Page 111 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

88 Communication and Evolution of Society

I shall proceed on the assumption that “moral consciousness”’
signifies the ability to make use of interactive competence for
consciously processing morally relevant conflicts of action. You
will recall that the consensual resolution of an action conflict
requires a viewpoint that is open to consensus, with the aid of
which a transitive ordering of the conflicting interests can be
established. But competent agents will—independently of acci-
dental commonalities of social origin, tradition, basic attitude,
and so on—be in agreement about such a fundamental point
of view only if it arises from the very structures of possible
interaction. The reciprocity between acting subjects is such a
point of view. In communicative action a relationship of at least
incomplete reciprocity is established with the interpersonal re-
lation between the involved parties. Two persons stand in an
incompletely reciprocal relation insofar as one may do or expect
x only to the extent that the other may do or expect 7 (e.g.,
teacher/pupil, parent/child). Their relationship is completely
reciprocal if both may do or expect the same thing in comparable
situations (x = y) (e.g., the norms of civil law). In a now-
famous essay Alvin Gouldner speaks of the norm of reciprocity
that underlies all interactions.’* This expression is not entirely
apt, since reciprocity is not a norm but is fixed in the general
structures of possible interaction. Thus the point of view of
reciprocity belongs eo zpso to the interactive knowledge of speak-
ing and acting subjects .
If this is granted, the stages of moral consciousness can be
derived by applying the requirement of reciprocity to the action
structures that the growing child perceives at each of the differ-
ent levels (Schema 4). At level I, only concrete actions and
action consequences (understood as gratifications or sanctions)
can be morally relevant. If incomplete reciprocity is required
here, we obtain Kohlberg’s stage 1 (punishment-obedience ori-
entation); complete reciprocity yields stage 2 (instrumental
hedonism). At level II the sector relevant to action is expanded;
if we require incomplete reciprocity for concrete expectations
bound to reference persons, we obtain Kohlberg’s stage 3, (good-
boy orientation); the same requirement for systems of norms
yields stage 4 (law-and-order orientation). At level II principles