Chapter 1 Introduction A. Background of the Study
In today’s setting, people are always looking for the truth. Many find them in only in themselves and measure the truth in their own selves. Where they will understand each other with the same agreement. They aim for the common end because they believe, in community with understanding to each other, there will be progress. A progress that will develop and all of them will benefit. It is true that humanity aim for their goodness and harmony. They want comfortable lives and order in the society. Whereas there are people who’s sometimes cannot be understand and what they are pushing for. They make troubles and fear to the people.
Immaculate Conception Major Seminary enhancing the good relationship towards others. The mutual understanding that the seminarians developing are very important in the future ministry that they have.
The ICMAS Vision-Mission speaks of “A Christ-centered communion of disciples rooted in the Word of God, witnessing to stewardship, collaborative ministry and
servant-leadership in the Church of the poor; through integral formation towards New
Evangelization and under the maternal care of Mary, the Immaculate Conception.” This vision-mission aims to develop the personality of a seminarians through its formation inside the seminary. Through becoming an example to others, it manifests from the four pillars of formation in the seminary. Besides, in academic formation it includes the study of Philosophy and Theology. During the stays of the researcher in the seminary, he tries to find topic from his study of philosophy that can help more their formation inside the seminary in way that is more effective. In Priestly formation where seminarians are directed to be, they are taught of discipline that will help them in their future ministry. In preaching the ministry should be well in speaking as communicating to others. It is one of the major service that the Priest should have.
The society is uncertain. There is disorder both in the environment and the members of it. In this present generation, from the members of this society, it seems that people are not caring anymore for others and focused only on what they need. They become self-centered, for they do their job only for the sake of their own. This problem becomes the trending issue of today’s time. One of the prominent names that discussed the solution in making the society in order and harmony is Jürgen Habermas a German Protestant philosopher. He makes theory in which will give way to the minority of the people in the society. Giving them a chance to give their ideas. Filipino culture can be distinguished from the other because of its uniqueness and its history. Many of the past of these islands are mixed of different literature and culture. The researcher would make an evaluation where it will become interesting if the Philippine society would be sufficed enough to this theory of Jürgen Habermas.
B. Statements of the Problem
the researcher will try to evaluate the Philippine society using Universal Pragmatics of Habermas.
Thus, the researcher, would make a study regarding Philippine society putting it in Habermas’ Universal Pragmatics in his Theory of Communicative Action in which will find the compatibility of this society.
Main Problem: What it is in Philippine society using universal pragmatics in Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action sorts and makes it wrong ?
Sub Problems:
- What is Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communication?
- Can it possible that the Theory of Communicative Action situate in the Philippine society?
C. Significance of the Study
a. Theoretical
it impulse all members of the society to participate in discussion, to give their own ideas and opinions.
b. Practical
- This study will contribute to the primary formation of the future shepherds of the church as it said in ICMAS vision-mission. The aim of this study is to evaluate the applicability of Habermas’ theory of communicative action in Filipino context. It will helped one to know more specially by the future shepherds of the church on where the communication system of Filipino is lacking that can be compliment through this study. This will also contribute to the seminarians who are undergoing of formation in the seminary directly to the pastoral formation. As it said above, the researcher will evaluate this theory on how applicable it is in Filipino communication system where the seminarians are under it.
D. Review of Related Literature
In proving the significance of the study claimed, there are many resource books and articles that have been consulted for more information about the study. This thesis will be proven new through these studies that have been conducted by different people that have been published which are related in the light of Jurgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action. The publications reviewed included books and journals, and to give convenience and accessibility, the online internet sources will also be present.
a. Books
Habermas Critic in the Public Sphere
“The literary public sphere, which Habermas considers a prefiguration of a political public sphere oriented toward matters of state policy deals with issues of cultural rather than governmental concern.”1 It consists here how the fairness in public sphere it can be. What the one is doing should have justice and give what is due to him.
Habermas, Kristeva and Citizenship
“Over the course of thirty-five years, Habermas’ writing have maintained a striking unity of focus and concern, looking into the capacities that people have to create a more just society, which with some qualifications, may mean a more rational society… the bulk of Habermas’ writing has focused on the development of such rationality specific communicative rationality…”2
1 Robert C. Holub, Habermas Critic in Public Sphere, (London: Routledge,1991), 3-4 2
Habermas and Kristeva discussed how the society could be rational getting two sides view. Kristeva look at the theory as a woman. She looked at it as an equal worker of the society.
