Int J Soc Welfare 2002: 11: 210–218
Communicative or strategic action – an examination of fundamental issues in the theory of communicative action Kihlstro¨m A, Israel J. Communicative or strategic action – an examination of fundamental issues in the theory of communicative action Int J Soc Welfare 2002: 11: 210–218 ß Blackwell, 2002. The study focuses on two types of social action – communicative and strategic – and examines whether they have different effects on the competence to act. Competence is understood here as a feeling of being able to handle a situation, which includes the participants’ interpretation of the situation at hand, ‘concealing of their action’ and the intention to perform the act. Communicative action is a consensus-oriented process built upon the parties’ mutual definitions of how to reach a goal. Strategic action is a way to more directly reach a goal where influencing and manipulating the other can take place. This thesis was investigated by means of an experimental study. The results indicate that communicative action seems to be connected with openness to diversity and individual experiences. It was also shown how the subtle expression of unaccepted power can disturb feelings of being capable and disturb the balance between one’s self-respect and the other person’s authority. This disturbance is caused not only by the content of the dialogue but also by the manner in which the encounter takes place. The results give partial confirmation to the thesis underlying the theory of communicative action.
Introduction The study focuses upon two types of social action – communicative and strategic – and examines whether the two, of which one a speaker can adopt as an attitude, influence the hearers’ capacity to act in a practical situation. The result of the examination can have relevance for how to understand certain conditions of social integration related to the communication between clients and professionals in the welfare system. The theory of communicative action (Habermas, 1981) pursues the thesis that acting subjects through language will be part of a cooperative process of interpretation, aiming at situation definitions. When doing this the ‘agents involved are coordinated not through egocentric calculation of success but through acts of reaching understanding’ (Habermas, 1984: 286). This intersubjective process aims at an agreement, has a rational basis, but ‘cannot be imposed by either party, whether instrumentally through inter-
210
Anita KihlstrÎm,1 Joakim Israel2 1 2
Department of Social Work, GÎteborg University Deceased. Formerly Professor emeritus in sociology
Key words: communicative action, strategic action, social action, dialogue, social work Anita KihlstrÎm, Department of Social Work, GÎteborg University, SprÌngkullsgatan 23, S-411 23 GÎteborg, Sweden E-mail:
[email protected] Accepted for publication January 21, 2002
vention in the situation directly or strategically through influencing the decisions of opponents’ (Habermas, 1984: 287). Instead the process of reaching understanding rests on the conviction that one person has the possibility to criticise the offer of the other by taking a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ position. The actor can judge the offer from at least three positions; is it true, is it right and is it authentic. This relates to three modes of the world; the objective, the social and the subjective, from which rationality and collective reason, with help from the argumentation logic connected to those three world modes, will be assessed. This type of social action is what hereinafter is referred as the communicative approach. The communicative approach is set against the other kind of social action in which one actor attempts to prevail through influencing the other via arbitrary exercise of power or manipulation. This self-interested social action is first of all oriented on consequences instead of reaching understanding and can appear as an open strategy or a concealed one. With a concealed
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA
Theory of communicative action strategy we mean that ‘at least one of the parties behaves with an orientation to success, but leaves others to believe that all the presuppositions of communicative action are satisfied’ (Habermas, 1984: 332). If that really had been the case, the action context should imply qualities, which guarantee each subject autonomy ‘as a source of claims which have equal initial plausibility and of demands for justification to which others are obliged to respond’ (White, 1988: 56). On the contrary the successoriented context of action has the purpose of ‘exerting an influence upon others instead of understanding with them’ (Habermas, 1984: 286). This type of social action is hereinafter referred to as the strategic approach. Thus, what is examined in this study is whether the two different ways of approaching the other subject can be identified by him/her as different attitudes in relation to interpretation and action coordination of a problematic situation.
