Academic literature on the topic 'Habermas’s Ideal Speech Situation'

The issue of advocacy has dominated discussion of the ethical dilemmas facing nurses. However, despite this, nurses seem to be no further towards a solution of how they can be effective advocates for patients without compromising their working identity or facing conflicts of loyalty. This article considers some of the problems around advocacy and, by the use of critical incidents written by nurses involved in a diploma module, attempts to highlight where the problem could lie. A communications model is outlined, using a theoretical framework taken from the work of Jürgen Habermas, and applied to nursing practice. Finally, two examples are given from the research, which illustrate how the model could be used, highlighting the problems and pitfalls that still have to be overcome. The conclusion is a positive one, in that it suggests that advocacy is possible if nurses re-examine their practice in the light of the model proposed.

The author analyses several selected speeches of Italian politicians: the founder of the Forza Italia party, Silvio Berlusconi; the founder and leader of the Five Stars Movement, Beppe Grillo; and the current Prime Minister of Italy, Matteo Renzi. The study makes it possible to evaluate whether the conditions for the ideale Sprechsituation (the ideal speech situation) of Jürgen Habermas are fulfilled in analysing the public discourse. Particular attention will be given to the relationship between the persuasiveness of the communication and the problem of legitimacy.

Credibility is central to communication but often jeopardized by “credibility gaps.” This is especially true for communication about corporate social responsibility (CSR). To date, no tool has been available to analyze stakeholders’ credibility perceptions of CSR communication. This article presents a series of studies conducted to develop a scale to assess the perceived credibility of CSR reports, one of CSR communication’s most important tools. The scale provides a novel operationalization of credibility using validity claims of Habermas’s ideal speech situation as subdimensions. The scale development process, carried out in five studies including a literature review, a Delphi study, and three validation studies applying confirmatory factor analysis, resulted in the 16-item Perceived Credibility (PERCRED) scale. The scale shows convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and nomological validity and is the first validated measure for analyzing credibility perceptions of CSR reports.

In this article, Eric Freedman examines the extent to which critical pedagogy can be considered a democratic form of education. Comparing Paulo Freire's notion of dialogue to Jürgen Habermas's "ideal speech situation," Freedman argues that such dialogue cannot realistically occur in educational situations where the teacher remains in an institutionalized position of power. This argument opens critical pedagogy to the charge of indoctrination. The author thus proposes three ways to align the practice more closely with democratic principles. The first is to employ a democratic procedure to develop school curriculum whenever possible. The second is to present multiple, competing positions on each social issue students are to discuss. Freedman's final suggestion is to train students in a method of analyzing these competing positions that helps shed light on the causes of social inequalities.

Teaching and assessing oral skills is important, but relatively novel in the discipline of Political Studies; this article defends the practice, and outlines the ‘nuts and bolts’ of one methodology for doing it. Preliminary explanation in lectures, practice in seminars, assessment, feedback and self-assessment are all covered and the paperwork illustrated. The methodology is based in part on Habermas's theory of ‘communicative competence’ and the ‘ideal speech situation’; it therefore implies and imparts the values of respect, equality, democracy and consensus. It is suggested that a value-free approach to the teaching of oral skills is impossible.

In this article, I examine the process of establishing the communicative validity of research. Using Habermas’ ideal speech situation as a theoretical backdrop, I explore three moments in which the roles enacted by members of a research collective were implicitly or explicitly negotiated. I find that by examining moments of role negotiation we can explore the level of participation at which stakeholders engage in the process of knowledge production. When roles are explicitly negotiated, therefore, fluid, authentic participation is greater and communicative validity is enhanced.

In texts such as “Richard Rorty’s Pragmatic Turn” Jürgen Habermas defends a theory that associates, on the one hand, the truth-claim raised by a speaker for a proposition p with, on the other hand, the requirement that p be “defendable on the basis of good reasons […] at any time and against anybody”. This, as is known, has been the target of criticisms by Rorty, who−in spite of agreeing with Habermas on the central tenet that the way of evaluating our beliefs must be argumentative practice−declares that the only “ideal presupposed by discourse” is “that of being able to justify your beliefs to a competent audience”. We will consider two texts from 1971, -surprisingly neglected in most approaches to the debate-, in which Habermas did include such a “competence condition” to elucidate the notion of truth. We will discuss whether there are good reasons to relinquish such a condition and to refer, instead, only to the formal or procedural properties of argumentative exchanges, as Habermas does in presenting the notion of “ideal speech situation”. As we will try to argue, there are no such good reasons.

