Lifeworld, System, and Intersubjectivity: Jurgen Habermas’ Communication Theory of Society
Key Terms
- John Dewey
- George Herbert Mead
- Theory of communicative Action
- Social Interaction
- Symbolic Interactionism
- Action theory
- Lifeworld phenomenology
- Hermeneutic analysis
- Conversational analysis
- Ethnomethodology
- Social constructivism
- Dialogism
- Discourse theory
- Recognition theory
- Objects relations theory
- Communication
- Language
- Dialogical Intersubjectivity
- Lifeworld vs System
- Jürgen Habermas
- Social theory
- System
- Lifeworld
- Communication theory of society
- Niklas Luhmann
- Political power
- Civil society
- Dialogs
- Dialectics
- Self Culture Nature
- Self Ritual Reality
- Culture, Society, and Personality
- First Person, Second Person, Third Person
- AQAL Model of Ken wilber’s Integral Theory
Source: Intersubjectivity/ encyclopedia.com
Intersubjectivity
In its most general sense of that which occurs between or exists among conscious human actors, intersubjectivity is little more than a synonym for “the social.” As used by social scientists, however, intersubjectivity usually denotes some set of relations, meanings, structures, practices, experiences, or phenomena evident in human life that cannot be reduced to or comprehended entirely in terms of either subjectivity (concerning psychological states of individual actors) or objectivity (concerning brute empirical facts about the objective world). In this sense, the concept is usually intended to overcome an unproductive oscillation between methodological subjectivism and objectivism. The concept is especially predominant in social theories and theories of the self.
Although German idealist philosophers Johann Fichte (1762–1814) and G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) stressed the importance of intersubjectivity, the concept became influential in the twentieth century through the work of American social psychologist George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). Mead claimed that the development of cognitive, moral, and emotional capacities in human individuals is only possible to the extent that they take part in symbolically mediated interactions with other persons. For Mead, then, ontogenesis is essentially and irreducibly intersubjective. He also put forward a social theory explaining how social norms, shared meanings, and systems of morality arise from and concretize the general structures of reciprocal perspective-taking required for symbolic interaction. In short, he argued that intersubjectivity—understood specifically in terms of linguistically mediated, reflexively grasped social action—furnishes the key to understanding mind, self, and society.
Although the work of Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Ludwig Wittgenstein(1889–1951) was often more directly inspirational, Mead’s bold claim that self and society are irreducibly intersubjective has been rearticulated and supported by many distinct subsequent inter-subjectivist approaches. Action theory, symbolic interactionism, lifeworld phenomenology, hermeneutic analysis, conversational analysis, ethnomethodology, social constructivism, dialogism, discourse theory, recognition theory, and objects relations theory all take inter-subjectivity as central and irreducible. For example, Erving Goffman(1922–1982) insisted that we need a microanalysis of face-to-face interactions in order to properly understand the interpersonal interpretation, negotiation, and improvisation that constitute a society’s interaction order. While macro-and mesostructural phenomena may be important in setting the basic terms of interaction, social order according to Goffman is inexplicable without central reference to agents’ interpretations and strategies in actively developing their own action performances in everyday, interpersonal contexts. Harold Garfinkel and other ethnomethodologists likewise insist that social order is only possible because of the strongly normative character of a society’s particular everyday interaction patterns and norms.
Widely diverse social theorists influenced by phenomenology also center their analyses in intersubjective phenomena and structures. Most prominently, Alfred Schutz (1899–1959) sought to show how the lifeworld of persons—the mostly taken-for-granted knowledge, knowhow, competences, norms, and behavioral patterns that are shared throughout a society—delimits and makes possible individual action and interaction. In particular, he sought to analyze the way in which the constitutive structures of any lifeworld shape social meanings and personal experiences, by attending to the lifeworld’s spatiotemporal, intentional, semantic, and role typifying and systematizing dimensions. Other theories analyze different aspects of the lifeworld: how experience and knowledge is embodied (Maurice Merleau-Ponty), the intersubjective construction of both social and natural reality (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann), the social construction of mind and mental concepts (Jeff Coulter), and the social power and inequalities involved in symbolic capital (Pierre Bourdieu). Finally, Jürgen Habermas emphasizes the linguistic basis of the lifeworld, constructing a theory of society in terms of the variety of types of communicative interaction, the pragmatic presuppositions of using language in order to achieve shared understandings and action coordinations with others, and the role of communicative interaction for integrating society. While acknowledging that some types of social integration function independently of communicative action—paradig-matically economic and bureaucratic systems—Habermas claims that intersubjective communication is fundamental in, and irreplaceable for, human social life.