Distinctions between communicative and strategic action Examining how the two types of social action will be identified in a practical situation is connected with uncertainty. It appears, according to the critic, already on the theoretical level (White, 1988: 44). One uncertainty was created by Habermas himself through his original reading of interaction which gave power an indistinct role. With the new perspective in the theory of communicative action, that problem disappeared and he could assert the two types of action as genuine in the sense that ‘any actor can, at least upon reflection, recognize, ‘‘however vaguely and intuitively,’’ which sort of action orientation he/ she is pursuing in a particular situation’ (White, 1988: 45). For example if an actor, on good grounds, ascribes the other a competence to define the problem, the asymmetry or inequality in power is no longer a problem, because it is legitimated by the parties. If an actor, on the other hand, tries to coordinate interaction through employment of sanctions, that kind of power can produce disturbance in the personality. Another problem is related to discussions of in what way the two types of social action are teleological or goal-directed. How could they otherwise be useful to fulfil needs? The answer is that they both respond to needs, but in different ways. In the communicative action the parties coordinate their social action in relation to the objective, social and objective world in order to strengthen the social integration with the action. That implies a moral judgement before acting, which takes into consideration the other’s interest too. In the strategic action one isolated person relates to different dimensions in the world (mostly the objective) just to reach his/her own calculated success. ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
(Habermas, 1984: 274). He does not need to involve the other’s interest in this. The first can be identified as a communicative two-step-model, while the second appears as a more direct strategy for reaching the goal. A matter of particular concern to the critics is also actualised when one asks what scientific proof would be relevant to support or dismiss the claims it makes. With reference to Richard Bernstein, a great methodological openness is recommended because there are some new, interesting points with the theory. Opinions like this have also been delivered by Thomas McCarthy and Martin Seel (Bernstein 1983: 184–195; Seel, 1986: 54, 57; McCarthy, 1984: 178, 181). According to Habermas, the theory is reconstructive, which is not equivalent to an empirical analytical theory, e.g. a hypothetical/deductive one. Instead this theory seeks to uncover ‘universal conditions that are presupposed in all communicative action’ (Bernstein 1983: 185). Habermas asserts that such an analysis is fallible too, but by the parties instead of an objective third person. When speech acts, according to Habermas, have a further meaning than purely semantic, e.g. you both say something and do something, it also has both a richer and more restrictive structure than strategic action. Some of these structural differences have been transformed in this study to criteria via interpretation in part of the text in which Habermas presents his theory (Habermas, 1981) and in part of his responses to his critics (Honneth & Joas, 1986). The criteria used in the study are summarised in Table 1. Clearly, these operative codes became somewhat inexact. One reason is the difficulty of defining situations in which a random interest-commonality exists. Viewed from without, a dialogue can appear to have a communicative action orientation. But from the manipulating actor’s perspective it can be a goaloriented behaviour pattern which coincidence can help to cover. Thus the typifications are not mutually exclusive. Instead they represent different aspects of both the approaches.
Research design The purpose was to examine whether ‘communicative and strategic attitudes from a speaker’ (x) can be ‘identified by a hearer as interfering how to interpret and coordinate a problematic situation’ (y). It means inferring from data that x is a contributory cause for y. In order to limit as many interaction factors as possible, the study was laid out as a kind of experiment, with explorative intentions.
