Recently in [4-25] Jurgen Habermas Category

Communication is central to Habermas' theory of social life. Why is agreement about the meaning of a "speech act" so important? Explain the concept of "definition of the situation," and how this relates to communication between actors.

According to Habermas, in communication, speech acts are necessary. The goal of them is to establish mutual understanding between social actors. Agreement over speech acts is so essential because of the fact that these speech acts are used in order to gain mutual understanding in the social world. If speech acts are not agreed upon, then mutual understanding in the social world cannot be accomplished. The definition of the situation is a set of socially defined characteristics of a situation and the appropriate ways to deal with and react to it. The definition of the situation is socially determined by speech acts. Through this, speech acts create an understanding amongst social actors of how situations should be interpreted and dealt with. Essentially, this creates the social reality. To actually reach a definition of the situation, there must be effective communication, whether through speech acts or otherwise, between social actors. The emphasis that Habermas makes here is that effective communication through speech acts and the definition of the situation must be made in order to create social reality.

Try to explain the concept of "lifeworld" in your own words. Habermas begins to define it on page 376-- What is a lifeworld, and what are its main components?

In basic terms, the lifeworld is the construct of the social reality in a specific situation. In a situation, it is the general meaning and construct. Through these, social actors navigate their way through establishing definitions and how they create solidarity. The lifeworld is one of the things that actors build their social understandings and relationships around. To create a lifeworld, there must be effective communication. If there is no effective communication, then speech acts and the definition of the situation cannot be established in a way that leads to the construction of a social reality, or a lifeworld. All social actors must come to mutual understanding in order to create a lifeworld. The tenants of Habermas' theory relates to Marx's theory of historical materialism. The difference is that with Marx, societal change is based on changes in the economic bases, while Habermas believes that societal change is based on the means and understanding of communication between social actors and within various lifeworlds. The main components of a lifeworld are normative, subjective, and objective. First, Habermas says that normative is "the totality of legitimately regulated interpersonal relations" (371). The normative part of a lifeworld is the social structure and the sets of norms for the given situation. These create a set of mutually understood standards that shape the creation of a lifeworld. The subjective part of a lifeworld is "the totality of experience to which a speaker has privileged access and which he can express before a public" (371). This speaks of the ability to personally interpret every experience through one's mind. It also includes the ability for an individual to express their personal interpretation of said experience. The objective portion of a lifeworld refers to "the totality of entities about which true statements are possible" (371). This takes the stance that there are objective truths in a situation. There are facts and an actually definite truth. So, not only can experience be evaluated through the subjective, personal experience, but it can also be evaluated through objective facts. The lifeworld is created through the evaluation of social norms, personal interpretation, and objective facts.

1. Communication is central to Habermas' theory of social life. Why is agreement about the meaning of a "speech act" so important? Explain the concept of "definition of the situation," and how this relates to communication between actors.

Agreement about the speech act is so important because it is the coming to a mutually understandable position. So with this it is not only enough or one person's view to be imposed upon another person and accepted, this is when they both understand each other and agree and accept the concepts and the circumstances around whatever is being said. The book points out three different types of speech acts,1. To something in the objective world (as the totality of entities about which true statements are possible 2.To something in the social world (as the totality of legitimately regulated interpersonal relations); or 3.to something in the subjective world (as the totality of experience to which a speaker has privileged access and which he can express before a public. All of these he says have to be taken into consideration when coming to an agreement about a speech act. Also speech act is a part of communication and the point of communication action is to come to a mutual understanding. Also it says that communication action relies on a "cooperative process between the participants" This is another way agreement is so key to the speech act and communication action.(pg371-372) Really this part comes down to both people understanding what the other person is saying and where they are coming from with what they are saying. In order to communicate the participants in the communication have to understand and agree and I think that is what the author is getting at here.

