Marxism and linguistic communication - 5

During the last few weeks I have been discussing the writings of two important thinkers in relation to problems of linguistic communication; both of them were clearly influenced by Marxism. Today, I wish to examine the writings of another thinker who had much to say about linguistic communication and who was also influenced by Marxism, although perhaps not to the same extent as the other two writers. He is the German social philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Some might think that my conjunction of Voloshinov, Gramsci and Habermas is odd; to be sure, I have not seen this conjunction before and such a reaction would not be entirely unfair. However, it is my belief that there is a case to be made for bringing them together in discussing issues of Marxism and linguistic communication.

Jurgen Habermas (1927-) is one of the most important social philosophers in the world. As a social thinker and public intellectual he has made a profound impact on his times. His writings have served to put into wide circulation such concepts as public sphere - communicative rationality - discourse ethics - ideal speech situation - performative contradictions which have become the staple of social analysis and re-description. In this column I will begin by pointing out his connections to Marxism and then going on to underline his importance as a theorist of communication. Admittedly, his writings are exacting and demanding, and hence I will try to explain his ideas as simply as I can.

One feature in Habermas' work that I particularly value is his desire and ability to build bridges between humanities and social sciences, continental philosophy and Anglo-American philosophy. In my own books dealing with contemporary Sinhala literature such as 'Enabling Traditions: Four Cultural Intellectuals' and 'Sinhala Novel and the Public Sphere: Three Illustrative Moments', I sought to construct a framework of analysis that combined vectors of thinking of humanities and social sciences for the purpose of evaluating modern Sinhala writing. In the latter case, I specifically pressed into service Habermas' concept of the public sphere but re-shaped it to meet our own specific cultural needs and agendas.

Jurgen Habermas is not an easy writer to read; he is certainly nor bed-time reading. His work demands close and sustained attention; he deals with abstractions and his arguments for certain viewpoints are as important as his arguments against others. Once I heard him give a public lecture on law and democracy in Hong Kong. He is not a compelling public speaker, and at times was barely accessible. However, I have watched him on you tube being interviewed on such topics as democracy, meaning of social sciences, modernity etc. His interviews are far more accessible.

Habermas is the author of a number of important books that have extended our intellectual horizons, and through their unsettling thinking forced us to live on the borders of our selves. He is also the recipient of a large number of awards and accolades for his work. He was influenced by a plurality of thinkers like Marx, Weber, American pragmatists, Oxford philosophers of language. His works like 'Legitimation Crisis', 'The Theory of Communicative Action', 'Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action;, 'The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere', 'Philosophical Discourses of Modernity, have sparked lively debates among scholars and set the agenda for academic discussion.

In my observations on Habermas' work I wish to focus largely on his two-volume work 'The Theory of Communicative Action'. I have chosen to do so for a number of reasons. First, as a student of communication, I find this work extremely insightful and thought-provoking although I might not agree with everything that he says about communication. Second, in terms of Marxism and linguistic communication, this work has much to offer by way of provoking thought and opening up new territories for exploration. Third, it seems to me that 'The Theory of Communicative Action' encapsulates in a purposive way Habermas' thinking about the central themes that most matter to him.

Anyone reading Habermas' voluminous writings would be struck by the fact that he places an inordinate amount of attention on the question of reason. Many of his most significant analyses take off from an investigation into this theme. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that reason has been a central theme of philosophy in general. As a philosopher once remarked, although the word philosophy means love of wisdom, what philosophers really love is reasoning. They formulate theories and shepherd reasons to support them; they examine objections and endeavor to address these, they formulate arguments against other views. If this is an accurate description of the work of philosophy, then it needs to be asserted that Habermas is a philosopher to boot.

Habermas' indomitable focus on reason, on rationality is indeed important in view of the fact that, in recent times, reason has been under siege. Freud, in his pioneering work in psychoanalysis, sought to undermine the power of human reason. In more modern times, post-modernists and post-structuralists of various stripes have waged a battle to undercut reason and rationality, and they have succeeded in large measure. Jurgen Habermas is a brave and lonely figure who is keen to demonstrate the importance of reason, and to characterize the thinking of post-modernists such as Michel Foucault as non-rational.

Habermas' interest in human reason is closely allied to his advocacy of modernism and enlightenment values. At a time when certain thinkers are prone to talk about the end of modernity and the rise of post-modernity, Habermas is holding his ground in maintaining that the work of modernity is still unfinished.