Subjects A total of 36 individuals took part in the study. The selection criterion was to be a student at the
211
Kihlstro¨m & Israel Table 1. Communicative and strategic criteria. Communicative approach
Strategic approach
1. Consensus-oriented The actors strive to understand one another's perspective 2. Mutual orientation Efforts to reach consensus are mutual 3. Argumentation The actors make their arguments based on intersubjective evaluation of the issue 4. Permissive yes/no conflicts The actors can dismiss or accept arguments without such conflicts causing a breakdown in the dialogue 5. Three-level argument The nature of arguments as fact, as value or as subjective expressions is legitimised in the dialogue 6. Content dependent Consensus is connected to the specific situation to which the problem is related 7. Interest realising The partners' interest can be realised through the dialogue 8. Interpersonal Intersubjective, relational 9. Action constructive, opening The partners' experience is dialogically integrated as a competence to act
1. Coincidental consensus-oriented If consensus occurs, it is coincidental in relation to one actor's strategy 2. The unilateral orientation The effort to reach consensus is unilateral manipulation 3. Manipulation The actors manipulate the issue because it benefits their final solutions
10. Situationally legitimised authority Asymmetry is legitimised by the partner during the dialogue 11. Two-step character Competence to reach a goal is expanded via the manifested consensus process
Department of Social Work. The subjects were invited to participate in the study via a letter passed out in the various classes. Those who were interested were able to make appointments for a number of times of their choosing. They were informed that the experiment situation was a kind of role-play, where they should play a ‘client’ asking for a talk with a social worker (dialogue leader) on how to handle a social problem. They were also informed that the experiment would take about 45 minutes and that two questionnaires were to be completed; a short one before the experiment situation and a longer one afterwards. To minimise the risk for unilateral influence two fictitious cases and two dialogue leaders were used. They were all employed in turn (rotation). The study became, accordingly to those arrangements, an experiment with three independent variables (a 2 2 2 design) and one dependent. The independent was: the communicative and the strategic approaches (cs), two speakers who were intermediators of the approaches (dl) and two cases that constituted the problem situation which was to be coordinated (case).
4. Threatening yes/no conflicts The actors can dismiss or accept arguments with the risk that the dialogue will break down 5. Random-level argument The nature of the arguments is legitimised only to the extent that benefit unilateral final solutions 6. Generally applicable Consensus is only coincidentally connected to the situation 7. Interest prioritising The partners' interest are strengthened or divided through the dialogue 8. Individualistic Subjective or objectifying 9. Blocking One partner blocks the other's experience and does not allow it to be dialogically integrated as a competence to act 10. General authority Asymmetry is unilaterally established 11. One-step character Competence to reach a goal is unilaterally defined by one of the actor's open or hidden goals
That implied eight possible combinations, which were distributed in turn (rotation) (see Table 2). This design was intended to compensate for the lack of a control group, which was not possible to arrange. The dependent variable was the subjects‘ understanding of the dialogue, which was measured via the questionnaire, distributed after the role-play.
The measuring instruments Differences in outcome were measured with the questionnaire mentioned earlier. It is referred to here as the main questionnaire and included 30 questions, which were answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ following the role-play. One question allowed room for clarification and the respondents could add additional comments at the end of the questionnaire if they wished. There was also a support questionnaire designed to check if the subjects were focused on the social problem, discussed in the role-play (estimation of validity). The support questionnaire had nine questions that were answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ before the roleplay took place. There was also a separate line for
Table 2. Eight combinations of independent variables. Case 1 Dialogue leader 1 Dialogue leader 2
212
Communicative Case 2
Ip 1, 9, 17, 25, 33 Ip 2, 11, 18, 27, 34
Case 1
Ip 3, 10, 19, 26 Ip 4, 12, 20, 28
Strategic
Ip 5, 13, 21, 29, 35 Ip 6, 15, 22, 31, 36
Case 2 Ip 7, 14, 23, 30 Ip 8, 16, 24, 32
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
Theory of communicative action seven of the questions for any clarifications the respondents wished to add.
The cases and the dialogue leaders The two fictitious cases were about a mother who was seeking help for her daughter. In the first case, the daughter was about seven years old, somewhat emotionally disturbed and in need of certain care/ supervision since the mother was to begin working. In the second case, the daughter was in her early teens and had certain tendencies towards school absenteeism and petty theft. The girl avoided the home since the atmosphere was uncomfortable because of the father’s unemployment. In both cases, it could be understood that the mother had a certain need to discuss her situation with an outsider (for example a social worker), but that the situation was not at all of a kind which required taking the child into involuntary custody. This limitation was important in order to avoid restricting the actions of the experimental subject in such a way that ‘the mother’ felt dependent and did not dare to reject the assistance that was offered. The dialogue leaders were female substitute teachers at the Department of Social Work and had extensive experience in practical social work, which guaranteed that they could handle the dialogue situation professionally. Before the experiment started they were trained so that they would be able to hold a clearly communicative or strategic line (see Table 1) throughout the dialogue. This was facilitated by their having jointly constructed certain imaginary figures they could have as a support for how they should view the issues during the role-play. Thereby, they could discuss in a more relaxed manner without losing the fundamental attitudes characterising communicative and strategic action. This implied that the dialogue leaders could switch between the two approaches without problems.