The next part "definition of the situation" in the reading the author showed that this is defined in several different parts; theme, plan, work, and the normative framework compared temporally and spatially. (Pg372) This is also described that with every common situation definition people are determining the boundary between external nature, society, and inner nature.(pg372) Really what this is considering the circumstances when something is being asked and expected of you and determining if that action is or can be within your reach. In every situation we are constantly defining and evaluating what we want to do, what we are going to do, and what we are expected to do and based on those things and the resources or space we have available to do those things is how we will make our decisions. Also the situations definition can and does shift with the theme meaning that based upon what goal is put before a person will change whether or not their subsequent actions are

Habermas conveys the lifeworld as a relatively abstract concept that reflects the interaction and communication between the individual itself and others as the essential foundation of a society. It is through one's personal experiences and ideas that allow knowledge to cultivate and expand as society interacts within one another to smoothly progress humanity to its full potential. With a lifeworld realm, there are the two perspectives of narrative and participatory viewpoints that play a pivotal role in a lifeworld. A narrative perspective illustrates more of a subjective view of an individual, where he/she is the main character of a story and the people he/she integrates with are the building blocks of their character that allow them to pursue their interests. On the other hand, the participatory perspective views society as a collective group of individuals identifying themselves with one another and communicating to strengthen the relationship of the community as a whole, as a opposed to a subjective pursuit. Within a participatory view, the community develops "state forms of classification" (381). Through classification and integration, a communal set of objective standards are developed in order to maintain social stability through shared evidence that has come to a group consensus. An example would be the utilization of a calendar or a clock that is detrimental to the functions of society. Rather than have a narrative standard of time and date, a participatory consensus of time and date has been established so society as a whole (internationally) functions in a common and standardized manner.

According to Habermas, the three main functions of a lifeworld comprise of culture, society, and the development of the individual's personality. In a macro sense, culture plays a significant role since it allows an individual to identify themselves based on cultural heritage founded upon historical traditions that has been passed down from countless generations. Through culture, people are able to attach symbolic significance to everyday objects since they played a pivotal role in previous generations. In addition, culture is the reason why there are variations across societies due to the historical influences of religion, war, trade, etc. It is plays a key role that allows participants/citizens to identify themselves in a collective manner through shared beliefs and functions. The second element of society conveys the legitimacy of social status and the current system. With the growth of technology and advancements, the element of society allows people to work in a functional ideal, where people have a significant role to play in order for the society to function successfully. Finally, the element of personality illustrates the importance of communication and social interaction that allows one develop themselves through social integration. It allows one to absorb knowledge about the current status quo and fosters thought that enables an individual to contribute to society. Habermas emphasizes that all three functions balance each other out, conveying that without one, the others cannot exist nor function to its full potential. Nevertheless, Habermas asserts that communication between another is key to a successful lifeform.

The theory of "lifeworlds" for Habermas is somewhat similar to habitus that we studied by Bourdieu, at least that is how it seems to me. Lifeworlds can not and are not created by individuals but are something that we all life in. Lifeworlds are made up of socially and culturally embedded meanings in speech. In a sense it is like habitus in which it is the way that our everyday society embeds itself in us and influences that way that we act and think. Habermas says that lifeworlds are used for people to come together to argue to different points of view and then come to a common understanding of what is meant. However, I have an extremely hard time trying to figure out these readings and this is a good example of that.

1. Communication is central to Habermas' theory of social life. Why is agreement about the meaning of a "speech act" so important? Explain the concept of "definition of the situation," and how this relates to communication between actors.

