t . The  and  the  then  illustrate  the  no  actions  are  agreement actions  of  since  not  in a s o c i a l are  c h a n g e . The  the  solve  us  call  Later  2 5  we  a l l societal  way  one  of  the  way.  In o t h e r  horizon,  planners  the  for  live  w i t h the  existence  of the  - as  desirable  both the  i s of  problem  of  groups: each group d e f i n e s  and  from  roles  uniformity  s o l u t i o n s to the  historical  And the  the  prime  different social lack  are  c o n s e q u e n c e s of  distinct  -  be  words,  p r o p o s e d c o u r s e of a c t i o n .  must  cultural  planned  p r o b l e m s ; t h e y must  words, e a c h g r o u p i s c o n f i n e d  shaped by  show t h a t  on  what p l a n n e d a c t i o n s  understanding  perceives  before  based  insufficient,  perceives  i n t e r e s t s implies  and  actions  one's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  involved  p r e j u d g m e n t s among t h e way  issues  unilaterally,  framework. In o t h e r  some i n d e p e n d e n t p a r t y  own  i s an  on  r o l e of  problem  shall  understanding  its  the  the  planning  is requisite  the  their  particular  of  attention  groups,  planned actions,  i m p o r t a n c e . Now  theory  our  a given  n e c e s s a r y , but  d e p e n d s on  groups  solve  evolutionary  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  the  focus  social  Let  planned a c t i o n s .  appropriate and  shall  agreement among g r o u p s  c a r r i e d out.  planned actions social  We  to  experts.  a l o n e do  embedded  same  i s a t e n t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of  what a h e r m e n e u t i c a l  s i n g l e g r o u p can  some k i n d  the  hermeneutical p r i n c i p l e s . It  i n t e r a c t i o n of  r o l e of  If  b a s e d on  with  s i t u a t i o n , i t b e h o o v e s us  following  concerned with.  regarding  parties dealing  to a planning  n a t u r e of p l a n n i n g example t o  several  problem  and  in  the  problem  in i t s  in  own  to a l i m i t e d conditions  as  well  as  168  social it  r o l e s and p a r t i c u l a r  is difficult  substantial reasonable position  t o reach  overlapping  a party call  of h o r i z o n s  until  their  agreement of planned  inadequate  encountered  applied  knowledge  fields  situations  the  t e c h n i c a l knowledge b a c k g r o u n d  fields.  2 7  They need a d v i c e for their  experts  i s made t o r e a c h an  s c i e n c e s as w e l l as  i s no r e a s o n  engineering, law).  situation  social  their  problem  a r e people  in their  respective  t o be f r e e  groups should  r e s e r v a t i o n . Hence g r o u p s l e a r n they  question  become s u s p i c i o u s and a s s i m i l a t e i d e a s  themselves.  may n o t have  Experts  i s not taken  through expansions of h o r i z o n s :  when t h e y to  s u p e r i o r knowledge  views without  become more  to analyze  from e x p e r t s .  As l o n g a s knowledge  through  i n c l u d e t e c h n i c a l components  involved in a planning  prejudgments, there experts'  effort  i n n a t u r a l a n d human  social  recognized  horizons  (such as economics, e c o l o g y ,  groups  i s to  s o c i e t y many o f t h e p r o b l e m s  The  properly.  their  task  2 6  industrial  i n planning  i f c o o r d i n a t e d by  i n t h e p r o b l e m . We c a n  horizons  process  actions.  In contemporary  requiring  interest  Hence a p l a n n e r ' s  adequate ones. In a p l a n n i n g  i s t h u s an  process.  v a r i o u s groups t o broaden  interaction,  g r o u p s have a  of h o r i z o n  among g r o u p s c a n be e n h a n c e d  party planners.  facilitate  would t h e s e  i t . An e x p a n s i o n  t h a t h a s no s u b s t a n t i v e  this  circumstances  o f t h e p r o b l e m a n d be i n a  component o f a p l a n n i n g  Interaction  Under s u c h  a g r e e m e n t . O n l y when t h e r e i s  common u n d e r s t a n d i n g  to deal with  essential  interests.  from adopt from experts  t h a t make  sense  169  Social well.  theorists  They o f f e r  c a n be c o n s i d e r e d  alternative  analyses  of the given  relation  and t h e r e l a t i o n  are  engaged  totality. is  "only  tackle  social  As P a u l  situation,  instrumental  direction".  specific  areas  of s o c i a l  the s o c i a l  i t , the r a t i o n a l i t y  of t h e former  i t r e q u i r e s the l a t t e r t o  of s o c i a l  o r g a n i z a t i o n and  2 8  In h e r m e n e u t i c a l the  their  t e c h n i c a l experts  are concerned with  in character";  "substantial questions  political  defined  puts  as  i n c l u d i n g t h e nature-human  among humans. W h i l e  theorists  Piccone  of e x p e r t  v i e w s o f s o c i e t y b a s e d on  in institutionally  functioning,  a type  thinking social  theorists  c a p a c i t y of t h e r a p i s t s or advocates.  do n o t a c t i n  Agnes H e l l e r  keenly  observes: In t h e f r e e m a r k e t s y s t e m , t h e t h e o r y comes t o t h e f r e e m a r k e t , t o o ; p e o p l e t a k e i t o r l e a v e i t , make use o f i t o r n e g l e c t i t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r own needs. 2 9  P e o p l e do n o t have t o a d o p t presented  t o them. T h o s e w i l l i n g  from t h e o r i e s i n order situation. by  one o f t h e f i n i t e  But even  to think often extract  t o enhance t h e i r  i n a f r e e market  no means a r b i t r a r y :  number o f t h e o r i e s  understanding  the s e l e c t i o n  i t i s g o v e r n e d by t h e s e  ideas  of the  of ideas i s  people's  prejudgments. In  the Marxist  a concern  with  "spontaneity" proletariat leads a  tradition,  since Lenin,  the problem of s p o n t a n e i t y .  there  unionism  of their  -  own e x p e r i e n c e s .  within a c a p i t a l i s t  revolution that gives b i r t h  h a s been  For Lenin,  i s the a t t i t u d e a d o p t e d and a c t i o n taken  as a r e s u l t  to trade  ever  by t h e  Spontaneity  society rather  t o s o c i a l i s m . The  solution,  than  170  according and  to Lenin,  implant  i s t o have i n t e l l e c t u a l s  i t into  t h e heads o f t h e p r o l e t a r i a t .  t h e o r i s t s a r e not f o l l o w e r s of L e n i n . of  spontaneity  b u t do n o t a c c e p t  Marcuse c o n t e n d s :  "The p r i m a r y  'spontaneous' because values  and g o a l s  offers  no s p e c i f i c  develop  such s p o n t a n e i t y  derived  solution.  liberation  the problem  Herbert  c a n n o t be  would o n l y  express the  from t h e e s t a b l i s h e d s y s t e m . "  approach; h i s view  theory  Critical  3 0  They r e c o g n i z e  Lenin's  a  Marcuse  3 1  toward t h e f u t u r e i s  essentially pessimistic. Habermas p r o b a b l y a d v o c a c y model  a g r e e s w i t h M a r c u s e ' s remark. The  i s Habermas' answer t o t h e p r o b l e m o f  spontaneity.  It differs  First,  Lenin  while  without  takes  any f e e d b a c k  on  his intellectuals'  and a c c e p t a n c e  discussions before  valid.  Second, w h i l e  from s o c i a l  t o be v a l i d advocate  groups  after  i s considered theory  i s based  p o s i t i o n s i n t h e vanguard p a r t y ,  which i s  of the p r o l e t a r i a t , the  of the a d v o c a t e ' s hypotheses  r e s t s on r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  w h i c h a r e h e l d t o be o b j e c t i v e and u n i v e r s a l . T h i s  Habermas b e l i e v e s he c a n p r o t e c t h i m s e l f Leninist  respects.  Habermas'  the h y p o t h e t i c a l theory  s u p p o s e d t o t h i n k and a c t on b e h a l f  sciences,  theory  the l e g i t i m a c y of L e n i n i s t  the i n t e l l e c t u a l s '  credibility  i n two m a j o r  from t h e p r o l e t a r i a t ,  requires confirmation their  from L e n i n i s m  proclivities.  intellectuals; g r o u p s ' own  But s t i l l ,  3 2  he l e a v e s v i r t u a l l y  ideas d e r i v e d  from a c c u s a t i o n s o f  he r e l i e s  t o o h e a v i l y on  no room f o r t h e s o c i a l  from t h e i r  respective  One d o e s n o t have t o be a M a r x i s t problem of s p o n t a n e i t y .  