On the pragmatics of communication
So far we have explored the notion of communicative action developed by Habermas in which the tension between recognising the importance and the influence of the subjective perspective within a sociopolitical context where some level of shared understandings exists, is vital.
Habermas (1986:35) claims an overtly political position in relation to communicative action:
“communicative action stands in correspondence to the suppression of man's own nature. The institutional framework determines the extent of repression by the unreflected, 'natural' force of social dependence and political power, which is rooted in prior history and tradition Emancipation for the compulsion of internal nature succeeds to the degree that institutions based on force are replaced by an organisation of social relations that is bound only to communication free from domination.”
(Habermas: 1986).
The next stage of exploring the ideas put forward by Habermas is to think carefully about why any communication should be considered to have validity or truth. In this section we will look at some of the details found within Habermas' theory of communication. Here you will come across a number of specific terms that Habermas uses to describe communication.
Aspects of communicative action:
- the functions
- the elements
- the aims
- validity claims.