Habermas defines the world of communication within three types of worlds. A speaker can be talking about something within the objective world where absolute and objective truths and statements are possible. There is also a social world dictated by interpersonal relations. Finally there is the subjective world, which is the experience to which the speaker has access and can express it to the public. These worlds don't operate independently, but cooperate with and directly cause each other. The operation of these three worlds requires agreement between the speaker and the hearer. "Coming to an understanding means that participants in communication reach an agreement concerning the validity of an utterance; agreement is the intersubjective recognition of the validity claim the speaker raises for it." (p. 371). What this means is that for anything said to be considered valid, both the speaker and the hearer must come into agreement and to do so, use the three worlds of communication. All three worlds are necessary. Habermas says, for example, as a hearer, you can't accept something as truth but at the same doubt the sincerity of the speaker or their social context. Just the same, one can't doubt the subjectivity of the speaker and still consider them to be speaking the truth. "...participants are always expressing themselves in common so far as they are acting with an orientation to mutual understanding." (p. 372). The functioning of the speaker-hearer situation is also dependant on the definition of the situation. There are many ways in which you can define the situation. You have the normative framework, or social stratification of the situation. The situation also has a spatial location, which is where it is taking place physically. There is also the temporal location or where the situation is taking place in time. These dimensions form the background of what is said and along with what is actually said and the implied overlapping worlds, the hearer is able to comprehend and come to an agreement with the speaker. "If this commonality cannon be presupposed, the actors have to draw upon a mutual understanding, so as to bring about a common definition of the situation or to negotiate one directly..." (p. 372). The first utterance relies on the background of the situation, but this is sometimes based on assumption. If the assumption is wrong, the situation changes and must be redefined. It is in a constant state of definition and redefinition. Changes in definition also correlate with changes in the worlds, which also adapt and change as necessary. This constant negotiation of boundaries means that the boundaries between the speaker and hearer are also in flux. All of the shifts in this speaker-hearer interaction are contained within the lifeworld.

Faiz Hussein For credit Blog 5
How does Habermas define "civil society?" How have the boundaries between the public and private sphere been transformed in modern life? What kinds of reactions-- political and social movements-- have emerged against this?
According to Habermas, civil society is self- organization of the society that fall outside of the power of the state and the interest of the market as well. For Habermas, civil society is something that creates an association, movement that also solves the any social problems that occur within the society, and also finally transform it to the political realm or to the public in general. It exists also by the presence of the autonomous organization that are not coerce by state or by political power. Habermas concentrated on civil society to focus on or show that individual should fulfill two social arenas at the same time. Therefore, individuals must have a geared toward public opinion and also within the society to which the individual reside. The general public must strengthen themselves and stand for the general concern. These definitions I think project or represent the essential conceptual aspect of civil society, but I don't think it actually measure civil society in every aspect of life. This process of giving meanings of integrating of information that is the very formulation of the general's public opinion, agreement, and disagreement occurs due to the private experience which actually accepts them. According to Habermas he related this to what he called manufactured as one please (391). Hence, the general societies have to arise together as all experience the burden of any society. Most of these movements arise of course due to irregularity and unfair treatment of the political leadership. Therefore, the need to set up a formal and functional society arises to regulate the system. That is the civil society itself is firm of non-governmental or non-economic connection and volunteer organization that is formed communication at the public sphere, and also importantly asses the social life and Life world. Therefore, this construction of the society must have access to all societal concerns such as freedom of expression, for everyone who shapes the society. The luck of all these public right then will create a sort of unease around civil society and create a movement. The scale in small set of movement such as in a community will be stronger and will grow to be sort of a state wide movement and then it will come to be recognizing globally. According to Habermas, public sphere embraces several meanings and it usually implies a concept of a social sites or arena where the meaning of it is somehow expressed in reference to the public. He defines public sphere of private people who join collectedly together to form "Public" . Habermas also traces the history of the actual division that exists between the private and public language and philosophy. According to Habermas, is a sphere of production and exchange which forms parts of the private realm and therefore is distinct from the state. Therefore, his message is that civil society is vital and is what we refer to as "Economy", but not limited to only economy but it extends to other social institution as well. It functionality is on its own law, and it represent the state thought "Public Sphere"