Implementation Questionnaires were collected during three semesters in 1994 and 1995. The procedure was that the subjects first sat alone in a room to read the case, then completed the support questionnaire, which attempted to capture the expectations and opinions of the subjects after having become acquainted with the problem (estimation of validity). This took about ten minutes. The dialogue leader then entered the room, representing a social worker and there was a longer dialogue about the problem, which took about 30 minutes. The subject was then left alone in the room again and given the time necessary to fill in the main questionnaire. ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
When the role-play was finished, the project leader gathered up the material and spoke briefly with the subject. The conversation was meant to function as a support in case anyone felt uncomfortable, provoked, upset or sad. We did note such reactions among those who were treated from a strategic approach, but not to such a degree that could in any way be considered dangerous for their mental health. The follow-up conversation generally relieved any negative feelings that arose. Several subjects expressed surprise that the experiment had awakened those kinds of emotions.
Analysis model Since the reply alternatives were limited to a yes/no alternative, i.e. were of nominal scale character, descriptive statistics applied. Processing of data was done using a chi-square test with p = 0.05, which creates a comparative number based upon the yes/no responses. These calculations supplement the frequency description and no generalisations were made.
Estimation of validity The support questionnaire was carried out in order to check whether the subjects were in the mood for the role-play. The result is presented below. How should the problem be solved? Of the 36 subjects, 35 were remarkably open. They were inquisitive, interested and had one or more concrete suggestions for possible solutions. Only one had no suggestions at all. In response to a direct question about whether they had a determined solution, 10 subjects described such a solution in concrete terms. In those cases, the solution was often presented as a preference or an idea and thus seemed negotiable. Concrete expectations? All 36 had expectations, which all but one formulated more or less concretely. These ranged from more general forms of support, assistance and understanding to resolving the family situation, providing employment for the man of the family, getting relief from their duties, etc. What did they hope the social worker would notice? All hoped for something and 32 stated clearly what this would be, for example, to see behind the mask, see her needs as a mother, understand her fear, powerlessness, desperation and remember that she (the mother) might be tired, worried, lonely. They also wanted the positive aspects to be noticed, as well as the relationship to the husband, the need to find employment. How did they believe it would feel to talk about the problem? The division between those who had a positive attitude (17) and those with a negative attitude (19) was rather even. Those who were negative described it as being in an inferior position, being vulnerable, feeling ashamed, a failure, lonely, etc.
213
Kihlstro¨m & Israel Those who were more positive believed it would feel good to get help, to turn to a professional. Some also stated that it might depend upon the person with whom they met. Would it be difficult to object? Of the 36 participants, 21 said yes and 15 said no. There was however no certain connection between these responses and those who had negative or positive feelings prior to talking about the problem. Is it enough to get information? Without the question having been specified in any further detail, 33 answered that it was not enough. Would they have needed moral support? Thirty of the 36 participants said yes. Could this happen to anyone? Thirty-three of the 35 participants thought so. Sixteen gave further comments, saying that society is tougher now, people are more helpless, difficult situations can arise, problems with teenagers can occur in all families, etc. The result shows that they were a relatively homogeneous group: interested, committed and apparently had identified with the situation. Thereby, we can assume that they understood how to play their roles for making it meaningful to further analyse the results.
