Loading…
Is there a lack of consensus on consensus theory? Habermas’ communicative action theory contextualized in public administration
Abstract Considering the criticisms of Habermas’ communicative action theory, this essay problematized and reflected on another possible criticism: scholars of the theory, despite presenting a common understanding - enlightenment and emancipation of man - do not reach a consensus on what this theory...
Saved in:
Published in: | Cadernos EBAPE.BR 2022-03, Vol.20 (2), p.164-178 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c220x-aa2fa9c0600dd0af6108251fc9e376998a6b337b158c97e714f3b42bfe7f22663 |
container_end_page | 178 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 164 |
container_title | Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA |
description | Abstract Considering the criticisms of Habermas’ communicative action theory, this essay problematized and reflected on another possible criticism: scholars of the theory, despite presenting a common understanding - enlightenment and emancipation of man - do not reach a consensus on what this theory represents compared to other theories and rationality types. The guiding question of the essay is: does the transition proposed by Habermas from other rationality types to the communicative concern an interparadigmatic theory or a paradigmatic leap? Methodologically, we adopted the conception of an essay according to which authors and readers need to recognize that reality can be understood in different ways. The discussion, contextualized in public administration, allowed us to understand that considering the communicative action theory as having an interparadigmatic character does not mean it is a mere gathering of other theories because it surpasses those it dialogues with, additionally presenting a radical shift. We propose that the Communicative action theory comprises a paradigmatic leap with interparadigmatic characteristics. Finally, we present implications of this discussion for Public Administration.
Resumen Cada vez más, la investigación sobre la gestión de las organizaciones culturales se destaca al reconocer las contribuciones simbólicas y materiale Considerando las críticas a la teoría de la acción comunicativa de Habermas, este ensayo problematizó y reflexionó sobre otra posible crítica: los estudiosos de la teoría en cuestión, a pesar de presentar un entendimiento común -iluminación y emancipación del hombre-, no llegan a un consenso sobre lo que esta teoría representa, en comparación con otras teorías y tipos de racionalidad. La pregunta orientadora del ensayo fue: ¿la transición propuesta por Habermas de otro tipo de racionalidad a la comunicativa concierne a una teoría interparadigmática o un salto paradigmático? Metodológicamente, adoptamos la concepción de ensayo según la cual autores y lectores deben reconocer que la realidad puede entenderse de diferentes formas. La discusión, contextualizada en la administración pública, permitió entender que considerar la teoría de la acción comunicativa como de carácter interparadigmático no significa que sea un mera agrupación de otras teorías, pues va más allá de aquellas con las que dialoga, presentando, además, un cambio radical. Proponemos que la teoría de la acción comunicativa comprende un salto |
doi_str_mv | 10.1590/1679-395120210013x |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_bba49a4e8098480c91defd73483b7e5c</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><scielo_id>S1679_39512022000200164</scielo_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_bba49a4e8098480c91defd73483b7e5c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2666604043</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c220x-aa2fa9c0600dd0af6108251fc9e376998a6b337b158c97e714f3b42bfe7f22663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUctuFDEQHCGQiEJ-gJMlzhvaj7HHJ4QiICtFygE4W22PDV5mxos9gzac4DP4Pb4kXiYKa6llu7uqVOpqmpcULmmr4TWVSm-4bikDRgEoPzxpzh6bT0_ez5uLUnZQD9dCKDhrfm8Lmb_67AmSAd03kgJxaSp-KkshaTr5VFjKd2_INVqfRyx_f_2p03Fcpuhwjj-qhJtjpazAI3P2h3nBIf70PYkT2S92iI5gP8YpljnjEf6ieRZwKP7i4T5vPr9_9-nqenNz-2F79fZm4xiDwwaRBdQOJEDfAwZJoWMtDU57rqTWHUrLubK07ZxWXlERuBXMBq8CY1Ly82a76vYJd2af44j5ziSM5l8j5S8G8xzd4I21KDQK34HuRAdO096HXnHRcat866rW5apVXPRDMru05KmaNx-PqzYPWbC651pUikp4tRL2OX1ffJn_U6o3KUGA4BXFVpTLqZTsw6NNCuYYtTmVX6Pm92oCnAE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2666604043</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is there a lack of consensus on consensus theory? Habermas’ communicative action theory contextualized in public administration</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>SciELO</source><creator>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES ; ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA ; PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE ; GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</creator><creatorcontrib>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES ; ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA ; PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE ; GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Considering the criticisms of Habermas’ communicative action theory, this essay problematized and reflected on another possible criticism: scholars of the theory, despite presenting a common understanding - enlightenment and emancipation of man - do not reach a consensus on what this theory represents compared to other theories and rationality types. The guiding question of the essay is: does the transition proposed by Habermas from other rationality types to the communicative concern an interparadigmatic theory or a paradigmatic leap? Methodologically, we adopted the conception of an essay according to which authors and readers need to recognize that reality can be understood in different ways. The discussion, contextualized in public administration, allowed us to understand that considering the communicative action theory as having an interparadigmatic character does not mean it is a mere gathering of other theories because it surpasses those it dialogues with, additionally presenting a radical shift. We propose that the Communicative action theory comprises a paradigmatic leap with interparadigmatic characteristics. Finally, we present implications of this discussion for Public Administration.
