Dialectical Synthesis': An Inquiry Into The Habermasian Paradigm Of Legitimate Knowledge

Habermas challenged positivistically minded				with greater precision and inter subjective
philosophers of science who explicitly or implicitly				reliability. According to Habermas the objective
presupposed that the empirical analytical sciences				reality is just another name for that
provide the model for all legitimate knowledge and				intersubjectively agreed upon the set of
dismissed all other claim to knowledge as pseudo				properties and relationships that reflects on e
knowledge. Habermas distinguished three non				possible way of interpreting nature. Pursuing the
reducible quasi transcendental cognitive interests.				penetrating the line of inquiry pioneered by Charles
They are the technical, the practical, and the				Pierce, Habermas argues that scientific method,
emancipatory. Each of these cognitive interests is				understood asa procedure for attaining a progress
itself rooted in historical rationalization. "The overall				since consensus about reality ultimately derives
task of critical theory is therefore to disclose				its validity from the natural trial and error revision
those interests which lie behind the carious				of belief that accompanies the success or failure
exercises of Knowledge in a dimension of human				of adaptive behaviour. Habermas ties objectifying
existence. The approach to empirical-analytic				technology and science to human nature. He
sciences incorporates a technical cognitive interest,				notes that technological development is a self
that of the historical- hermeneutic sciences				objectification of the subject's natural powers.
incorporate a practical one, and the approach of				Habermas maintains that once the instrumental
critically oriented sciences incorporates the				activity is necessary for survival is institutionalized
emancipatory cognitive interest".1				under the aspect of science, it becomes a social
For Habermas, there is no philosophy that is				learning process. This social learning process is
above critique. There exists no transcendental				mediated by a different kind of activity known as
plane of timeless certitude, no place where a				communication.
disinterested consciousness could detach in itself				Understanding is for Gadamer inextricably bound
from all historical and ideological concerns and				up with interpretation. He believes that the
thereby lay claim to some absolute of knowledge.				interpreter does not approach his subject with
All theories and particularly those which present				neutral mind. He brings with him a certain horizon
themselves as perfectly neutral and objective are				of expectations, beliefs, concept and norms. He
ideologies concealing their own vested interests by				sees the subject from perspectives opened by
dressing them up in the guise. There exists,				this horizon. According to Gadamer, all interpretive
Habermas argues, pluralism of interests. He groups				understanding is necessarily bound to be
them under the above mentioned three				preconceived and prejudged. But openness can
categories.				only help the interpreter gradually to become
The instrumental interest is the perspective which				aware of his own structure of prejudices in the
motivates the allegedly neutral empirical-analytic				course of his interpretative activity. In Gadamer's
sciences. This perspective limits the meaning of				view, a successful interpretation entails a fusion
empirical facts whose validity depends, in turn, on				of horizons. But this does not mean that there is
their technical exploitability within a utilitarian				such a thing as the correct interpretation. Unless
system of behaviour. The criterion invoked here				there is an end to history, there can be no end
is that purposive rational action. It is epitomized in				to the interpretative process.
the contemporary ideology of scientific				To Gadamer, language and tradition are
technology. Habermas defines it as the cognitive				inseparable. Tradition is the medium in which
interest in technical control over objectified				language is transmitted and developed. Gadamer
processes. It is otherwise know as positivism.				criticizes Dilthey by arguing that Dilthey commits
This is the type of scientific knowledge that logical				objectivistic fallacy by presuming that the meaning
positivists, logical empiricists, and philosophers of				disclosed by correct interpretation is identical with
science in the analytic tradition were primarily				the meaning originally intended by the author.
