Response to Jurgen Habermas

Jurgen Habermas was born in Germany and participated in the Nazi regime, though he claims that his family - not to mention his own age at the time of his involvement - was that of many Germans who acted in obedient ignorance toward the government they were unaware was exploiting them (234). This perspective is radically different from what is traditionally allotted to those involved in the Holocaust; we tend to believe that ignorance was impossible.
Most likely because of his origin, Habermas adopts a Marxist approach to philosphy (237). It is from this foundation that he develops his theory of communication which looks toward the development of a language that is truly freedom of speech because its speakers are all thoroughly, individually free (233-234). Habermas believes that communication is what unites individuals. Communication must be free from all constraints, just as those communicating must possess the freedom to say anything and to be completely themselves. When a society shares this individual freedom, true freedom is established. Habermas would define social movements as conflicts serving to establish communally shared, absolute individual freedom (236).
An interesting element of Habermas position is his rejection of Kenneth Burke's way of defining action. For Burke, action was pre-meditated and involved cognition and intention. To Habermas, "actionism" is unthinking and rash (235).
Language is what distinguishes man from things and animals. Thus, Communication Theory is key to society formation (238).
According to Habermas, the Enlightenment was the movement that initiated the liberation movement toward founding communal, individual freedom. This progress was halted by the institution of Capitalism, in which all are not equally possessors of the same rights and freedoms. For this reason, Marxism is an ideal model for obtaining true freedom since under this system all are equal (239-240).
Two definitions of earth and existence are offered by Habermas to explain the problem creating the need for communication theory: First, the Lifeworld, or society composed of individuals. Second, the System(s), or materials and structures, laws and regulations. The problem is that the "imbalance between lifeworld and system lays the groundwork for the linguistic dimensions of [Habermas's] theory of communicative action" (243-244). To correct this imbalance, language is a useful tool. Language is used to express knowledge of the lifeworld and thus allows men to connect with one another (245).
Habermas's contribution to rhetorical theory is most evident in his development of the term 'speech act.' In definition, speech act is compliant with our common modern concept of rhetoric as persuasive. Speech act is language that suggests, expresses, directs, or urges certain responses. Validity claims, "obligations to fulfill when speaking," are what unite the speakers of speech acts and provide the communal element important to Habermas's theory (245-246).
In speech act validity claims are underlying; however, contrast this with discourse, in which validity claims become the topics themselves. Habermas uses Toulmin's model to define discourse (249).
Although Jurgen Habermas theory sounds pretty, it is in my opinion idealistic beyond accomplishment.