David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Sociological Theory 19 (2):165-186 (2001)
From a certain perspective, Habermas's theory of communicative action is a response, in extension of Mead, Schutz, and Parsons, to the risk of dissension posed by double contingency. Starting from double contingency, both The Theory of Communicative Action and Between Facts and Norms are essentially an elaboration of a solution to this problem in terms of a more fully developed theory of communication than had been available to his predecessors. Given the intense concentration and the immense expenditure of energy on the working out of the coordinating accomplishments and structures required by the complex solution envisaged by him, it is unsurprising that Habermas overlooks the next most important problem intermittently raised by the theory of communicative action, namely, the problem of "triple contingency," that is, the contingency that the public brings into the social process. This has far-reaching implications for Habermas's place in the sociological tradition and for the relation of the younger generation to him. Because of his continued search for a solution to a problem posed in the classical phase of sociology and his concomitant failure to develop the new problem that he himself raised in the course of so doing, he can be classified with Parsons as being a neoclassical sociologist. He nevertheless bequeaths a serious problem to contemporary sociology
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
James Gordon Finlayson (2005). Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Gerhard Wagner & Heinz Zipprian (1991). Intersubjectivity and Critical Consciousness: Remarks on Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action. Inquiry 34 (1):49 – 62.
Kevin Scharp (2003). Communication and Content: Circumstances and Consequences of the Habermas-Brandom Debate. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):43 – 61.
Lawrence B. Solum (1989). Freedom of Communicative Action. Northwestern University Law Review 83 (1):54-135.
Hugh Baxter (2011). Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford Law Books.
Dirk-Martin Grube & Peter Jonkers (eds.) (2008). Religions Challenged by Contingency: Theological and Philosophical Approaches to the Problem of Contingency. Brill.
Gerard Delanty (1997). Habermas and Occidental Rationalism: The Politics of Identity, Social Learning, and the Cultural Limits of Moral Universalism. Sociological Theory 15 (1):30-59.
J. M. Bernstein (1995). Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. Routledge.
Piet Strydom (1999). Triple Contingency: The Theoretical Problem of the Public in Communication Societies. Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (2):1-25.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #160,549 of 1,696,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #333,740 of 1,696,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?