1. How does Habermas define "civil society?" How have the boundaries between the public and private sphere been transformed in modern life? What kinds of reactions--political and social movements have emerged against this?
Habermas defines civil society on page 393. His definition contrasts the views of the bourgeois society. Hegel described the bourgeois society as a "system of needs" or a market exchanging social labor and commodities. Habermas says that today civil society is not utilized in the same fashion as Marxist tradition considering it no longer includes the governments restrictions on economy, labor, capital and commodity. Instead civil society relies on nongovernmental and non-economic connections to establish community structures within the public sphere. "Civil society is composed of those more or less spontaneously emergent associations, organizations, and movements that, attuned to how societal problems resonate in the private life spheres, distill and transmit such reactions in amplified form to the public sphere. pg 393". In order to unpack this quotation from Habermas we must further define the term public/private spheres, which is done so on page 389. "The public sphere can be best described as a network for communication information and points of view; the streams of communication are, in process, filtered and synthesized in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public options." To me, Habermas's definition means that the public sphere is any means of communication connections between people are fused together and utilized in such a way to promote specific public relations. Back to defining civil society, now that we know the definition of public sphere it is partially easier to depict. According to Habermas civil society is utilizes practices of nongovernmental, voluntary, noneconomic connections to create public structures that represent the public sphere in the society component of the lifeworld. Which brings me to my next questions, what is the lifeworld? On page 376 Habermas begins to define the term. Habermas begins with an example of speakers and hearers, he said speakers and hearers use their speech as a reference of relation to an objective, normative or subjective acts. He then goes on to say the lifeworld repeals the analogous assignments; speakers and hearers cannot use their speech as a reference to something found to be intersubjective. The example Habermas uses is an actor. Habermas then goes on to describe how an actor moves within his lifeworld, "Communicative actors are always moving within the horizon of their lifeworld; they cannot step outside of it. As interpreters, they themselves belong to the lifeworld, along with their speech acts, but they cannot refer to "something in the lifeworld" in the same way as they can to facts, norms, or experiences." For Habermas, the lifeworld is more or less the "background" environment of competences, practices, and attitudes representable in terms of one's cognitive horizon. Habermas, whose social theory is grounded in communication, focuses on the lifeworld as consisting of socially and culturally sedimented linguistic meanings. It is the lived realm of informal, culturally-grounded understandings and mutual accommodations. According to Habermas, communicative action is governed by practical rationality or, ideas of social importance are mediated through the process of linguistic communication according to the rules of practical rationality. By contrast, technical rationality governs systems of instrumentality, like industries, or on a larger scale, the capitalist economy or the democratic political government. Ideas of instrumental importance to a system are mediated according to the rules of that system. The example that came to my mind is the governments use of currency.

2. Try to explain the concept of "lifeworld" in your own words. Habermas begins to define it on page 376--what is a lifeworld, and what are its main components?

Try to explain the concept of "lifeworld" in your own words. Habermas begins to define it on page 376-- What is a lifeworld, and what are its main components?

According to Habermas, "the everyday concept of the lifeworld that we bring to narrative presentation as a reference system has to be worked up for theoretical purposes in such a way as to make possible statements about the reproduction or self-maintenance of communicatively structured lifeworlds"(376). Habermas uses the term lifeworld to explain the reference system that individuals use to maintain themselves in situations. However, he furthers this statement by saying that lifeworlds exist outside of the individual. Any one individual does not create Lifeworlds, but they govern communication between individuals. This means that there are relations between people that exist outside of just one individual's understanding of a situation. A lifeworld is the perspective of two or more individuals combined to create social interaction. The lifeworld restricts situations by restricting how individuals represent themselves to others. Individual narrative perspectives are able to use lifeworlds to build theorize about other people, and therefore each individual further instates lifeworlds as an overall reference for communication in society.

1. How does Habermas define "civil society?" How have the boundaries between the public and private sphere been transformed in modern life? What kinds of reactions-- political and social movements-- have emerged against this?

Habermas defines "civil society" by comparing it to the idea of "bourgeois society". What he means by this is that social interaction is used for the purpose of fulfilling needs. However, he goes on further to state that civil society does not just revolve around the economy, as Marxs' idea of bourgeois society did, rather, its, "institutional core comprises those nongovernmental and non-economic connections and voluntary associations that anchor the communication structures of the public sphere in the society component of the lifeworld"(393). With this statement, Habermas suggests that civil society is made up of interactions between people who have come together to solve problems socially. Where Marx would suggest that individuals would only come together for economic reasons, Habermas states that these individuals are becoming socially involved for reasons that involve the general public and well-being of people.
The boundaries between the public and private spheres have become transformed in modern day life through the combination of public and private issues. Habermas states that, "boundaries inside the universal public sphere as defined by its reference to the political system remain permeable in principle" (398). This suggests that the public sphere is constantly expanding to cover more and more people, and that by widening its coverage it allows for uniformity of ideas and assimilation to certain ideas. The private sphere intervenes in these interactions and begins to represent ideas that are not necessarily the ideas of all individuals, and that is when problems arise. These problems arise in the form of opposition in political and social movements like the civil rights movement.

