Page 231 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

208 Notes

13. Ibid., pp. 176-177.
14. Cf. the Vorwort to the 1970 edition of Zur Logik der Sozialwissen-
schaften in which Habermas warns against confusing ‘‘processes of self-
understanding with their results,’ and states that he would then (1970)
develop the “discussion fragments” presented there in another direction.
In the “Postscript to Knowledge and Human Interests,’ Philosophy of
the Social Sciences 3 (1973):157-189, he reminds us that this was in-
tended only as a prolegomenon (p. 159); although he still wants “to
uphold the systematic conception of the book,...this idea assumes a
somewhat different complexion” when the necessary refinements have
been worked out (p. 158).
15. Published as the Appendix to Knowledge and Human Interests, pp.
301-317; here p. 314.
16. With one important exception: the idea of discourse and the con-
ception of an “ideal speech situation” that is connected with it; cf. ‘“Vor-
bereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kom-
petenz,” in Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, pp. 101-141;
“Wahrheitstheorien,’ in Wéerklichkeit und Reflexion: Festschrift fir
Walter Schulz (Pfullingen, 1973), pp. 211-265; cf. also T. McCarthy,
The Critical Theory of Jirgen Habermas (Cambridge, Mass., 1978),
chaps. 4.2 and 4.3.
17. Cf. “Stichworte zur Theorie der Sozialisation,’ in Kultur und
Kritik (Frankfurt, 1973), pp. 118-194; “Notizen zum Begriff der Rollen-
kompetenz,” in ibid., pp. 195-231; “Zur Einfiihrung,” in R. Débert, J.
Habermas, and G. Nunner-Winkler, eds., Die Entwicklung des Ichs
(Kéln, 1977); cf. also McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Haber-
mas, chap. 4.4.
18. “Geschichte und Evolution,” in Zur Rekonstruktion des Histor-
ischen Matevialismus (Frankfurt, 1976), pp. 200-259; here p. 250.
19. Legitimation Crisis (Boston, 1975).

Notes to “What Is Universal Pragmatics?”
1. Hitherto the term “pragmatics” has been employed to refer to the
analysis of particular contexts of language use and not to the reconstruc-
tion of universal features of using language (or of employing sentences in
utterances). To mark this contrast, I introduced a distinction between ‘“em-
pirical” and “universal” pragmatics. I am no longer happy with this
terminology; the term ‘formal pragmatics’ —as an extension of “formal
semantics’ —would serve better. “Formal pragmatik” is the term preferred
by F. Schiitze, Sprache Soziologisch Gesehen, 2 vols. (Munich, 1975); cf.
the summary 911-1024.
2. I shall focus on an idealized case of communicative action, viz. ““con-
sensual interaction,” in which participants share a tradition and their ori-