Outcome of the experiment The results are presented in Table 3 and grouped under criteria mentioned in Table 1. When the chi-square values show a significant difference (i.e. p < 0.05), they have been highlighted in the tables to increase readability. Noteworthy differences appear primarily in relationship to the independent variables communicative/strategic treatment (P/cs) which shows that in this study kinds of attitudes influenced the social action while dialogue leader (P/dl) (only in two questions) or case (P/case) did not. Accordingly, the particular division between yes/no is reported only for the independent variable (communicative versus strategic). First of all the result shows that all subjects perceived that they had been given suggestions for how they should act. Those who were treated communicatively got several suggestions, while those who were treated strategically were given only one. In spite of the clear differences between the two approaches, the teleological point of the dialogue, how to reach a goal, was not lost. The subjects were therefore influenced in different ways depending on whether the ‘social worker’ was communicative or strategic in her speech act. The answers from 19 questions (the questionnaire had on the whole 30 questions) yield a clear (significant) difference between the two approaches. The difference could also be more or less identified in all those
214
criteria, which here represented the two types of social action. The result did not show one clear ‘picture’. In 11 of the 30 questions, differences between the two types could not be identified. Reasons for this were several, which I discuss under the respective criteria. To get as whole a ‘picture’ as possible of the result, I have chosen to comment on them under each of the 11 criteria. As the reader can see, six of the 11 criteria were more sensitive than the others when distinguishing the communicative attitude from the strategic one (numbers 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 and 10). This single experiment does not permit any deeper conclusions from that fact. However, it shows a tendency that can be investigated further in another study.
Comments on Table 3 1. Openness towards action/fixation on final solutions. Here we find that a majority of the respondents themselves saw several solutions to the problem. Those who were treated communicatively perceived that even the social worker (SW) was open to different solutions while those who were treated strategically did not find this to be so. They were also less satisfied with the suggestions they were given. 2. Striving for consensus/unilateralism. The results indicate here that those who were treated strategically believed that the solution had been determined in advance. This did not apply to those who were treated communicatively, who more frequently thought that they had been participants in the problem-solving solution. 3. Characterised by argumentation/manipulation. The results here show that those who were treated communicatively felt that their arguments were respected and that there was no attempt made to control them. For those who were treated strategically their arguments were also taken into consideration, but very frequently they felt controlled. Strategic action can, as we see here, also have a more calculating attitude, which the respondents’ answers give expression to. 4. Permissive/threatening conflicts. There were no clear differences between those who were treated communicatively and those who were treated strategically with respect to accepting differing opinions. This was not expected here, but of course, it is a reasonable attitude to a professional SW. However, the principal part of those who were treated strategically felt ‘forced’ to accept the dialogue leader’s point of view. 5. Three-level arguments/random-level argument. Those who were treated communicatively perceived that they were given information that gave them action alternatives, while those who were treated strategically ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
Theory of communicative action Table 3. Result from the chi-square test. 2
P: comm/ Strat.
P: leader no. 1/no. 2
P: case no. 1/no. 2
5/13
11.2500
0.0008
0.17971
0.5023
15/3 17/1 18/0 1/17
12/6 10/8 5/12 17/1
1.3300 7.2600 20.3500 28.4400
0.2482 0.0070 0.0001 0.0001
0.70030 0.70030 0.50240 0.50500
0.2482 0.7003 0.5935 1.000
17/1
10/8
7.2600
0.0073
0.7003
0.7003
18/0
12/6
7.2000
0.0073
0.3711
0.3711
3/15
15/3
16.0000
0.0001
1.000
0.1824
14/3
13/4
0.1800
0.9140
0.1899
0.4451
1/17
10/8
10.6000
0.0011
0.7275
0.2777
17/1
6/12
14.6000
0.0001
0.7286
0.0828
5/13
11/7
4.5000
0.0442
0.5023
0.1797
17/1 15/2 17/1 14/4 17/1
13/5 11/7 18/0 13/5 15/3