Diverse prominent theories of the self are united in supporting Mead’s claim that the self is developed and structured intersubjectively. Martin Buber’s (1878–1965) distinction between the different interpersonal attitudes involved in the I-Thou stance and the I-It stance leads to the insight that the development and maintenance of an integral sense of personal identity is fundamentally bound up with the capacity to interact with others from a performative attitude, rather than an objectivating one. Mead’s claim is also developed in diverse theories of the self: Habermas’s account of interactive competence and rational accountability, Axel Honneth’s and Charles Taylor’s theories of interpersonal recognition and identity development, Daniel Stern’s elucidation of the interpersonal world of infants, and psychoanalytic object-relations theories stressing the dependence of the ego on affective interpersonal bonds between self and significant others.
SEE ALSO Bourdieu, Pierre; Goffman, Erving; Habermas, Jürgen; Mead, George Herbert; Other, The
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benjamin, Jessica. 1988. The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination. New York: Pantheon.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Trans. R. Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou. 2nd ed. Trans. Ronald G. Smith. New York: Scribner.
Coulter, Jeff. 1989. Mind in Action. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, Erving. 1983. The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review48 (1): 1–17.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Vol. 1 of The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Individuation through Socialization: On George Herbert Mead’s Theory of Subjectivity. In Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays. Trans. William Mark Hohengarten, 149-204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Trans. Joel Anderson. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964. The Child’s Relations with Others. In The Primacy of Perception, and Other Essays on Phenomenological Psychology, the Philosophy of Art, History, and Politics, ed. James M. Edie, 96-155. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Schutz, Alfred. 1962. The Problem of Social Reality, ed. Maurice Natanson. Vol. 1 of Collected Papers. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schutz, Alfred. 1962. Studies in Phenomenological Philosophy, ed. I. Schutz. Vol. 3 of Collected Papers. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schutz, Alfred. 1962. Studies in Social Theory, ed. Arvid Brodersen. Vol. 2 of Collected Papers. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Stern, Daniel N. 1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winnicott, Donald Woods. 1964. The Child, the Family, and the Outside World.Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
Christopher F. Zurn
Source: JÜRGEN HABERMAS / SEP
Habermas distinguishes the “system” as those predefined situations, or modes of coordination, in which the demands of communicative action are relaxed in this way, within legally specified limits. The prime examples of systemic coordination are markets and bureaucracies. In these systemically structured contexts, nonlinguistic media take up the slack in coordinating actions, which proceeds on the basis of money and institutional power—these media do the talking, as it were, thus relieving actors of the demands of strongly communicative action. The term “lifeworld,” by contrast, refers to domains of action in which consensual modes of action coordination predominate. In fact, the distinction between lifeworld and system is better understood as an analytic one that identifies different aspects of social interaction and cooperation (1991b). “Lifeworld” then refers to the background resources, contexts, and dimensions of social action that enable actors to cooperate on the basis of mutual understanding: shared cultural systems of meaning, institutional orders that stabilize patterns of action, and personality structures acquired in family, church, neighborhood, and school (TCA 1: chap. 6; 1998b, chap. 4).
Habermas’s system-lifeworld distinction has been criticized from a number of perspectives. Some have argued that the distinction oversimplifies the interpenetrating dynamics of social institutions (e.g., McCarthy 1991, 152–80). Others attacked the distinction as covertly ideological, concealing forms of patriarchal and economic domination (e.g., Fraser 1985). Habermas’s attempt to clarify the analytic character of the distinction only goes partway toward answering these criticisms (1991b).
Source: COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY. A SYSTEM – LIFEWORLD COMPATIBILITY OR INCOMPATIBILITY?
3.5. System and Lifeworld
An important subtitle of Habermas’s theory is the concept of “lifeworld”. He used this concept inspired by Husserl (Brand, 1973, p. 143), who first used it in his work “The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology”, and then by Schütz, who brought a new interpretation to the concept. For Husserl, the world of life is a space that exists before theory / science (Schutz, 1962, p.120), includes all entities, arranged in space-time dimensions, and and is the “soil” for all socail human experience (Husserl, 1970; Schutz, 1970, s. 116).
Habermas, on the other hand, thinks that the interactions between people in the lifeworld (Lebenswelt) do not take place in the consciousness of individuals (Husserl 1969: 12), but in a common space. The lifeworld (Habermas, 1971). According to him, one of the places where the negative effects of rationalization underlying modernity, such as cultural transformation, are seen most intensely is the lifeworld, which is an area of interpersonal interaction. Habermas, who attaches great importance to this sphere as the area where social rationalization takes place through language, argues that this area is occupied by the system and its subsystems such as power and money (Habermas, 1984d, Vol II: 318) and shows that this space is not rationalized sufficiently in a communicative sense (Habermas, 1984e Vol. II: 119, 173).
Husserl explains the reason behind his development of the concept of the “lifeworld” as an effort to find a solution to the separation of the objective- scientific field from the subjective lifeworld as the cause of an increasing crisis of meaning in the field of European science.
