Investigating the place of communication rationality in the expansion of the public sphere from the point of view of modern communication theorists

Dissertation to receive a master's degree (MA)

Trend: Research in communication

dissertation abstract (including summary, objectives, implementation methods and results obtained):

In the beginning, the main idea of ??this project was from the poverty of a comprehensive and general plan regarding the place of rationality and its evolution as communication rationality in communication sciences. The main topic and question of the thesis is to examine the place of communication rationality in the expansion of the public domain from the perspective of modernity theorists. The research methodology is a qualitative method with the approach of Max Weber's qualitative methodology. In the first chapter, the generalities of the research, including the statement of the topic, the research objectives, the statistical community, and the research method are discussed. In the second chapter, historical developments from the history of ancient Greece, the development of Christianity, and the explanation of opinions during the era of Christianity, religious reform, enlightenment, and intellectual revolution. The fourth is about communication rationality and the origin and separation of rationality from the beginning and its reaching to communication rationality. More than anything in this chapter, Habermas' opinions and thoughts have been fed.

In the fifth chapter, summarizing and concluding about the separation of opinions and consensus and even the closeness of the thinking of modern theorists regarding the rationality of communication has been addressed to the structure analysis method. These philosophers: Marx and the critics of his thought in the Frankfurt books were Marcuse, Horkheimer and Weber, which ultimately led to the birth of communication rationality by Habermas. According to Habermas, communication through language necessarily requires the assertion of validity, specifically the truth of authenticity, which can only be resolved through dialogue when there is a difference of opinion. Moreover, Habermas believes that monolinguals fully understand the conditions under which such a dialogue produces a truly correct result, and he has explained these conditions in terms of the features of the egalitarian "situation" [and] the "speech ideal". Communicative rationality implies that humans have the ability to protest in conditions close to this ideal state ("discourse" in Habermas's term) with the goal of achieving consensus. 

It relies on the concept of communicative rationality to make the point that what democratic forms of social organization represent is more than mere priorities in cultural and political tradition. In his view, a speech-act cannot even be understood without taking a stance on the validity claim it makes, and this stance in turn provides an unconstrained dialogue that determines the status of that claim. Therefore, the social and political arrangements that hinder such a dialogue can be criticized from a position free from any specific value commitment, because according to Habermas, reaching an agreement [1] or a goal that is inherent to human language is essential. A similar philosophical program has been proposed by Karl-Otto Apel; He emphasizes more on the "transcendental" features of protest.

Juergen Habermas, the outstanding thinker of the second generation of the Frankfurt school, proposed the concept of communicative rationality in order to eliminate what he considered the "normative defects" of the work of the early thinkers of this tradition. Among other things, this deficiency was the lack of any clear philosophical basis for the critique of modern society.

Habermas states that participants in communicative action must be able to see the statements made in the course of the conversation from the point of view of their validity, and must have full knowledge of both the appropriate methods of resolving disputes over validity claims and of the conditions (which are always counterfactual) in which the pursuit of such methods will produce a truly correct result. to be For example, this knowledge is mobilized when the realization of the application of covert pressure invalidates the previously achieved federalism. 

In the tradition of Western philosophy, the concept of rationality has been associated for a long time with the ability to reflect and provide reasons for beliefs and actions resulting from them. Also, in modern philosophy, often only beliefs capable of guiding goal-oriented action are considered candidates for the concept of rationality. On the other hand, Habermas states that [the] type of action whose axis is reaching agreement in language cannot be reduced to the action whose axis is successful intervention in the objective world.Achieving speech-action goals, except for those related to expression style, is possible through cooperation; This depends on others freely accepting the theologian's claims to authority; It is more than a handicap that can be mechanically created. Therefore, the ability to reach agreement through the presentation of evidence shows a distinct form of rationality that "exists in the way of everyday communication" and Habermas calls it "communicative rationality" in this sense. 

Habermas uses the definition of the public sphere to refer to a social arena in which people, through understanding and reasoning based on reasoning and in conditions free from any pressure, force and under equal conditions for all participating parties, produce a set of behaviors, positions and orientations of values ??and norms. It has been democratic. The public sphere is an arena where people gather to participate in open and public discussions. According to Habermas, the public sphere, in the strict sense of the word, is an area that does not have any limits on its activity, the public sphere is the rational, truth-seeking and truth-making sphere of society. The conditions of open and free conversation in the public sphere imply the principle that no person or group can claim to know the good and the good of the society outside of this sphere (that is, in the field of power). Answers to questions such as freedom, justice, equality, rationality and what is its component can only be given and accepted and believed in the public sphere of any society.

In this study, more attempts have been made to answer this important question: how has the process of changing the position of communication rationality been carried out, and also how are the main differences between modern philosophers in different fields of communication related to communication rationality?

In this research We also want to determine the views of the philosophers of modernity in the public domain. And one of the most important and practical program of this research, we want to put the main differences and beliefs of each philosopher of this field regarding communication rationality in the public domain. 1-2 Importance of the research topic: In the world of rationality, the public domain is related to civil debates and the main paradigm that governs the society is two-way dialogue, and in order to reach the effective components, it can be examined that one should take advantage of the communication society, a society that is a paradigm The ruler of the discourse is shaped by knowledge and information, and with the enrichment of information, relationships gain a higher level. So, in order to achieve the desired society, an informed and rational society must be formed. Communicative rationality or better communication philosophy has not yet opened its place in the field of communication.

When we review the historical course of communication, the category of communication philosophy does not exist in Iran or less. As Marx believes, I think it is necessary to be able to use the historical course and the analogy of the opinions of philosophers, as well as how this philosophy is used to change communication actions, to be able to seek benefits to influence communication actions, not for interpretation, but by relying on the rationality of communication, which is very rare in the academic society.

With regard to the expansion of digital communication and the change of one-way communication actions to multi-way behavioral actions, why this change is open to the nature of communication. It is possible that before the expansion and development of digital communication, a kind of instrumental rationality, which was a one-sided and self-interested action, prevailed in the communication spaces. With this mentality, it is important to examine the philosophy of rational communication in such a structure. 3-1 research goals: to examine the process of changes in the place of rationality, especially communicative rationality, from the point of view of each of the theorists of modernity. Communication

Examining the differences in attitudes among modern theorists in various fields of communication about the rationality of communication.

4-1 research questions:

Is the process of changes in the position of communication rationality in the expansion of the public sphere different from the point of view of each philosopher?

Do communication philosophers assign a place to rationality in the public sphere? And?

In the view of the philosophers of modernity, how is the issue of rationality raised?