way  life-worlds.  t o be c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e  M a r c u s e ' s comment p r o b a b l y  makes some  171  s e n s e t o a n y o n e who treating  social theorists  above, we  believe  spontaneity Social on  does not  society  experts,  the  establishing  qua  s o c i a l groups. It  v i e w s of  status  i t is possible  without  theorists  as  take the  to  granted.  of  intellectuals.  impose p a r t i c u l a r  that  they o f f e r  their expertise  In  described  problem  hegemony of  e x p e r t s need not  b a s e d on  for  i t was  a d d r e s s the  the  i s understood  way  quo  in t h i s  theories  alternative field  of  knowledge. Thus we  have seen  that  group expands i t s h o r i z o n the  other  situation The  intention  perspective, to  solve  t o w a r d two  s o c i a l g r o u p s . In i n a broader of  i n a p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s each  doing  so,  experts  each group p e r c e i v e s  a planning process,  i s to h e l p s o c i a l groups to  their  the  and  the  context.  common p r o b l e m . In  order  the  relationship  the  common p r o b l e m t h e y e n c o u n t e r ,  passage  directions:  social  between p a r t i c u l a r  f r o m B e r t e l l O i l m a n , who  from a  hermeneutical  become b e t t e r to  take a c l o s e r  interests l e t us  equipped  of  the  borrow a  is interpreting  look  groups beautiful  Marx:  A l l i n d i v i d u a l s who s e r v i c e one a n o t h e r t h r o u g h t h e d i v i s i o n of l a b o r s h a r e a communal i n t e r e s t by v i r t u e of t h e i r i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e However, t h e same d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e s the communal i n t e r e s t a l s o c r e a t e s a h o s t of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s i n the s p e c i a l i z e d t a s k s which f a l l i n t o different parties Now, i t happens t h a t i n pursuing their p a r t i c u l a r interests individuals lose s i g h t of the communal one The r e s u l t i s , t h o u g h i t i s c r e a t u r e of t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s a r e o n l y c o n s c i o u s of t h e community when t h e y come i n t o c o n f l i c t w i t h i t , when t h e y a r e r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r attempt to s a t i s f y p e r s o n a l interests W i t h t h e communal i n t e r e s t l o s t b e h i n d a host of competing p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s , s o c i e t y becomes a b a t t l e g r o u n d . P e o p l e e x p e r i e n c e o t h e r s o n l y by s t r u g g l i n g a g a i n s t t h e m . 3 3  at  and  172  We  may  not  attribute particular  of  l a b o r , we  may  disagree  with  interests solely Marx's c o n c l u s i o n s  materialist's  conception  optimism that  s t r u g g l e s among g r o u p s c a n  yet  we  do  process  appreciate  Marx r e m i n d s us respective including  - without  i s that  social  conflicts  -  that  his  that  context the  of  the  situation  as  universality  t h a t o v e r c o m e s , not  a l s o t h a t of  the  willing  But  t o open up  their  i t , "to experience  this  planners  respect  substantive distrust  can  that  usually exist  his  eliminated, planning s o . What  in  their  s t r a y i n g from Given  we  can  only  our  say  task  social  interests in with  of a  Gadamer  higher  particularity,  but  t h i s h a p p e n s o n l y when p e o p l e  are  the  own  -  the  the  situation,  particular  attainment  probably  i n t e r e s t s spares  live  their  minds t o l i s t e n  Gadamer p u t s  not  in a planning  " i n v o l v e s the  3  share  someday be  for granted.  l a r g e r w h o l e . And  other". "  not  i n t e n t i o n t o do  g r o u p s w o u l d have t o r e - e x a m i n e t h e i r the  in his  emergence of a common p r o b l e m  been t a k e n  s o l v e a problem together,  may  division  f o r p l a c i n g the  i s a symptom of has  we  g r o u p s do  i s o l a t e d w o r l d s . The  interdependence to  of h i s t o r y , and  Oilman's passage  in perspective  to a  to others,  Thou t r u l y help,  as  a Thou".  since their  them f r o m t h e among g r o u p s  as  or  lack  antagonism  in a  planning  universality  does not  3 5  In  of  and  situation. Attaining group c o n f l i c t s p e o p l e can agreement  see on  a higher will  be  level  of  resolved automatically,  i s s u e s and  Temporary compromises may  i t only  s o l u t i o n s more c l e a r l y  p l a n n e d a c t i o n s may be  mean a l l means  than b e f o r e .  o r may  not  be  necessary.  Any  expansion  An  reached. of  horizon  173  is  still  reasons  finite; one  once and  i t never  cannot  for a l l .  i s an  Planning,  c o n s e q u e n c e s . One planned  and  occur well  as m e a n i n g f u l  learned effect  through  of p l a n n i n g  alternative  are  the  context,  can  formal  meaning  the d r i v i n g practices  To  may  or  this  decide  and  are  these  extent,  can  in practice. Misgeld  as  goals  the  everyday  overall life  in a  t o change t h e i r  appropriate.  own  explore also  3 6  embodiment  to hermeneutics.  s o c i e t y t o be  may  o r p e r h a p s even a r e v o l u t i o n ,  of n e c e s s a r y  i s integral  theorizing  law.  c o n s u m p t i o n . They may  cultural  handed down f r o m t h e p a s t . He  reflection embodied  f o r c e of  on  changes t h a t  ways t o a c h i e v e  strike  these  insight  in practice  the weight of  l e a r n i n g . Seeing  modes o f p r o d u c t i o n  Hegelian  agreement  a b e t t e r s e n s e o f community,  are convinced  The  have f a r - r e a c h i n g  s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g of g o a l s  people  a protest, a general  they  spirit.  informal social  effective  is social  develop  time,  Social Evolution  planning processes.  societal  life-styles,  if  and  improved  and  of p l a n n i n g  broader  stage  of  to  suffering,  human  p o s s i b l e outcome i s a  a result  these  problems  from t i m e  r e d u c e human  a c t i o n s , w h i c h sometimes c a r r i e s  as  For  to solve s o c i e t a l  r e k i n d l e the  theory  P e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t  level.  e x e r c i s e t h a t n e v e r becomes o b s o l e t e .  Social Learning  A hermeneutical  absolute  p r o b l e m s c r o p up  good p l a n n i n g c a n  encourage c o o p e r a t i o n  an  planning  Different  so t h a t p l a n n i n g Nevertheless,  expect  reaches  of  Gadamer  tradition  p o i n t s out  never c o m p l e t e l y  idea  or takes  - a set  that  r e v e a l the  of  selfideas  l i k e w i s e s t r e s s e s the p r i o r i t y  of  174  practice.  In a d d i t i o n  to looking  attention  to the m u l t i f a r i o u s  express themselves  in life  ways o f l i f e .  Hegelian  learning  This  learning  restructuring  ways d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l g r o u p s  a n d t h e m e a n i n g s embodied i n s i g h t c a n be e x t e n d e d  i n those into social  material  permits a fundamental, y e t often  of s o c i e t y  accomodate e v o l v i n g  social  a s a w h o l e , he pays  in general.  Social  the  at society  world  actions  and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  human a s p i r a t i o n s (such as d w i n d l i n g  gradual,  of c u l t u r e t o  and t h e c h a n g i n g natural  t a k e n may n o t be o r g a n i z e d  scene of  resources).  a n d g o a l s may  Many  n o t be  verbally  a r t i c u l a t e d . Much o f t h e e m e r g i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s  embodied  i n a new  everyday  life.  s e t of s o c i a l p r a c t i c e s  transmitted  When t h e new c o n s c i o u s n e s s and p r a c t i c e s direction  o r m a i n s t r e a m way o f l i f e ,  movement. A commonly a c c e p t e d collectivity  a change  acting  i n the s o c i e t y  definition described change  with  in a  t h e y become a s o c i a l  d e f i n i t i o n o f s o c i a l movement i s  some c o n t i n u i t y  or group of which  i s compatible with  the concept  t o promote o r r e s i s t  i t is a part". of s o c i a l  a b o v e . S o c i a l movements a r e c r u c i a l a g e n t s  3 7  action.  