Against various countervailing forces, he is unafraid to make the argument that Enlightenment values such as rationality, objectivity, scientific imagination, secularism, humanistic etc. are demonstrably relevant for modern times and modern preoccupations.

One of the central concepts in Habermas' writings, in my judgment, is that of communicative rationality. It was his belief that social construction of reality constituted an important aspect of social change. He maintained that social reality is constructed by means of communicatively rational action.

What he focuses on here is the way in which the participants in a communication act seek to arrive at a rational consensus. Habermas expressed the view that communication, by its very nature, has as its goal the achievement of mutual understanding. This mutual understanding is closely related to rational consciousness. Hence, the idea of rationality is pivotal to his notion of communication as it is indeed to the notions of many other concepts disseminated by him as well.

The idea of critique is central to Jurgen Habermas' writings. This idea grows out of his deep and abiding interest in the dynamics of human reason. Themes that he constantly returns to his writings are communication, democracy, legitimacy, language, law, knowledge, moral consciousness, public sphere. These in his explications are vitally connected with the master trope of critique. For him, dispassionate, informed, thoughtful critique is a distinguishing mark of a good human being.

Habermas was clearly influenced by Marxism in the earlier stage. He was a prominent member of the Frankfurt school that included such luminaries as Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse. Habermas was the leader of the second generation of Frankfurt School scholars.

He was influenced by the thinking of Adorn, Horkheimer who were in turn influenced by Marxism, although they were critical of certain aspects of it as well. As he matured, Habermas tended to move away from Marxism. For example, his book 'The Theory of Communicative Action' constitutes a language-based approach to communication that is in many ways more idealistic than materialistic. Even here, one can detect the trace of Marxism.

Taken as a whole, his corpus of writings bears the imprint of Marxist thinking, at times more subtle than direct. That is why when exploring the general topic of Marxism and linguistic communication, I decided to include Habermas' name along with those of Voloshinov and Gramsci.

Habermas, it seems to me, has drawn on Marxist thought to a greater extent than commentators normally would have us believe. His ideas of rationality, of history, critique of ideology display inescapable indebtedness to Marxist thinking. It is indeed true that in his later years, this indebtedness became less pronounced. Habermas developed a form if ideology critique that he termed Universal Pragmatics. This concept has five important dimensions to it. First, the act of dialogue his geared towards truth. Second, all speakers who are communicatively competent are guided by what he terms pragmatic universals. Third, the true nature of communication can be productively explored by philosophers only on the basis of an ideal speech situation. Four, the ideal speech situation can be meaningful only in the context of truth. Five, human vested interests as they become institutionalized form the foundation of ideologies which impede social interaction.

It seems to me that the tension in Habermas' later thinking between Marxist thinking and non-Marxist thinking is clearly discernible in his explication of the concept of Universal Pragmatics that I have just outlined. At times, he referred to this concept as communicative competence. What he is seeking to do is to spell out the nature of the competence which participants in a communicative act should possess. It is a complex concept; I have tried to present it in simpler terms. Some of the aspects that he calls attention to makes sense only in terms of Marxist thought.

What is interesting about Habermas' interpretive efforts is that while drawing on some of the formulations and pathways of inquiry associated with Marx and Engels, he also tried to extend their conceptual reach. In this regard, I wish to focus on two important aspects. First, he had serious reservations about the adequacy of Marx's critique of political economy as a theoretical position on the nature and significance of advanced capitalism. Hence, he sought to go beyond Marx on this point. Second, he also had serious reservations about the adequacy of the much-vaunted historical materialism as a framework that would facilitate our understanding of contemporary society. He chose to focus greater attention on questions of culture.

It was indeed Marx's ambition to explicate the course of development of capitalist societies through class conflict and economic laws of motion. Habermas was unhappy with this stance. He argued that this attempt would be successful and justified only if the economy constitutes the sole institutionalized nucleus of society. He clearly thought there was more to society; to conceive of the economy as an independent sphere that progressed in accordance with its own laws, according to him, was a mistake. He argued that economic development is not autonomous and it is vitally connected with politics and governmental activities.

