Reaching social integration or consensus: Bangladesh as a case study.

• Author: Hassan, S.M. Monirul

Introduction

Sociologists consider social agreement one of their greatest concerns. Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton, Anthony Giddens, and Jurgen Habermas have all addressed the problem of achieving social consensus. In so doing, Durkheim and his followers focus on the structural aspect of society. They believe that individuals could reach consensus if the institutions that govern society perform their function properly.(1) In contrast, Weber and his followers focus on the actions of individuals rather than institutional structure. They argue that if individuals are motivated by rational intentions, they can easily achieve social agreement. (2)

Why should individuals set aside conflicting interests to achieve consensus? Individuals in a society who are rational would not endanger their own existence by reaching social agreement with other individuals. This is a simple and straightforward answer at the conceptual level, but in reality the problem is far more complex. Rational individuals do sometimes sacrifice their self-interest at the expense of their very existence. Yet, due to the complexity of modern society, it is hard to explain human behavior through structural and individualistic theoretical tools.

A fairly new theoretical tool has emerged in the field of sociology to help one comprehend the complicated nature of contemporary Western society. Rationalization of lifestyle in Western society has reached the point where individual action can not be understood merely through structural or individualistic lens. By studying both the "agency" and "structure" of a society, one can better understand the complex behavior of that society. Accordingly, the authors of this study argue that a rational individual, seeking consensus, should pursue a communicative dialogue free of structural constraints. In other words, rational individuals, free from internal and external restrictions, should be inclined to seek social consensus. An examination of Bangladesh politics will provide a useful case study.

Concepts and Terms

The authors of this study argue that a synthesis between "agency" and "structure" is required to comprehend the social integration of a society. "Agency" refers to the autonomy of an individual from both internal and external inclination. In short, it refers to purposeful action of the individual. This term implies that individuals are free to create, change, or influence events. The individual has to be reflective, act on his/her own judgment, and deal with society as an active agent. When an agency achieves this status, the individual can behave discursively, that is, argue freely and respect the arguments of others. Here, the only valid action stems from rational calculation that takes into account the attitude of others. When individuals are prepared to accept the better argument, regardless of their own beliefs, discursive behavior is possible.

"Structure," or patterns of organization and institutions of society which constrain and direct behavior, remain outside the authority of agency. Organizational and institutional activities are characterized as structural behaviors. In many cases, individuals in a society are guided by organizational and institutional rules. The institutional arrangement must allow for an individual to engage in discursive behavior. The autonomy of the individual remains the basic value within the structural condition of society. (3)

Tradition causes individuals to accept social actions uncritically, thus creating passive behavior among individuals in society. To prevent this, Habermas encourages the individual to be critical of tradition, thus making them active participants in society. (4) The authors of this study believe that the strength of tradition over agency fosters major problems in maintaining the integrity of a society. With the aid of tradition, an agency avoids burdensome reflective activities and conforms reality to "accepted" knowledge that accompanies tradition. In accordance with the "common people" perspective which, in most cases, accepts existing normative guidelines of society rather than questioning them, the authors of this study recognize that common people are not willing to act reflectively all the time. In contrast, intellectuals always think reflectively and thus should guide the thoughts of the rest of society toward consensus.

Theory of Communicative Action

In his various works, Hebermas emphasizes one distinctive sphere of humanity, namely, language. According to Habermas, human beings communicate with one another, invoke normative validity,(5) conform to the norms of a specific culture, and, in so doing, associate, socialize, and seek social integration. Borrowing the idea from British philosopher John Langshaw Austin, Habermas has shown that individuals in a society can communicate with one another through illocutionary and perlocutionary affect (interaction between speaker and listener). To start such a dialogue, discourse is necessary. Discourse refers to a context whereby individuals begin to communicate with certain mutual understandings and normative expectations. They must accept the premises within the discourse and that the better argument will always hold sway. Speakers must realize that the validity of their claim will often be challenged by the listener. The speaker must be prepared to redeem the validity of his/her claim if it is called into question. Reciprocal understanding, free from coercion, must be met in discourse. (6)

According to Habermas, discourse:

can be understood as that form of communication that is removed from contexts of experience and action and whose structure assure us: that the bracketed validity claims of assertions, recommendations, or warnings are the exclusive object of discussion: that participants, themes, and contributions are not restricted except with reference to the goal of testing the validity claims in question; that no force except that of the better argument is exercised; and that, as a result, all motives except that of the cooperative search for truth are excluded.(7) During discourse, people participate willingly in discussion and are often challenged on the rationality and truthfulness of their argument. Most speech will not attain the status of discourse unless it is raised to the level of questioning. Individuals usually avoid discourse because it is time consuming and cumbersome. They prefer to live in a "take it for granted world" that requires less thought and ensures harmony and concord. Discourse is a qualitatively different world, where people always look to validate each other's claims. Ideally, then, since discourse is a matter of common understandings, individuals resort to it only when there is a disruption of common understandings that orient actions in common directions, a disruption serious enough to require a reassessment of those understandings. (8)

Once discourse is established, people can achieve social consensus several ways. First, everyone involved in the discourse has to observe universal norms during inter-subjective communication (communication between two or more persons). While the listener demands validity of the speech action invoked by the speaker, s/he has to, at least implicitly, redeem the validity claim during communication. It is clear from Habermas' argument that he sees inter-subjective communication as the proper place to develop normative aspects of a society. By doing so, Habermas distanced himself from strategic rationality in favor of normative rationality. If strategic rationality is permitted in society, Habermas argues, it would cause systematic communication as individuals would try to manipulate or exploit others in society to control most of the resources of that society. If so, coercion, not equality, would dominate society. (9)

To avoid this, Habermas argues that rational action must be the norm rather than the exception (normative rationality). Under such circumstances, everyone is assured of having his/her voice heard and acceptance of the better argument becomes the norm. Here, one does not employ communication for manipulation. Instead, individuals seek to reach a common understanding of their situation. (10) For example, while dining someone might say, "please pass the salt," with the hope of the request would be obeyed not out of fear for what noncompliance...