Eventually,  for social  But  i n and  i n t h e o r e t i c a l terms as i n s o c i a l  some o f t h e p r a c t i c e s  i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d ; t h e y become p a r t  society.  This  learning  "from b e l o w " . F o r t h e y e x p r e s s what p e o p l e b e l i e v e  what t h e y need, n o t so much  are  proceed  i d e n t i f i a b l e as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e  conventional  "a  through  i n s o c i a l movements  of the mainstream  3 8  the d i r e c t i o n i n which  social learning  or s o c i a l  175  movement t a k e s run;  and  may  i t may  not  not  be  be  beneficial  beneficial  t o any  their  that  a c t i o n s and  social  society  movements can  as a  seen  itself  rigidified  party."  0  Social not  begin  planning,  are  That  categorized  not  fact,  formation  the  hermeneutical  planning  however, can  two of  to  so  needs o f  l e a r n i n g does  are  w i t h i n an  democratic  be  and  i s i t confined to  changes  social  justify  now  apparent  complementary  mankind.  norms.  a c t i o n s might of a  t h i n k i n g cannot  turn  be  or  Marxist.  a l l aspects  of  life;  end  i t does  planning.  Good  for desirable social  t h a t the  chaos of  with  out  vanguard  socialist  i t d o e s not  by  otherwise liberal  a c t as a c a t a l y s t  clear  not  of  d i s c o u r s e s which  drastic  liberal,  s u b s t i t u t e the the  nor  3 9  learning infiltrates  with  social  p e r f o r m e d under t h e d i r e c t i o n  i s why  as  of  s y s t e m , a s most a d v o c a t e s  political  change. I t s h o u l d cannot  learn  context,  to the  t o minor or moderate reforms  However, no m a t t e r how they  people  societal  become r e s p o n s i v e  to believe i n ,  formal  t o be,  i n a broader  i n the c o n t e x t  institutional  democracy tend b a s e d on  process,  whole.  Planning restrict  ideas  long  t o s o c i e t y as a whole. T h i s i s  where p l a n n i n g comes i n . I n a p l a n n i n g see  group i n the  f o r m a l i t y of  social  to each other  planning  movements. In i n the  self-  1 76  Comparison The  w i t h Habermas' M o d e l  hermeneutical  significantly approach  different  theory of p l a n n i n g suggested from  above i s  the c r i t i c a l - r e c o n s t r u c t i v e  t o planning proposed  by Habermas. I n b o t h  disagreement  cases,  disagreement  or p o t e n t i a l  of d e p a r t u r e  f o r p l a n n i n g . R e s o l u t i o n of disagreement  immediate g o a l and i m p r o v i n g that  society  i s where t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s  their  premises  differences directly  and p r o c e e d  among g r o u p s  i s the  i s t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l . But  e n d . The two t h e o r i e s d i f f e r i n  in different  between t h e two t h e o r i e s  and i n d i r e c t l y . We  i s the point  shall  manners. Many o f t h e  have been  mentioned  e l a b o r a t e on a few p o i n t s  below. The  critical-reconstructive  approach  i s based  assumption  of the e x i s t e n c e of s u p p r e s s e d  interests.  In the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s t h e a d v o c a t e  r e c o n s t r u c t s hidden reconstructive discussions, plain  interest  generalizable tentatively  i n accordance  s c i e n c e s . When t h e s e a r e f i n a l i z e d  the i n t e r e s t s  t o view.  positions  The p r o b l e m  of a l l groups i s then  on t h e  with  through  a r e supposed  t o be  t o be s o l v e d on t h a t  basis.  From t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i t i s n a i v e t o b e l i e v e a situation  c a n be r e n d e r e d  t r a n s p a r e n t s i n c e prejudgments  be c o m p l e t e l y e l i m i n a t e d . The h e r m e n e u t i c a l a p p r o a c h groups one an  a r e i n t e r d e p e n d e n t . Through  another  and from  interdependence  never  be f u l l y  interaction  e x p e r t s . They g e n e r a l l y  among them. B u t t h i s  verbally  articulated  knowledge o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e  groups  cannot  assumes learn  from  discover there i s  interdependence can  o r even be f u l l y  manifests i t s e l f  known. The  i n t h e way  groups  1 77  attempt  to  solve  the  problem.  Habermas d o e s not his  model. Presumably  analyses. and  social  to a p p r o p r i a t e hermeneutical  social  or  a p p r o a c h , on  understanding  of  how  a l t e r n a t i v e s are solving  the  these a c t i o n s .  But  the  W i t h an  solutions  a  proposed  Habermas - can  already The  of  Stages of  sciences. in  of  interpretation criteria. either  In  on  i n the  not  discuss  what t h e i r  necessary  involve  to  learn  from  what  concrete  the  are  t h e o r y of  social  actions  fairness  of  can  is difficult  to  interest positions than  -  as  what  sciences. theory  l e v e l s on  i t ; i t d o e s not  s e n s e of  order  the  s o l u t i o n other  in c r i t i c a l  evolution  hermeneutics,  in  their different  idea  problem. It  the  r e s t s on  social  revealed  planning  i s progress. Progress of  experts  knowledge b a s e , g r o u p s  generate a  to higher  A hermeneutical  advance what  to  c o n s e q u e n c e s and  t o the  planning  social  to  t h e o r i s t s t o enhance t h e i r  s p e c i f i e d in reconstructive  s o c i e t a l progress  scale.  f o r m . Due  theoretical discussion  notion  left  hand, g r o u p s do  have a g e n e r a l  improved  i m a g i n e how by  are  s i t u a t i o n a f f e c t s them and  problem, the  in  systems-theoretic  f i n d i n g s . In  i t is often  social  in  interest positions  other  abstract  technical experts  issues  plausible. Discussions  develop c r e a t i v e  is  the  i n the  e x p e r t s and  involved  technical  r o l e s , groups u s u a l l y  technical  r o l e of  discuss  criticize  needs a r e .  the  technical  groups only  positions  c o n c e r n s and  for  they are  It appears that  that  interest  clarify  in  conform  to  evolution  i n e v i t a b l e s t a g e s of  idea  evolutionary reconstructive  d o e s not  i s dependent  the  determine  upon  people's  scientific i s not t e l e o l o g i c a l , development  in  178  history logic  o f how  highest The all  (as i n H e g e l and Marx) o r  level  society  i n the sense of a  s h o u l d d e v e l o p from t h e l o w e s t t o t h e  (as i n H a b e r m a s ) .  h e r m e n e u t i c a l approach  s u g g e s t e d above does  questions concerning a planning  i s much room f o r improvements. shown t h a t  universal  situation.  N e v e r t h e l e s s we  i t i s a more s a t i s f a c t o r y  and  not answer  Obviously there believe  realistic  we  have  approach  than  what Habermas p r o p o s e s .  NOTES  See A . A l t s h u l e r , "The G o a l s o f C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n n i n g " , J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , v o l . 3 1 , pp.186-95, 1965. The term " c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n n i n g " has been d e f i n e d i n more t h a n one way. C f . J . F r i e d m a n n , "A Response t o A l t s h u l e r : Comprehensive P l a n n i n g as a P r o c e s s " , J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s , v o l . 3 1 , pp.195-7, 1965. What we a r e c o n c e r n e d h e r e i s a p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e p t A l t s h u l e r d i s c u s s e s i n h i s paper, not the v a r i o u s usages of the term. We use t h e word " p r o b l e m " h e r e i n a n e u t r a l s e n s e . I t does not have t o c o n n o t e s o m e t h i n g u n d e s i r a b l e ; i t c o u l d be an o p p o r t u n i t y , a c h a l l e n g e . B a s i c a l l y a problem i s a s o c i e t a l issue people are interested i n dealing with. We use t h e word " i n t e r e s t " and need, n o t t h e s p e c i f i c  i n the g e n e r a l sense of c o n c e r n s e n s e i n Habermas' d e f i n i t i o n .  