소통 수단의 발전에도 불구하고 소통의 위기가 심화되는 이유는 무엇일까? 오늘날 소통의 중요성은 점점 강조되고 있지만, 소통의 문제는 오히려 더 심각해진다는 사실은 일종의 아이러니가 아닐 수 없다. 이 소통의 문제를 해결하기 위해 필자가 도움을 받고자 하는 이론은 하버마스의 담론윤리이다. 하버마스의 담론윤리는 공론장에서 의사결정과 형성을 위해 담론에 참여하는 모든 이들이 지켜야 할 보편적 기준이다. 칸트의 전통을 이어 받은 하버마스는 의사소통의 규범적 전제를 밝힘으로써 의사결정의 정당성을 확보할 수 있는 소통의 원칙을 도입하고자 하였다. 그러나 이 소통원칙은 소통과정의 정당화담론에 치중함으로써 현실 상황과 맥락에 대한 적용가능성을 고려하지 못한 문제점을 가진다.
이에 따라 필자는 하버마스가 제시한 소통원칙의 적용가능성을 비판적으로 고찰해 봄으로써, 그것이 규범정당화 원칙으로서 뿐만 아니라 적용가능성을 가진 원칙이 될 수 있는 가능성을 모색해 보고자 한다. 그러나 적용가능성을 고려한 소통원칙은 당연히 오늘날 의사소통의 조건에 대한 고려를 필요로 한다. 웹2.0으로 대변되는 새로운 공론장은 모두의 이해관계가 표출될 수 있는 직접민주주의의 가능성을 열어놓았다. 그리고 이런 직접민주주의가 만인의 참여가 가능한 소통의 조건에서 갈등과 충돌을 넘어 심의 민주주의에 이르기 위해서는 가치와 공감을 함께 고려한 소통원칙이 필요하다는 것이 필자의 주장이다.
Despite the development of means of communication, what is the reason that makes the crisis of communication more serious? These days, the importance of communication is more emphasized, but the problem of communication becomes more difficult to solve, which might be thought as a sort of irony. To solve this problem of communication, the discourse ethics of Habermas would be helpful. Habermas's discourse ethics suggests universal criteria which everyone engaging in discourse in order to form public opinion and make decisions in the public sphere must follow. Habermas, following the tradition of Kant, introduces the principle of communication which ensures the justification of decision-making through identifying the normative premise of communication. However, this principle by focusing on the justifications of the communication process is problematic because it did not consider its applicability to real situations and contexts. Accordingly, after considering the critical view of the applicability of Habermas’s communication principles, the principle with the applicability as well as the normatively justified principle should be discussed. However, considering the applicability of the principle of communication of course requires a consideration of the condition of communication today. Web 2.0 is a new public sphere that is represented by way of direct democracy, in which interests of everyone can be expressed. In the public sphere of communication that makes the participation of everyone possible, the normative principle of communication is necessary, but it must be also the principle of value and sympathy in order to go the way of deliberative democracy which could overcome the conflicts of the participants.
Despite the development of means of communication, what is the reason that makes the crisis of communication more serious? These days, the importance of communication is more emphasized, but the problem of communication becomes more difficult to solve, which might be thought as a sort of irony. To solve this problem of communication, the discourse ethics of Habermas would be helpful. Habermas's discourse ethics suggests universal criteria which everyone engaging in discourse in order to form public opinion and make decisions in the public sphere must follow. Habermas, following the tradition of Kant, introduces the principle of communication which ensures the justification of decision-making through identifying the normative premise of communication. However, this principle by focusing on the justifications of the communication process is problematic because it did not consider its applicability to real situations and contexts. Accordingly, after considering the critical view of the applicability of Habermas’s communication principles, the principle with the applicability as well as the normatively justified principle should be discussed. However, considering the applicability of the principle of communication of course requires a consideration of the condition of communication today. Web 2.0 is a new public sphere that is represented by way of direct democracy, in which interests of everyone can be expressed. In the public sphere of communication that makes the participation of everyone possible, the normative principle of communication is necessary, but it must be also the principle of value and sympathy in order to go the way of deliberative democracy which could overcome the conflicts of the participants.