Recent years have brought the private and non-profit sectors closer together in terms of cross-sectional collaborations. As businesses have become more involved in communities, initiatives such as employee volunteering (EV)—where employees are encouraged to volunteer by their employers—are becoming more popular and are receiving more scholarly attention. However, the question still remains as to whether the main reasons behind cooperation are related to strategy: does interaction and communication in EV mirror a more ideal- or strategic approach? As EV programmes (EVPs) bring together actors with different world-views and perspectives, much can be learned from studying their interaction. The present study examined the nature of communication in EV and whether this communication reflects a strategic (based on self-interest) or ideal (corresponding to Habermas’s ideal speech situation and stakeholder dialogue) approach. In addition, the study looked at factors that, according to participants, facilitate improved communication and understanding in EV. The findings indicate that communication in EVPs largely reflected the strategic approach. However, the ideal approach is still apparent in some situations and can successfully be used given the right conditions--for example, in situations of long-term collaboration with increased experience when participants invest time, resources and motivation in building relationships. Time and honesty was also important factors. However, a range of barriers made collaboration more difficult. Pursuit of strategic short-term solutions and shortage of resources and time may hinder important dialogue and understanding.

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo fazer o estudo do pensamento de Habermas desde as suas primeiras obras, até às mais recentes, prestando maior atenção às mais importantes, a fim de salientar as noções que estão subjacentes à “teoria do agir comunicativo”, em torno dos seus conceitos fundamentais, como “teoria” e “praxis”, “razão comunicativa” ou “mundo da vida”. Com tal propósito, tivemos de relacionar Habermas com filósofos como Kant, Hegel e Marx, com pensadores pós-modernos como Derrida, Lyotard e Rorty, passando por Husserl e Apel, pelos precursores da teoria da linguagem e das ciências sociais, como Weber, e também pelos seus antecessores da Escola de Frankfurt, entre outros. O trabalho está dividido em cinco capítulos, que procuram descrever o pensamento de Habermas, que se propõe elaborar os fundamentos de uma “doutrina social crítica”, a qual se pretende que assuma a autorrealização da humanidade. Começámos por tratar a relação entre “teoria” e “praxis”, referindo os autores do “direito natural moderno” (Capítulo 1), até à superação deste direito em “direito positivo”, como o único legítimo e politicamente coercivo (Capítulo 2). Habermas defende que existe um laço intrínseco entre a teoria do direito e o “princípio da democracia”, estabelecendo que o princípio do discurso se fundamenta no medium do direito. Analisámos, depois, os diferentes tipos de saber, configurados por um específico interesse humano, até ao “interesse emancipatório”, característico das “ciências críticas” (Capítulo 3). Posteriormente, demos conta da emergência da “esfera pública” no século XVIII, referindo Rousseau e Kant e o conceito de “sistema” no “capitalismo tardio”, bem como o confronto dos filósofos pós-modernos com Habermas, que se reclama da teoria moderna da racionalidade (Capítulo 4). A reformulação discursiva da ética de Kant e a “viragem linguística”, consumada em Teoria do agir comunicativo (1981), foram tratadas de seguida (Capítulo 5). Tal “viragem” culminou na “pragmática universal”, operando a mudança de paradigma da “filosofia da consciência” para o da intersubjetividade do “agir comunicativo”. Habermas elaborou uma teoria da racionalidade a partir do paradigma da linguagem e de uma ética discursiva universalista, impondo uma ciência reconstrutiva visando a emancipação do homem.
The objective of the work is to study the thought of Habermas, from his first works through to his more recents ones, paying more attention to the more important works, in order to stress the underlying notions of the “theory of communicative action”, around the concepts of “theory” and “praxis”, of “communicative reason” and of “world of life”. Due to this we had to answer to Kant, Hegel, Marx, even to post-modern thinkers such as Lyotard, Derrida and Rorty, passing by Husserl and Apel, the precursors of the theory of language and social sciences such as Weber and also by his predecessors of the School of Frankfurt, among others. The current work is divided between five chapters, referring to the first works where Harbermas proposed the elaboration of the foundations of a critical social theory as the aim of self-realisation of the mankind. We begin with the relationship between “theory” and “praxis”, from the authors of “modern Natural Law” (Chapter 1), until its transformation in “positive law” as the only legitimate and politically coercive law (Chapter 2). Habermas defends the idea that there exists an intrinsic link between the theory of law and the “principle of democracy”, establishing that the principle of discourse is based on the medium of the law. We then progress towards the direction of different types of knowing that are constructed by a specific human interest until the “emancipatory interest” which is characteristic of the “critical sciences” (Chapter 3). After this, the emergence of the “public sphere” in the 18th century was analysed, especially with Rousseau and Kant, the notion of “system” in late capitalism, as well as the confrontation of post-modern philosophers with Habermas, who claim to represent the modern theory of rationality (Chapter 4). The recasting of discursive ethics of Kant and the “linguistic turn”, consummated in Theory of communicative action (1981), were treated then (Chapter 5). The “turn” culminated on the “universal pragmatic” and it is here that the change of rationality paradigm assumes all of its meaning, shifting from the paradigm of “philosophy of consciousness” to the intersubjective paradigm of “communicative action”.

Virtually all of our knowledge is second-hand, learned from others. In ideal deliberative settings, such as Habermas’s ‘ideal speech situation’, learning from others works well because participants are challenged to provide evidence and be consistent in their arguments. Not all real-world deliberation lives up to such high standards, but even non-ideal deliberation can be epistemically advantageous. We investigate five ways how: by improving voter competence; by reducing positive correlation; by incentivizing more sincere voting; by making the decision problem more truth-conducive; and by changing the decision problem in epistemically beneficial ways. The chapter ends with the conjecture that the ‘Deliberation Effect’ will boost group competence at least a little.

