Habermas and the Study of War Communication

Note: This post was written for SOC 616: Sociological Theory at Ohio University as part of the Weekly Reading Notes assignments. This was posted in my original cyberstudies.blog.com site. I am keeping it here as part of the archive of my work as described in my “Ephemeral/Restart” post.

Jurgen Habermas is one of the essential theorist in communication theory. He first defines all speech as an act. This act is broken into four parts. The first part is the physical utterance of the speaker. The speaker then places information on top of the physical noise. The speaker then forms the information in an understandable structure that allows the listener to understand the message. Messages are accepted and understood only by the listener of the message if the structure fits in the societal norms of accepted communication (e.g., it’s in the correct syntax and using the correct grammatical form of the situation), there are no value conflicts between both parties, the logic of the presentation is not question and there are no validity conflicts in the message.

Universal pragmatics is the study of these communication patterns and how they are used to promote understanding between people. It also attempts to create concrete models of understanding social communication patterns. Syntactic structures are analyzed to determine how symbols are framed in the overall social environment. Also, the theory is created through this analysis of social reality and the verbalization of those observed patterns. Consciousness is described through the process of suitable examples and counterexamples and is placed with its placement in reality.

Ego is presented in the speech act as a “universal ideal” and is created in the interactions between people. There are three dimensions of definition for the ego. First, the perception of cognitive components frames the behaviors of the ego with how the “actor” reacts and reflexes on the action of others. Second, the perception of the motivational components of general role qualification is how the ego distinguishes its role in society as a motivational factor. The third dimension is the perception of a component of general role qualifications that presupposes the first and second dimensions denotes the actors and actions that the ego must interact with. Moral development occurs with the definition of the ego, and others develop their egos.

He approaches Marx and Engels as theories and not working model of social structure, as both fail to account for critical issues in the overarching themes of social labor and the history of species. In social labor, Habermas notes that Marx does not adequately describe the role of human reproduction in the social environment. Habermas gives credence to the mother/father subsystems. The family was the socialization tool that allowed males to understand the interaction between mother and father. Also in this system, the ability to threaten as a means of action has replaced the moralization of motives for action. In the history of species, Habermas uses historical materialism to defend the development of social interaction in earlier societies.

The final analysis that Habermas gives to communication and the evolution of society is that communication is the superstructure in which change can occur for a society. Communication is more than the message being delivered. It is through the channels used, the action of communication, and the stock of knowledge that interaction and understanding occurs. The use of the public sphere can present messages that are easily understood and received by society.

Habermas is very ambitious with his analysis on communication. I believe he places much faith in the channels of communication as the means of creating understanding. I believe he fails to account for the possibility that groups are perfectly understood, and there can still never be a resolution to all or even most conflicts. The weigh of the stock of knowledge can override the validity conditions of communication. If one social group embeds a set of values into the members of the group, could communication be the means of “challenging” those values? Even with the proper ethos, logos, and even the “truth,” could clear communication to create the means of rebuking the internal socialization that occurs within the subgroup?

I would disagree with his analysis that technology does not bring about social periods but happen during them. The increased use of the computer in society would seem to be a counterexample to his argument. It has changed the methods that are used in communication that would not have been available in the previous era. People are creating new social contacts that are further away (e.g., online social networks such as facebook.com) and communicating less with people in the immediate environment (e.g., iPod usage, cellular communication). These new social boundaries are created by technology and have created a new social period. The mode of production, computer-mediated communication, was decisive to the social periods. The “cyberculture” environment is a documented social period. It can be argued that this influence only affects subgroups within society. I would argue that technology has affected those who do not have a direct connection to stated technology. The biggest example of this it the creation of the “digital-haves,” those who have access to digital communication technology, and the “digital-have-nots.”

In a point of dramatic irony, Habermas analysis of communication is made unclear because of the language and phrasing he uses to develop his argument. The German movement in Sociology influences his writing. At the same time, the use of redundant phrases and intelligential format can prevent a basic understanding of his understanding of communication. This analysis could be lost in translation between the German and English edition. The analysis could also be lost in words chosen by Habermas.
Another major problem with his theory is its inability to help people with social problems. The theory described by Habermas seeks understanding through observation and does not dictate means of action within the social system. He describes the system of social order and control as the linguistic structures in society. He never addresses how to use this social system as an agent of change. Also, this system does not address how society copes with moral problems. The simple consensual speech actions cannot solve moral problems. Consciousness is only addressed in the realm of societal awareness, as opposed to the moral awareness of society.

For a modern example of Habermas’s theory of universal pragmatics, one could use an analysis of how George W. Bush defended his position on declaring war on Iraq. The administration used illocutionary acts in the form of constatives to build a case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They then used illocutionary acts to demand that Iraq disarm. The regulative acts occurred between the United States and other counties to build a “Coalition of the Willing.” The Bush administration used their influence to make other countries join this coalition. Also, the interpersonal relationships between the members of the administration, the rest of the government, and the American people were used to create solidarity in the nation. However, the methods of evaluation were branched. The means of judging appropriateness and justify statements of influence were influenced by the regulative acts of the administration (e.g. “Saddam Hussein must be removed or the world’s in danger.”). The avowals actions were the expression of patriotism that occurred in the country. The yellow ribbons around a tree, the line of flags waving in the sky, the use of red, white and blue in everyday life, all of the symbols used to express feelings or emotions about the United States were more evident in the everyday world. However, there were concerns about the sincerity of the patriotism. All of these acts set the stage for the war in Iraq.