interested in ‘analyzing'.				"Gadamer's primary aim was to discredit the
Habermas was not degenerating or criticizing				empathetic model of understanding deriving from
these forms of knowledge. His point is that it is				romantic tradition of Schleiermacher, Ranke and
only one type of knowledge; it is not to be taken				Dilthey".1 Although this tradition had started out as
the canonical standard for all forms of knowledge.				a reaction against the Enlightenment, it discarded
This is why Habermas challenged positivistically				neither the subject- object dualism nor the
minded philosophers of science who explicitly or				methodological glorification of value freedom that
implicitly presupposed that the empirical-analytical				were its Cartesian trademarks.
sciences provide the model for all legitimate				"By demonstrating that all forms of knowledge
knowledge and dismissed all other claims to				and experience are interpretative in the deepest
knowledge as pseudo knowledge.				sense, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics
The second category of interest, the practical,				undercuts the shibboleth of value neutrality and
favours a model of communicative action.				presuppositionlessness that lives at the center
Practical interest- refers to a field of inter				positivism. Science does not mirror reality. It
subjective action. For Habermas, this is the				interprets it as a measurable spatio- temporal field
domain of the ‘historical hermeneutic sciences'.				of matter and energy in accordance with its own
The Historical-Hermeneutic disciplines are governed				methodological assumptions"2. Habermas is in
by a practical interest of furthering understanding.				agreement here. H e also sees Gadamer's
‘The historical hermeneutic sciences gain				critique of romantic hermeneutics as explaining
knowledge in a different methodological frame				why deep ethical currents run through the human
work. Here the meaning of the validity of				science.
propositions is not constituted in the frame of				"Every successful understanding applies new
reference of technological control…..Access to				meaning to the current situation of the
the facts is provided by the understanding of				interpreter, thereby revealing new possibilities for
meaning.. The verification of law like hypothesis in				action"3. Habermas praises
the empirical analytic science has its counter part				Gadamer'sunderstanding of the way in which ideal
in the interpretations of texts. Thus the rules of				structures are generated within the historical
hermeneutics determine the possible meaning of				process. He claims that Gadamer regards the
the validity of statements of the cultural science.'				interpreter as an actual participant in practical
The Historical-Hermeneutic sciences endeavour to				conversation.
understand the inherently human dimension of				According to Gadamer, understanding serves to
meaning achieved through the interpretation of				bridge the cultural horizons of interpreter and
messaged exchanged in everyday language.				author by means of a shared public language. The
Habermas believes that Marx recognized a				process of understanding is the mutual
distinction between technical and practical interests				understanding between different cultural horizons.
when he separated the relations of production and				To Gadamer, any moral relationship requires this
the forces of production. The critique of ideology				bridging of cultures. The agreement between
depends upon recognition of the split between the				communicating horizons is clarified by Gadamer in
technical-analytic interest and the				terms of the dialogical dynamics of textual
practical-communicative interest. In making this				understanding. The objectivity of textual
critical difference between the interests of				interpretation is achieved by checking the
technical control and practical communication,				distorting effects of one's prejudices. Gadamer
Habermas endeavours to restore the possibility of				holds that it is futile to attempt to cancel the
genuine critical theory.				influence of values, preferences, and linguistic
Although Habermas has appropriated the insights				assumptions, because, they form the tacit
of the hermeneutic tradition, he has been sharply				background of their understanding. This argument
critical of its implicit historicism-its hidden form of				leads to the point that the textual meaning is not
positivism. ‘One of the Habermas' most basic				pregiven by the author' original intentions, but
and challenging thesis is that we cannot even				partially constituted by the subjectivity of the
make sense of the concepts of meaning,				interpreter. But this argument would lead to the
understanding, and interpretation unless we				position that textual interpretation is an act of
rationally evaluate the validity claims that are				arbitrarily projecting one's own prejudices onto
made by participants in these forms of life.'				the text. If thesewere the case, there would be
The third category of interest of Habermas is the				no difference between correct and incorrect
interest in emancipation of critical reflection.				interpretation. Hence, it would be very difficult to
Habermas identifies this with the project of critical				establish that the understanding could serve the
social science modeled on the Critical Theory of				function of moral enlightenment. Here, there is a
the Frankfurt School and Institute for Social				need for conceiving the textual interpretation
Research. The Critical Social Sciences dispel the				along with the model of simulated communication.
