On Defining and Differentiating
… 18
The critical potential of the concept of communicative action obtains, in part, just
because of this. Habermas’s action theory is not aimed at cleanly distinguishing earnest
communications from directives or from intentional lies, though it can be employed in this
manner. It is intended primarily to analyze unconscious forms of manipulation that take place in
everyday, often well intentioned, activity whether in open strategic, concealed strategic, or
communicative action.
The analysis of action conditions can be undertaken from the perspective of social
science theory, or from the perspective of a participant in social interaction. In both cases the
analysis is performed by engaging in action oriented toward understanding about how we reach
understanding. The rules by which we communicate are themselves bracketed and thematized
for discussion. Matters related to gender, class, and cultural bias can be fore grounded for
consideration. Are “all” free to raise and question proposals? Has “everyone” had the
opportunity be heard and understood?
If not, why not? Is gender bias silencing certain perspectives? Are wealthy individuals
intimidating the less wealthy and powerful? If such biases are taking place, are they conscious
or unconscious? And, then, what can be done by way of remedy?
Participatory Communication as Communicative Action
This framework is directly relevant to the study of participatory communication for social
change in “development” settings. First, the basic specification of communicative action closely
approximates what is often discussed, even if variously defined, in the field as participatory
communication for social change and development. Participatory communication can therefore
be treated theoretically as “action oriented towards understanding,” in which participants must be
free to “call into question any proposal,” to “introduce any proposal,” and to express any
Convention