As Habermas remarked, 'The process which Marx himself prognosticated of the concentration and centralization of capital has, on the one hand, quickly and to a growing degree forced the weaker partners in the market to assert their claim in political form, and on the other hand, induced the organ of the state to intervene in the domain of commodity circulation and labor. But in the same measure, this domain ceases to develop according to its own immanent laws. Due to the introduction of the elements of the superstructure into the base itself, the classical dependency relationship of politics to the economy was disrupted.'

Habermas desire to point out what he thought were the deficiencies and weak spots of Marxism and remedy them is central to his social interpretations and his scholarly achievement. His approach to language and communication reflects this fact vividly. Although he was not influenced by Marxism to the extent that Valentin Voloshinov and Antonio Gramsci were, it has to be pointed out that at a deeper level of interpretive comprehension Habermas' work too bears the investments of Marxism,

I have been examining Habermas' concepts and formulation, which clearly are complex and multi-faceted, and trying to present them as simply as I can with the intention of demonstrating his relevance to some of our intellectual and literary endeavors in Sri Lanka. In this effort, I wish to focus on his concept of communication. As a student of communication, I feel that Habermas' attempts in this domain deserve careful study and unpacking.

Habermas believes that in any form of communication, one of the primary objectives of the participants is to be understood. For one to be understood, according to Habermas, it is important that one should be accomplishing the following. First, the speaker must say something understandable. Two, he should communicate something with the intention of being understood. Three, he should thereby make himself understandable. Four, he should arrive at an understanding with another person. These can be explained as speech, content, subjectivity and interaction. These might appear to be simple propositions, but as Habermas points out, they involve complex processes of thought and action. This is how Habermas explains the pragmatics of communication. 'The speaker must choose a comprehensible expression so that speaker and hearer can understand one another. The speaker must have the intention of communicating a true proposition....so that the hearer can share the knowledge of the speaker. The speaker must want to express his intentions truthfully so that the hearer can believe the utterance of the speaker (can trust him). Finally the speaker must choose an utterance that is right so that the hearer can accept the utterance and speaker and hearer can agree with one another in the utterance with respect to a recognized normative background.'

Habermas has built a formidable theoretical edifice on this foundation by drawing on the writings of pragmatist philosophers, linguists, and psychologists. His book 'The Theory of Communicative Action' seeks to explain this theory fully. Why is this theory of communication important for us? What bearing does it have on our own attempts at literary interpretation and analysis? It is my considered judgment that Habermas' theory of linguistic communication can illuminate certain important areas of literary exegesis and assessment.

Literary communication presupposes the productive interaction among the writer, text, the reader and context. By context I mean the social, cultural, political, institutional backgrounds within which literary production takes place. It seems to me that Habermas, through his specific theory of communication, charts an avenue of inquiry that can prove to be extremely productive. Habermas, in his elucidation of the concept of communication, is focusing on a number of deep philosophical issues. Among them are the condition of validity of statements, the claims made for validity and the actual vindication if these claims. Clearly, Habermas is discussing a communicative situation in which factual knowledge is being transmitted. Literary communication deals largely with imaginative issues. Hence, due allowance must be made for this difference. That said, it needs to be pointed out that Habermas' theoretical model of communication has a great relevance for literary understanding. Some of his ideas and formulations can be usefully extrapolated into literary analysis. Such a move will almost certainly bring a greater depth to our endeavors in literary criticism.

Jurgen habermas says that any act of linguistic communication presupposes four validity claims. They are; is what we say understandable, is it true, is it right (that is to say is there a normative basis for the utterance), and is it a sincere expression of the communicators feelings. These four validity claims, after the necessary modifications have been effected, can be usefully applied to literary communication whether in the domain of fiction or poetry or drama. I don't know if this is too much of a stretch; I personally don't think so. And I have not seen Habermas concept of universal pragmatics and communicative competence applied to creative literature in the way I am suggesting. Jonathan Culler talks of literary competence; but that is based on Chomsky's concept of linguistic competence.

The idea of the life world is one that pulsates through Habermas'

body of writings. This is closely connected to his distinctive approach to linguistic communication. As Habermas observed, 'for the actor the aims of action oriented towards success and reaching understanding are situated on different levels: either in the objective world or, beyond all entities, in the linguistically constituted life world.' I will unpack the meaning of this statement and the importance of Habermas' concept of life world for literary analysis. What I have been attempting to do in my discussion of Marxism and linguistic communication is to suggest various lines of inquiry that might help us to broaden our discourse of literary criticism in Sri Lanka.