The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society

by Jürgen Habermas, Thomas McCarthy (Translator)

3.86 of 5 stars 3.86 · rating details · 247 ratings · 11 reviews

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

Paperback, 512 pages

Published March 1st 1985 by Beacon Press (first published 1981)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Sociology Books

98th out of 230 books — 200 voters

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays by Albert Camus

Knowledge

59th out of 117 books — 49 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 558)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Aug 06, 2009 Justin Evans rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: history-etc, philosophy

This is a difficult book to rate, since it's obviously very important/influential. And the horrific style could bias anyone against it. But I finally settled on two stars. Why?

* Habermas' theory is meant to be an advance beyond previous critical theories. He argues that their focus on consciousness philosophy (broadly speaking, an individualist approach to social theory, which assumes that individuals are the primary bearers of meaning) leads them into all sorts of problems. But his interpretati...more This is a difficult book to rate, since it's obviously very important/influential. And the horrific style could bias anyone against it. But I finally settled on two stars. Why?

* Habermas' theory is meant to be an advance beyond previous critical theories. He argues that their focus on consciousness philosophy (broadly speaking, an individualist approach to social theory, which assumes that individuals are the primary bearers of meaning) leads them into all sorts of problems. But his interpretations of those previous critical theories are, not to put too fine a point on it, appalling. He misreads Hegel; he misreads Marx to such a great extent that one might almost believe he'd never even read *Capital*; and his take on earlier critical theorists is more or less limited to Horkheimer's 'Eclipse of Reason.' Habermas' main criticism of Adorno is that Adorno seeks a solution to the problems of modern societies in a kind of irrationalist mysticism. It is no surprise that almost all of his evidence for this is taken from books *about*, rather than *by* Adorno. (Good rebuttals of Habermas' readings of Hegel and Marx can be found in Pippin's 'Idealism as Modernism,' and Postone's 'Time, Labor and Social Domination' respectively.)
* For Habermas, the main problem with previous critical theories is that they don't seem to be grounded. Habermas sees a strict dichotomy here. Either you ground your theory by taking on a universalist perspective, or you lapse into relativism. Because critical theory has tended to avoid universalism, it must be relativistic. This is tied to his failure to understand Hegel's work. Hegel shows that the dichotomy between universalism and relativism is flawed; that something can be grounding without being universal. On this approach, critical theory is right to find its foundation only in an immanent critique of the present, without a universalist standpoint.
* Habermas claims to find his universalist standpoint in language. He argues that any any speech act assumes the possibility of rational agreement, and that this can be a basis of a critical theory. Language becomes the inalienable repository of freedom and reconciliation. This is where Habermas' rejection of 'consciousness philosophy' hurts him most. Why is it that language can remain more or less pure? He has no answer for this question. 'Consciousness philosophy,' of course, would argue that since language is bound up with consciousness; and since consciousness somewhat obviously cannot remain 'pure' in an impure world; then language itself cannot remain pure, and cannot be the universal standpoint Habermas seeks.
* Finally, Habermas tries to combine two sociological approaches: systems theory and action theory. He never asks, however, if these theories themselves might be reflections of actual social problems which cannot be merely 'combined' at the theoretical level. A critical theory will show the problems with these theories, and explain how to move past them. Habermas does not do this, because he accepts Daniel Bell's thesis of 'end of ideology.' Theories are now just different standpoints from which we view the same content, not reflections of that content itself. Again, a bit more 'consciousness philosophy' would have led Habermas to see that this separation of form and content - which he sees as a key moment of modernism - is theoretically untenable.
* On a somewhat more obvious level, this was a theory designed for a welfare-state world. This world collapsed just as these volumes were being published in German. Habermas himself said, in an interview around the time they were being published, that this work assumed such a welfare state world ("The Dialectics of Rationalization," in 'Telos'). The disappearance of that world made it clear that 'power' was no more than a handmaiden to 'money.' The best recent work of critical theory, Postone's book mentioned above, makes this argument very well.

