PHILOSOPHY

April 17, 2010

Critical Theory

Jürgen Habermas

Disentanglement of Reason from Terror

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929) is an ardent champion of rationalism in a period of philosophy wherein rationalism has lost certain credibility. During the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century Europe, the spirit of the time inspired many Europeans to believe that, for the first time in history, humans through the power of reason are grasping the expanding truths of science and natural rights of man, and that these truths will free mankind from ignorance, dogma, and tyranny. They firmly held that the new individuals of the age of science are now equipped with reason and theories that can be put into practice in order to reform or eliminate the social and political institutions which are based upon false ideas, superstitions, and prejudices. The vision of the Enlightenment was the reconstruction of the human world, through reason, in order to serve the natural law of “progress”. They looked ahead to a bright future for all humanity, which they thought is guaranteed by the necessary natural law of progress. They deemed the natural law of progress as the natural law of human reason to discover scientific truths about nature and turn this expanding knowledge into practice in the form of technology for the benefit of humanity, and to discover truths about human nature and to turn these truths into practice in the form of reforming or overturning social institutions. Never before had human beings been so confident in their knowledge of physical nature, human nature, morality, and politics. With a great sense of optimism, they believed they could rebuild the social and political world on a foundation of universal truths. They believed they were, or would be soon, in command of all the knowledge necessary to improve the world. But, today, we are less confident that we have the knowledge to solve the problems of poverty, hunger, unemployment, healthcare, drugs, population control, racial conflicts, economic inflation, recession, energy, water, and global warming. Have we lost our Enlightenment heritage of optimism?

§1. Critical Theory

Jürgen Habermas, as a great defender of the Enlightenment dream of renovating the human world through reason, ventured to reformulate a pre-existing theory known as the “critical theory” – a theory whose interest is in the practical, not just theoretical, emancipation of human beings. German philosopher Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), a pioneer of this theory, under whom Habermas had studied, stated in his Critical Theory (Kritische Theorie) that a theory is vital or critical to the degree it endeavors “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them”. Critical theory is based on and builds upon philosophy of Karl Marx. Indeed, the critical theory’s longing to liberate human beings in practice is reminiscent not only of Marx’s assertion, “The philosophers have so far only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it”, but also of the Enlightenment idea to reconstruct the human world. Thereupon, Habermas is critically interested in human liberation from unnecessary life sufferings. There is a significant difference between living a relatively healthy life and dying at age of 85 – and unnecessarily living in abject poverty and dying at age of 5. In concocting his theory, Habermas asserted that the human species has three fundamental (or critical) interests: in labor, communication, and emancipation. He insisted that these fundamental interests are so essential and vital that we cannot meaningfully subsist without them.

§2. Fundamental Human Interests: Labor, Communication, and Emancipation

He commenced his critical theory by making a distinction between labor and communication. The first fundamental interest of the human species is in reproducing their lives through labor (or work). The second fundamental interest of the human species is in communication (or interaction) with one another. Without these deeply seated interests in labor and communication, social bonds would disintegrate and society would parasitically consume itself. For Habermas, the formation of human self takes place in the spheres of both labor and communication within social context. However, he construed the communicative dimension of human interactions as having a primary role in development of human self, since he was of the conviction that we become selves in our interaction with other selves. In this context, if an individual is incapable of adequately communicating with others and incapable of psychologically and morally benefiting from her or his productive activities, the individual would be vulnerable to self-deficiency. Human development is significantly contingent on how human beings externalize their creativity in their labor and how they interact with others. Besides labor and communication, Habermas asserted that the human race has a third fundamental interest: the critical interest in human emancipation, in human liberation from unnecessary constraints to their psychophysical and moral development. Indeed, a society that does not embody these three rudimentary factors in its composition would be in a state of disintegration, and the members of such a society would become alienated from their own selves, each another, and their social situation. One wonders that to what degree the United States has incorporated the three fundamental factors in its institutions of labor, mass communication, and so forth.