Web 2.0 technologies, which allow interactions between the producers and consumers of information, have important implications for how urban spaces are designed and governed. Spatial information on the web has become increasingly wikified, so that non-planners may contribute data, photos, and opinions in a variety of ways, a process that labeled neogeography (and which is closely related to participatory GIS). For example, websites such as GoogleMaps have greatly democratized the process of constructing and using spatial data. This process implies that planners are no longer the privileged producers of information about urban space. A case study of Brión, Galicia, is offered to illustrate this process in practice. Web 2.0 and neogeography have greatly elevated the philosophical significance of planning information: rather than received wisdom, users may construct their own communities of truth. The chapter argues this process resembles Habermas’s notion of an ideal speech situation. The conclusion argues that Web 2.0 and the growth of neogeography imply that planning must be more inclusive and democratic in nature.

As a form of moral debate, discourse ethic, according to Habermas, is based on regulated discussion. Participating moral agents share a common understanding in the ideal speech situation. Following procedures they try to reach consensus on questions of justice and rights. Critics of discourse ethic point to the bias of Western assumptions regarding agents and methods, the danger of elitism, and the optimism and the pacifism that run through the theory. After modification, Habermas distinguishes two types of discourse: the discourse of justification and the discourse of application. The second is inferior to the first. In the second, there is room for negotiating. There is another way of looking at negotiation, one that takes negotiating seriously as an important category of human behavior. This category shows an interesting overlap with moral behavior. Distinguishing four concepts of negotiating and using reciprocity and trust as the moral minimum, Negotiating Ethics is presented as a two level moral debate, close to Habermas but morally different in essential aspects.

Contemporary technology in the form of electronically managed interactive telecommunications is compatible with the goals and values of the humanities. For Marx, machine-work tended toward being mechanically routine, repetitive, deskilled, and trivialized. In the case of discourse, the same criticism has been made of computerized communication. Immediacy is not authorial presence, but the experience of textuality that is maximized by participation in interactive communication. Bulletin board technology inverts the relationship between the degree of communicative interaction and the number of communicants. It is both mass communication and individualized participation. From the point of view of a theory of discourse, the bulletin board system is unique in that the ratio between the number of participants and the individualized nature of the interaction is directly proportional. One person's voice does not inhibit or repress the voice of another. It is the technological embodiment of the ideal speech situation of Habermas which allows for the maximum of democratic participation and which, by allowing everyone to have a voice, allows for the greatest amount of dissensus and dialectic.

Just how much confidence should we place in published research findings, even if peer reviewed? What should we ignore, reject, modify, incorporate, pursue? To answer these questions, the sciences and the humanities must be continually in the business of keeping the record of knowledge straight at the edge, an enterprise the Internet can fruitfully enhance. Accordingly, this chapter looks at some Internet-based possibilities concerning this postpublication process: watch­dog blogs in the sciences, blogs and discussion forums in the sciences and humanities, and book and article reviews in the humanities. For these activities, as for peer review, Habermas’s ideal speech situation provides a useful theoretical framework. The goal is the same: the achievement of rational consensus concerning the originality, significance, argumentative competence, and clarity of expression of the work in question. After reading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales—after the sweeping “Prologue,” the dramatic “Pardoner’s Tale,” the raucous “Miller’s Tale,” the sermon that is the “Parson’s Tale”—readers come upon what may well be the world’s first “Retraction Notice”: . . . Now I pray to all who hear or read this little treatise, that if there is anything in it that they like, they thank our Lord Jesus Christ for it, from whom proceeds all wisdom and goodness. And if there is anything that displeases them, I pray also that they attribute it to inadvertence rather than intent. I would have done better if I could. For the Bible says, “All that is written is written to support the teaching our faith” and that is what I wish to do. Therefore I beseech you meekly, for the mercy of God, that you pray for me that Christ have mercy on me and forgive my sins, especially my translations and works of worldly vanity, which I revoke in my retractions. . . . In acknowledging error, some editors of science journals lack the poet’s candor. One minced no words, responding to a request from the editors of the blog “Retraction Watch”—Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky—for reasons that a paper was retracted with the following terse comment: “It’s none of your damn business.”

Chapter 1 provides an ethnography and analysis of women’s peacebuilding initiatives in Palestine, tracking the ways in which the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and the liberal Women, Peace and Security agenda was interpreted and implemented there. After the Oslo Accords, foreign donors but also some scholarly analysts have displayed a peculiar fascination with peacebuilding initiatives between Palestinian and Israelis. Such joint peace initiatives often are legitimized in the international community with reference to the UNSCR 1325, but they have become few and lack social support and impact in Palestine. Countering liberal approaches to peace, politics, and the public sphere, including Habermas’s notion of ideal speech, this chapter argues that joint Palestinian and Israeli women’s peacebuilding in fact constitutes an attempt to discipline rather than to strengthen women’s political activism in Palestine.