Habermas and Philosophy of Education Nadja Hermann Universidade

Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil

account a reconstructive analysis about the contents of our social practices. He understands that the modernity project can not be reassumed with the same criteria and he concentrates his effort in this point: reelaborating the normative principles and conceiving a critical theory that can explain the social patologies , making possible the arising of a new kind of rationality.
Habermas' work has been developing since the sixties, and it is important to say that

the publication of The Theory of Communicative Action, in 1981, is an important mark in his trajectory, when he provides a global meaning to his work, trying to overcome several years marked by theoretical confronts. He abandons the traditional Marxism and the philosophy of history. In an original way, he integrates the science theory, the hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language and reelaborates the normative principles of critical theory, based on pragmatic revolution.
Habermas' central thesis is related to the existence of a telos of understanding in

language, that is, as speakers we are already participants of a rational subjectiveness. The possibility that we do not submit ourselves not only to the designs of the rationalized world and in order to understand that that the socialization is not only repression, the change from the teleologic action into communicative action arises. Habermas explains: The phenomenon to be explained is not the knowledge or submission of objectivity nature considered in themselves, but the intersubjectiveness of the possible understanding, both in the interpersonal and intrapsichic levels. The central point of investigation changes from instrumental-cognitive rationality into communicative rationality. For this one, the paradigmatic is not the relation between one individual with something in the objective world which can be represented and manipulated, but it is the intersubjective relation that is established by the individuals who can speak and act when they understand themselves about something. In this process of understanding, the individuals, when they act communicatively, go through the natural language, make use of interpretations that are culturally transmitted and make reference to something in the objective world, in the social world, which they share, and each one makes reference to something in its own subjective world simultaneously. (Habermas, 1987, v.1, p.499500)

In order to understand Habermas' argumentative development, it is necessary to distinguish between rational action in relation to its ends and communicative action. The first one is relative to the purpose that is aimed by an actor, who chooses among several alternatives of actions the one through which he can achieve that purpose. This enlarged conception turns into strategic action, in which the actor chooses means taking into account utilitarian criteria. It is concerned with the instrumental action, which is oriented by technical rules. On the contrary, the communicative action refers to the interaction between at least two individuals who can speak and act and who establish an interpersonal relation. (Habermas, 1987, v.1 p.124) The concept of communicative action introduces a new operator which is the linguistical mean, including the agent itself in the rationality problematics. In other actions, the usage of language may be unilateral, however the communicative action assumes the language as a mean of understanding among the actors, linking the objective, social and subjective worlds.
Habermas is convinced that there is a universal nucleus in language, that is, basic

structures that every individuals, in a moment, start mastering. However the communicative competence does no limit to make grammatically correct speeches. It is linked to three worlds, corresponding to them three pretensions of validity demanded by the actors:

The objective world: the pretension that the enunciation is true corresponds to the objective world. The affirmation about facts and happenings refers to the pretension of truth. The social world (or the legitimately adjusted rules): the pretension that the act of speaking is correct in relation to the present normative context refers to the social world. It is concerned with the justice pretension. The subjective world (the one that only the speaker has privileged access): the pretension of veracity is related to the subjective world. The intention expressed by the speaker corresponds exactly to what he thinks.

These pretensions of validity present a universal characteristic, make possible the understanding and are directly associated with rationality. The communicative practice presents, in an immanent way, the possibility that the participants enter into an argumentative process, present good reasons and examine critically the truth in their enunciates, as well as the integrity of the actions and rules and the authenticity of the expressive manifestations. If there is any contestation by them, it is possible to restart the argumentative process up to the consensus is established.