D.Schon, Beyond t h e S t a b l e p.210.  S t a t e , New  York: Norton,  G.W.F.Hegel, P h i l o s o p h y of R i g h t , O x f o r d : O x f o r d P r e s s , 1952, p.224.  1971,  University  Ibid. K.Marx, "Marx t o L.Kugelmann, J u l y 11, 1868", i n K a r l Marx and F r e d e r i c k E n g e l s : S e l e c t e d C o r r e s p o n d e n c e , Moscow:  179  Foreign "1844  Languages P u b l i s h i n g  MSS",  House,  1953,  p.251.  pp.126-7.  See e.g. C a p i t a l , o p . c i t . , v o l . 1 , p p . 1 7 3 f f ; and, C r i t i q u e of the G o t h a Program, Moscow: F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e s P u b l i s h i n g House, 1959, pp.14f. K.Marx, G r u n d r i s s e , Capital,  New  op.cit•, vol.3,  York: Vintage,  1973,  p.410.  p.820.  C f . W . L e i s s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of Marx's c o n c e p t o f n a t u r e , i n The D o m i n a t i o n of N a t u r e , New York: G e o r g e B r a z i l l e r , 1972, pp.81-6. Cf.  KHI_,  pp.25-42.  Habermas has m e n t i o n e d t h a t t h e " e c o l o g i c a l b a l a n c e d e s i g n a t e s an a b s o l u t e l i m i t t o g r o w t h " i n c o n n e c t i o n with h i s a n a l y s i s of c r i s i s t e n d e n c i e s i n a d v a n c e d c a p i t a l i s m . But he seems t o t r e a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c r i s i s as s o m e t h i n g p e c u l i a r t o c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y . He i m p l i e s t h a t he a g r e e s w i t h Marx: s o c i a l i z e d p r o d u c t i o n would r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e of n a t u r e - h u m a n r e l a t i o n (see LC, p p . 4 1 - 3 ) . C f . J . W h i t e b o o k , "The P r o b l e m o f N a t u r e T e l o s , no.40, pp.41-69, 1979.  i n Habermas",  W.Leiss p o i n t s out, ever s i n c e the E n l i g h t e n m e n t , i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y has been i n c r e a s i n g i t s c o n t r o l o v e r n a t u r e . A l t h o u g h t h e t e r m c o n t r o l o f n a t u r e may be n e u t r a l , i t o f t e n c o n n o t e s d o m i n a t i o n , m a n i p u l a t i o n and e x p l o i t a t i o n . The c o n c e p t of i n t e r a c t i o n i s more a p p r o p r i a t e as f a r as the n a t u r e - h u m a n . r e l a t i o n i s conerned. A t t e n t i o n to ecological p r i n c i p l e s places this interaction in a better p e r s p e c t i v e . See The D o m i n a t i o n of N a t u r e , o p . c i t . E.F.Schumacher succumbs t o t h e p o p u l a r m i s c o n c e p t i o n t h a t Marx t r e a t e d "as v a l u e l e s s e v e r y t h i n g t h a t we have not made o u r s e l v e s " ( S m a l l I s B e a u t i f u l , London: A b a c u s , 1973, p. 1 1 ) . In C r i t i q u e of t h e G o t h a Program Marx a r g u e d s p e c i f i c a l l y how v a l u a b l e i s n a t u r e . What Marx f o r g o t was the q u a n t i t y of r e s o u r c e , e s p e c i a l l y non-renewable r e s o u r c e , a v a i l a b l e i n n a t u r e . In t h i s s e n s e Schumacher's remark i s p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t . A n t h r o p o l o g i s t M a r s h a l l S a h l i n s goes f u r t h e r t h a n Marx. B a s e d on e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s on h u n t e r s and g a t h e r e r s , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e p e o p l e a r e a f f l u e n t d e s p i t e t h e i r low m a t e r i a l c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e s e p e o p l e have low e x p e c t a t i o n s on m a t e r i a l goods w h i c h can r e a d i l y be met by t h e i r mode of p r o d u c t i o n . T h a t way of l i f e i s m e a n i n g f u l t o them. S a h l i n s d e c l a r e s t h a t p o v e r t y i s above a l l "a r e l a t i o n between  180  p e o p l e ... a s o c i a l s t a t u s . As s u c h i t i s t h e i n v e n t i o n o f c i v i l i z a t i o n " ( S t o n e Age E c o n o m i c s , C h i c a g o and New Y o r k : A l d i n e . A t h e r t o n , 1972, p . 3 7 ) . J . W h i t e b o o k c r i t i c i z e s Habermas f o r h i s l a c k o f a n a t u r a l i s t i c e t h i c with t h e r e s u l t t h a t the l a t t e r cannot d e a l w i t h t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c r i s i s . Whitebook i n d i c a t e s t h a t Habermas' " c o m m u n i c a t i v e e t h i c s r e p r e s e n t s a v a r i a t i o n on t h e a n t h r o p o c e n t r i c theme i n t h a t i t m a i n t a i n s t h a t man, by v i r t u e o f h i s c o m m u n i c a t i v e c a p a c i t y , i s t h e o n l y v a l u e b e a r i n g b e i n g t h a t c a n be i d e n t i f i e d . T h u s , c o m m u n i c a t i v e e t h i c s , a s a form o f a n t h r o p o c e n t r i s m , r u l e s o u t any c o n c e p t i o n o f n a t u r e a s an 'end i n i t s e l f Habermas' t r a n s c e n d e n t a l stance prevents the s o r t of d i r e c t access t o n a t u r e t h a t would make any c l a i m f o r n a t u r e a s an e n d - i n i t s e l f p o s s i b l e " (Whitebook, o p . c i t . , pp.52-3). A review o f i n f l u e n t i a l l i t e r a t u r e on e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e s shows t h e main c o n c e r n s a r e human s u r v i v a l and human q u a l i t y o f l i f e i n a broad sense. C f . R.Carson, S i l e n t S p r i n g , Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1962; G . H a r d i n , "The T r a g e d y o f t h e Commons", S c i e n c e , v o l . 1 6 2 , pp.1243-8, 1968; B.Commoner, The C l o s i n g C i r c l e , New Y o r k : Bantam, 1971; D.Meadows e t a l , The L i m i t s t o Growth, New Y o r k : S i g n e t , 1972; a n d , G . T . M i l l e r , L i v i n g i n t h e Environment, Belmont, C a l i f . : Wadsworth, 1975. Whitebook does n o t seem t o r e a l i z e t h a t e v e n " r e s p e c t f o r n a t u r e " a n d " l i v i n g i n harmony w i t h n a t u r e " a r e human a t t i t u d e s , w h i c h a r e g o v e r n e d by s o c i a l norms; t h e y a r e a n t h r o p o c e n t r i c , i n t h e s e n s e W h i t e b o o k uses the term. B.Commoner, o p . c i t . ,  pp.41-2.  M . S a h l i n s p r o v i d e s some o f t h e b e s t a r g u m e n t s and e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s p o s i t i o n . He c o n c l u d e s t h a t " c u l t u r e must c o n f o r m t o m a t e r i a l c o n s t r a i n t s , b u t ... i t d o e s so a c c o r d i n g t o a d e f i n i t e s y m b o l i c scheme w h i c h i s n e v e r t h e o n l y one p o s s i b l e " ( C u l t u r e a n d P r a c t i c a l Reason, C h i c a g o a n d L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1976, p . v i i i ) . Nevertheless, the s t r u c t u r a l i s t conceptual framework t h a t S a h l i n s b u i l d s on t e n d s t o be t o o r i g i d : i t c o n f i n e s t h e s t u d y o f c u l t u r e t o s p e c i f i c forms a n d o r d e r s . I t s e m p h a s i s on t h e " s y n c h r o n i c " a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e " d i a c h r o n i c " a l s o r u n s i n t o d i f f i c u l t y when e x p l a i n i n g s o c i a l c h a n g e . S a h l i n s d o e s n o t c l a r i f y how he c a n overcome these d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n s t r u c t u r a l i s m . Marx and E n g e l s , The German I d e o l o g y ,  o p . c i t . , p.42.  In t h e e x t r e m e c a s e o f R i c h a r d R o r t y , who a l s o c a l l s h i s t h e o r y h e r m e n e u t i c s , t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between n a t u r a l and human s c i e n c e s i s e l i m i n a t e d . N a t u r e i s no l o n g e r t a k e n s e r i o u s l y . P r o b l e m s o l v i n g becomes n o t h i n g b u t " t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o f mankind"; i t r e f u s e s t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e nature-human r e l a t i o n . R o r t y ' s r e d u c t i o n i s m c a n n o t  181  p o s s i b l y d e a l w i t h most p l a n n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . See R o r t y , P h i l o s o p h y and the M i r r o r of Nature, P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. W . L e i s s p r e s e n t s a p a r a l l e l argument f o r what he c a l l s a " n e g a t i v e t h e o r y o f n e e d s " . A c c o r d i n g t o him, t h i s t h e o r y i s " n e g a t i v e i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t r e f r a i n s from d e f i n i n g t h e c a t e g o r i e s t h a t might be a p p r o p r i a t e t o a c o h e r e n t network o f n e e d s . O n l y t h e i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s who d i s c o v e r f o r themselves t h e inadequacy of the e x i s t i n g s y s t e m c a n p r o v i d e t h o s e c a t e g o r i e s " (The L i m i t s t o S a t i s f a c t i o n , T o r o n t o and B u f f a l o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1976, p p . 