Page 15 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

xvi Translator’s Introduction

above all in biology; an organism is easily demarcated from its
environment and the state in which it maintains itself can be
characterized in terms of necessary processes with specifiable
tolerances. The same cannot be said for social systems. In the
course of history not only the elements but the boundaries and
the goal states of societies undergo change; consequently, their
identity becomes blurred. A given modification might be regarded
either as a learning process and regeneration of the original sys-
tem or a process of dissolution and transformation into a new
system. There is apparently no way to determine which descrip-
tion is correct independently of the interpretations of members of
the system.*8
Habermas concluded that if social systems analysis incorporated
the historico-hermeneutic and critical dimensions as suggested, it
could no longer be understood as a form of strictly empirical-
analytic science; it would have to be transformed into a histor-
ically oriented theory of society with a practical intent. The form
such a theory would take was that of a “theoretically generalized
history” or “general interpretation” which reflectively grasped the
formative process of society as a whole, reconstructing the con-
temporary situation with a view not only to its past but to its
anticipated future. It would be a critical theory of society.

I

On Habermas’ own account the methodological views advanced
in Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften and Knowledge and Hu-
man Interests do not represent a final statement of his idea of a
critical social theory.4* He sees them rather as guideposts on his
way to formulating a systematic conception; this latter task has
been the focus of his work for the past decade. The essays col-
lected in this volume provide an overview of the results. As
Habermas repeatedly reminds us, they are not “results” in the
sense of “‘finished products’; his conception of critical theory is
presented rather as a ‘‘research program.” While he is concerned
to argue its validity, he is aware of its hypothetical status, aware
that a program of this magnitude requires considerable develpp-
ment before its fruitfulness—theoretical and practical—can be