§3. Instrumental Rationality and Communicative Rationality

Next, Habermas made a distinction between “instrumental rationality” (or instrumental reason) and “communicative rationality” (or communicative reason). Each mode of rationality is governed by a specific set of values that defines its unique functions, operations, and goals. Generally employed in diverse ways in spheres such as science, technology, medicine, healthcare, human labor, legislation, social engineering, economics and politics, instrumental reason is a particular kind of human reason that is instrumental toward producing a specified, isolated result. For instance, in the realm of science, human reason has contrived investigative methods that are instrumental toward finding causes of natural phenomena. In the realm of politics, human reason has produced governmental agencies and policies that are instrumental in running the affairs of the state. Or, in the sphere of human labor – where current dominant values are efficiency and profit – human mind, through use of science in service of technology, has devised tools such as hammers or computers that are instrumental in producing certain products and services. In its obstinate pursuit of its objectives, instrumental reason is often insensate to moral, environmental, social, economic, and/or political concerns, just to name a few. Therefore, instrumental reason is characteristically unperceptive to the long-term consequences of its objectives in terms of morality, environment, society, economics, and/or politics. Further, instrumental reason is more monological than dialogical, and more unilateral than multilateral in its thinking process toward accomplishment of its individuated goals. (See http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/totalitarian-reason/ for a more thorough treatment of “instrumental rationality”.)

On the other hand, communicative reason, commonly exercised in the spheres of the humanities (i.e., branches of knowledge, such as arts, literature, and philosophy, that are concerned with human thought and culture) and ethics, is dialogical and interactional endeavor, in contrast to instrumental reason which is more monological and productional. Communicative reason, with its own specific set of values, is a mode of human thinking geared toward interaction with one another and enlightenment. Generally, in the Western world, instrumental reason has had a contributory role toward socio-economico-political progress while communicative reason has been contributive toward humanistic progress of culture and civilization.

§4. Communication and Labor

According to Habermas, the sentences that we utter, even from an early age, fundamentally have built into them a desire (or tendency) for consensus or unconstrained understanding. When a person speaks a sentence (e.g., “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.”), it has built into it the desire that others understand the person. In other words, our sentences already contain the “critical” impulse, i.e., the fundamental human interest in communication. Habermas insists that the fundamental human desire for clear communication, for the sake of understanding one another, is embedded in the structure of phonetic languages. Emphasizing the fundamental human interest in clear and unobstructed communication with one another, Habermas made a contrast between “undistorted communication” and systematically “distorted communication”.

§5. Undistorted Communication

Habermas laid out a series of stipulations for undistorted communication. According to the first stipulation, truly undistorted communication must have “symmetry conditions”. In political terms, it means that everyone must have an equal opportunity to talk and to listen, to question and to receive an answer, to command and to obey. This symmetrical communication is an egalitarian principle, without which the possibility of undistorted communication among various parties becomes knotty or labyrinthine. When an employer or government holds power over powerless employees or citizens respectively, the inequality of power between them creates a condition for distorted communication. Unequal power distorts communication. This is why employees seldom get the undistorted truth from their employers, and employers seldom get the undistorted truth from their employees. The same also applies between a powerless wife and her powerful husband or vice versa; their communication is often distorted by relations of unequal powers. To be communicatively rational, everyone must have the same right to speak and to be heard, to question and to receive an answer, to command and to obey.

The philosopher Socrates owned nothing and was virtually in no position of power in the ancient Athens. Yet, his charm was that when he engaged in an argument with an interlocutor who had power (either of political nature or of social status) over him, Socrates would compel him to depend solely on the force of his argument, as opposed to his political power or social status. In other words, this was no situation where “might is right”. The only force that Habermas wants us to recognize is the unforced force of communicatively rational argument, as opposed to brute power or money. A free human being is one who can change his or her mind upon hearing a better argument – without feeling any shame. When a judicious argument has the force to make one see the weakness of one’s own argument and change one’s mind in accordance to it, this is the force that only a free human being can recognize.

According to the second stipulation, to achieve undistorted communication, one’s contribution in communicating with others should be true, sincere, and relevant. The third stipulation, in attainment of undistorted communication, is a moral condition – that one must try to make one’s contributions toward advancement of a right cause or what is right. Here, there is no theory of “right” other than being true, sincere, and relevant.

§6. Distorted Communication

The critical interest in human emancipation from unnecessary constraints to human development entails freeing ourselves from both the distortions of instrumental reason (as employed, for example, in the practice of human labor) and the distortions of communicative reason (as employed, for instance, in communicating or interacting with each other within the context of the humanities, ethics, or human labor). In other words, our survival fundamentally pivots around liberating ourselves from distorted communication and fostering humane practices of labor. Is it the case that the American labor force – whose labor conditions are alienable and not as humane as they seem – has managed to subsist so far because of the mass communication industry which actively distorts laborers’ perceptions of their own misery and compels them to pacify themselves with pacifiers such as consumer goods and services? In a nation where capital is of utmost value and where perpetual mass consumption of goods and services vitally sustain the heartbeat of the nation, there may not be any other way.

