著者

伊藤 守

出版者

日本マス・コミュニケーション学会

雑誌

マス・コミュニケーション研究 (ISSN:13411306)

巻号頁・発行日

no.44, pp.15-28, 189-188, 1994-03-25

---

Although a large number of studies have been made on Luhmann's social system theory and Habermas' Communicative social theory, little is known about the importance of these theories in terms of informatization and post-modern society. The purpose of this paper is to show the neccesity of a communicative approach in the conceptual analysis of post-modern society and to further develop the concept of communication. In order to advance this purpose, Foucault's historical analysis of discourse and power and Melucci's social movement theory provide helpful points. Their arguments throw new light on"vulnerability"in communication subject. Habermas, with his concept of communication action, creates a theoretical approach that is able to recognize the beginnings of an answer to the basic problem since within its framework, the structures of social domination can be explained as the result of processes of communicative agreement that underlie an internal claim to the fulfillment of inter subjective freedom that serves as the standard for a reflexive"critique of power."In the history of Marxism, communicative understanding is treated systematically as the paradigm of the"social."But his foundation is not sufficient for grounding a communication-theoretic concept of society. The process of formation and institutionalization of social norms is not abstractly conceived as a moral development in learning that the human species realizes as a whole, but as a process of will-formation that takes place between some groups in the form of struggle over the basis of validity of moral norms. I introduce Michel Foucault's theory of power as a conflict model. Foucault finds a productively new disclosure on the sphere of social interaction and conflict. It is very important that he conceives of social system, in general, as networks of social power in which knowledge formations assume the special function of augmenting power. Discourse is a system of social knowledge that owes its genesis to the strategic requirements of an established order of power even as they may in turn effectively act upon a given order of power. His point of view compensates a weak point of Habermas' theory. There is one further question that we must not ignore in Habermas' communication theory. His analysis of the process of communicative understanding is quite unsatisfactory, therefore the"force of negation"in his theory is decisively weak. In this sense, Melucci's theory about new social movement provides helpful points. Melucci insists that"to communicate thus signifies the need to depend on what is common in order to discover and affirm difference, the possibility of choice introduces contingency and risk into relationships and makes them a field of emotional commitment and self-reflection."There is an important suggestion here, if I interpret the author correctly, that communication subjects must not deny the ambivalence of social relationships in post-industrial society. It means"vulnerability"in subjects. In my opinion, vulnerability is one of the most important factors to develop communication theory following Habermas' model.