Habermas, on the other hand, states that he developed the concept of the “lifeworld” against the possible invasion of the private sphere, where agreement- oriented communicative action is carried out, from the system and its subsystems such as power and economy, which operate with reason for success. Because the system and its subsystems has the possibility to occupy private space in conflict situations that prevent his success (Habermas, 1984f II,: 318-331).
This means that, with the concepts of System and Life world, Habermas tries to explain how a two-level social structure can coexist. This effort is in fact the duality such as individual-society, subject-object, theory-practice, nomothetic-idiographic, natural sciences, social sciences and structure-subject, which both philosophy and sociology have worked on and tried to overcome. These oppositions appear, for example, as the opposition of science and social sciences in the Enlightenment, as the opposition of the nation-state, individual- society in the French revolution, and as the product of human development in the technological field in the industrial revolution, the opposition of the acting and transforming subject and the object connected to it.
The opposition Habermas tries to overcome or balance is the opposition of the system, which is the field of material production, and the life world, which is opposed to it and consists of the private and public sphere* where symbolic production is realized. Taking these two concepts together and explaining their contrasts will make the meaning of these concepts for communicative action theory more visible.
Habermas, in his two-strucrured social theory, explains the duality of symbolic and material reproduction of society through the “lifeworld” and “system” concepts.
“System and lifeworld are each evolutionarily and structurally differentiated social spheres, subsystems or even sovereign territories that are either systemically or socially integrated” (Habermas, 1981: 140).
For the structure of modern, differentiated societies, this means that the system and lifeworld exist in them as concretely separated systems of action and can be set in relation to one another (in the sense of: boundaries, primacy, superiority / subordination, mutual penetration interpenetration, mediatization, colonization.
The economy and the state administration are systemically integrated, formally organized sub-systems of purposeful rational action, which are driven by money and power as media of action release. They serve the material reproduction, disturbances of the same are to be understood as system crises or control crises. These systems are subject to the imperatives of increasing complexity. People have official roles and must seek certain goals, even if sometimes with ethical restraints.
The lifeworld on the other hand is the daily world that we share with others. This includes all facets of life, apart from organised or institution-driven ones. For example, family life, culture and informal social exchange. It is the sphere within which we lead much of our social and individual life (Habermas, 1984g, Vol. II: 126). It’s based on a implicit foundation of shared values and understandings. that give us the ability to perform actions that we know others will understand. Thus daily actions that we produce in the lifeworld are generally communicative in nature (Cooke, 1998).
If one follows the thesis of the colonization of the lifeworld, reifying effects only arise when systemically established obligations impose oneself into the lifeworld.
“It is not the uncoupling of media-steered subsystems and of their organizational forms from the lifeworld that leads to the one-sided rationalization or reification of everyday communicative practice, but only the penetration of forms of economic and administrative rationality into areas of action that resist being converted over to the media of money and power because they are specialized in cultural transmission, social integration, and child rearing, and remain dependent on mutual understanding as a mechanism for coordinating action” (Habermas, 1984h, Vol. II: 330).
Habermas’s goal with the rationalization of the lifeworld and the system is the rationalization of both in their own unique way. On the one hand, the structures of the system should become more complex by differentiating, on the other hand, the lifeworld should provide an environment for free and independent communication and ensure that the best arguments are accepted as a result of consensus. According to Habermas, this is a formulation that will ensure that the life-world and the system balance each other and will have a positive effect on their development.
Source: The problem of intersubjectivity in Western philosophy: Boundaries of the communicative approach
Source: The problem of intersubjectivity in Western philosophy: Boundaries of the communicative approach
Source: The problem of intersubjectivity in Western philosophy: Boundaries of the communicative approach
Source: The problem of intersubjectivity in Western philosophy: Boundaries of the communicative approach
Source: The problem of intersubjectivity in Western philosophy: Boundaries of the communicative approach
My Related posts
You can search for these posts using Search Posts feature in the right sidebar.
- Intersubjectivity in Buddhism
- Meditations on Emptiness and Fullness
- Self and Other: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity
- Semiotics and Systems
- Semiotic Self and Dialogic Self
- Phenomenological Sociology
- Phenomenology and Symbolic Interactionism
- Individual Self, Relational Self, and Collective Self
- Individual, Relational, and Collective Reflexivity
- Boundaries and Relational Sociology
- Semiotic Sociology
- Kenneth Burke and Dramatism
- Drama Theory: Choices, Conflicts, and Dilemmas
- Drama Theory: Acting Strategically
- Drama Therapy: Self in Performance
- Dialog and Dialectics
- Erving Goffman: Dramaturgy of Social Life
- Victor Turner’s Postmodern Theory of Social Drama
- Understanding Metatheater
- Society as Communication: Social Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann
- Cybernetics, Autopoiesis, and Social Systems Theory
- Frames in Interaction
Key Sources of Research
On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action.
Habermas, Jürgen (2002).