Habermas’ concept of distorted communication corresponds to Karl Marx’s concept of “ideology”: the ruling ideas are in every age the ideas of the ruling class – connoting that, the ruling ideas of the ruling class are ideologies that are purposefully devised to impoverish the masses and to maintain the elite in positions of power. Further, Habermas’ concept of distorted communication passes the test of ideology by asking: Is what you believe – in the interest of those who want you to believe it? For instance, one can take “democracy” as it exists in the United States. The powerful – those who own and control the means of production, communication, information, and dissemination – want the citizens to blindly believe that democracy is a present and immanent reality in this nation. Yet, American democracy and its exportation around the globe, under the banner of freedom, is an outstanding example of systematically distorted communication – as our existing democracy gutlessly backstabs the principle of having a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. As another example, one can take Ronald Regan who praised “solidarity” in America, yet he was wary of labor unions – which for many years had contributed to prosperity of the working class and wage increases. “Work ethics” in America is another striking example of systematically distorted communication. In reality, work ethics in America is not so ethical at all – for it is an ideology or sets of codes of conduct that are systematically designed to manipulate and deprive the working class for the sake of benefiting the capitalists. The American work ethics – which has been so cunningly and subconsciously embedded in the minds of the American working class – has deprived them of their leisure, dignity, humanity, family, health, and etc. – and all this serves the interest of those who own the means of production, communication, information, and dissemination. Do you think a capitalist boss is ready and willing to engage in “undistorted communication” with his employees?

§7. Interpretive Basis of Communication

For his communication model, Habermas employed an interpretive base. One way the humanities employ communicative reason to advance clear communication is through interpretation of texts. Habermas highly stressed the critical role of interpretation in our daily lives. A great many people have suffered grim consequences because of interpreting a certain text in a certain way. Consider the Bible: reading and interpreting it in certain ways have sent a great many people to their deaths. Or, take the U.S. Constitution. According to the First Amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What if one decides to exercise a religion of human sacrifice because the text says that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]”? The Constitution must mean that; “no law” means no law! The point is that interpretation of text is quite indispensible and consequential in our lives. Habermas insists that we are interpretive beings, with the implication that interpretation is, perhaps, one of the fundamental conditions for formation of the human self. We are always interpreting our and others’ physical and mental states. Am I sad or cheerful, displeased or pleased, chubby or skinny? When we stop at a red traffic light, we are already engaged in an act of interpreting the color red. The color red can have many other meanings: danger, communist, sexy, or etc. When we perceive smoke rising from behind a building, we immediately interpret the smoke as having been caused by a fire. People who have been married for over thirty years still keep interpreting each other’s moods and behaviors. This demonstrates the ubiquity of interpretation in human life. (And, one may add to this that perhaps it is the television shows that interpret themselves to the viewers by bypassing the upper brain functions and directly injecting information into their subconscious minds. In other words, the viewers may not get to interpret the images on television screens; the images interpret or define the viewers.) Hence, Habermas’ theory of communication has an interpretive foundation.

In order to overcome systematically distorted communication, Habermas adopted Freud’s psychoanalytic method of removing problematic symptoms. Freud’s method of removal of symptoms was practiced in a setting where you have an analyst and a patient, wherein the latter “free associates” or reveals her or his train of thoughts while the analyst closely listens. In this setting, the goal is practical, that is, to cure the patient and to remove the symptoms. Further, for Freud, the way the analyst can bring the analysis or therapy of the patient to a conclusion is when the therapist intervenes by presenting a possible interpretation of the symptoms to which both the therapist and the patient are in agreement. In this manner, the psychoanalyst helps the patient to remove her or his own blocks to communication between his or her unconscious and conscious mind. This is the Freudian psychoanalytic method that Habermas adopted, with modifications, in removing blocks or ideologies that distort clear communication between various parties, let’s say between the citizens and their government or between those who own the means of productions and those who work for those who own the means of productions. A capitalist boss may never acquiesce to engage in undistorted communication with her or his employees; however, her or his employees’ enlightened consciousness of their own dehumanizing labor conditions would make it difficult for the boss not to submit.

