Page 227 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

204 Communication and Evolution of Society

are not arbitrary; they are shaped by our human condition and
conduct, by our forms of life.” °? That may well be. But who
guarantees that the grammar of these forms of life not only
regulates customs but gives expression to reason. It is only a small
step from this conservative appropriation of the great traditions
in terms of language games to the traditionalism of a Michael
Oakeshott.*? This is also the position that Hennis adopts when,
while presupposing virtue and justice as the validity basis of
legitimate domination, he nevertheless has recourse only to cus-
toms.
I have discussed two concepts of legitimation, the empiricist
and the normativist. One can be employed in the social sciences
but is unsatisfactory because it abstracts from the systematic
weight of grounds for validity; the other would be satisfactory
in this regard but is untenable because of the metaphysical con-
text in which it is embedded. I would like, therefore, to propose
a third concept of legitimation, which I shall call the ‘“‘recon-
structive.”
I shall begin by assuming that the proposition: “Recommenda-
tion X is legitimate’ has the same meaning as the proposition:
‘Recommendation X is in the general (or public) interest,”
where X can be an action as well as a norm of action or even a
system of such norms (in the case we are considering, a system
of domination). ‘“X is in the general interest’’ is to mean that
the normative validity claim connected with X counts as justi-
fied.** The justifiability of competing validity claims is decided
by a system of possible justifications; a single justification is called
a legitimation. The reconstruction of given legitimations can con-
sist, first, in discovering the justificatory system, S, that allows
for evaluating the given legitimations as valid or invalid in S.
“Walid in S”’ is to mean only that anyone who accepts S—a myth
or a cosmology or a political theory—must also accept the grounds
given in valid legitimations. This necessity expresses a consistency
connection resulting from the internal relations of the justificatory
system.
In taking a justification up to this threshold, we have inter-
preted a belief in legitimacy and tested its consistency. Along this
hermeneutic path alone, however, we do not arrive at a judgment