1 0 1 - 2 ) . L e t us d e s c r i b e a s i m p l i f i e d r a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s : t h e r e i s a p l a n n i n g s t a g e , which produces a p l a n ; and then t h e r e i s an i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s t a g e , w h i c h p u t s t h e p l a n i n t o a c t i o n . The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a p l a n i s a t y p e o f p l a n n e d a c t i o n . In our c a s e , p l a n n e d a c t i o n i s n o t c o n f i n e d t o t h e n a r r o w s e n s e o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f an o f f i c i a l p l a n . What we c a l l an a g r e e m e n t on p l a n n e d a c t i o n s r o u g h l y c o r r e s p o n d s t o a p l a n i n t h e r a t i o n a l model; i t a l s o c o r r e s p o n d s t o j u s t i f i a b l e norms i n Habermas' a d v o c a c y m o d e l . But t h e s e t h r e e a r e n o t i d e n t i c a l c o n c e p t s . An agreement on p l a n n e d a c t i o n s , a p l a n , and j u s t i f i e d norms a r e a r r i v e d a t t h r o u g h d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s . What t h e y have i n common i s t h a t t h e y a l l serve as a b a s i s f o r c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n p r i o r t o the action i t s e l f . T h e r e i s no i n t r i n s i c n e c e s s i t y t h a t e v e r y p l a n n i n g s i t u a t i o n w o u l d l e a d t o an agreement on p l a n n e d a c t i o n s . The need f o r c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t does n o t e n t a i l c o o p e r a t i o n w o u l d a l w a y s t a k e p l a c e . F o r example, Marx a r g u e d t h a t i n c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y , r e s o l u t i o n of c l a s s c o n f l i c t s r e q u i r e s n o t h i n g s h o r t o f a p r o l e t a r i a n r e v o l u t i o n . Even i f we d i s a g r e e w i t h M a r x ' s a n a l y s i s , t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o assume t h a t an a g r e e m e n t c a n be r e a c h e d among s o c i a l g r o u p s . F o r t h e e x i s t i n g s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e may be o p p r e s s i v e t o w a r d c e r t a i n groups. I f o p p r e s s o r s i n s i s t t o remain o p p r e s s o r s , an agreement i s u n l i k e l y w i t h i n t h e e x i s t i n g s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , we s h a l l a r g u e t h a t a p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , a s a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s , c a n be b e n e f i c i a l t o s o c i e t y w h e t h e r an agreement i s r e a c h e d o r n o t . What we c a l l e x p e r t s h e r e c o r r e s p o n d t o what Gadamer c a l l s a u t h o r i t i e s . S i n c e t h e t e r m a u t h o r i t y o f t e n c o n n o t e s power and d o m i n a t i o n , we p r e f e r t o use t h e t e r m e x p e r t w h i c h d o e s n o t have s u c h a c o n n o t a t i o n . "Symposium: The R o l e o f t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l T e l o s , no.50, pp.115-60, 1981-2.  i n t h e 1980s",  A . H e l l e r , " T h e o r y and P r a c t i c e : T h e i r R e l a t i o n Needs", S o c i a l P r a x i s , v o l . 1 , 1973, p.361.  t o Human  182  V . I . L e n i n , What I s To Be Done?, London: O x f o r d P r e s s , 1963. H.Marcuse, C o u n t e r r e v o l u t i o n 1972, p.47.  and R e v o l t ,  University  B o s t o n : Beacon,  On a c l o s e r l o o k , one n o t i c e s t h e r e a r e s u b t l e s i m i l a r i t i e s between Habermas and L e n i n . In p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , a "no" from the p a t i e n t o f t e n i n d i c a t e s the p a t i e n t ' s r e s i s t e n c e t o t h e r a p y . Now Habermas e x t e n d s p s y c h o a n a l y s i s t o c r i t i c a l t h e o r y . When s o c i e t y r e j e c t s t h e c r i t i c a l t h e o r i s t ' s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , Habermas p r o b a b l y c o n s i d e r s s o c i e t a l members t o be r e f u s i n g t o a d m i t t h e y a r e s u f f e r i n g f r o m t h e i r i d e o l o g y . Hence t h e c r i t i c a l t h e o r i s t must a t t e m p t t o c o r r e c t s o c i e t a l members' p e r c e p t i o n . W h i l e Habermas' c r i t i c a l t h e o r i s t r e l i e s on r e c o n s t r u c t i v e s c i e n c e s , t h e t h e o r y o f Marx i s sometimes a l s o i n t e r p r e t e d a s s c i e n c e t h e s c i e n c e o f h i s t o r y . The A l t h u s s e r i a n s c h o o l , i n p a r t i c u l a r , a t t e m p t s t o j u s t i f y L e n i n i s m by i n t e r p r e t i n g Marx's t h e o r y as a s c i e n c e - s o m e t h i n g u n d e r s t o o d o n l y by P a r t y i n t e l l e c t u a l s . O n l y t h e P a r t y knows when t o s e i z e t h e r i g h t moment t o f o l l o w t h e l o g i c a l c o u r s e o f h i s t o r y . B. O i l m a n , A l i e n a t i o n , 2nd e d i t i o n , C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1976, p.215. TM,  p.272.  Ibid.,  p.324.  Most t h e o r i s t s t o d a y a r g u e t h a t p o l i t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n s i n highly i n d u s t r i a l i z e d c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t i e s are extremely u n l i k e l y ; i n o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d , however, t h e y do occur. R . H . T u r n e r and L . M . K i l l i a n , C o l l e c t i v e B e h a v i o r , C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1957, p.308.  Englewood  The c l a s s i c s o c i o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l movements by C. Dawson and W.E.Gettys s u g g e s t s t h e r e a r e f o u r s t a g e s i n a s o c i a l movement: u n r e s t , e x c i t e m e n t , f o r m a l i z a t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . See I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S o c i o l o g y , New Y o r k : R o n a l d P r e s s , 1934, pp.708-9. C f . C.B.Macpherson, The L i f e and T i m e s o f L i b e r a l Democracy, O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977. Cf.  V.I.Lenin,  op.cit.  183  CHAPTER  SIX  CONCLUSION  In t h i s the c o n t e x t and  study of  critically  f r o m two phical  we  i n q u i r e about  the  social  e v o l u t i o n . We  have compared,  evaluated  competing  tradition,  s c h o o l s of t h o u g h t namely, c r i t i c a l  schools are deeply objectivity and  of  practice,  learning  ideas r e l a t e d  concerned  of p l a n n i n g  in  contrasted  to planning  which  emerge  i n the German p h i l o s o -  theory  and  hermeneutics.  Both  w i t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l i s s u e s such  knowledge, e x p e r i e n c e , which a r e  concept  a l s o the  t h e o r i e s of p l a n n i n g  foci  today.  thought  and  action,  of d i s c u s s i o n s i n Let  us  summarize  as  theory  social  our  findings.  