MIT Press.
Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity in Modern Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: A Study of Sartre, Binswanger, Lacan, and Habermas,
Author Roger Frie
Edition illustrated
Publisher Rowman & Littlefield, 1997
ISBN 0847684164, 9780847684168
Jürgen Habermas
SEP
Intersubjectivity
encyclopedia.com
“TOWARD A RHETORIC OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY: INTRODUCING JÜRGEN HABERMAS.”
Grady, Hugh H., and Susan Wells.
Journal of Advanced Composition 6 (1985): 33–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20865585.
Theory of Communicative Action Vol. II: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason
Jurgen Habermas
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1987)
“Individuation Through Socialization: On George Herbert Mead’s Theory of Subjectivity”
Jurgen Habermas
in Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays, tr. William Mark Hohengarten (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992).
Mind, Self and Society
George H Mead
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934),
‘Basic Concepts in Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action’,
Baxter, Hugh,
Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Redwood City, CA, 2011; online edn, Stanford Scholarship Online, 20 June 2013), https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804769129.003.0002, accessed 29 Aug. 2023.
Abstract
In his Theory of Communicative Action, Jürgen Habermas proposes a theory of “communicative action” and sets it within a concept of society he calls “lifeworld.” In both his Theory of Communicative Action and later in Between Facts and Norms, Habermas describes the “lifeworld” as the basic conception of society, to be amended or supplemented only for cause. In addition, Habermas argues that in the course of social evolution, systems of economic and political action arise whereby action is coordinated by the consequences of self-interested action, rather than consensual understanding. This chapter explores Habermas’s idea of such “systems” based on his reading of Talcott Parsons. It also examines how Habermas integrates the lifeworld and system concepts into his model of system/lifeworld interchange. It argues that the critical model developed by Habermas in Theory of Communicative Action is more functionalist than straightforwardly normative.
‘System, Lifeworld, and Habermas’s “Communication Theory of Society”’,
Baxter, Hugh,
Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Redwood City, CA, 2011; online edn, Stanford Scholarship Online, 20 June 2013), https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804769129.003.0005, accessed 29 Aug. 2023.
Abstract
In his Theory of Communication Action, Jürgen Habermas talks about a “reconstructive social theory which employs a dual perspective”—the perspective of “system” and “lifeworld.” Habermas’s proposed theory “should explain how the reconstructed normative self-understanding of modern legal orders connects with the social reality of highly complex societies.” In developing the “communication theory of society” in which his “discourse theory of law” is to be situated, Habermas departs from his earlier understanding of the relation between system and lifeworld. This chapter explores Habermas’s concepts of system and lifeworld as well as his communication theory of society. It considers his “model of the circulation of political power”, which presents the idea of “civil society” as an elaboration of the lifeworld’s “private sphere.” It also discusses Habermas’s reference to the three “structural components” (culture, society, and personality) and argues that his notion of “system” and “lifeworld” is similar to the post-Parsons “autopoietic” systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Finally, the chapter rejects the concept of lifeworld as separate social sphere.
Intersubjectivity and critical consciousness: Remarks on Habermas’s theory of communicative action.
Wagner, Gerhard & Zipprian, Heinz (1991).
Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 34 (1):49 – 62.
https://philpapers.org/rec/WAGIAC
‘Intersubjectivity – interactionist or discursive? Reflections on Habermas’ critique of Brandom’,
Strydom, P. (2006)
Philosophy and Social Criticism, 32(2), pp. 155-172. doi: 10.1177/0191453706061090
https://cora.ucc.ie/server/api/core/bitstreams/a5f61f06-1bb3-433c-b610-e8a48a950016/content
‘Intersubjectivist Theory and Leadership’,
Fryer, Mick,
Ethics and Organizational Leadership: Developing a Normative Model (Oxford, 2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 May 2011), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590186.003.0005, accessed 30 Aug. 2023.
https://academic.oup.com/book/5664/chapter-abstract/148717682?redirectedFrom=fulltext
This chapter describes Jürgen Habermas’ approach to intersubjectivism, presenting his theories of communicative action and discourse ethics as a response to his own earlier call for a form of rationality that is suited to critical social theory. Some implications that Habermas’ ideas hold for leadership are considered. A number of practical and conceptual challenges to Habermas’ conclusions, which have been offered by writers who broadly share his intersubjectivist commitment, are outlined. These challenges are used to augment the understanding of intersubjectivist leadership already presented. The chapter ends with some general reflections concerning moral philosophy and leadership, which have been garnered from the three chapters of Part II.
A Habermasian perspective on joint meaning making online : what does it offer and what are the difficulties?
Hammond, Michael. (2015)
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10 (3). pp. 223-237.
Click to access WRAP_Habermas%20essay.pdf
Habermas, Critical Theory and Selves-Directed Learning.