positivist illusion of disinterestedness and unmask				The objectivity and moral enlightenment can be
the ideological interests at work. A critical social				accounted for only by merging the dialogue along
science is a dialectical synthesis of the empirical				with textual interpretation. Moral knowledge and its
analytic and historical hermeneutical disciplines. It				limitation, like objective interpretation and its
goes beyond the one-sided approaches. If a				understanding, involve a process of critical
reflection is made on the forms of knowledge and				reflection that can be provoked and sustained
the disciplines guided by the technical and practical				only dialogically in communication with self and
interests, it could be realized that they contain an				other"4.
internal demand for open free, non-coercive				In Habermas's view, the most provocative
communication. Habermas argues that it is only by				feature of Gadamer's hermeneutics is the claim
exposing this conflict between practical and				against historicism and by implication against
technical interest, we can become aware of the				phenomenology and linguistic analysis. The interest
third and ultimately most positive form of				behind hermeneutic is an interest in dialogue with
cognitive interest,- the interest in emancipation as				others, with the past and with the alien cultures
a basic human need for autonomy, responsibility				about the common concerns of human life. The
and justice.				hermeneutic orientation is not that of the neutral
The idea of critical interest takes us to the center				observation but that of the partner in dialogue.
of Habermas' thought. The critical sciences obey				Habermas is of the opinion that the reflection can
an emancipatory cognitive interest which insists on				no longer be conceived as absolute. It is always
self reflection. In doing so, it seeks liberation from				rooted in the contingent complex of tradition.
the constraints of ignorance. Here cognition is not				"Although he accepts Gadamer's point about the
for the sake of something else. Cognitive				finitude and context bounded ness of human
knowledge operates for its own sake. Habermas				understanding, Habermas rejects his relativistic
will argue that the very reflection which links				and idealistic conclusions regarding the logic of
knowledge to emancipation reveals the interest				verstehen. In the first place, hermeneutic
base of knowledge as such. It combines theory				interpretation must be conjoined with the critique
and practice in its very method. To argue that				of ideology"5.
knowledge is grounded in practical interests runs				The critique of ideology requires a system
contrary to positivist philosophy of science. By				reference that goes beyond tradition by
‘positivism', Habermas means the philosophical				systematically taking into account the empirical
movement initiated by August Comte and later				conditions under which it develops and changes.
continued by the Vienna School under the name				Hence hermeneutic understanding must be
"logical positivism". Positivism maintains that all				conjoined with the analysis of social systems. If
forms of knowledge conform to the kind of				social theory is to investigate the conditions under
knowledge advocated by the natural science. The				which patterns of interpretation and of action
knowledge involves the causal explanation of				develop and change, it will, Habermas maintains,
events. Habermas calls this knowledge as				have to be historically oriented, Hence
scientism. ‘Positivism assumes that the truth				hermeneutic inquiry must also be conjoined with a
of a scientific fact consists in correspondence with				philosophy of history. Actually Habermas is not
a reality whose meaning preexists the selective				just after simply an aggregate of several useful
perception and conceptual activity of the				approaches but an integrated frame work for
perceiver. That is, it is assumed to be freed				social theory.
from all practical values and interests that might				Gadamer does not simply plead the advantages
lend it a subjective, interpretative cast.'				of tradition; but argues that participation in a
Habermas observes that there is no scope for				cultural heritage is a condition of possibility of all
subjectivity of the individual in positivism. Natural				thought, including critical reflection. Thus in his reply
science understands knowledge in terms of causal				to Habermas, he accuses him of employing an
explanations. It will explain any phenomenon in				oversimplified concept of critique and of setting up
terms of causal law. This is not accepted by				an abstract opposition between tradition and
Habermas. The causal law is established by factual				reflection. Gadamer concludes that Habermas's
observation. For example, the gravitation should				critique is dogmatic. Gadamer denies that
be established by factual observation of falling of				hermeneutics can be simply opposed to critical
thing from the top when they are thrown up.				reflection as the renewal of traditional authority is
Natural science which is the strong root of				opposed to its dissolution. He claims reflection is an
positivism believes that facts are objective.				integral moment of the attempt to understand.
