Teoría y praxis: Estudios de filosofía social

by Jürgen Habermas

Las investigaciones de orientación predominantemente histórica que conforman este volumen —publicado inicialmente en 1963— se proponen el desarrollo tentativo de la idea de una teoría de la sociedad de intencionalidad crítica, así como la delimitación de su estatus respecto del de teorías de otro linaje. El tipo de teoría de la sociedad —cuyo precedente remoto habría que situar en Marx— aquí desarrollado se caracteriza por la doble reflexividad de la teoría puesta en juego. En efecto, el materialismo histórico apunta, por una parte, a procurar una explicación de la evolución social lo suficientemente general y abarcadora como para dar cuenta de los contextos de génesis y de aplicación de la propia teoría. Con ello "nombra" las condiciones en las que la autorreflexión de la historia de la especie ha venido a resultar posible. Pero, por otra parte, "nombra" a la vez a sus destinatarios: a aquellos que con la ayuda de la teoría pueden alcanzar clarificación sobre su papel potencialmente emancipatorio en el proceso histórico.
Con la reflexión sobre su contexto genético y la anticipación de su contexto de aplicación, la teoría se autoconcibe, pues, como un momento catalizador necesario del propio contexto vital-social que analiza. Y que analiza, en fin, como un contexto integral de coacción desde el punto de vista radical de su superación posible.
Con posterioridad a la edición inicial de esta obra, verdaderamente "clásica", Jürgen Habermas publicó trabajos sobre los intereses subyacentes en los tipos de conocimiento históricamente producidos, sobre el capitalismo tardío y su legitimación, sobre el materialismo histórico, sobre la filosofía del lenguaje, de la acción y de la comunicación, así como importantes investigaciones sobre racionalidad y ética discursivas que, a la vez que le confirieron notoriedad internacional, le alejaron definitivamente de las posiciones ortodoxas de la Escuela de Francfort, en cuyas filas aún es a veces incluido.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Nonfiction, Sociology, Politics, History, German Literature

440 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Jürgen Habermas is a German sociologist and philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and American pragmatism. He is perhaps best known for his work on the concept of the public sphere, the topic of his first book entitled The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. His work focuses on the foundations of social theory and epistemology, the analysis of advanced capitalistic societies and democracy, the rule of law in a critical social-evolutionary context, and contemporary politics—particularly German politics. Habermas's theoretical system is devoted to revealing the possibility of reason, emancipation, and rational-critical communication latent in modern institutions and in the human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests.

Reviews

[Ian Wold · Rating 5 out of 5]

I totally enjoy the position of emancipation in my life. Love his critique of Hegel and Marx. Wish I could say more without creating a dissertation... hmm.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

HABERMAS’S “SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRAXIS”

Jürgen Habermas (born 1929) is a German philosopher and sociologist who is one of the leading figures of the Frankfurt School.

He wrote in the Introduction to this revised edition of the original 1971 book, “In the preface to the first German edition I held out the prospect of a systematic investigation into the relationship between theory and praxis. I have not progressed much beyond this announcement of intent but this does not mean that since that time I have neglected this theme. On the contrary, my published work since then shows that the problem has in no way relaxed its hold on me. This new edition… presents a welcome opportunity for me to ascertain in a retrospective view … where the studies I have undertaken up to this point have led me… The investigations collected in this volume, in which the orientation has been predominantly historical, were to develop the idea of a theory of society conceived with a practical intention, and to delimit its status with respect to theories of different origins.” (Pg. 1)

He outlines, “a tendency had developed which is to be extensively investigated in this volume: the attempt to explain why the ideas of the bourgeois revolution necessarily had to remain ideology, and could only be realized by those who, due to their position in the process of production and the experience produced by their class conditions, would have the disposition to see through bourgeois ideology.” (Pg. 27)

He suggests, “In the face of various sectarian enterprises, one might point out today that in advanced capitalism changing the structure of the general system of education might possibly be more important for the organization of enlightenment than the ineffectual training of cadres or the building of impotent parties. With this I only wish to state that these are empirical questions which must not be prejudged. There can be no meaningful theory which per se, and regardless of the circumstances, obligates one to militancy. In any event, we can distinguish theories according to whether or not in their structure they point toward possible emancipation.” (Pg. 31-32)

He notes, “Today… instruction derived from social-technical expertise has become indispensable. The consequence of this has been a scientification of government praxis: the social sciences which now are consulted for this no longer proceed hermeneutically, but rather analytically. They can furnish technical recommendations for effective instrumentalities, but can no longer normatively give any orientation with respect to the goals themselves; they abstain rigorously from any cogent enlightenment about practical necessities in given situations, about the selection of aims, the priority of goals, the application of norms.” (Pg. 114)

He observes, “The meaning of history as a whole is revealed theoretically to the degree to which mankind practically undertakes to make with will and with consciousness that history which it has always made anyhow. In so doing, critique must comprehend itself as a moment within the situation which it is seeking to supersede… For in the end a philosophy of history, with this materialistic self-involvement in history, finds the legitimations for its presuppositions after the fact, presuppositions as a consequence of which it substitutes the contradictions in history itself.” (Pg. 248-249)

He continues, “Two final conclusions suggest themselves. On the one hand, the tendencies described her have grown stronger. On the basis of industrial society and its technically mediated commerce, the interdependence of political events and the integration of social relations have progressed so far beyond what was even conceivable two centuries ago that within this overall complex of communication particular histories have coalesced into the history of one world. Yet at the same time, mankind has never before been confronted so sharply by the irony of a capacity to make its own history, yet still deprived of control over it, as is the case now that the means of self-assertion by force have developed to such a degree that their deployment for attaining specific political ends has become highly problematical. Thus the immanent presuppositions of the philosophy of history have not by any means become invalid; on the contrary, it is only today that they have become true. That is why all the counterideologies, which allege that the way the philosophy of history poses the question is now outdated, must arose a suspicion of escapism.” (Pg. 250-251)

He argues, “Positivism is as little capable of distinguishing between these two concepts of rationality as it is capable, altogether, of being conscious that it itself implies just what it seeks to oppose externally---committed reason. But on this, or the proper distinction between these two forms, depends the relation of theory and praxis in a scientific civilization.” (Pg. 268)

He concludes, “the danger of an exclusively technical civilization, which is devoid of the interconnection between theory and praxis, can be clearly grasped: it is threatened by the splitting of its consciousness, and by the splitting of human beings into two classes---the social engineers and the inmates of closed institutions.” (Pg. 282)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying Habermas’s thought.

[Jojo :D]

Primeros tres capítulos leídos para el grupo de estudios políticos. Marcado como leído por cuestión de organización.