O’Donnell, David,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23, No. 4-5, pp. 251-261, 1999, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=818364
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=818364
An alternative way out of the philosophy of the subject: Communicative versus subject-centered reason.
Habermas, J. (1992a).
In D. Ingram & J. Simon-Ingram (Eds.), Critical theory: The essential readings (pp. 273-281). New York, NY: Paragon House.
From Kant to Hegel and back again – The move towards detranscendentalization.
Habermas, J (1999).
European Journal of Philosophy, 7(2): 129-157.
Individuation through socialization: On George Herbert Mead’s theory of subjectivity.
Habermas, J. (1992b).
In Postmetaphysical thinking: Philosophical essays (pp. 149-204). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
On the logic of the social science.
Habermas, J. (1988).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society.
Habermas, J. (1989).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The theory of communicative action, vol. I: Reason and the rationalization of society.
Habermas, J. (1984).
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Kant, I. (2012/1785).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
The Public and Its Problem: Dewey, Habermas, and Levinas
Guoping Zhao
Oklahoma State University
MEAD, HABERMAS, AND LEVINAS: CULTIVATING SUBJECTIVITY IN EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
Guoping Zhao Oklahoma State University
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES IN EDUCATION – 2014/Volume 45
Key Theories of Jürgen Habermas
By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on March 5, 2018
Literary Theory and Criticism
Habermas, Jürgen (1929–)
William Outhwaite, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015
Communicative Action
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/communicative-action
The basic categories of Habermas’s theory are, then, those of a broadly conceived sociological theory of action, which, however, also incorporates social historical and system-theoretical, as well as structuralist elements. Although he borrows some concepts from Talcott Parsons (Holmwood, 2009) and often mentions Niklas Luhmann, his conception is closer to those of Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens (Outhwaite, 2015).
What Habermas (1987b: 553) stresses is that system theories and theories of action ‘isolate and overgeneralize’ aspects of modernity (system and lifeworld, respectively). When, here and elsewhere, he emphasizes the role of language, he does not intend to reduce “social action to the interpretive accomplishments of participants in communication … assimilating action to speech, interaction to conversation” (Habermas, 1987a: 143). This is rather the way in which action is ‘coordinated.’
Intersubjectivity and interculturality: a conceptual link
Author: Xiaodong Dai
Date: Jan. 2010
From: China Media Research(Vol. 6, Issue 1)
Publisher: Edmondson Intercultural Enterprises
Intersubjectivity reflects the condition of all human existence and constitutes the basis of social communication. Interculturality opens up new social space and constitutes the largest and most productive platform for intercultural dialogue. This paper attempts to define intersubjectivity and interculturality, interpret their implications and analyze how they interact with each other. Intersubjectivity refers to the interpersonal connection between individuals who are attuned to one another and construct social relations. The polysemic nature of intersubjectivity suggests that it not only embodies mutuality and consensuses but also disagreements and tensions. In like manner, interculturality refers to the complex connection between cultures whose members negotiate to reach agreements and achieve reciprocal interactions. It implies commonalities and similarities as well as differences, contrasts and conflicts. Intersubjectivity and interculturality share a similar structure, but have different operational mechanisms. The key difference lies in their frames of reference. With more exposure to other culture/cultures, communicators can broaden their horizons, reduce cultural distance and further transform intersubjectivity into interculturality. In establishing interculturality, they need to be open to other cultures and transcend monocultural ways of thinking. Key words: intersubjectivity, transformation, interculturality
Communication as analytical unit in Luhmann and Habermas
Sergio Pignuoli-Ocampo1
1Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas y Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. (CONICET-UBA-IIGG). spignuoli@conicet.gov.ar
Convergencia vol.24 no.73 Toluca ene./abr. 2017
Reconstructive Social Theory: Habermas, Bhaskar, and Caillé
- 16th November 2016
This is a guest blog post by Professor Frederic Vandenberghe of Sociology in the Institute of Social and Political Studies at the State University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Frederic is a leading expert in the field of Critical Realism. He has been working on CR and the social sciences since 1994 when he completed his doctorate in Sociology from Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales. His work operates at the intersection of philosophy and sociology with a special interest in hermeneutics, phenomenology, and critical realism. He recently published a series of essays in a book titled, “What’s Critical about Critical Realism? Essays in Reconstructive Social Theory”.
This is Part 1 of 4 in a blog post series by Professor Frederic Vandenberghe on Reconstructive Sociology.
Critical Realism Network
Intersubjectivity and contemporary social theory: the everyday as critique.
Feather, H. (2000).
(Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London)
A Hybrid Human-Neurorobotics Approach to Primary Intersubjectivity via Active Inference.
Chame HF, Ahmadi A and Tani J (2020)
Front. Psychol.11:584869. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584869
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584869/full
The Confluence of Intersubjectivity and Dialogue in Postmodern Organizational Workgroups
Shuster, D. J. (2006).
