SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY. A SYSTEM – LIFEWORLD COMPATIBILITY OR INCOMPATIBILITY?

İLETİŞİMSEL EYLEM KURAMI : YAŞAM DÜNYASI - SİSTEM KAYNAŞMASI mı AYRIŞMASI mı?

Ahmet KÜÇÜK
Osman ÖZKUL
Pages
215–237
Publication Date
2021-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Secondly to discuss what the positive and negative criticisms brought to these proposals are and their applicability in todays society, in the presence of relevant literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Jürgen Habermas focused, with his “Theory of Communicative Action", on the balancing of system-lifeworld, which is one of the most fundamental problems of social sciences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:He tries to do this by using the "rational communication" ignored by structural and action theorists.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Secondly to discuss what the positive and negative criticisms brought to these proposals are and their applicability in todays society, in the presence of relevant literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İletişimsel Eylem · Kamusal Alan · Yaşam Dünyası

Abstract

Jürgen Habermas focused, with his “Theory of Communicative Action", on the balancing of system-lifeworld, which is one of the most fundamental problems of social sciences. He tries to do this by using the "rational communication" ignored by structural and action theorists. Habermas pays attention to examining and evaluating different philosophical and sociological ideas in his works. By reflecting his knowledge and experience formed by this attitude, he tries to explain the relationship between system and lifeworld by developing a new intersubjective concept. This study has two objectives. First to reveal what kind of different suggestions Habermas offers to save the idea of the Enlightenment. Secondly to discuss what the positive and negative criticisms brought to these proposals are and their applicability in todays society, in the presence of relevant literature.

Özet

Jürgen Habermas geliştirdiği “İletişimsel Eylem” kuramı ile sosyolojinin en temel sorunlarından biri olan, yapı-eylem/sistem-yaşam dünyası dengelenmesine, odaklanmaktadır. Bunu yaparken gerek eylem kuramcılarının gerekse yapı kuramcılarının göz ardı ettikleri “İletişim” aracını kullanmaktadır. Habermas, çok farklı felsefi ve sosyolojik düşünceleri hem eleştirip hem de faydalanmaya özen göstermektedir. Bu tutumuyla oluşturduğu bilgi ve tecrübesini ortaya koyduğu kuramına yansıtarak yapı-eylem ilişkisini özneler arası yeni bir yaklaşım geliştirerek açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Çalışmanın iki amacı vardır. Birincisi Habermas’ın ortaya koyduğu bu yeni kuramın Aydınlanma düşüncesini ve onun savunduğu akılcılığı bu krizden kurtarmak için ne tür farklı öneriler sunduğunu ortaya koymaktır. İkinci olarak bu önerilere getirilen olumlu olumsuz eleştirilerin neler olduğunu ve bunların uygulanabilirliğini tartışmaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÜÇÜK, A., ÖZKUL, O. (2021). COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY. A SYSTEM – LIFEWORLD COMPATIBILITY OR INCOMPATIBILITY?. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 215–237. https://ajindex.com/articles/721824

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Atiker, E. (1998).
  2. Modernizm ve Kitle Toplumu, Vadi yay., Ankara, 91. Bellamy R. (2007). Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defense of the Constitutionality of Democracy, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007, s. 150; Boehm, R. (1979). Husserls drei Thesen über die Lebenswelt in: Elisabeth Ströker [Hrsg.], Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft in der Philosophie Edmund Husserls, Vittorio Klostermann Frankfurt am Main. Brunkhorst, H. et al., editors. “PREFACE.” The Habermas Handbook, Columbia University Press, New York, 2018, pp. xi-xii. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/brun16642.3. Accessed 6 Apr. 2021.
  3. Cooke M. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication, (ed.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  4. Coole, D. (1996). Habermas and the Question of Alterity; in: d’Entrèves & Benhabib; 221-44.
  5. Carol C. G. (2004). Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Dursun, Y. (1999), “Habermas‟ın Söylem Etik‟ine BakıĢı”, Doğu Batı, Y. 3, S. 9, (ss. 101- 117). FOX, C. J. & Hugh M. (1995), Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse, Sage Publications, USA. Gorz A. (1997). Misères du présent, richesse du possible, Paris, Galilée, Édıtıons Galılée, 9, Rue Linne. 75005 Paris. Greven, M. Th. (1991). Macht und Politik in der „Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns„ von Jürgen Habermas, in: Greven, Michael Th. (Hrsg.) 1991: Macht in der Demokratie: Denkanstöße zur Wiederbelebung einer klassischen Frage in der zeitgenössischen politischen Theorie, Baden-Baden: Nomos: 213-239.
  7. Gould C. (1999). "Democracy and Diversity: Representing Differences," in Democracy and Difference: Changing Boundaries of the Political, ed. Seyla Benhabib (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1996), 171-186).
  8. Güçlü, A. Uzun E., Uzun S. ve Yolsal Ü.H. (2008). Felsefe Sözlüğü. Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları Ankara.
  9. Güngen C. (2013). Jurgen Habermas ve “eleştirel demokrasi” (Electronic) Available at: http://www.cangungen.com/2013/07/28/jurgen-habermas-ve-elestirel-demokrasi/
  10. Habermas, J. (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989.
  11. Habermas, J. (1962b). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989, p.7. Habermas, J. (1962c). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An