A  Summary The  and  critical  presents  like and  and  conflict  to planning  theorists  i s s u e s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . The implicitly of  r a i s e s are  interests,  human r e l a t i o n s  should  planning. Nevertheless, and  of Habermas o f f e r s v a l u a b l e  a challenge  philosophical explicitly  theory  spontaneity, be  interested  questions  important  of  i n the  Habermas  ones.  nature-human  p r o p e r l y addressed  Habermas' use  insights  Problems relations  i n the  field  of  reconstructive sciences  h i s a d v o c a c y model a r e q u e s t i o n a b l e . B e s i d e s ,  some of h i s  184  other  ideas,  i n c l u d i n g h i s assumption  generalizable not  entirely  derived  notions  ideas,  regarding  s u f f e r s as a  the nature of c u l t u r a l  sound t h e o r e t i c a l  foundation  have p l a g u e d  reconstructive  new  social  attention  tradition,  for a critique  i s not r e a d i l y  recognition  Recognizing  hermeneutics furnishes a of both  objectivism  some o f t h e p r o b l e m s objectivism in  of c r i t i c a l  tradition  theorists.  prevents  directions in a favorable l i g h t .  him f r o m  Since  a p p l i c a b l e to the s o l v i n g of  problems, h i s w r i t i n g s tend  of planning  profound  o f human u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  s c i e n c e s and the arrogance  Gadamer's t h o u g h t current  a p p r o a c h , which i s  Habermas, s u c h a s t h e l a t e n t  social  speech, a r e  c o n s i s t s of s e v e r a l  Gadamer's emphasis on p r e s e r v i n g  seeing  with  result.  s u b j e c t i v i s m . Hermeneutics a l s o avoids  that  Yet  and h i s p r e o c c u p a t i o n  h e r m e n e u t i c s o f Gadamer  significance  and  suppressed  c o n v i n c i n g . Habermas' p l a n n i n g  from t h e s e  The  the  interests  of  to escape the  t h e o r i s t s . He h a s n o t r e c e i v e d t h e  he d e s e r v e s  i n the s o c i a l  l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s of  planning. Having d i s c o v e r e d Misgeld of  b u i l d s on Gadamer's works. S h e d d i n g  h i s predecessor,  hermeneutical in  Misgeld  explores  thinking, in particular,  society  the p o l i t i c a l and t h u s  planning.  planning  relevance  i n hermeneutics,  the t r a d i t i o n a l i s m  t h e p r o g r e s s i v e a s p e c t s of the p r i o r i t y  t h e o r i z i n g and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f s o c i a l  stresses  of  the untapped p o t e n t i a l  of p r a c t i c e  movements.  He  of hermeneutics t o contemporary  b r i n g s hermeneutics a step c l o s e r t o the  However, he h a s not e x p l o r e d  directly.  the concept  of  field  185  Inspired Misgeld,  by t h e h i g h l y s u g g e s t i v e  we a t t e m p t  p l a n n i n g . We  hermeneutics  argue that p l a n n i n g  interpenetrate that  t o extend  and that both  i s conducive  i d e a s o f Gadamer and into  and s o c i a l  are essential  t o the development  movements to a social  c o n s t r a i n t s of the changing m a t e r i a l world.  and  social  movement a r e embedded i n c u l t u r a l  and a c t i v i t i e s  cannot  be f u l l y  directly  from l i f e ,  appreciated  except  implicated. Social  a particular the  arise  other  group or a p a r t i c u a l r  hand,  indirectly,  focuses  among d i f f e r e n t  division  of l a b o r ) .  together  i s u s u a l l y narrow  s p a c e and t i m e .  A planning  In o r d e r  Their  meanings  whose l i v e s a r e e x p r e s s i o n of  of l i f e .  s o l v i n g among  aspects  planning  tradition.  i s a general  aspect  on p r o b l e m  Both  and hence t h e i r  by t h o s e  movement  evolution  o f human p o t e n t i a l s w i t h i n  the  goals  the f i e l d of  Planning,  on  g r o u p s , and  of s o c i e t y ( i n c l u d i n g the  p r o b l e m t h a t draws v a r i o u s  i n s c o p e and r e l a t i v e l y  groups  restricted in  f o r the s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g achieved i n  a planning  process  activities  b a s e d on s u c h s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g have t o be c a r r i e d  on  in social  movements, and i n g e n e r a l , d a i l y  a hermeneutical of  cultural  t o b e n e f i t s o c i e t y i n the long run,  theory  tradition,  of p l a n n i n g daily  u l t i m a t e purpose of planning evolution concept  that  r o o t s of s o c i e t a l  regulation  places planning  That  a n d s o c i a l movements. The social  human a s p i r a t i o n s . T h i s  stresses social  learning; i t penetrates the  p r o b l e m s t o an e x t e n t  that  who b e l i e v e t h a t p l a n n i n g  o f human a c t i v i t i e s  i s why  i n the f a b r i c  i s i t s contribution to a  i s consistent with  of p l a n n i n g  fathom o f t h o s e  life  life.  i s beyond t h e  i s e s s e n t i a l l y the  f o r the purpose of e f f i c i e n t  186  societal  functioning.  Self-reflection The  of Hermeneutics  hermeneutical  foundation  i s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l concept; strategy out,  f o r planning  theories  of planning  i t does n o t p r e s c r i b e  a  discussed systematic  p r a c t i t i o n e r s t o f o l l o w . As M i s g e l d  useful  f o r guiding  p r a c t i c e must a r i s e  practice  directly  related to that  theories  are only  tentative. Experimentation  Long ago H e g e l  we have  r e a l i z e d that  situation.  accurate  from  Even s o , s u c h  1  i s always  theories  about  h i s most o f t e n  cited  required.  society are  a l w a y s r e t r o s p e c t i v e , n e v e r p r e d i c t i v e . He e x p r e s s e s of  points  i t i n one  passages:  One word more a b o u t g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a s t o what t h e w o r l d o u g h t t o b e . P h i l o s o p h y i n any c a s e a l w a y s comes on t h e s c e n e t o o l a t e t o g i v e i t . As t h e t h o u g h t o f t h e w o r l d , i t a p p e a r s o n l y when a c t u a l i t y i s a l r e a d y t h e r e c u t and d r i e d a f t e r i t s s e l f f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s has been c o m p l e t e d The owl of M i n e r v a s p r e a d s i t s wings o n l y w i t h t h e f a l l i n g of t h e d u s k . 2  Hegel  thus p o i n t s  to the l i m i t a t i o n  h i s own. H e r m e n e u t i c s  incorporates  its  own way o f t h i n k i n g ;  the  future  cannot In Current  be e s t a b l i s h e d fact  address  because  no t h e o r y so t h a t  can p r e d i c t  planned  actions  i s necessarily self-applicable.  thinking  industrial  hermeneutics  precisely  i t teaches that  into  once and f o r a l l .  hermeneutics  hermeneutical  including  t h e s e words o f wisdom  o f s o c i e t y w i t h any a c c u r a c y ,  contemporary society  3  of a l l t h e o r i e s ,  i s a s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n of  s o c i e t y . No l e s s t h a n o t h e r  i s subject  i t springs  aspects of  t o c o n t i n u o u s e v o l v e m e n t . But  from t h e s o i l  some o f i t s m a j o r c o n c e r n s ,  of t h i s  society to  i n c l u d i n g the area  of s o c i a l  187  development, h e r m e n e u t i c a l societal a place  problems  in this  in planning  t h i n k i n g i s p e r t i n e n t to the society.  thought  Perhaps hermeneutics  study  deserves  today.  NOTES  "Retreat", Philosophy Cf. esp. o f Man",  p.17. of R i g h t ,  op.cit.,  p.13.  C h a r l e s T a y l o r , " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and o p . c i t . , pp.48-51.  the  of  Sciences  APPENDIX SCHEMATIC  Type  of  OF HABERMAS'  MODEL  Critique  Activity  Instrumental A c t i on  Communicative Act ion  D i scourse*  technical control  e f f e c t i ve communicat i o n  Function of A c t i v i t y i n Self-formative Process  work (human v s . nature)  Cognitive  of  Ideology  Psychoanalytic Model  Advocacy  examination of truth claims/ just if icat ion o f norms  emancipat ion  conf1ict resolut ion/ emanci pat i on  i n t e r a c t ion (relat ionship among humans)  confirmation of deviation in self-format ive process  c o r r e c t i o n of deviant selfformat i ve process  advancement t o h i g h e r l e v e l on evolut ionary sea 1 e  t e c h n i ca1  pract ical  ( i ndi r e c t 1 y emanc i p a t o r y )  Hierarchy of Interest at Species Level  basic  bas i c  ("1ow")  Source of S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s Type o f Act i v i ty  natural  human  science  reconstruct ive sc i ence (uni v e r s a 1 pragmat i c s )  c r i t i ca1 s c i e n c e (model of psychoanalysis)  c r i t i q u e based on r e c o n s t r u c t i ve sciences  Methodology of S c i e n c e / Model  empi r i ca1 analyt i c  hermeneut ica1  r e c o n s t r u c t i on of anonymous r u l e systems  therapeut i c / critical  reconstruct ive/ c r i t i ca1  Goal  of  Activity  Interest  this  ("low")  science  Model*  emanc i p a t o r y  u11 i mate  ("h i g h " )  NOTES: 1. 