Filsafat Komunikasi Habermas

Zainul Maarif, Lc., M.Hum.

Habermas: Biografi•Lahir di Dusseldorf tahun 1929 dari kelas menengah Jerman, tapi tidak aktif mendukung Nazi.•Belajar filsafat di Gottingen, Zurich dan Bonn.•Gurunya: Heidegger (Nazi), Horkheimer (Yahudi) dan Adorno (Yahudi).•Mengajar di Universitas Frankfurt, Universitas Marburg, Max Planck Institute, Stanberg.•Yang mempengaruhi pemikirannya: Schelling, Hegel, Marx muda, Marcuse, Heidegger, Frankfurd School/Critical Theory (Horkheimer dan Adorno), John Rawls (liberalisme), Pragmatisme.•Karya terkenal:

•Structural Transformation of the Publich Sphere: An Investigation of a Category of Bourgeois Society (1962)•The Theory of Communicative Action (1981)

Peta Gagasan Habermas

Konsep-Konsep Kunci Habermas

• Imanent Critique (Kritik Imanen)• Ideology (Ideology)• Critique of Ideology (Kritik Ideologi)• Public Sphere (ruang public)• Linguistic Turn (Pergeseran Bahasa)• Pragmatic Function of Speach (Fungsi Pragmatis Ujaran)• Theory of Meaning (teori makna). • Validity Claim (Klaim Keabsahan).• Theory of Understanding (teori pemahaman).• Discourse (Diskursus)• Consensus (Kesepakatan)

Kritik Imanen

Habermas employs the method of immanent criticism . One can also call it internal, as opposed to external criticism. The critical theorists think this approach derives from Hegel and Marx. In some respects it is closer to the Socratic mode of argumentation, which assumes the position of the interlocutor, for the sake of argument, without actually endorsing it, in order to point out its incoherence and untruth. Whatever its origins, the critical theorists aim to criticize an object – a conception of society or a work of philosophy – on its own terms, and not on the basis of values or standards that transcend it, in order to bring its untruth to light

Ideologi

• ideologies are false beliefs that are very widely assumed to be true, because virtually all members of society are somehow made to believe them.

• Adorno defines ideology as ‘socially necessary illusion’ or ‘socially necessary false-consciousness’, and the young Habermas accepts something like the same definition.

• Ideology in this sense (as ‘socially necessary ‘) can fulfil social functions in various different ways. It may make what is in fact a social and man-made institution, and hence an institution that is in principle alterable, appear to be fixed and natural. Or it may make an institution that in fact serves the interests of a narrow class of people appear to serve

Kritik Ideologi

• Ideology criticism, then, is a type of immanent criticism that exposes these socially necessary illusions, and thereby, it is hoped, makes the object of criticism – here the illusion-forming social structure – more fluid and susceptible to change.

Ruang PublikAccording to Habermas, the concept of the public sphere is both an idea and an ideology. The public sphere is a space where subjects participate as equals in rational discussion in pursuit of truth and the common good. As ideas, openness, inclusiveness, equality, and freedom were beyond reproach. In reality, though, they were simply ideologies or illusions. For in practice, the participation in the public sphere that existed in the coffee houses, salons, and the literary journals of 18th-century Europe was always restricted to a small group of educated men of means. Property and education were the two unspoken conditions of participation. In reality, the majority of poor and uneducated people, and almost all women, were excluded. Consequently, the idea of the public sphere remained merely Utopian, an inclusive and egalitarian vision of society worthy of apursuit, but never fully realized. The concept of the bourgeois public sphere remained ideological in the second sense too. For the notion of the common good or common interest to which the shared culture of the literary and reasoning public gave rise presented what were in fact the interests of a small group of educated men of means as the common interest of all humankind. The critical point of Habermas’s approach is to show that the idea of the bourgeois public sphere was, despite all this, more than a mere illusion, for it was in principle open: whoever had independent wealth and education was, regardless of standing, status, class, or gender, entitled to participate in public debate. No one was excluded in principle from participation in the public sphere, though many were in practice .

Ruang Publik dan Teori Kritis• The public sphere which in fact declined and fragmented should have deepened,

broadened, and continued to exert a critical and legitimating function on the political and economic systems, pushing them into arenas of democratic control.

• Habermas is interested in the concept of the public sphere because he sees it as the origin of the ideal of a democratic politics, and as the ground of the moral and epistemic values that nourish and maintain democracy – equality, liberty, rationality, and truth.

• In his view, critical theory had to say something about what kinds of institutions are needed to protect individuals against the attractions of political extremism, on the one hand, and the depredations of a burgeoning capitalist economy, on the other.

• Habermas wants to identify the social and institutional conditions that foster autonomy: emancipation means the creation of truly democratic institutions capable of withstanding the corrosive effects of capitalism and the state administration.

• Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, by contrast, holds up the ideal of free rational discussion between equals as one that, though presently unfulfilled, is nonetheless worthy of pursuit.

Pergeseran Bahasa• Habermas claims to have embarked upon a new way of doing social

philosophy, one that begins from an analysis of language use and that locates the rational basis of the coordination of action in speech. He associates this new approach with a more general shift in philosophy called the ‘linguistic turn’.

• The basic strategy was to treat questions of what there is, of what can be known, and of how we can know it, as questions of what we mean, or what refers and how. Habermas applies a similar strategy to the questions of the nature of the social and the possibility of social order.

• Habermas’s linguistic turn is not just a turn towards language, it is a turn away from what he calls ‘the paradigm of the philosophy of consciousness’.

Filsafat Kesadaran

• Cartesian subjectivity• Cartesian dualism, or mind–body dualism ,• Subject–object metaphysics • Foundationalism• First philosophy• Social atomism• Society is a macrosubject

Dunia Sosial

• To begin with, Habermas’s social theory does not picture the social world as an object (or collection of objects) standing over against a plurality of subjects with which it causally interacts. The social world is not an object or a collection of objects, and is not strictly speaking something outside us. Rather, it is a medium that we inhabit. It is ‘in’ us, in the way we think and feel and act, as much as we are ‘in’ it.

Landasan Teori Bahasa/Komunikasi Habermas

Komunikasi, Konsensus dan Disensus

Komunikasi

Diskursus

Konsensus

Cabang Diskursus