3.2000 4.3900 1.0290 0.1480 1.1125
0.0735 0.1112 0.3105 0.7003 0.2880
1.0000 0.5313 0.3105 0.7003 1.0000
0.3711 0.3406 0.3105 0.7003 0.2889
5/13
17/1
16.8310
0.0001
0.4941
0.4941
18/0
7/11
15.8400
0.0001
0.7175
0.2777
4/12 0/18
7/10 5/13
1.3300 5.8100
0.5134 0.0160
0.7386 0.6299
0.8089 0.1482
14/4 9/9
6/12 14/4
7.2000 3.0100
0.0070 0.0828
0.0442 0.0828
0.1797 0.7286
13/5
6/12
5.4600
0.0194
0.3166
0.3166
2/16
11/7
9.7500
0.0018
0.2979
0.0828
0/18
6/12
7.2000
0.0073
1.000
0.0736
14/4 17/1
11/7 12/6
1.1800 4.4300
0.2777 0.0352
0.2777 0.2065
0.7175
0/18
5/13
5.8000
0.0073
0.6299
0.1482
14/4
6/12
7.2000
0.0073
0.0442
0.5023
11/7
12/6
0.1200
0.7286
0.7286
0.2979
Criteria (1–11) and related questions
Comm. Yes/No
Strat. Yes/No
Did you get more than one solution? (Control question) 1:1 Do you see several solutions? 1:2 Satisfied with the solution(s)? 1:3 Was the SW open to different solutions? 2:1 Was the SW's mind was made up in advance? 2:2 Did you arrive at a shared view of how your problem could be solved? 3:1 Did the SW take your arguments into consideration? 3:2 Did you feel the SW was trying to control you? 4:1 Did the SW accept opinions that differed from your own? 4:2 Did you feel forced to accept the SW's point of view? 5:1 Were you given information that left different solutions open? 5:2 Did the information make different solutions seem impossible? 5:3 Were you given an opportunity to use different arguments, such as: a) factual reasons b) moral aspects c) straightforwardness 5:4 Did the SW believe in what she said? 6:1 Was the suggestion connected to your specific situation? 6:2 Were the SW's suggestions standard solutions? 7:1 Did the meeting contribute to a solution compatible with your interests? 7:2 Did the SW just happen to agree with you? 7:3 Did you feel your perspectives were wholly incompatible? 8:1 Was the dialogue person to person? 8:2 Did you feel like a client and were you treated as one? 9:1 Did the SW take your specific experience as a mother into account? 9:2 Did the SW know better with reference to her experience? 10:1 Did the SW act in an `authoritarian' manner? 10:2 Did you trust in the SW's competence? 10:3 Did you agree on what the problem was about? 10:4 Did the SW unilaterally decide what the problem was about? 11:1 Did you arrive together at the perspective you now have on the problem? 11:2 Did the solutions follow automatically from the information you received?
15/3
Decline
1
2
1
3
Note: SW = social worker.
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
215
Kihlstro¨m & Israel felt that the information was strongly slanted. Question 5:3 was designed to obtain more detailed knowledge about the character of the dialogue. However, it revealed no clear tendencies. Perhaps it was too complicated to answer, as in daily action it can be difficult to discern the various dimensions. Instead, they flow together into a whole. The question, which was intended to investigate whether the dialogue leader based her position on honest conviction or had a more instrumental approach, does not either seem to have captured the alternatives intended. The reason may be that it is vague, since the alternatives are not mutually exclusive. One can be both impersonally professional and believe in one’s statements. 6. Context dependent/generally applicable. No clear difference appeared between the two approaches with respect to the question about whether the suggestion was connected to the situation the subject seemed to be in due to the problem. Unfortunately this question is ambiguous. There was, however, a clear connection between the occurrence of standard solutions and the strategic approach. 7. Interest realising/interest prioritising. It is clear here that those treated communicatively reached a solution in accordance with their interests, which was not the case for those treated strategically. Whether the dialogue leader just happened to agree with the subject was, however, less clear. The decline indicates that the question was difficult to answer; you perhaps do not know her opinion. The feeling of a irreconcilable difference between their points of view and those of the ‘social worker’ was not so distinct as expected in the strategic group, but evident enough to be recognised as a difference between the two approaches. 8. Interpersonal/individualistic. There was a clear connection to the approach with respect to the question about whether the dialogue was conducted ‘person to person’. Those who were treated communicatively confirmed such a perception; those treated strategically did not. The feeling of being treated like a ‘client’ was strong for both groups. This question can of course be understood in different ways, depending on the respondents’ imagination of what it means to be a client. For the first time, a noteworthy difference appears in the relationship to the independent variable: dialogue leader. It means that the two dialogue leaders have a significantly different effect on the clients in relation to the aspect ‘person to person’. This interaction effect can be understood, when the question is very focused on ‘the personality’. 9. Action constructive, `open’/blocking. The feeling that the ‘social worker’ took their assertive experience as a mother into account showed a clear connection to the communicative approach while the ‘social worker’ with the strategic attitude neglected that. Moreover,
