Page 232 - Communication and the Evolution of Society
P. 232

209                        Notes


         from  the  same  definition  of  the  situation  and  do  not  disagree  about  the
         claims  to  validity  that  they  reciprocally  raise.  The  following  schema  lo-
         cates  the  extreme  case  of  consensual  interaction  in  a  system  of  different
         types  of  social  action.  Underlying  this  typology  is  the  question  of  which
         categories  of  validity  claims  participants  are  supposed  to  raise  and  to
         react  to.

                                    Social  Action



                 oN Action                      ae


         Action  Oriented  to   Consensual   Openly  Strategic   Latently  Strategic
         Reaching   OS                                 eT


                      Action  —  Discourse   Manipulation   Systematically
                                                          Distorted
                                                          Communication

         These  action  types  can  be  distinguished  by  virtue  of  their  relations  to  the
         validity  basis  of  speech:
           a)  Communicative  vs.  Strategic  Action.  In  communicative  action  a
         basis  of  mutually  recognized  validity  claims  is  presupposed;  this  is  not  the
         case  in  strategic  action.  In  the  communicative  attitude  it  is  possible  to
         reach  a  direct  understanding  oriented  to  validity  claims;  in  the  strategic
         attitude,  by  contrast,  only  an  indirect  understanding  via  determinative
         indicators  is  possible.
           b)  Action  Oriented  to  Reaching  Understanding  vs.  Consensual  Action.
         In  consensual  action  agreement  about  implicitly  raised  validity  claims  can
         be  presupposed  as  a  background  consensus  by  reason  of  common  defini-
         tions  of  the  situations;  such  agreement  is  supposed  to  be  arrived  at  in
         action  oriented  to  reaching  understanding.  In  the  latter  case  strategic  ele-
         ments  may  be  employed  under  the  proviso  that  they  are  meant  to  lead
         to  a  direct  understanding.
           c)  Action  vs.  Discourse.  In  communicative  action  it  is  naively  sup-
         posed  that  implicitly  raised  validity  claims  can  be  vindicated  (or  made
         immediately  plausible  by  way  of  question  and  answer).  In  discourse,  by
         contrast,  the  validity  claims  raised  for  statements  and  norms  are  hy-
         pothetically  bracketed  and  thematically  examined.  As  in  communicative
         action,  the  participants  in  discourse  retain  a  cooperative  attitude.
           d)  Manipulative  Action  vs.  Systematically  Distorted  Communication.
   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237