Explanatory Value of Reason in Public Space: Use and Misuse in Political Speech

Authors

  • Laura Pricop Alexandru Ioan Cuza University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenss/12.1/74

Keywords:

rationality, reasonableness, rationalisation, validity, parliamentary debate

Abstract

In this article, the concept of communicative rationality and its practical application in public debates will be explored. Focusing on the importance of the communicative treatment of reason, validity, and its practical implications, the article critically examines Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action and its ethical elements. The potential difficulties of bridging the gap between theory and practice are highlighted by discussing the distinction between theoretical discourse and discursive practice. Through an analysis of Habermas' approach, the paper aims to improve public discourse quality and understand how communicative reason works in practical terms. It considers the pragmatic context of communicative action, the importance of claiming validity, and the process of validating. It discusses the concept of communicative reason in the context of concrete instances of communication, such as public discussion. It emphasizes the importance of communicative reason and the pursuit of the common good in promoting productive discussion and compromise.

References

Beerbohm, E., & Davis, W. R. (2017). The Common Good: A Buck-Passing Account.The Journal of Political Philosophy, 25(4), e60-e79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12132

Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democraticlegitimacy. In A. Hamlin, P. Petit (Eds.), The good polity: normative analysis of the state (pp. 17-34). Basil Blackwell.

Finlayson, J. G. (2005). Hebermas:avery short introduction. Oxford UniversityPress.

Gennaro, G., & Ash, E. (2022). Emotion and Reason in PoliticalLanguage. The Economic Journal, 132(643), 1037–1059.https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab104

Habermas, J. (1983a). Interpretative social science vs. Hermeneuticism. In N. Haan, R.N. Bellah, P. Rabinow, & W.N. Sullivan (Eds.), Social sciences as moral inquiry (pp. 251-269). Columbia UniversityPress.

Habermas, J. (1971/1983b). Preliminarii la o teorie a competenței communicative [Preliminaries to a theory of communicative competence]. In A. Marga, W. Roth, & I. Wolf (Eds.), Cunoastere si comunicare [Knowledge and communication] (pp. 190-229). EdituraPolitică. (Habermas, J. (1971). Theorie der Gesellschaft orderSozialtechnologie – WasleistetSystemforschung?.SuhrkampVerlag).

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communication action. Reason and rationalization of society (vol. I, translated by, Thomas McCarthy). Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1995). Reconciliationtrough the public use of reason:remarks on JhonRawls'spoliticalliberalism. The Journal of Philisophy, 92(3), 109-131.

Harel, A., &Shinar, A. (2023). Two concepts of constitutionallegitimacy. Global Constitutionalism,12(1), 80-105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381722000156

Kahne, D., Weinstock, D., Leydet, D., & Williams, M. (2010). Deliberativedemocracy in practice. UBC Press.

Niemeyer, S., Veri, F., Dryzek, J., &Bächtiger, A. (2023). How DeliberationHappens:EnablingDeliberative Reason. American Political Science Review,1-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000023

Pantazi, M., Hale, S., & Klein, O. (2021). Social and Cognitive Aspects of the Vulnerability to PoliticalMisinformation.Political Psychology, 42, 267-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12797

Pricop, L. C. (2013). Ethicalassumption of deliberative communication. In I. Boldea (Ed.), Studies on literature, discourse and multicultural dialogue (pp. 487-491). EdituraArhipelag XXI.

Pricop, L. C. (2017). Deliberative communication and the utilitarianresponse in the process of making a decision. ERSS Spectrum (EducationalResearch Service), 29(1), 1-5.

Rawls, J. (1995). Politicalliberalism:reply to Habermas. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(3), 132-180.

RomanianChamber of Deputies (1996-2022). The transcripts of political interventions and statements of Romanianpoliticians. RomanianChamber of Deputies. http://www.cameradeputatilor.ro/pls/steno/steno.home

Wrigley, T. (2019). The problem of reductionism in educationaltheory:Complexity, causality, values. Power and Education, 11(2), 145–162.https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743819845121

Downloads

Published

2023-10-09

How to Cite

Pricop, L. (2023). Explanatory Value of Reason in Public Space: Use and Misuse in Political Speech. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences, 12(1), 1−13. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenss/12.1/74

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2023): Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences

Section

Theoretical Perspectives

License

Copyright (c) 2023 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

LUMEN SS Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

CC_BY_NC_ND