216
those who were treated strategically perceived that the ‘social worker’ had sole claim to knowing ‘better’ and that this knowledge was built on her own experience. 10. Situation-legitimised authority/unilaterally authoritative. The differences concerning authoritarian treatment were clear in relation to the two attitudes, while trust in the competence did not yield the same evident outcome. It is not surprising, considering that such trust demands a certain continuity in order to develop, which the experimental design overlooked. However, those who were treated communicatively were to a greater extent convinced that they reached agreement with the ‘social worker’ on what the problem was than those who were treated strategically. The former also answered as expected in relation to the question of who defines the problem, namely that the ‘social worker’ unilaterally does. 11. Two-step character/one-step character. It appears here that consensus orientation is connected with the communicative approach, but not with the strategic. And here, once again, a clear interaction effect appears in relation to the independent variable: dialogue leader. One of them seemed to be able to generate a feeling of shared ‘work’ more clearly than the other. The question of whether the solution followed automatically from the information yielded no clear outcome. Perhaps the question was too diffuse to produce the answer yes or no. From above the two clusters of attitude can be summarised as follows. 1.
A • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
communicative approach meant here that: several suggestions were given the clients felt satisfied with the suggestions there was openness to various solutions the social worker had not made up her mind in advance the parties could arrive at a shared perspective on the solution the client’s arguments were taken into account the client did not feel controlled the client did not feel forced to accept the social worker’s suggestions the client was given information about various solutions the client was not presented with standard solutions the solutions was compatible with the client’s interests the perspectives were not completely incompatible the dialogue was carried out person to person the social worker took the client’s role as a mother into account
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
Theory of communicative action • the social worker did not believe that he or she knew best • the social worker was not authoritarian • the client felt that there was consensus about the problem • the social worker did not make unilateral decisions • they worked towards achieving a shared perspective. 2.
The strategic approach meant here that: • the client was only given one suggestion and was not satisfied with it • the social worker was not open to other solutions • the social worker had made her mind up in advance • the parties did not arrive at a shared perspective on the solution • the social worker did not take the client’s arguments into account • the client felt controlled • the client felt forced to accept the social worker’s suggestions • the client was not given information about other solutions • the client was given a standard solution • the solution was not compatible with the client’s interests • the perspectives of the participants were completely incompatible • the dialogue was not carried out person to person • the social worker did not take the client’s role as a mother into account • the social worker knew best • the social worker was authoritarian and decided unilaterally • the parties did not arrive at a shared perspective.
A constructive social action thus seems to be connected with aspects such as openness to diversity, acceptance for individual experience and respect for the various roles. We see also how subtle expressions of power can disturb this mutuality or balance and how this does not apply only to the content of the conversation, but highlights even more the manner, the atmosphere, the form or the attitudes in which the encounter takes place.