§8. Distortion of Reason is not a Paradox of Reason

Habermas was cognizant of how instrumental reasoning led to mechanization of human life since the Enlightenment onward, and the blow instrumental reason received as a result of the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 20th century. Nevertheless, in his passionate attempt to defend human reason, he tried to mark off a sphere of undistorted communication that can serve as the basis for his concept of communicative reason. His purpose was to untangle the entwinement of enlightened thought and the paradoxical barbarity that has been unfolding since the advent of modernity. The grand vision of the Enlightenment – through its unwavering trust in human reason – was the emancipation of mankind from oppression, yet paradoxically the Enlightenment led to a new form of oppression, irrationality, mechanization of human life, bureaucratization of human societies, totalitarianism of governing powers, and dogmatization of sciences. The promoters of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire and Rousseau, could not predict an outcome so contrary to human reason. To Habermas, the failures of reason in events such as the rise of communism, fascism, the Cold War, the U.S. war against terrorism, or the fall beneath the level of civilization reached by capitalism – are not indicative of hypocrisy of the Enlightenment dream and of human reason. He attributed such failures to the distortions of reason and communication. According to Habermas, the trick is not to give up on modern life, but to disentangle enlightenment from terror and barbarism. Undoubtedly, modernity has given mankind certain benefits; it is better to have toothache in 2010 than in 1710. It would be imprudent to throw out the advancements of modernity with the distortions of communication. In other words, it is not human reason that we must abandon, but its distortions.

In conclusion, Habermas insists that “communicative rationality” is a process of enlightenment that includes all: janitors and senators. In his Theory and Practice, Habermas stated, “in a process of enlightenment there can only be participants.” Money and power, as abstract systems, need to be harmonized with the rest of our social system before we can be in a position to truly communicate with one another rationally without distortions, and be in a position to find our way out of this entwinement of enlightenment and terror. Habermas thought that such a possibility exits.

Dear reader, this article by itself may not make full sense. Therefore, I strongly suggest that for a better understanding of this article see my previous articles listed below:

1) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/individualism/

2) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/modernity/

3) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/the-sickness-unto-death/

4) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/becoming-humanly/

5) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/totalitarian-reason/

6) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/the-disappearance-of-human/

7) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/disappearance-of-the-social/

(Dear reader, please feel free to make a critique of this article. I look forward to learning from you!)

April 14, 2010

Totalitarian Reason

Herbert Marcuse

One-Dimensional Rationality

German philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1798-1979) was a notable critic of modernity. He perceived a certain contradiction or crisis that has always been brewing at the core of modernity – of the modern Western world having been rationalized, technologized, and bureaucratized. (See http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/modernity/ for a more thorough treatment of “modernity”.) Modernity grew out of the 18th century Enlightenment’s ideals to free the human mind from adherence to prejudice, superstition, church dogma, and monarchical tyranny. According to the eminent German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), daring to think for oneself or daring to use one’s own reason was the fundamental principle of the Enlightenment. The patrons of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire (1694-1778), firmly held that the new individuals of the age of science are equipped with reason and theories that can be put into practice in order to reform or remove the corrupt social and political institutions. The grandiose vision of the Enlightenment was to reconstruct the human world – through the use of reason, science, and technology – in order to serve the natural law of “progress”: that human reason can discover scientific truths about the natural world and human nature, and turn these bodies of knowledge into practice in forms of technology and social reform for the benefit of humanity. The Enlightenment excelled the rise of science, technology, secularization, industrialization, and capitalism to demystify the world. However, according to Marcuse, the attempt to make the world transparent to rational human reason was pregnant with a crisis, a paradox. The paradox of the Enlightenment project is that it has had inadvertent consequences: dogmatic scientism, totalitarianism, and irrationality.

The more science did housecleaning of the traditional religious views, the more technology innovated machines to make human life convenient, and the more industrialization and capitalism implemented the technological innovations to mechanize productions – the more convoluted and complex our lives became. Furthermore, the more refined and less dogmatic science became and the more people became convinced that science in service of technology can change us and our world for the better – the more dogmatic people became about science and its findings, for they neither have the time nor the knowhow to scrutinize them. Hence, this attitude, abreast of the idea of “progress”, gave birth to “scientism”: the belief that the investigative methods of science are justifiably applicable to various areas of human life. Here, of course, Marcuse’s point is not to depreciate the instrumental value of science, but to point out its limitations and ramifications.

According to Marcuse, we have constructed a human intellect powerful enough to unravel the mysteries of the natural world, but any intellect that powerful has a tendency to be tyrannical! While it is true that science and technology have helped us to procure the knowhow to deal with certain areas of human life (such as medical pathology and cure), it may not be a fair assessment that the progress of the Enlightenment project has made us less fearful and unsecure in the face of the modern predicaments and uncertainties. We are still wrestling with the problems of poverty, hunger, unemployment, healthcare, drugs, population control, racial conflicts, political uncertainty, economic inflation, recession, energy, water, and global warming. What is paradoxical about the Enlightenment’s tenacious confidence in human reason is that it has turned into a force of mystification of the human world. For instance, how is it that the Germans – who highly excelled themselves above many other people in science, technology, arts, literature, philosophy, civics, and industrialization since the dawn of modernity, and became an epitome of civilization – how is it that such people, who have given Goethe, Beethoven, and Einstein to the world, also gave birth to Nazism, brutality, and Auschwitz? They built a human intellect firm enough to withstand excruciating challenges and to ennoble man’s spirit, yet this intellect became totalitarian. How so?

