Habermas wants to find a way out of this cul-de-sac. His project, as he describes it, is "to develop a theoretical program that I understand as a reconstruction of historical materialism" (1979: 95). Habermas takes as his starting point Marx's claims that human "sensuous human activity" (practice):
"All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead
theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and
in the comprehension of this practice.
<...>
The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint
of the new is human society, or social humanity."
(Theses on Feuerbach, of course there's more places where it's
elaborated, but, for now.)
Habermas argues that Marx's theory needs to be reconstructed to account for two analytically distinct components of human life: work (which Habermas speaks of as consisting, under capitalism, primarily purposive-rational action) and social, symbolic interaction (what we have been referring to as communicative action).
[remember those debates between doug and odisio, carrol? how's about
those discussions of what's wrong with marxist theory according to
feminist materialist marxists? THAT'S what this has to do with.
It has to do with the fact that if you have a social movement or
a party, the wet dream of the left, then part of what's involved
is organization, communication, meetings, analyses of problems,
considerations of what should be done--what kind of rhetoric to use,
what kind of struggles are most important and how to undertake them.
e.g., should the fight against Horowitz involve confiscating news-
papers so no one can read what he says? etc. You once argued that
black students voices were primary. Why? Where did you get that idea?
Your answer is epistemology. Habermas is offering one that he argues
is superior to your standpoint epistemology.]
THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES THAT INVOLVE SOCIAL, SYMBOLIC--THAT IS, COMMUNICATIVE--ACTION BECAUSE WE NEED TO INTERACT, COMMUNICATE AND ****UNDERSTAND***** --_WITH OTHERS_--IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE AND CHANGE THE WORLD.
A class society will not undo itself. It will be brought about through concerted action which is fundamentally about symbolic interaction.
Do we want to coordinate it according to the imperatives of purposive-rational action as such activities take place in the hierarchical bureaucracies that dominate the world of work? the state? Have we not seen the drawbacks of doing so? Is this not what makes USers cringe, when they think of a "party" and its limitations? There is a legitimate critique there, as Doug mentioned the other day. Do we want to organize this oh-so-pined-for social movement and party according to the unreflective ties of blood, family, place that characterize patrimonial relations of fealty to a person or group of charismatic leaders?
Or, will we need to figure out some way of talking, writing, arguing, yelling, cajoling one another in a way that is equitable, that takes in to consideration the fact that some voices are never or rarely heard--in the way that Art complains about re: race or Yoshie/Carrol have complained about re women? Marta, the disabled? This is what Habermas is after. He wants to _ground_ his claims in something that makes his theory superior to the self-confidence of Leninist-Marxism (and other version of standpoint epistemology) or the tradition of German idealism.
in order to do so, we need to figure out how to do so without succumbing to bureaucratic imperatives or the mysticism involved in following charismatic leaders. We need to understand--UNDERSTAND JUST AS MARX SAYS ABOVE--what it is we're working for and why.
As H puts it, the problem in Marx's work is the "reduction of the self-generative act of the human species to labor" (1971:42). So, H writes, "I take as my starting point the fundamental distinction between work and social/symbolic interaction" (1970: 91)
Marx focuses on work, labor, the economy and took free and creative work as the baseline for critically analyzing work in various historical epochs, especially capitalism. Habermas adopts this as a baseline too, but in the realm of communicative rather than purposive rational action. Whereas Marx examined the structural sources of alienated labor, Habermas examines the structural sources of alienated social and symbolic interaction. Both have a baseline and this allows them to escape relativism and engage in a critical theory of society and social relations. Habermas is critical of those theorists, especially Weber and the Frankfurt school for lacking such a baseline--this ground.
There is also another parallel between Marx and Habermas. For both, their baselines of non-alienated labor and non-alienated communications are not only analytical starting points but also their political objectives. That is, whereas for Marx the goal was a communist society, for Habermas the goal is a communist society wherein social structures nurture the possibilities for non-alienated labor AND non-alienated social and symbolic interaction. Habermas is concerned about social and symbolic interaction because he does not think we can get from here to a socialist society with a social movement that does not create and recreate institutions and practices that nurture the possibilities for non-alienated social and symbolic interaction between members of a social movement.
He wants to figure out a way to deal with the ways in which racism, hetero/sexism, ableism, etc that manifest themselves in the "lifeworld", often quite viciously because these ways of thinking are embedded so deeply in practices and institutions that are taken-for-granted and rarely subjected to critique. Creating spaces within which we can rationalize--make transparent to critique--the lifeworld so as to work toward the eradication of oppressive institutions and practices is imperative because it is not clear that a revolution in the economic sphere alone is enough.
In the theoretical world of discourse, but also contained in the world of communicative actions, is the ISS in which force or power does not determine which arguments win out, but the better argument wins out. H's is a consensus theory of truth, rather than a copy theory of truth. This truth is part of all communication and its FULL expression is the goal of a Habermas's reconstructed historical materialism.
Consensus arises theoretically in discourse (pretheoretically in communicative action that takes place unreflectively and uncritically in the realm of our everyday interactions with family, friends, on lists --such as when Justin uses the term 'blind' or Dennis or I use the term "cocksucker") when four types of validity claims are RAISED and RECOGNIZED by participants.
a. the speaker's utterances are seen as understandable/comprehensible. (carrol you rag on ken for not making sense. thus, you raise a validity claim. thus you ANTICIPATE the ISS when you come to the conversation here. you have a noton of what is understandable and comprehensible and ken's typings do not conform. otherwise, you couldn't raise the claim that he makes no sense to you)
b. the propositions offered are true: that is, the speaker is offering reliable knowledge.
c. the speaker is being truthFUL (veracious) in offering these propositions.
d. it is right that the speak to utter such a proposition; he or she has the right to do so.
Consensus arises when all these validity claims are RAISED ***AND*** ACCEPTED.
Cconsensus cannot be achieved (and any tenuous consensus that has been achieved breaks down) when one or more are questioned. (for example, questioning the right of the speaker to utter certain propositions).