(Thesis, Concordia University, St. Paul). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cbt_graduate/1
Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming.
Crossley, N. (1996).
London: Sage.
The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity.
Gallese, V. (2003).
Psychopathology, 36, 171-180.
Toward a rhetoric of intersubjectivity: Introducing Jürgen Habermas.
Grady, H. H. & Wells, S. (1985, June).
JAC. Retrieved March 25, 2005 at http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/6/Articles/3.htm
Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.).
Habermas, J. (1981b).
In The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Boston: Beacon.
Preface.
In N. H. Harwood & M. Pines (Eds.). Self experiences in group: Intersubjective and self psychological pathways to human understanding.
Harwood, N. H. (1998).
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life.
Issacs, W. (1999).
New York: Doubleday.
Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience.
Prus, R. C. (1996).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Contexts and connections: An intersubjective systems approach to couples therapy.
Shaddock, D. (2000).
New York: Basic Books.
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Intersubjectivity: A new way of thinking about evolutionary theory.
Wheeler, G. (2000, November).
[Presentation at] Evolutionary Theory: An Esalen Invitational Conference. Retrieved on March 25, 2005 at: http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=104&pgtype=1
Husserl and transcendental intersubjectivity: A response to the linguistic-pragmatic critique
Zahavi, D. (2001a).
(E. A. Behnke, Trans.). Athens, OH: Ohio UP.
Phenomenology and the problems of intersubjectivity.
Zahavi, D. (2001b).
In S. Crowell, L. Embree, & S. J. Julian (Eds.), The Reach of Reflection: Issues for Phenomenology’s Second Century. Purchased and downloaded at: http://www.electronpress.com
Individuation through socialization: George Herbert Mead‟s theory of subjectivity.
Habermas, J. (1995).
In J. Habermas (ed.), Postmetapysical Thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 149-204.
Some further clarifications of the concept of communicative rationality.
Habermas, J. (1996).
In J. Habermas (ed.), On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 307-342.
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.
Habermas, J. (1997).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Introduction: Realism after the Linguistic Turn.
Habermas, J. (2003).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (2008), Truth and Justification. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 1-51.
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Goffman, E. (1971).
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Reflections on the linguistic foundation of sociology: The Christian Gauss lecture.
Habermas, J. (1971).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (2001), On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 3-103.
Wahrheitstheorien.
Habermas, J. (1972).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (1984), Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 27-183.
Reflections on communicative pathology.
Habermas, J. (1974a).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (2001), On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 131-170.
Können komplexe Gesellschaften eine vernünftige Identität ausbilden?,
Habermas, J.(1974b).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (1976), Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 92-126.
Introduction: Some difficulties in the attempt to link theory and praxis.
Habermas, J. (1974c).
In J. Habermas (ed.), Theory and Practice. London: Heinemann. pp. 1-40. Forchtner Page |36
Towards a reconstruction of historical materialism.
Habermas, J. (1975).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society. Heinemann: London. pp. 130- 177.
Habermas, J. (1976a). Überlegungen zum evolutionären Stellenwert des Rechts. In J. Habermas (ed.), Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 260-267.
What is Universal Pragmatics?
Habermas, J. (1976b).
In J. Habermas (ed.) (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann. pp. 1-68.
A reply to my critics.
Habermas, J. (1982).
In J.B. Thompson and D. Held (eds.), Habermas: Critical Debates.
London/Basingstoke: MacMillan Press. pp. 219-283.
The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society.
Habermas, J. (1984).
London: Heinemann.
The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. II: Lifeworld and System.
Habermas, J. (1987).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures.
Habermas, J. (1990).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
The Gulf War: Catalyst for a new German normalcy.
Habermas, J. (1993).
In M. Pensky (ed.), The Past as Future. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 5-31.
Kollektive Lernprozesse: Studien zur Grundlegung einer Soziologischen Lerntheorie.
Miller, M. (1986).
Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Some theoretical aspects of systematic learning.
Miller, M. (2002).
Click to access systemic_learning.pdf
Accessed 04.03.2007.
Jürgen Habermas’ Language- Philosophy and the Critical Study of Language
BERNHARD FORCHTNER Lancaster University b.forchtner@lancaster.ac.uk
Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines
2010
http://cadaad.net/ejournal Vol 4 (1): 18 – 37 ISSN: 1752-3079
The Social Construction of Reality,
Berger, L., and Luckmann, T.
London: Penguin University Books, 1967.
Communication and the Evolution of Society,
Habermas, J.
London: Heinemann, 1979.
The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas,
McCarthy, T.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1978.
A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms,
Ouchi, W. G.
Management Science (25:9), September 1979, pp. 833-848.
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language,
Searle, J. R.
London: The Cambridge University Press, 1969.
“Reconstructing Freire, extending Habermas: The contribution of critical pedagogy to communicative action and the possibility of democracy.”