Discussion The results thus confirm, to some extent, ideas in the theory of communicative action: ‘that actors themselves, in every phase of interaction, can know ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
– however vaguely and intuitively – whether they are adopting a strategic – objectifying attitude towards the other participants or are oriented towards consensus’ (Habermas, 1982: 267). The subjects reacted not only to what was said, but also to the various assertions that were made. This proves that it is possible to insert a wedge into the communication so that, like the dialogue leaders in this case, they could make themselves deaf to certain demands that were implied in the situation (Habermas, 1982: 257; White, 1988: 70). A strategic approach yields some power, but disturbed interaction success. It also provoked the hearer, which some reactions of disturbance after the experiment showed. What does this mean for professional relations where social integration is the purpose? It actualises an ‘old truth’, which people depending on the welfare system have always been witness to: the feeling of being helped is dependent not only on ‘hard facts’, for example amount of money from the welfare system, but also how laws, norms and morals are interpreted and used with respect to fairness and impartiality. To justify a social action is thus a dialogue process which incorporates ‘generalisable interest’ but in a way where ‘the consequences and side-effects for the satisfaction of the interest of every individual, which are expected to result from general conformance to / that/ norm, can be accepted without compulsion by all’ (White, 1988: 49). These qualities of the speech act are a challenge for a welfare-worker. It is not only a question of resources and methods, it also actualises his/her subjective understanding of ‘democracy in work’ – an aspect of the welfare work which has to be reflected even more. What limitations does the study then actualise concerning communicative and strategic action? Some importance is related to the experimental design itself, for example representation of the conditions, which were abstract and the scenario, which was constructed. However, if we can allow ourselves to ignore this, there are other limitations, more connected to the theory itself, that I want to pay attention to. One is that the theory asserts continuation in the interaction for making acceptance of a claim possible. Habermas describes it as the need to control the consistency of the speaker, i.e. gain a sort of confirmation that the expected action has been realised (Habermas, 1984: 303, 304). This demand for ‘interactional continuity’ cannot be satisfied by this type of study, since it was built upon a single meeting. A further limitation, connected with the other, is that the theory asserts that both theoretical and practical discourse is the medium, which can correct failed attempts (Habermas, 1984: 19). This means that as long as the actors cite facts the argument can be dismissed or accepted based upon the criteria true/
217
Kihlstro¨m & Israel false (cognitive-instrumental expression), the discourse should be able to be covered in an experimental design. The assertions linked by the logic of argument to the social or subjective dimension (moral–practical and aesthetic–expressive) is more complicated to reach agreement on in a discourse. The argumentation will rest on norms and values, which is more of a practical question; it must work in real life. However, the familiar situation and the homogeneous culture in this experiment did, to some degree, facilitate understanding. Another kind of uncertainty can show up since the meeting in the experiment just happened once. You will never know if consensus about the claims may be false or coincidental. But this discrepancy between words, hypothetical content and attestation through action is something we have to handle even outside an experimental situation. It is an uncertainty that we cannot control completely.
218
References Bernstein RJ (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Science, hermeneutics and praxis. Pennsylvania, University Press of Pennsylvania. Habermas J (1981). Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Bd. I–II. Frankfurt/M, Suhrkamp. Habermas J (1982). A reply to my critics. In: Thompson JB, Held D, eds. Habermas. Critical debates. London, Macmillan Press Ltd. Habermas J (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1. Boston, Bacon Press. Honneth A, Joas H (1986). Kommunikatives Handeln. Beitra¨ge zu Ju¨ rgen Habermas’ Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/M, Suhrkamp – Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. Kihlstro¨m A (1990). The Individual and the Care System – An Analysis of the Relationship in Terms of the Theory of Communicative Action. Go¨ teborg, University of Gothenburg, Department of Social Work. Seel M (1986). Die zwei Bedeutungen ‘kommunikativer’ rationalitta¨t. Bema¨rkungen zu Habermas’ Kritik der pluralen Vernunft. In: Honneth A, Joas H, eds. Kommunikatives Handeln. Beitra¨ge zu Ju¨rgen Habermas’ Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/M, Suhrkamp – Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. White SK (1988). The recent work of Jurgen Habermas. Reason, justice & modernity. Cambridge, University Press.
ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002