That's all substantive stuff. On a less high-falutin' level, this book is horrifically written, spends far too much time summarizing previous sociological theories, and shows a frankly bizarre addiction to unnecessary, quasi-scholastic hair-splitting. For those interested in critical theory, I recommend reading the 'intermediate reflections' and 'concluding reflections.' Otherwise, it's like reading a freshman-comp paper written by a staggering genius. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Dec 15, 2011 John rated it 2 of 5 stars

I was actually surprised by how thoughtless Habermas’ critique of Marx was, relying as it does on the Weber/Lukacs reading, and the whole base/superstructure trope. For those of you who heard about this famous duality and want to critique Marx based on it: Marx said this ONCE, and with contextual specificity. He didn’t really believe you could just dump the social on top of some stool called “economy” (this is an economist reading, a.k.a a Stalinist one).
Habermas also seems to think Marxism can’...more I was actually surprised by how thoughtless Habermas’ critique of Marx was, relying as it does on the Weber/Lukacs reading, and the whole base/superstructure trope. For those of you who heard about this famous duality and want to critique Marx based on it: Marx said this ONCE, and with contextual specificity. He didn’t really believe you could just dump the social on top of some stool called “economy” (this is an economist reading, a.k.a a Stalinist one).
Habermas also seems to think Marxism can’t account for the welfare state, or the other somewhat underhanded tactics Capitalism has used to keep itself afloat through ever worsening financial crisis. I think he would be hard pressed to find a Marxist economist who isn’t dealing with this currently, not to mention Marx himself being relatively clear on how capitalism won’t abide a barrier, and has historically come up with extremely remarkable ways to keep moving. Habermas doesn’t deal with the core of Marx’s real addendum to the political economic discourse of the time, namely that its core isn’t just the commodity relation, but surplus-value. While scooting around Marx’s ideas about value in general, he never actually gets at the core factor, which is that the surplus-value relationship which is inherent to Capitalism is inherently exploitative, and no amount of restructuring will cure this fundamental ailment. There is no real “pacification” of class antagonism, and we are beginning to see Marx’s foresight on this matter now. Habermas posses another fundamentally poorly framed question when he wonders why modern resistance is declassed in a way (as in coming from students rather than workers). Firstly I don’t think anyone looking at the conflicts happening around the world in the 60’s could be so deluded as to not understand the class interaction of situations like Vietnam, and secondly he perhaps should relook at the class positions of many students.
Not to mention his claim that Marx somehow ignores or subsumes culture in this severe way…

A few other problems with Habermas:

-The idea that we have to work from the assumption that language has an inherent drive toward consensus/understanding (and that somehow this is not teleological in a hard sense because its merely “goal-oriented”). The abstract theory of language that serves as the foundation of his entire method is simply terrible. His system falls apart without its fallacious starting point being assumed.
-Economy and State are considered in isolation from culture, those making the problem remarkably similar to a bad reading of Marx in that his problem is these “systems” (economy, state) invading the “lifeworld” (culture, language). How economy is not a cultural and linguistic practice is totally beyond my comprehension. It seems like there is just some mystical assumption about how economy just flows on its own, and any mention of the ruling classes and their historical and current role in shaping that interaction are ignored (what about imperialism!?)
-The appeal to general political “legitimacy”, which eliminates all forms of political struggle save communicative action. The assumption that we can rationally talk out our problems and thus solve any dispute, and that this is the only legitimate way to do so, leaves a great deal to be desired.
-In his theory of communicative action, regulative validity claims are subject to acceptance (in the Yes or No dichotomy of responses to validity claims) based on their normativeness, which seems problematic if this is the type of speech act which we use to request or regulate others.
-An inability to fold art/poetry into his proceduralist account of communicative action towards satisfying reason leads him to put it wholly outside the world. The autonomous realm of art is just a mythology, whether from those who wish to validate it, or from those who say it is not reasonable enough.
-Linguistic Kantianism based on “regulatory ideals” is a one way ticket back to Hegel’s critique of universal morality. How can Habermas claim to have an intersubjective account with this monstrous presupposition looming all of our discourse? (I understand the attempted tripartite of objective, inter-subjective, and subjective, I just think it fails to come through.)
-The problem of “social order” and its explanation has never been a satisfying frame for my understanding of social systems (stemming from Parson’s social integration theory). Marx describes our economic condition as anarchic, and I tend to agree. Phrasing the problem in such a way as to assume that there is a relative degree of social equilibrium really misses the power relationships at the bottom of even the most basic agreements (though I generally sympathize with Habermas in that he is responding to post-structuralist power analysis). I think Parson’s critique of Hobbes is missing the main thrust of the Hobbsian argument, which is that fear of violent death accounts for “social order”— this is lurking closer to the surface than we often realize. This is the difference between a “crises” model that recognizes the internal contradictions of the capitalist system, and a “consensus” model; one wonders if Parson’s had a window in his ivory tower. Habermas at least tries to explain why our society is in perpetual crisis (“systems” invading “life-world”), but that our “natural culture and language” is bent towards rejection of systems seems more than arbitrary, it is down right anti-dialectic.
-ANTHROPOCENTRISM, only humans have language, the environment and the animals are just going to have to deal with our decision.
-ETHNOCENTRISM, being situated in and being the self-proclaimed heir to western philosophical/linguistic thought, the backwards cultures that have yet to evolve to western standards of rationality are just waiting to be subsumed, and receive this prescriptive division from immediate mythological binding ( ala Durkheim). (less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 19, 2007 Bengjaw rated it 3 of 5 stars