Blok, Joel,
(2004). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3281.
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/3281
Habermas and Ricœur on Recognition: Toward a New Social Humanism
Vinicio Busacchi
Associate Professor of Theoretical Philosophy University of Cagliari
Via Is Mirrionis 1 – 09100
Cagliari, Italy
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 5, No. 2; February 2015
The Phenomenology of the Social World,
Schütz, A. (1967).
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Symbolic Interactionism,
Blumer, H. (1969).
Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Intersubjectivity from Hegel to the Present,
Christian Lotz,
Michigan State University, Fall 2006
“Intersubjectivity: From mute eidos to verbose world being”
Whitmer, Barbara J.,
(1985). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5461.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5461
PHIL 310: Critical Social Theory
Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Actions: The Foundation of Sociological Theory
Instructor: Chris Latiolais
PHIL 310: Critical Social Theory
Kalamazoo College
https://philosophy.kzoo.edu/philosophy-syllabi/phil-310/
The system-lifeworld coupling imperative in Jürgen Habermas apropos his critique of Talcott Parsons.
Comunicación [online]. 2021, vol.30, n.1, pp.17-32. ISSN 1659-3820.
Critical social philosophy, Honneth and the role of primary intersubjectivity
Somogy Varga and Shaun Gallagher
European Journal of Social Theory 2012 15: 243 DOI: 10.1177/1368431011423606
The practice of mind: Theory, simulation, or interaction?
Gallagher S (2001)
Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7): 83–107.
How the Body Shapes the Mind.
Gallagher S (2005)
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Two problems of intersubjectivity.
Gallagher S (2009)
Journal of Consciousness Studies 16(6–8): 289–308.
The overextended mind.
Gallagher S (2011)
Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici 113–15: 55–66.
Mental institutions.
Gallagher S and Crisafi A (2009)
Topoi 28(1): 45–51.
Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice.
Gallagher S and Hutto D (2008).
In: Zlatev J, Racine T, Sinha C, and Itkonen E (eds) The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–38.
The earliest sense of self and others: Merleau-Ponty and recent developmental studies.
Gallagher S and Meltzoff A N (1996)
Philosophical Psychology 9: 211–33.
The Phenomenological Mind.
Gallagher S and Zahavi D (2008)
London: Routledge.
Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition.
De Jaegher H and Di Paolo E (2007)
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6(4): 485–507.
Minding the Body: Interacting Socially through Embodied Action.
Lindblom J (2007)
Linko ̈ping: Linko ̈ping Studies in Science and Technology, Dissertation No. 1112.
Intersubjectivity before language: Three windows on preverbal sharing.
Meltzoff A N and Brooks R (2007)
In: Bra ̊ten S (ed.) On Being Moved: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 149–74.
The self born in intersubjectivity: An infant communicating.
Trevarthen C (1993)
In: Neisser U (ed.) The Perceived Self: Ecological and Interpersonal Sources of Self-Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press, 121–73.
The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity.
Trevarthen C (1998)
In Bra ̊ten S (ed.) Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–46.
Origins of musical identity: Evidence from infancy for musical social aware-ness.
Trevarthen C (2002)
In: MacDonald R A R, Hargreaves D J, and Miell D (eds) Musical Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–38.
Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year.
Trevarthen C and Hubley P (1978)
In: Lock A (ed.) Action, Gesture, and Symbol: The Emergence of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 183–227.
Consciousness in infants.
Trevarthen C and Reddy V (2007)
In: Velman M and Schneider S (eds) A Companion to Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell, 41–57.
Critique of Positivism, Hermeneutics and Communicative Reason in Habermas
Paulo Vitorino Fontes
University of the Azores
META: RESEARCH IN HERMENEUTICS, PHENOMENOLOGY, AND PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. XIII, NO. 2 / DECEMBER 2021: 443-461, ISSN 2067-3655, www.metajournal.org
Logic of Intersubjective Limits within Habermas’ Community
(or Why We Should Not Be a Unified Whole)
Tatiana Weiser
associate Professor, Russian Presidential academy of National economy and Public administration
address: Prospect vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, Russian Federation 119571
e-mail: tianavaizer@yandex.ru
Click to access RusSocRev_13_4_Special_05_Weiser.pdf
The Emancipative Theory of Jürgen Habermas and Metaphysics
Robert Peter Badillo
Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series I. Culture and Values, Volume 13
The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy
The Philosophical Significance
of Binary Categories in Habermas’s Discourse Ethics
By Simon SuSen
Sociological Analysis
Volume 3, Number 2, Autumn 2009
Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication
Loet Leydesdorff *
Science & Technology Dynamics, Department of Communication Studies
Oude Hoogstraat 24, 1012 EC Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17(3) (2000) 273-288
https://www.leydesdorff.net/montreal.htm
CHAPTER 4
Habermas’s Communicative Rationality
Diversity and Transcultural Ethics
“Communication, Democratization, and Modernity: Critical Reflections on Habermas and Dewey,”
Published in edited version as Robert J. Antonio and Douglas Kellner,
Habermas, Pragmatism, and Critical Theory, special section of Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 15, Nr. 3 (Fall 1992), 277-298.
