A pragmatics of power using Juergen Habermas' theory of communicative action.

摘要

Rhetorical theory may benefit from a more sophisticated understanding of how power is mediated by communication. What is lacking is not the consideration of power, as it appears in rhetorical theory in many guises, but a more precise differentiation of its levels and forms. Power may be analyzed at the institutional level as a distributive phenomenon, "power to," and at the interpersonal level as a relational phenomenon, "power over." Different forms of power may be distinguished at both levels. Power takes the form of authority, counsel or manipulation, coercion or inducement, or force at the interpersonal level; at the institutional level it is embodied in social roles and encoded in societal structures.; A rhetorical perspective also has much to contribute to the broader understanding of power. Empirical researchers have developed an analytic understanding of power; however, they have not approached its communicative aspects as systematically. In contrast, social theorists have directed extensive attention to communication, but have not focused exclusively on power. In his theory of communicative action, Jurgen Habermas provides one example of a comprehensive theory of society based on communication. Habermas wishes to explain the achievement of consensus through rational communication. From a rhetorical perspective, his approach is illuminating, as he derives his concept of communicative action from linguistic structures. However, his theory has been criticized for failing to account for asymmetrical relations or the struggle for resources. Yet he does systematically discuss how action in general is mediated by communication, providing a framework broad enough to encompass a systematic treatment of power.; In this analysis, I integrate the concept of power into Habermas' theory, stressing in particular the communicative aspects. By expanding his theory, I hope to answer the following questions: How do speech acts mediate the exercise of power? and How does language encode structures of power? My analysis consists of three lines of inquiry: (1) an investigation of theories of power from sociology and political science, (2) a clarification of how Habermas conceptualizes power in his theory of communicative action, and (3) an explanation of how speech act theory bridges the gaps between the two.