Mr. Habermas, couldn't you write it in a simpler way? Your book is hard to read :))

1 like · like · see review

Jan 21, 2008 Lorin rated it 5 of 5 stars

The problem that most adults face in Modern society is that they have almost no ideas with which to formulate an understanding of how they can transform again. Most assume that they will learn more things that are learnable just as other things were in the past. Habermas (1984, p. 68), however, described the difference well:
"With the transition to a new stage the interpretations of the superseded stage are, no matter what their content, categorically devalued. It is not this or that reason, but...more

like · see review

Sep 16, 2011 Mary rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: rhetoric, rhetoric-field-exam

Habermas intimidated me quite a deal, I admit, but the thing about analytical philosophers is that while their texts are lengthy and detailed in their proofs, they make for good skimming. In fact, Jeff Walker giving me permission not to worry about focusing on every page was a big part of the best day of my life. The ideas here are remarkably interesting and tie in dreadfully with Burke, I think.

1 like · like · see review

Dec 09, 2008 eesenor rated it 5 of 5 stars

Including vol. 2 as well, Habermas re-conceives the rational society as based not on some abstract ideal, but in the rationality of everyday discourse.

1 like · like · see review

May 29, 2008 kiran Banerjee rated it 4 of 5 stars

An interesting read, incredibly illuminating for those trying to understand the theoretical underpinnings of Habermas' overall project. However, much like other modern magnum opuses (i.e. Rawls’ Theory of Justice) the work could have been considerably more succinct. The expansive re-hashs and expositions on modern sociology that makes up the majority of the work, while interesting, was far less interesting then the far too brief analysis of the critique of rationalization as part of an emancipat...more

like · see review

Apr 06, 2011 Megan rated it 3 of 5 stars

Equalitative Deliberalism?

like · see review

Mar 14, 2009 Vihiway rated it 5 of 5 stars

seminal stuff

1 like · like · see review

Mar 27, 2008 Marc rated it 4 of 5 stars

How we communicate determines the structure of our lives.

1 like · like · see review

Apr 15, 2007 Dave Ferris rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: theory

I'll be "currently reading" this for the rest of my life...

3 likes · like · see review

May 21, 2013 Manuel Sotomayor rated it 5 of 5 stars

May 21, 2013 Geoff Pettys rated it 3 of 5 stars

May 19, 2013 Chenoa marked it as to-read

May 19, 2013 Dakota rated it 3 of 5 stars

May 18, 2013 Lúcio Fábis marked it as to-read

May 17, 2013 Müge Kuyumcuoğlu marked it as to-read

May 16, 2013 Iffat Sajjad marked it as to-read

May 14, 2013 Calvin Forbes marked it as to-read

May 12, 2013 Chazz rated it 5 of 5 stars

May 11, 2013 José Loza marked it as to-read

May 09, 2013 Legato Darksummers added it

Shelves: daddy-dark-s-baby-warrior-list

May 07, 2013 Kim is currently reading it

May 06, 2013 Rocío Ponce de león marked it as to-read

May 06, 2013 Garrett Busshart marked it as to-read · review of another edition

May 05, 2013 Eduardo marked it as to-read

May 05, 2013 Edcarlos Tiburcio pinheiro marked it as to-read

May 04, 2013 David marked it as to-read

May 03, 2013 Michael A. marked it as to-read

May 02, 2013 Shavit rated it 5 of 5 stars

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 18 19 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Philosophy: Is Habermas the most influential living philosopher?	9	81	16 de May 21:47

combine
Other Editions (4)

Genres

Philosophy

31 users

Sociology

7 users

Non Fiction

4 users

Philosophy > Theory

3 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Jürgen Habermas

Jürgen Habermas is a German sociologist and philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and American pragmatism. He is perhaps best known for his work on the concept of the public sphere, the topic of his first book entitled The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. His work focuses on the foundations of social theory and epistemology, the analysis of advanced capitalistic societies...more

More about Jürgen Habermas...

Books by Jürgen Habermas

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society

The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 2: Lifeword & System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason

Between Facts & Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law & Democracy (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought)

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Theory of Com...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society
avg rating	preview: The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society Goodreads rating: 3.86 (247 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/227157.The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action_Vol_1?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348291397l/227157.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/227157.The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action_Vol_1?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society by Jürgen Habermas[/url]

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website