EMPATHY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND OF SOCIAL LIFE: a reading of Husserl’s phenomenology of transcendental intersubjectivity
Frédéric Vandenberghe*
Sociedade e Estado, Brasília, v. 17, n. 2, p. 563-585, jul./dez. 2002
NEW SOCIAL PARADIGM: HABERMAS’S THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
UDC: 316.286:316.257
Ljubiša Mitrović
Faculty of Philosophy, Niš
UNIVERSITY OF NIŠ
The scientific journal FACTA UNIVERSITATIS
Series: Philosophy and Sociology Vol.2, No 6/2, 1999 pp. 217 – 223
Editor of Special issue: Dragoljub B. Đorđević
Address: Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, YU
Tel: +381 18 547-095, Fax: +381 18-547-950
“Foucault and Habermas.”
Ingram, David.
In The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (2nd revised edition), ed. G. Gutting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 240-83.
Communicative versus Strategic Rationality: Habermas Theory of Communicative Action and the Social Brain.
Schaefer M, Heinze H-J, Rotte M, Denke C (2013)
PLoS ONE 8(5): e65111. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065111
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666968/
Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Etherealization
Reviewed by Eugene Rochberg-Halton, University of Notre Dame
Symbolic Interaction, Volume 12, Number 2, pages 333-360. 1989
https://philarchive.org/archive/HALROH-11
Intersubjectivity in the lifeworld
Meaning, cognition, and affect
Barbara Fultner | Denison University
Part of Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language
Edited by Ad Foolen, Ulrike M. Lüdtke, Timothy P. Racine and Jordan Zlatev
[Consciousness & Emotion Book Series 6] 2012
► pp. 197–220
Published online: 12 April 2012
https://doi.org/10.1075/ceb.6.08ful
https://benjamins.com/catalog/ceb.6.08ful
https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027274915
Adequate accounts of intersubjectivity must recognise that it is a social, cognitive, and affective phenomenon. I draw on Jürgen Habermas’ formal-pragmatic theory of meaning and of the lifeworld as an alternative to phenomenological approaches. However, his conception of the lifeworld reflects a cognitivist bias. Intersubjectivity cannot be adequately conceptualised merely in terms of our mutual accountability and exchange or reasons; the affective dimension of our social interactions must also be recognised. I propose to redress this shortcoming by taking account of empirical research on intersubjectivity, joint attention, and attachment. This leads me to suggest supplementing the three Habermasian validity claims to truth, normative rightness, and sincerity with a fourth, a claim to attachment, which fits with understanding the earliest infant interactions in terms of altercentric participation. Since an adequate account of the social nature of linguistic communication must do justice not only to the lifeworld as a shared background of intelligibility, but also as a background against which differences in point of view are articulated, I conclude with a brief look at the ontogeny of perspective. Keywords: lifeworld; intersubjectivity; validity claims; attachment; cognition; affect; perspective; J. Habermas; M. Merleau-Ponty
https://benjamins.com/catalog/ceb.6
The close relationship between motion (bodily movement) and emotion (feelings) is not an etymological coincidence. While moving ourselves, we move others; in observing others move – we are moved ourselves. The fundamentally interpersonal nature of mind and language has recently received due attention, but the key role of (e)motion in this context has remained something of a blind spot. The present book rectifies this gap by gathering contributions from leading philosophers, psychologists and linguists working in the area. Framed by an introducing prologue and a summarizing epilogue (written by Colwyn Trevarthen, who brought the phenomenological notion of intersubjectivity to a wider audience some 30 years ago) the volume elaborates a dynamical, active view of emotion, along with an affect-laden view of motion – and explores their significance for consciousness, intersubjectivity, and language. As such, it contributes to the emerging interdisciplinary field of mind science, transcending hitherto dominant computationalist and cognitivist approaches.
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY.
A SYSTEM – LIFEWORLD COMPATIBILITY OR INCOMPATIBILITY?
Öğretim Görevlisi AHMET KÜÇÜK
Düzce Üniversitesi, Yabancı Diller ABD
ahmetkucuk@duzce.edu.tr, 0000-0001-7802-7236
Doç. Dr. OSMAN ÖZKUL
Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyoloji ABD,
oozkul@sakarya.edu.tr, 0000-0002-0418-7007
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2063199
The problem of intersubjectivity in Western philosophy: Boundaries of the communicative approach
Oksana Somova & Pavel Vladimirov
Click to access coas.e-conf.06.08001s-text.pdf
Jürgen Habermas (1929—)
IEP
Viewpoints which Matter 