The objectivity of natural science is questioned by				Reflection, according to Gadamer, is not
Immanuel Kant. Actually objectivity is another				something opposed to understanding. So, he says
word for inter-subjectivity. Inter-subjectivity				that Habermas makes a dogmatic confusion by
approach is imbibed in the objectivity. But natural				separating them.
science avoids this inter-subjective element. Hence				Gadamer criticizes Habermas on the count that he
this point is being criticized by Habermas.				attributes false power to reflection. He claims that
The repeatability in natural science is questioned				reflection is always limited, partial, and based on
by Habermas. Habermas argues that the entire				taken- for granted preconceptions and
outlook of natural sciences is not giving				prejudgments. Habermas wants to get behind
importance to active dynamic role of human.				language to the real conditions under which it
Further positivism claims to be value neutral. The				historically develops. But, Gadamer views language
moral freedom of the individual is deleted by				as not simply one aspect of society among
natural science. But Habermas says that there				others. According to Gadamer, it is the universal
could be no such theory as value neutral in any				medium of social life. In particular, labour and
enterprise. If there is one value neutral theory,				power are located outside of language but
human beings can not take it. Habermas brings in				mediated through it. Gadamer is of the view that
here the transcendental and anthropological				Habermas makes excessive claims on behalf of
argument. He says that knowledge is conducive				critical reflection. "The critic cannot pretend to be
to values and values are necessary for self				in sole possession of the truth. His ideas of the
preservation. But by and large there is a survival				just life are not exempt from revision and
interest. But it should not be taken in the selfish				rejection in dialogue with others. Thus critical
sense. It is not that Habermas thinks in terms of				self-reflection, as well as the critique of ideological
survival interest, but it predominates. To justify				distortion, cannot be pursued in isolation from the
this, he gave this anthropological view.				attempt to come to an understanding with others.
His anthropological view holds that there is a need				The ideals of reason are inherently bound up with
for life preservation which also leads to				openness to dialogue- both actual dialogue with
emancipation of freedom of human individuals. But				contemporaries and virtual dialogue with the
on the other hand, Habermas views that it is not				past"6. But Habermas questions the
possible to throw away the pursuit of scientific				methodological point of view of Gadamer. He asks
knowledge. So he wanted the knowledge which is				the questionwhether hermeneutics is or can be
technically useful and morally binding, not only				the sole and adequate basis of social inquiry.
morally binding but also morally liberating. So				Habermas feels that by absolutizing or by way to
Habermas believes that positivism is false as				ontologising of hermeneutics, it results in an
philosophical theory about the essential structure				aprioristic devaluation of the methods of social
of cognition. It neglects the fundamentally				analysis with a theoretical basis that goes beyond
interested nature of all knowledge. Habermas				the normal linguistic competence.
thinks that positivism gives a false account of				Though Habermas does not deny the intimate
scientific methodology. Habermas insists that a				connection between critical reflection and
critical social science guided by an emancipatory				hermeneutic understanding, he differs on the
interest is necessary for guaranteeing the				proper approach to tradition. "Habermas's counter
objectivity.				position is an attempt to mitigate the radically
Habermas in his ‘Knowledge and Human				situational character of understanding through the
Interest' traces back to the prehistory of				introduction of theoretical elements; the
positivism. In doing that job, he analyses the				communication and social evolution are meant to
tradition of German philosophy from Kant through				reduce the context dependency of the basic
Hegel and Marx. By analyzing this, he tries to				categories and assumptions of critical theory"7.
justify that a critique of knowledge must aspire				The important influence of hermeneutics in
to social critique. Actually Habermas has not totally				Habermas's work nowhere more visible than in
rejected the positivist philosophy. He felt that the				the ‘linguistic turn' of his later work.
path of reflection leading from Kant to Hegel and				"Habermas agrees with Gadamer that language is
Marx was not entirely suppressed by the				not only an object in our hands, it is the reservoir
positivist philosophy of science. In his				of traditions in and through which we exist"8.