1. Communication is central to Habermas' theory of social life. Why is agreement about the meaning of a "speech act" so important? Explain the concept of "definition of the situation," and how this relates to communication between actors.
Agreement about the meaning of a speech act is crucial, because without that understanding between both parties, the intent behind their words may be lost. On page 371, Habermas writes about the three standard components to speech acts. They are to take up pragmatic relation to something in the objective world, to something in the social world, and to something in the subjective world. We must be in agreement about the meaning of a speech act, because even when a speaker "thematically stress[es] only one of the three components in their utterances," one must still keep in mind all three worlds in order to accurately interpret their words. Because all three worlds are always interacting with each other, it is insufficient to interpret someone's speech act using just one of those components. The definition of the situation is formed by, in Habermas' words on page 372, "the background of a communicative utterance." In order to have a mutual understanding of the speech acts happening between two parties, they must also keep in mind the context and the "background" of the words being said. The communication between actors is related to this concept, because those very actors must keep in mind the definition of the situation in order to effectively communicate with one another. If the actors cannot find a common definition of the situation, they must instead "draw upon the means of strategic action, with an orientation toward coming to a mutual understanding," Habermas writes on 372. What he means to say here is that even if two actors cannot reach a mutual understanding in terms of what the definition of their situation is, they must work towards reaching a common ground that is as close to a mutual understanding as they can get.

2. Try to explain the concept of "lifeworld" in your own words. Habermas begins to define it on page 376--what is a lifeworld, and what are its main components?

From reading the part of the chapter that deals with it, I get the feeling that it is both an extremely complicated concept but also one that as members of society and human beings, we are already consciously or even subconsciously aware of. Habermas seemed to believe that it dealt with an area in which you were aware of both subjective and objective notions, things heard from one perspective and then spoken from another simultaneously. At one point he talks about the "distance" between various cultures and the relation they have with a range of facts, norms, or experiences. While I am not sure if this is what he meant to talk about in this passage, what it reminded me of, to a degree, is the concept of ethnocentrism, or rather the feeling that because we are part of a specific culture and there are other that are almost directly analogous to it in multiple respects, does not mean one being occupied by one person from one society holds and more evident "truth" or fact that the opposing one.
Additionally, Habermas states that things that are innerwordly are contrained in various way such as when being presented in a situational perspective, it is reliant on a narrative tone and viewpoint to be understood, whereas he hoped that a referential system could create a more in-depth and qualitative understanding of the lifeworld. There is also this notion that the lifeworld, as this sum of human action, interaction, and perspective, is often understood from a contextual state, which is to say that we understand it as a relationship that is dependent upon those involved, the setting, and the underlying reason for the moment (context). Given the brief outline that I have just offered via the reading for today, I would like to try and write a bit about what I think Habermas was trying to achieve and explicate with this concept of the lifeworld.
Essentially, what I think he was aiming at was a sociological understanding of the individual worlds--lifeworlds-- (world in the sense that it constitutes everything about, both physically and mentally: actions and experiences, etc.) and how they affect or interact with other lifeworlds, which in turn constitutes the lifeworld of a society or group, and so on. By viewing it perhaps as a series of concentric circles, such as a Venn diagram, then we can assume that experiences or beliefs that make up a part of one individuals lifeworld can also be present in precisely the same manner in another person's, the overlap of which shows that all lifeworlds are the product of a series of actions and interactions between all human beings we come into contact with, whether friend, family, acquaintance, or stranger.