As everything that is presented can be criticized, this process allows that the errors are identified and that we learn through them. The consensus is only possible to be achieved because it is based on the intersubjective recognition of pretensions of validity which can be criticized. In the communicative process, the individuals coordinate actions and understand themselves by the use of language. But Habermas knows that it is not always that the language is used with the objective of understanding. Methodologically this problem can only be avoided by the demonstration that the use of language with the objective of understanding is an original way based on pragmatics. Therefore Habermas makes use of Austin and Searle's theory of speech acts in order to explain the communicative competence itself. The analysis of the speech acts, according to Austin's theory allows to distinguish between the statements and the ilocutionary force. For example, in the statements I say that p, I promise that p, I order that p , we notice the ilocutionary force (that force that is resulting from the agent that does the action saying something). The speaker is able to understand this way of communication and establishes conections with its external world. When men speak, using daily language, they establish relations with the physical world, with other individuals, with their intentions and feelings. The ilocutionary success () is got in the level of interpersonal relationships, () is produced in the life world, which, in the communicative process, the participants belong to and which constitute the basis of their understanding process. (Habermas, 1987, v.1, p. 376). The act of speaking includes a performative part that allows to the one who speaks to execute the action related to the performative element while he is speaking. The speech is also an action and this linguistic relation is transformed into communicative reason. In the communicative action, the main objective is to guarantee everybody's understanding, explaining the several points of view. The communicative action has a kind of anchor that is constituted of a kind of background, that nourishes the participants' interpretations in the interlocution. It is concerned with the life world (Lebenswelt), the horizon where we move. Habermas resumes Husserl's conceit about horizon in order to denote that the limits of the lived world are fluid, capable of being changed, depending on the place where each one is. It is referred to that part of world of important life for the situation that demands understanding. The life world comes out as self-evidence, convictions

that are not questioned or thematized , and that guide the understanding process, but only when they are relevant for a situation () certain self-evidences can be mobilized in a kind of knowledge about what there is consensus and is possible to render problematic. (Habermas, 1987, v.2, p.176) The system appears as opposition to the life world, resulting from a process of differentiation of the structures of understanding about world. The rationalization of the of the lived world that is reflected in this own world corresponds to the increasing of complexity systems. The loss of pre-comprehension of the communicative practices reduces the lived world and makes it only one more subsystem. When the systemic integration interferes in the social integration, it is established a structural violence that attacks upon the kinds of possible understanding about the communicative action, creating loss of meaning, loss of legitimacy, instabilization of collective identities, breaking tradition. Two years after the publication of the Theory of Communicative Action, in 1983, Habermas publishes Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, where he explains the discursive ethics with pretension of universality. In 1992 he published Faktizitt und Geltung where he applies the principles of communicative action in the fields of right, and he bets in a radical democracy in order to guarantee the human rights. The next texts are still related to questions discussed in Faktizitt und Geltung. They are concerned with a group of essays named Die Normalitt einer Berliner Republik, in which Habermas discusses political and cultural subjects of his time, related with Germany internal themes and with European integration. The other book that has just been published, Die Einbeziehung des Anderen, 1996, resumes the concepts of State and democracy, from a discursive theory, in order to attend to the new wants of a multicultural society. Therefore, Habermas proposes a model of discursive democracy which guarantee the self-normative conditions of our practices. Without writing a pedagogical dissertation, we can recognize in Habermas a contemporarian thinker who has something to say to education, exactly by the reconstruction of the conditions that guarantee the validity of the pedagogical acting, in an age when there is no metaphysical guarantees. Bibliography
1. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Vom sinnlichen Eindruck zum symbolischen Ausdruck.

Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997. 2. HABERMAS, Jrgen. A crise de legitimao do capitalismo tardio. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 1980.

3. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Cincia y tcnica como ideologia. Madrid: Tecnos,

1984.
4. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Conscincia moral e agir comunicativo. Rio de Janeiro:

Tempo Brasileiro, 1989. 5. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen: Studien zur politischen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997. 6. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Die Neue Unbersichtlichkeit. Frankfurt a . M.: Suhrkamp, 1985. 7. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Ensaios polticos. Barcelona: Pennsula, 1988. 8. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Erluterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992. 9. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Escritos sobre moralidad y eticidad. Buenos Aires: Paids, 1991. 10. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Faktizitt und Geltung. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp, 1993. 11. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Mudana estrutural da esfera pblica. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 1984. 12. HABERMAS, Jrgen. O discurso filosfico da modernidade. Lisboa: Dom Quixote, 1990. 13. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Para a reconstruo do materialismo histrico. So Paulo: Brasiliense , 1983. 14. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Passado como futuro. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 1993. 15. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Pensamento ps-metafsico. Rio de Janeiro: Tempos Brasileiro, 1990. 16. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Teora de la accin comunicativa. V.1 e2. Madrid: Taurus, 1987. 17. HABERMAS, Jrgen. Teora de la accin comunicativa: complementos y estudios previos. Madrid: Ctedra, 1989.