Specter, Matthew G., “Habermas: An Inteleectual Biography”. NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
“Habermas’ primary contribution to the liberalization and Westernization of German political culture was sustained manner in which he recast Germany have lent concreteness to the German political and legal thought. A number of recent intellectual histories of twentieth-century Germany have lent concreteness to the liberalization and Westernization paradigm…”3 It is add up to this theory so that the liberalization can be focused by the society. It will give more eyes to look at the society as rational rather than a crippled life in the community of its members. He contributed a theory in which opened his generation to the Western thought which latter’s concept was “closed world.” He adds up to the society in which it can be aware of everyone that they can contribution to the society to rationalized it.
Specter discussed, how Habermas arrived to his theory. He said that Habermas strongly identified with ideals of the left wing publishing house Sulhkanp, whose cultural
3
authority, he believed, was “militarly called into question” in the 1970’s Habermas claimed:
“If there was ever anything (in Germany that is to the expression, “the spirit stands on the left,” then it was during those years, when despite the massive social restoration, the memory of Nazism and the tradition which it had broken was kept alive… by an intellectual left that could place its stamp on the cultural milieu with a certain conviction that it had been entrusted with the task. All this, however, is now over.”4
Specter, added how Habermas made a directed cultural restoration of the Germany’s society despite of its chaoyic memory. The tradition was kept alive and it still flourishes in the society. In this book also, Specter discussed how Habermas” theory was denied and criticized. Students have called him, “a betrayer of the movement”. Habermas accused of leaving them from the movement by saying pursuing for technocracy. This one Habermas focused on a decision of agent and not on understanding.
Braeten, Jane. Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. USA: State University of New York Press, 1991.
This book is critic of Habermas’ theory specifically to his “Aesthetic-Expressive Rationality. Braeten said that the rationality of truthful self-expression and aesthetic expression have inclined to overshadow the relatively brief and scattered references. Resulted to the claims of the role of aesthetic-expressive in the totality of our actions is less abruptly focused in Habermas’s work than are those of the other two validity claims. This claim was first called the truthfulness or sincerity claim and the speech was described as the “disclosure of the speaker’s subjectivity and the basis of “dramaturgical” or self-expressive action adheres well with the theory of speech acts within which it first
appears Braeten exclaimed that Habermas did not seemed interested in the possibility that a form of discourse might appeared to this validity claim. Habermas has not changed his view that sincerity or aesthetic validity claims are not “discursively redeemable” but he now speaks freely.
Edgar, Andrew. “The Philosophy of Habermas.” Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005.
Andrew, first discussed in chapter 2 of this book the problems of developing a maarxism that is significance to contemporary capitalism: “theory of society conceived with practical intention.” Habermas in early 1960’s in this period, there are two man empirical studies, “Student und Politik and “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” in which begin to substitute both the critique of contemporary apitalism and an understanding of the potential that can be found with rational criticism and self-transformation.
Another point in which Andrew discussed in his book chapter five the Universal pragmatics of Habermas. He said that universal pragmatics is a development of a theoretical reconstruction of the competences that people use in everyday communication. This should be the final form or structure in the theory of communicative action. “Habermas approaches universal pragmatics as a comprehensive social theory.”5 Habermas makes a distinction among non-social “instrumental action”(on natural world, it is instrumental work) and “social action.” Habermas divides social action into two namely: strategic action and communicative action. Strategic action is pointed to success, which is to say that the agent takes an onjectifying attitude to the social world, and looking to manipulate social objects. On another hand, communicative action is oriented
to mutual understanding. The doer treats others as subjects with whom one establishes and meaningful intersubjective relations. As Universal pragmatics is concerned, it provides a rational reconstruction of the competences that allow human beings to act communicatively, on the other hand, it looks in this competences the ability of social actors to provide and sustain everyday social life as stable, ordered and meaningful.