2.  This schematic This schematic indicate their  i s o n l y a r o u g h a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f H a b e r m a s ' t h e o r y - many d e t a i l s a r e o m i t t e d . i s b a s e d o n K n o w l e d g e a n d Human I n t e r e s t s , a n d a s m o d i f i e d i n l a t e r works. Columns marked i n t r o d u c t i o n i n l a t e r works.  with  *  189  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Altshuler, Alan. "The G o a l s of C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n n i n g " . J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s . V o l . 3 1 , pp.186-95. 1965. Aristotle. Nicomachean E t h i c s . M.Ostwald Bobbs-Merrill. 1962.  (trans.). Indianapolis:  A v i n e r i , Shlomo. H e g e l ' s T h e o r y o f t h e Modern S t a t e . C a m b r i d g e : Univesity Press. 1972.  Cambridge  A v i n e r i , Shlomo. The S o c i a l and P o l i t i c a l T h o u g h t o f K a r l M a r x . C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1968. Bernstein, Richard. P r a x i s and A c t i o n . P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1971. B l i t z , Mark. Heidegger's Philosophy. 1981 .  of  Pennsylvania  B e i n g and Time and t h e P o s s i b i l i t y of I t h a c a and L o n d o n : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y  Political Press.  Boguslaw, R o b e r t . " V a l u e s i n t h e R e s e a r c h S o c i e t y " , i n The R e s e a r c h S o c i e t y . E . G l a t t and M.W.Shelly ( e d . ) . New Y o r k : Gordon and B r e a c h . 1 968. Bubner, Rvidiger. " T h e o r y and P r a c t i c e i n t h e L i g h t of t h e H e r m e n e u t i c C r i t i c i s t Controversy". C u l t u r a l Hermeneutics. Vol.2, pp.337-52. 1975. Carson, Rachel. S i l e n t S p r i n g . Boston: Commoner, B a r r y . The C l o s i n g C i r c l e .  New  Houghton M i f f l i n . Y o r k : Bantam.  1962.  1971.  D a l l m a y r , F r e d R. " C r i t i c a l Theory C r i t i c i z e d " . Philosophy S c i e n c e s . V o l . 2 , pp.211-29. 1972.  of t h e  Social  1  Davidoff, Paul. "Advocacy and P l u r a l i s m i n P l a n n i n g " . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s . V o l . 3 1 , pp.331-8. 1965. Dawson, C a r l , and Introduction  W.E.Gettys. t o S o c i o l o g y . New  York: Ronald P r e s s .  D i l t h e y , Wilhelm. S e l e c t e d W r i t i n g s . H.P.Rickman ( e d . and Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1976. Dunn, E d g a r S., J r . Economic and S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t . J o h n s H o p k i n s P r e s s . 1971.  trans.).  Baltimore  and  1934.  Cambridg  London:  F o r e s t e r , John. " C r i t i c a l T h e o r y and P l a n n i n g P r a c t i c e " . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n . V o l . 4 6 , pp.275-86. 1980. Friedmann, John. "A R e s p o n s e t o A l t s h u l e r : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n n i n g a s a P r o c e s s " . J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s . V o l . 3 1 , pp.195-7. 1 965. Friedmann, John. R e t r a c k i n g A m e r i c a . Garden  City,  Friedmann, John. The Good S o c i e t y . C a m b r i d g e ,  N.Y.:  Anchor.  1973.  Press.  1979.  Mass.: MIT  F r i e d m a n n , J o h n , and B a r c l a y Hudson. "Knowledge and A c t i o n " . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n o f P l a n n e r s . V o l . 4 0 , pp.2-16. 1974. Gadamer, H a n s - G e o r g . "Notes on P l a n n i n g pp.572-89. 1965.  f o r the F u t u r e " .  Gadamer, H a n s - G e o r g . T r u t h and Method . New  Daedalus. Vol.95,  York: C r o s s r o a d .  Gadamer, H a n s - G e o r g . P h i l o s o p h i c a l Hermeneutics. D.E.Linge Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Gadamer, H a n s - G e o r g . Reason i n t h e Age 1981 .  Institute  1975. (ed.). Berkeley P r e s s . 1976.  of S c i e n c e . Cambridge,  Mass.: MIT  Gadamer, H a n s - G e o r g , e t a l . Summation o f " H e r m e n e u t i c s and S o c i a l S c i e n c e " . H e r m e n e u t i c s . V o l . 2 , pp.329-36. 1975.  and  Press  Cultural  191  Giddens, Anthony. S t u d i e s i n Soc i a l 1 977.  and P o l i t i c a l  T h e o r y . London:  Hutchinson.  Godelier, Maurice. "System, S t r u c t u r e a n d C o n t r a d i c t i o n i n C a p i t a l " , i n The S o c i a l i s t R e g i s t e r 1967. B . B r e w s t e r ( t r a n s . ) . R . M i l i b a n d and J . S a v i l l e ( e d . ) . New Y o r k : M o n t h l y Review P r e s s . 1967. Gouldner, A l v i n . The Coming C r i s i s Books. 1970.  of Western S o c i o l o g y .  New Y o r k :  Basic  Habermas, J i i r g e n . "A Review o f Gadamer's T r u t h a n d Method", i n U n d e r s t a n d i n g and S o c i a l I n q u i r y . F . R . D a l l m a y r a n d T . A . M c C a r t h y ( e d . ) N o t r e Dame and L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e Dame P r e s s . 1977. Habermas, J i i r g e n . Knowledge a n d Human I n t e r e s t s . B o s t o n : B e a c o n . 1971. Habermas, J i i r g e n . Toward A R a t i o n a l  S o c i e t y . B o s t o n : B e a c o n . 1970.  Habermas, J i i r g e n . "The H e r m e n e u t i c C l a i m t o U n i v e r s a l i t y " , i n C o n t e m p o r a r y H e r m e n e u t i c s . J . B l e i c h e r ( e d . ) . London and B o s t o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d Kegan P a u l . 1980. Habermas, J i i r g e n . T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e . B o s t o n : B e a c o n . 1973. Habermas, J i i r g e n . "A P o s t s c r i p t t o Knowledge and Human I n t e r e s t s " . o f t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . V o l . 3 , pp.157-89. 1973. Habermas, J i i r g e n . Legitimation C r i s i s . Habermas, J i i r g e n . Communication 1979.  Philosophy  B o s t o n : B e a c o n . 1975.  and t h e E v o l u t i o n  Habermas, J i i r g e n . "On t h e G e r m a n - J e w i s h H e r i t a g e " . 1980.  of Society.  Boston:  Beacon.  T e l o s . No.44, pp.127-131.  Habermas, J i i r g e n . "The D i a l e c t i c s o f R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n : An I n t e r v i e w J i i r g e n Habermas". T e l o s . No. 49, pp. 5-31. 1981.  with  1 92  Hampden-Turner, C h a r l e s . R a d i c a l Man. Garden C i t y , Hardin, G a r r e t t . "The T r a g e d y 1968.  N.Y.: A n c h o r . 1971.  o f t h e Commons". S c i e n c e . V o l . 1 6 2 ,  pp.1243-8.  H e g e l , G.W.F. " P r e f a c e t o Phenomenology", i n H e g e l : T e x t a n d Commentary. W.Kaufmann ( t r a n s . ) . G a r d e n C i t y , N.Y.: A n c h o r . 1966. H e g e l , G.W.F. Phenomenology o f S p i r i t . A . V . M i l l e r ( t r a n s . ) . O x f o r d a n d New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1977. H e g e l , G.W.F. The L o g i c o f H e g e l ( f r o m The E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l S c i e n c e s ) . W.Wallace ( t r a n s . ) . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s . 1874. H e g e l , G.W.F. P h i l o s o p h y o f R i g h t . T.M.Knox ( t r a n s . ) . O x f o r d Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1952. H e g e l , G.W.F. Reason i n H i s t o r y . R.S.Hartmann B o b b s - M e r r i l l . 1953.  a n d New  (trans.). Indianapolis:  Heidegger, M a r t i n . B e i n g a n d Time. J . M a c q u a r r i e a n d E . R o b i n s o n Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row. 1962.  ( t r a n s . ) . New  H e l l e r , Agnes. " T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e : T h e i r R e l a t i o n t o Human Needs". S o c i a l P r a x i s . V o l . 1 , pp.359-73. 1973. Hemmens, G e o r g e C , a n d B r u c e S t i f t e l . " S o u r c e s f o r t h e Renewal o f P l a n n i n g T h e o r y " . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n . V o l . 