Intersubjectivity – interactionist or discursive? Reflections on Habermas’ critique of Brandom

Abstract

This article argues that there is a marked ambivalence in Habermas' concept of intersubjectivity in that he wavers between an interactionist and a discursive understanding. This ambivalence is demonstrated with reference to his recent critique of Robert Brandom's normative pragmatic theory of discursive practice. Although Habermas is a leading theorist of discourse as an epistemically steered process, he allows his interpretation of Brandom's theory as suffering from objective idealism to compel him to recoil from discourse and to defend a purely interactionist or dialogical position. It is argued that the ambivalence in question is related to Habermas' incomplete theorization of communication as a process of structure formation that unfolds sequentially through time on different levels. His architectonic of communicative intersubjectivity is marred by a missing concept. His characteristic concept of coordination is insufficient and must be complemented by a concept of synthesis at the discursive level.

Habermas, Relational Leadership, and Public Sector Workplace Bullying

“…The latter includes negotiated assent consisting of linguistically mediated interaction between individuals, ultimately oriented toward mutual understanding [75]. Specifically, Habermas critiques the notion that individuals can reach a fixed solution applicable to all when societal situations are constantly changing; and challenges how individuals can reach universal conclusions in isolation and separation from their context [76]. Analysis of workplace bullying and leadership paradigms in the context of NPM-oriented radical alterations to UK public sector structures, culture, and practices remains limited.…”

Jeux dialogiques et processus discursif. Conséquences du débat entre Habermas et Brandom

“…Habermas critique Brandom en se plaçant du point de vue de l'interaction, c'est-à-dire du point de vue d'une théorie du dialogue. Plutôt que d'adopter une position intersubjectiviste discursive, il avance un intersubjectivisme dialogique et interactionniste (Strydom, 2006) se concentrant sur la stricte relation entre une première et une seconde personne. D'un côté, une première personne est un locuteur qui associe une intention à un acte de discours et qui, comme interlocuteur, adresse cette assertion à un destinataire en lui demandant de répondre publiquement par l'affirmative ou par la négative.…”

“… 4 Piet Strydom (2006) soutient ce point, mais il s'en tient à une analyse critique de la position de Habermas, alors que nous visons ici à répondre à cette critique en explicitant la spécificité du processus discursif théorisé par Brandom.…”

“… 38 Voir Strydom (2006, p. 168, n. 1) : «[…] that Pierre Bourdieu (1990, p. 59, n. 8) analysis of dance as a model of social integration involving the “synchronization of the homogeneous and orchestration of the heterogeneous” indirectly supports Brandom's example of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dancing to illustrate how different things are being done at the same time as the participants are engaged in a shared practice […]. Where Bourdieu and, I think, Brandom see a shared situational structure or, rather, a structuring practice which allows participants nevertheless to execute different yet coordinated actions, Habermas (2000, p. 347; 2001, p. 117) insists that the participants are at best engaged in “mutual observation” and that this excludes “the possibility for them to converge in their intersubjective recognition of the same validity claim and [to] share knowledge in the strict sense of the term”».…”

The latent cognitive sociology in Habermas

“…15. Elsewhere (Strydom, 2006), I have shown that the model of mutual understanding based on social interaction is too limited; the discursive model going beyond double contingency to the full threefold structure of communication which includes the third point of view must also be considered. 16.…”