‘Knowledge and Human Interest' Habermas				Socialization and cultural reproduction go through
had touched upon fundamental issues that				the medium of language. Ego – identity is
preoccupied thinkers in a variety of fields. He had				formed and reciprocally stabilized in linguistic
advanced a provocative interpretation of				interaction. Social action is typically accomplished
movement of though that encompassed Kant,				coordinated through ordinary speech. It is for
Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Dilthey, Peirce, Nietzsche,				these reasons that Habermas has taken on the
Comte and Freud.				colossal task of transposing his social theory into
In this context, it is worth of observing what				the paradigm of linguistic communication.
Charles Pierce has said. He provides an important				"Habermas agrees that it makes good sense to
link between Marx and Hegel. The Kantian notion				conceive of language as a kind of meta-institution
of reason was transformed by Marx and Hegel				on which all social institutions are dependent; for
from synthetic activity to social activity. For Kant,				social action is constituted only in ordinary
the synthetic power of the mind produces causal				communication"9.Yet hermeneutics dies, not go
unity in the world. Pierce shows how the				far enough; it is insufficiently objective. By
production of a causally unified world becomes the				entering social reality only through the mutuality of
function of labour. It is the instrumental action. He				understanding hermeneutics comes up against the
argues that the discovery of causal regularities				walls of tradition from the inside as it were. The
occurs only in the course of instrumental				problem is that language is also a medium of
interventions in nature. Passive observations alone				power and oppression; language has an ideological
do not help to differentiate the non causal				dimension. This could be observed even in family
connections from the causal connections. For				relations and political culture. Power relations,
Pierce, the experimental behaviour is necessary				Habermas observes, come upon as a
for the discovery of causal connections This				systematically distorted communication. According
forms the basic logic underlying the scientific				to Habermas, a critical theory of society must
enquiry.				therefore also provide objective explanations of
"The logic of scientific inquiry consists of three				social reality that come so to speak, from the
types of instrumental activity. They are: discovery				outside in. Habermas views that the problem with
of causal laws via trial and error (abduction),				hermeneutics is that it affirms the rights of
explanation, or inference of effects from				tradition at the expense of reflection, at the
antecedent conditions and causal laws(deductions)				expense of potentially emancipatory reflection
and experimental confirmation of laws(induction)"				that proves itself.
*				Notes:
These three types of instrumental activities				1. Gadamer. H.G., Truth and Method, New York,
comprise a methodologically sophisticated set of				1975, p.124.
operations. This leads to the possibility of the				2. David Ingram, Habermas and the Dialectic of
acquisition of causal knowledge. The instrumental				Reason, Yale University Press, London, p.9.
activities-abduction, deduction, induction,				3. Ibid, p.9.
corresponds to primitive behaviours which evolved				4. Ibid, p.24.
in response to organic changes in the species.				5. Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of
Habermas understands that the scientific method				Jurgen Habermas, MIT Press, USA,1989,p.182.
transforms feedback monitored behaviour into a				6. Ibid, p.190.
cumulative learning process by isolating causal				7. Ibid, p.193.
chains under controlled conditions. To him,				8. Gadamer.H.G., On the Scope and Function of
measuring procedures infuse instrumental actions				Hermeneutic Reflection, 1970, p.360.

Black Stuff

Dialectical Synthesis': An Inquiry Into The Habermasian Paradigm Of Legitimate Knowledge

More in Articles