Marcuse construed instrumental rationality (also called instrumental reason) as a major cause underlying the crisis in the heart of modernity. Instrumental rationality, as a specific mode of human reason, is principally predicated on the value of efficiency (in terms of time, cost, and procedure) in relentlessly reaching its individuated goals, which are not critically evaluated in terms of moral, social, economic, political, and/or environmental considerations. In other words, instrumental reason – governed by a specific set of values that define its unique functions, operations, and goals – is a particular kind of human reason that is instrumental toward producing a specific, isolated result that is often shortsighted toward its far reaching moral, social, economic, political, and/or environmental consequences. In a sense, instrumental reason’s objectivity renders it insensitive to moral, environmental, or other concerns for the sake of focusing solely on the result it persistently pursues.

Generally, instrumental reason is employed, in various ways, in the spheres of science, technology, economics, labor, legislation, and politics. In the context of modern societies, the bigger an organization is, the more it is instrumentally rationalized or bureaucratized. In addition, instrumental reason is highly informative toward our daily decisions and activities. In the U.S., almost all workplaces, particularly large business organizations, instrumentally rationalize their business and how they treat their employees. Often, this kind of mentality divests the employees of their individualities and brings them to conformity or drives them up the wall. As Swiss psychoanalyst C. G. Jung (1875-1961) stated in his essay “The Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious”: “Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall.”

The present problem of “global warming” may serve as an unforeseen ramification of instrumental rationality, as an unintended consequence of instrumental reasoning within the spheres of economics and politics. Capitalists, motivated by profit, have instrumentally rationalized means of production (such as air-polluting factories), producing goods (such as automobiles) that have contributed to emission of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone) into the atmosphere, and hence, possibly causing global warming. Use of reason or rationality as a tool toward an isolated end – that is blind to moral, social, and environmental considerations – can be quite destructive.

According to Marcuse, because the Enlightenment focused upon reason as individuated efforts of individuals within various social groups, it did not foresee that the overall effects of reason might be irrational. For instance, after eight hours of work, workers make individual, rational decisions to leave work around 5:00 P.M. However, the collective result of such singular, rational decisions produces an irrational outcome: heavy traffic and headache. Economy is full of such paradoxes. The global stock market crash of 1987 (known as the “Black Monday”) is said to had been caused by individual computers – each making a rational decision based on available data – all working together crashed the market. In this sense, instrumentally rationalizing the constituent parts of a system in isolation from one another can bear irrational consequences. Individual, rational decisions of a people can lead to irrational results. As another more contemporary example of such irrationality, the modern cult of body worship (i.e., the obsession with weight loss) might be an irrational result of people instrumentally reasoning about their health and/or social relationships!

For Marcuse, the point is not to abandon instrumental reason, but to lay bare its one-dimensional nature. Human reason has other dimensions besides this. The challenge is to find a balanced approach to reason. Instrumental reason, sharply focused on its isolated ends, is blind to surrounding circumstances. Instrumental rationality is partly a result of individuals isolating themselves from each other more than ever in a society where social bonds are disintegrated and the disgruntled members of the society are pessimistic and mistrustful of each other and their social, economic, and political institutions which are out of touch with the people. (See http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/individualism/ for a more thorough treatment of “individualism”.) In the context of the hyper-complexity of our contemporary society and given that its constituent parts are inextricably intertwined, mere instrumental reasoning amounts to a Russian roulette. And, the more complex the social, economic, and governmental entities become, the more they need to bureaucratize, proceduralize, and instrumentally rationalize their operations – which, in turn, can lead to more complexity and irrationality. While the Enlightenment demythologized the world in a certain sense, it carried myth along with itself. It did not kill myth, but perhaps created new ones: progress and scientism. The crisis at the heart of the Enlightenment seems to be fundamentally a crisis of human imagination and thought.

Dear reader, this article by itself may not make full sense. Therefore, I strongly suggest that for a better understanding of this article see my previous articles listed below:

1) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/individualism/

2) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/modernity/

3) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/the-sickness-unto-death/

4) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/becoming-humanly/

5) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/critical-theory/

6) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/the-disappearance-of-human/

7) http://philossophy.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/disappearance-of-the-social/

(Dear reader, please feel free to make a critique of this article. I look forward to learning from you!)

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.