4 6 , pp.341-5. 1980. Hoy,  David Couzens. " H i s t o r y , H i s t o r i c i t y , and H i s t o r i o g r a p h y i n Being and Time, i n H e i d e g g e r a n d Modern P h i l o s o p h y . M.Murray T e d . ) . New Haven a n d L o n d o n : Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1978.  Kant,  Immanuel. C r i t i q u e o f P u r e R e a s o n . N.K.Smith S t . M a r t i n ' s . 1929.  Kant,  ( t r a n s . ) . New Y o r k :  Immanuel. C r i t i q u e o f P r a c t i c a l Reason a n d O t h e r W r i t i n g s P h i l o s o p h y . L.W.Beck ( e d . a n d t r a n s . ) . C h i c a g o : of C h i c a g o P r e s s . 1949.  i n Moral University  193  Kaufmann, W a l t e r . "The H e g e l Myth a n d I t s Method". P h i l o s o p h i c a l R e v i e w . V o l . 6 0 , pp.459-86. 1951. Kaufmann, W a l t e r . Nietzsche, 4th e d i t i o n . P r e s s . 1974.  Princeton: Princeton University  K e l l y , George Armstrong. I d e a l i s m , P o l i t i c s and H i s t o r y . L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1969.  Cambridge  Kuhn, Thomas S. The S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n , 2nd e d i t i o n . C h i c a g o and L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s . 1970. L a n g e r , Susanne K. P h i l o s o p h y i n a New Key, 3 r d e d i t i o n . H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1957. Leiss, William. The D o m i n a t i o n  o f N a t u r e . New  Mass.:  York: George B r a z i l l e r .  Leiss, William. " C r i t i c a l Theory and I t s F u t u r e " . pp.330-49. 1974. Leiss, William. The L i m i t s t o S a t i s f a c t i o n . of T o r o n t o P r e s s . 1976.  Cambridge,  Political  Toronto  Theory.  (trans.).  M c C a r t h y , Thomas A. The C r i t i c a l T h e o r y o f J u e r g e n Habermas. C a m b r i d g e , MIT P r e s s . 1978.  Marcuse, H e r b e r t . Counterrevolution Marx,  and R e v o l t .  Vol.2,  and B u f f a l o : U n i v e r s i t y  Lenin, Vladimir I l i c h . What I s To Be Done?. S . V . U t e c h i n and P . U t e c h i n L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1963.  Macpherson, C B . The L i f e and T i m e s o f L i b e r a l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1977.  1972.  Democracy . O x f o r d :  Mass.:  Oxford  B o s t o n : B e a c o n . 1972.  Karl. "Economic and P h i l o s o p h i c a l M a n u s c r i p t s o f 1844", i n E a r l y W r i t i n g s . T . B . B o t t o m o r e ( e d . and t r a n s . ) . New Y o r k : McGrawH i l l . 1964.  194  Marx,  Karl. The E i g h t e e n t h B r u m a i r e o f L o u i s B o n a p a r t e . Moscow: P r o g r e s s P u b l i s h e r s . 1934.  Marx,  Karl. Grundrisse. M.Nicolaus  (trans.).  New  York: V i n t a g e .  1973.  . Marx,  Karl. "Marx t o L.Kugelmann, J u l y 11, 1868", i n K a r l Marx and F r e d e r i c k E n g e l s : S e l e c t e d C o r r e s p o n d e n c e . Moscow: F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e s P u b l i s h i n g House. 1953.  Marx,  Karl. Capital,  Marx,  3 v o l . Moscow: P r o g r e s s P u b l i s h e r s .  Karl. C r i t i q u e o f t h e G o t h a Program. P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e . 1959.  Marx, K a r l , and F r e d e r i c k E n g e l s . The German I d e o l o g y . New Y o r k : 1 970. Meadows, D o n e l l a H., e t a l . The L i m i t s t o G r o w t h . New  York:  1954-9.  Moscow: F o r e i g n  International  Signet.  Languages  Publishers.  1972.  Mehta, J a r a v a L a i . M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r : The Way and t h e V i s i o n . H o n o l u l u : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s o f H a w a i i . 1976. Mendelson, Jack. "The Habermas-Gadamer D e b a t e " . pp.44-73. 1979. Meszaros, I s t v a n . Marx's Theory 1975.  of A l i e n a t i o n ,  New  German C r i t i q u e .  4th e d i t i o n .  London:  No.18,  Merlin.  Michael, Donald. L e a r n i n g t o P l a n and P l a n n i n g t o L e a r n . San J o s s e y - B a s s . 1973.  Francisco:  M i l l e r , G.Tyler, J r . L i v i n g i n the Environment. 1 975.  Wadsworth.  Belmont,  Calif.:  Misgeld, Dieter. " C r i t i c a l T h e o r y and H e r m e n e u t i c s : The D e b a t e Habermas and Gadamer", i n On C r i t i c a l T h e o r y . ( e d . ) . New Y o r k : S e a b u r y . 1976.  between J.O'Neill  195  Misgeld, Dieter. " D i s c o u r s e and C o n v e r s a t i o n " . C u l t u r a l pp.321-44. 1977.  Hermeneutics. Vol.4,  Misgeld, Dieter. "On Gadamer's H e r m e n e u t i c s " . P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e S c i e n c e s . V o l . 9 , pp.221-39. 1979.  Social  Misgeld, Dieter. "Habermas' R e t r e a t from H e r m e n e u t i c s " . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l T h e o r y . V o l . 5 , no.1-2, pp.8-44. 1981. Misgeld, Dieter. " S c i e n c e , H e r m e n e u t i c s and t h e U t o p i a n C o n t e n t o f t h e L i b e r a l - D e m o c r a t i c T r a d i t i o n " . New German C r i t i q u e . No.22, pp.123-44. 1981. Moore, T e r r y . "Why A l l o w P l a n n e r s t o Do What They Do? A J u s t i f i c a t i o n from Economic T h e o r y " . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e P l a n n e r s . V o l . 4 4 , pp.387-98. 1978. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Use and Abuse o f H i s t o r y . A . C o l l i n s I n d i a n a p o l i s : B o b b s - M e r r i l l . 1957. Oilman, B e r t e l l . A l i e n a t i o n , 2nd P r e s s . 1976.  edition.  Cambridge:  O ' N e i l l , John. S o c i o l o g y a s a S k i n T r a d e . New  (trans.).  Cambridge  University  Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row.  1972.  Palmer, R i c h a r d E. Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y 1969.  Press.  Piccone, Paul, et a l . "Symposium: The R o l e o f t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l T e l o s . No.50, pp.115-60. 1981-2.  1980s".  Popper, K a r l . The Open S o c i e t y and I t s E n e m i e s , and Kegan P a u l . 1945.  of  i n the  2 v o l . London:  Routledge  R e i n , Ma r t i n. " S o c i a l P l a n n i n g : The S e a r c h f o r L e g i t i m a c y " . J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s . V o l . 3 5 , pp.233-44. 1969.  196  Rickman, H.P. Wilhelm D i l t h e y : Pioneer U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a  o f t h e Human S t u d i e s . P r e s s . 1979.  London:  Ricoeur, Paul. H e r m e n e u t i c s and t h e Human S c i e n c e s . J.B.Thompson ( e d . a n d t r a n s . ) . C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1981. Rorty, Richard. P h i l o s o p h y and t h e M i r r o r o f N a t u r e . P r i n c e t o n : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1979.  Princeton  R o t e n s t r e i c h , Nathan. "The O n t o l o g i c a l S t a t u s o f H i s t o r y " . A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l Q u a r t e r l y . V o l 9, pp.49-58. 1972. Sahlins, Marshall. S t o n e Age E c o n o m i c s . C h i c a g o a n d New Y o r k : 1972.  Aldine.Atherton.  Sahlins, Marshall. C u l t u r e and P r a c t i c a l Reason. C h i c a g o and London: U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s . 1976. Schmidt, A l f r e d . The C o n c e p t o f N a t u r e  i n Marx. L o n d o n : NLB. 1971.  Schon, D o n a l d A. Beyond t h e S t a b l e S t a t e . New Y o r k : N o r t o n . 1971. Schumacher, E . F . Small I s B e a u t i f u l .  L o n d o n : A b a c u s . 1973.  Taylor, Charles. " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d t h e S c i e n c e s o f Man". Review o f M e t a p h y s i c s . V o l . 2 5 , n o . 1 , pp.3-51. 1971. Taylor, Charles. H e g e l . C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1975. Taylor, Charles. "Understanding i n Human S c i e n c e " . V o l . 3 4 , no.1, pp.25-38. 1980.  Review o f  T u r n e r , R a l p h H., and L e w i s M . K i l l i a n . C o l l e c t i v e B e h a v i o r . Englewood C l i f f s , 1 957. Whitebook, J o e l . "The P r o b l e m o f N a t u r e 69. 1979.  N.J.:  Metaphysics.  Prentice-Hall.  i n Habermas". T e l o s . No.40, pp.41-  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095738/manifest

Comment

Related Items