Chapter1: Introduction: Sociological Theory

CONCLUSION

By the middle of the twentieth century, Marx's emancipatory project had been turned into something very different than he had visualized. His and Engel's The Communist Manifesto was a call to arms, based on a view of the inherent contradictions in the nature of capitalist systems. Within one hundred years of this call, critical theory had become decidedly more philosopical, Indeed, Marx's dismissal of the "Young Hegelians" in The German Ideology had apparently not worked; they were back in different forms and guises, but they increasingly dominated critical theorizing in the twentieth century. The "Young Hegelians" so viciously criticized by Marx~ and Engels bad considered themselves revolutionaries, but Marx saw them as more concerned with ideas about realty than with reality itself. They were accused of" blowing theoretical bubbles" about ideals and essences, and it could be imagined that he and Engels might make the very same criticisms of the critical theories that developed in the second half of the twentieth century, especially as these theories began to merge with postmodernism. Nonetheless, critical theory in both its material and cultural formulations now represents one of the more prominent theoretical approaches in sociology.

Jurgen Habermas’s Critical Theory

The German philosopher-sociologist, Jurgen Habermas, has been the most prolific descendant of the original Frankfurt School. As with the earlier generation of Frankfurt School social theorists, Habermas's work revolves around several important questions: (1) How can social theory develop ideas that keep Karl Marx's emancipatory project alive, yet, at the same time, recognize the empirical inadequacy of his prognosis for advanced capitalist societies? (2) How can social theory confidant Max Weber's historical analysis of rationalization in a way that avoids his pessimism and 'thereby keeps Marx's emancipatory goals at the center of theory? (3) How can social theory avoid the retreat into subjectivism of earlier critical theorists, such as and Theodor Adorno, who increasing]y focused on states of subjective consciousness within individuals and, as~ a consequence, lost Marx's insight that society is constructed from, and must therefore be emancipated by, the processes that sustain social relations among individuals? (4) How can social theory conceptualize and develop a theory that reconciles the forces of material production and political organization with the forces of intersubjectivity among reflective and conscious individuals in such a way that it avoids (a) Weber's pessimism about the domination of consciousness by rational economic and political forces, (b) Marx's naive optimism about inevitability of class consciousness and revolt, and (c) early critical theorists' retreat into the subjectivism of Georg Hegel's dialectic, where oppression mysteriously mobilizes its negation through increases in subjective consciousnesses and resistance? At different points in his career, Habermas has focused on one or another of these questions, but all four have always guided his approach, at least implicit Habermas has been accused of abandoning the critical thrust of his earlier works, but this conclusion is too harsh. For, in trying to answer these questions, he has increasingly recognized that mere critique of oppression is not enough. Such critique becomes a "reified object itself." Although early critical theorists knew this, they never developed conceptual schemes that accounted for the underlying dynamics of societies. For critique to be useful in liberating people from domination, it is necessary, Habermas seems to say, for the critique to discuss the fundamental processes integrating social systems. In this way the critique has some possibility of suggesting ways to create new types of social relations. Without theoretical understanding about how society works, critique is only superficially debunking and becomes an exercise in futility. This willingness to theorize about the underlying dynamics of society, to avoid the retreat into subjectivism, to reject superficial criticism and instead to base critique on reasoned theoretical analysis, and to incorporate ideas from many diverse theoretical approaches make Habermas's work theoretically significant.

HABERMAS'S ANALYSIS OF "THE PUBLIC SPHERE"

In his first major publication, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas traced the evolution and dissolution of what he termed the public sphere. his sphere is a realm of social life where people can discuss matters of general interest; where they can discuss and debate these issues without recourse to custom, dogma, and force; and where they can resolve differences of opinion by rational argument. To say the least, this conception of a public sphere is rather romanticized, but the imagery of free and open discussion that is resolved by rational argumentation became a central theme in Habermas's subsequent approach. Increasingly throughout his career, Habermas came to see emancipation from domination as possible through "communicative action," which is a reincarnation of the public sphere in more conceptual clothing.

In this early work, however, Habermas appeared more interested hi history and viewed the emergence of the public sphere as occurring in the eighteenth century, when various forums for public debate-clubs, cafes, journals, newspapers--proliferated. He concluded that these forums helped erode the basic structure of feudalism, which is legitimated by religion and custom rather than by agreements that have been reached through public debate and discourse. The public sphere was greatly expanded, Habermas argued, by the extension of market economies and the resulting liberation of the individual from the constraints of feudalism. Free citizens, property holders, traders, merchants, and members of other new sectors in society could now be actively concerned about the governance of society and could openly discuss and debate issues. But, in a vein similar to Weber's analysis of rationalization, Habermas argued that the public sphere was eroded by some of the very forces that stimulated its expansion. As mariner economies experience instability, the powers of the state are extended in an effort to stabilize the economy; with the expansion of bureaucracy to ever more contexts of social life, the public sphere is constricted, And, increasingly, the state seeks to redefine problems as technical and soluble by technologies and administrative procedures rather than by public debate and argumentation.

The details of this argument are less important than the fact that this work established Habermas's credentials as a critical theorist. All the key elements of critical theory are there -the decline of freedom with the expansion of capitalism and the bureaucratized state as well as the seeming power of the state to construct and control social life. The solution to these problems is to resurrect the public sphere, but how is this to be done given the growing power of the state? Thus, in this early work, Habermas had painted himself into the same conceptual corner as his teachers in the Frankfurt School. The next phase of his work extended this critique of capitalist society, but he also tried to redirect critical theory so that it does not have to retreat into the contemplative subjectivism of Lukacs, Horkheimer, and Adorno. Habermas began this project in the late 1960s with an analysis of knowledge systems and a critique of science.