Owen, David. “Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress.” NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Habermas started his analysis of social action by giving the meaning in general the word action as “the realization of an action plan based on an interpretation of the situation.” An agent manages with a given situation through first interpreting the situation and then based on that interpretative argument, acting then realized the plan. With this notion of action, Habermas denied the conflation of actions with merely bodily movements: “Actions and bodily movements and operations occur concurrently, but bodily movements are actions insofar as they are an element of the agent”s interaction with world.”6 Bodily movements can be deliberated actions only in a derivative sense of being entrenched in an agent’s contacts in the world- fir instance, in play or teaching practices actions can acquire independent status, but only by virtue of their being a part of agent’s contacts with the world. Furthermore, with this notion of action, Owen added that Habermas recognizes that all actions have a generally teleological, or purposive, structure, such that “the actor achieves his aim or brings about a desired state by choosing
and making suitable use of means promising success in a given situation.”7 This elaborated simply that any action is an intrusion of one or more agents in the world to achieve some end: “With his actions the agent changes something in the world.”8 Therefore, Habermas knows action as an intentional act that is aimed at bringing about some end.
c. Articles
Crem, Theresa. “Marxism Today.” Catholic Mind 67(March 1964): 32-35.
Crem exemplified that Marxism is not an absolute doctrine of the last century, but a vibrant force in the contemporary world having an influence on the lives of each and every one of us. In the New program of the soviet Communist party published in July, 1961, there are many references to Marxist theory and to the important role it plays in the Communist struggle against the free world. To give an example:
“In the struggle for the victory of communism, ideological work becomes an increasingly powerful factor… The party calls for the education of the population as a whole in the spirit of scientific communism strives to insure that all working people master the ideas of Marxism-Leinism… Communist ideas and Communist deeds should blend organically in the behavior of every person and in the activities of all collectives and organizations.”9
It is well-known that contemporary Communists consider Marx, Engels and Lenin the founders of their system, and even
7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.
E. Methodology
1. Within the scope of the research’s methodology will be the following: its method, scope and limitation and the procedure of analysis and interpretation.
1.1. Qualitative Method
- The method of the research will be qualitative historical method, since it will not be using a numerical method that is used in a quantitative method of research.
1.2. Historical Method
- This method will be in a form of textual data, since it will be focused on the primary texts of the chosen philosopher from the past. Thus, this textual data from the past is the reason why the research will be rightly called historical.
2. Scope and Limitation
3. Procedure of Analysis and Interpretation
The researcher will be using critical method of analysis and the points of interpretation will be the following:
a. Gathering of Data
The researcher aims to gather information from many universities with a faculty of Philosophy but there are only selected schools of Philosophy where the researcher made a study. A documentary abstraction guide will be the instrument used in collecting data. There are only limited primary sources but in contrast, there are many studies had been made in this study by different people. In this situation, the researcher can say that there are enough sources that can be use in this study to suffice its need.
b. Analysis of philosopher’s theory
constitutes the member of the society to be more useful than what he experienced that men have been used as a laborer and do not have any right to do something from their own will. Upon this philosophy he knows that this theory will tackles more on cultural basis of the society and not on the governmental concern. Such as in public sphere, the foundation of the critique where it becomes the realm of individuals to gather and participate in open discussions. It can be, that everyone has accessed to it; by saying that there is no one can enter into the discussion with an advantage over another. This is the claims of communicative actions in everyday social life, Habermas gave argument that was not often questioned or criticized because they are raised within the line of an undisputed, shared lifeworld. This lifeworld offers the commonly accepted background knowledge within which action can be communicated. His framework is designed to ensure that the reason underlying actions to do “from duty” will be shared by all agents. There is discussions that will give by all agents to make an objective truth. For Habermas, to give way to reasons to be shared, in the absence of genuine dialogue among agents, it is necessary to abstract away every feature that makes agents different from one another. Therefore in discussion will provide in discussion a publicly shared reason for the action.
had to be submitted to the public, conceived of course as a reasoning public for decisions. Habermas’ claim is that the public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it is only the way that can bring about enlightenment among men. Filipinos are very much appreciated for their values in terms of relating to others. Because of this, there are points that the theory cannot be fit to Filipino context as such.
c. Analysis of the class interest behind the philosopher’s theory.
As a Protestant, Habermas saw the public sphere as deprived in giving voice to the minority. He argued that the rational and equal society should be attaining through this discussion where it is open to all. Men were degraded to as a laborer and deprive of its dignity and reconciled it in his philosophy that helps the society in enlightening the discussion in which all people should be heard.
d. Write-up of the Study
F. Definition of Terms 1. Lifeworld
2. Society 3. Action 4. Social Action 5. Strategic Action
