Ideal speech situation

When working in communities it becomes evident that when aims and goals can be agreed upon, then the only question left should be about how they are achieved. Th is should be a technical question, rather than a political one (Bernstein, 1995: 36). One of the key aspects of Communicative Action is the quality

of the communication. Without true consensus, freedom and liberty are an illusion. For true consensus there needs to be real communication. Th e four basic necessities for real communication are that (1) the communication should be understandable to all involved, (2) the presuppositions behind what are said should be true, (3) the speaker must be honest or sincere, and (4) what is said, and then done, by the speaker must fi t with the values and norms of society (Bernstein, 1995: 48-49). In this way communication must be something that is truthful and open to understanding by all involved.

Th is form of speech, the ideal speech situation, seems to be in circular relationship with a society in which justice and freedom are available. To seek justice is to seek this type of environment of communication.

Within this ideal speech situation there should be no coercion and no use of manipulative strategies.

Where there is limited justice or freedom then there is little hope of the ideal speech situation (Bernstein, 1995: 51).

Flyvbjerg (1998: 213) deduces 5 procedural factors from Habermas’s writing that are essential for validity and truth in the discourse. Th ese are (1) that no party aff ected by the outcome should be excluded, (2) each party should have equal opportunity to engage in the discourse, (3) participants should empathize with other participants, (4) power diff erence should be neutralized, and (5) participants should be transparent about their goals and expectations, and should refrain from strategic action (Flyvbjerg, 1998:

213).

Both of the above sets of criteria serve to illustrate that for Communicative Action to be truly eff ective it needs to be open and honest, fare and inclusive. Th ere cannot be fear of prejudice or undue infl uence. In this, Communicative Action must be open to all on the basis of their intrinsic dignity. It must be freely performed, freely engaged in, and freely disengaged from (Pieterse, 1998: 11).

Th e criticism of Habermas here is that his theory is utopian, and shows a lack of understanding of power relationships that will always be present in dialogue (Flyvbjerg, 1998: 215). Burkey (1993: 207) adds that power relationships will always be present. Writing about participatory action in community development, he says that development is not eff ective when class divisions are ignored. With these class divisions will always come diff erences in power, and types of power. Th e ideal of power neutrality may not be achievable, or may not even be entirely benefi cial. What is then important is to have transparency in the power relationships, that as far as possible they are brought into the open. While the ideal may be to neutralize power, pastors must at least be able to understand and acknowledge the eff ects that it has in the given situation.

Th e ideal is then not to brush aside diff erent types of power. Th is in itself would be against the principle of the ideal speech situation. Th e ideal would be for all groups, regardless of what power they have, and where it comes from, to be able to enter into conversation and action on an equal footing. All who have a stake in the situation need opportunity to engage equally meaningfully. Th is engagement of all people who have a stake leads to a common understanding, a common perception of what is happening in the community.

2.4.3 Rationality

Communication must be understandable to all, and should lead to a common understanding. It should result in a mutual, rational, engagement with the complete context.

Roderick (1986: 112-113) discussed two forms of rationality, the one being cognitive-instrumental, and the other, as seen here being communicative rationality. He sees a communicative rationality as supplementary to cognitive-instrumental rationality. Communicative rationality sees rationality as it occurs within “intersubjectivity”. It occurs within interactions, particularly within speech where parties are able to look beyond the subjective views and interact openly with others’ subjective views. Th e process for real communication then brings about a rational understanding through, and within, the relationship.

Th e latter, cognitive-instrumental rationality is when claims about some objective reality are able to be made and validated/challenged in both speech and action. Here truth and eff ectiveness are intrinsically linked. A truth claim or communicative activity is validated by others’ similar observations, or observation about the eff ectiveness of the action (Roderick, 1986: 112-113).

With these two views of rationality, the fi rst focusing on the intersubjective nature of our “lived worlds” and the other acknowledging “the unity of the objective world” (Roderick, 1986: 113), a rich theoretical backing is able to be provided to thinking about engaging with communities. Within this perspective pastors are able to not do what the ‘mythic’ worldview, or pure social constructionism, is accused of doing. Th ey are able to not confuse the boundary between communication and what communication is about.

In this way the existence of a reality that is completely objective and separate from people’s interpretations can be acknowledged, while still acknowledge the ‘realities’ that are formed within communications. It is then also possible to acknowledge the way in which what is happening in a community's communicative rationality has a real impact on the objective world around it. It is seen that the two understandings of reality are separate, but mutually aff ect one another.

Rationality and “truth” in the purest form of this model are then neither objective nor subjective, but are rather intersubjective. Th e place of this model is then in forming of contextual actions based on mutual understanding rather than ultimate truths, since ultimate truth can only be grasped at. Orford (2008) describes how acts of communication, such as a young woman telling her story to councillors, have powerful eff ects on what is done by the council.

It is in the open and real act of communication that the understood reality is changed. Orford (2008) points out that it is when real people speak, rather than academic studies and second hand information, that the communication has power to persuade. He says that it is the voice of experience that persuades.

One person’s experience is able to infl uence the understanding and perceptions of the group.

Th is perspective then allows pastors to see that the communities ‘lived worlds’, or perceived realities, are constructed through communications and interactions. Th ey are subjective and intersubjective. However, this perceived world is not to be confused with the objective world. Objective reality and ultimate truth are seen as situated outside of a community’s communication (Roderick, 1986: 117). As communities endeavour in their communication to come closer to refl ecting an accurate and life giving understanding

of what they are experiencing, they seek to come closer to understandings that are able to drive eff ective, mutual actions.