Resumen Cada vez más, la investigación sobre la gestión de las organizaciones culturales se destaca al reconocer las contribuciones simbólicas y materiale Considerando las críticas a la teoría de la acción comunicativa de Habermas, este ensayo problematizó y reflexionó sobre otra posible crítica: los estudiosos de la teoría en cuestión, a pesar de presentar un entendimiento común -iluminación y emancipación del hombre-, no llegan a un consenso sobre lo que esta teoría representa, en comparación con otras teorías y tipos de racionalidad. La pregunta orientadora del ensayo fue: ¿la transición propuesta por Habermas de otro tipo de racionalidad a la comunicativa concierne a una teoría interparadigmática o un salto paradigmático? Metodológicamente, adoptamos la concepción de ensayo según la cual autores y lectores deben reconocer que la realidad puede entenderse de diferentes formas. La discusión, contextualizada en la administración pública, permitió entender que considerar la teoría de la acción comunicativa como de carácter interparadigmático no significa que sea un mera agrupación de otras teorías, pues va más allá de aquellas con las que dialoga, presentando, además, un cambio radical. Proponemos que la teoría de la acción comunicativa comprende un salto paradigmático con características interparadigmáticas. Finalmente, presentamos las implicaciones de esta discusión para la administración pública.
Resumo Considerando as críticas à teoria da ação comunicativa de Habermas, este ensaio problematizou e refletiu sobre outra possível crítica: estudiosos da teoria em questão, apesar de apresentarem um entendimento comum - iluminação e emancipação do homem -, não chegam a um consenso sobre o que essa teoria representa, quando comparada a outras teorias e tipos de racionalidades. A questão norteadora do ensaio foi: a transição proposta por Habermas de outros tipos de racionalidades para a comunicativa diz respeito a uma teoria interparadigmática ou a um salto paradigmático? Metodologicamente, adotamos a concepção de ensaio segundo a qual autores e leitores precisam reconhecer que a realidade pode ser compreendida de diferentes maneiras. A discussão, contextualizada na administração pública, permitiu-nos compreender que considerarmos a teoria da ação comunicativa como possuidora de um carácter interparadigmático não significa que a mesma seja um mero ajuntamento de outras teorias, porque ela ultrapassa aquelas com as quais dialoga, apresentando, adicionalmente, uma mudança radical. Propomos que a teoria da ação comunicativa compreende um salto paradigmático com características interparadigmáticas. Por fim, apresentamos implicações dessa discussão para a administração pública.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1679-3951</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1679-3951</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1590/1679-395120210013x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getulio Vargas, EBAPE - Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas</publisher><subject>Communication ; Communicative action ; Communicative rationality ; Habermas ; MANAGEMENT ; Participation ; Philosophers ; Power ; Public Administration ; Rationality ; Social participation ; Society ; Weber, Max (1864-1920)</subject><ispartof>Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 2022-03, Vol.20 (2), p.164-178</ispartof><rights>2022. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c220x-aa2fa9c0600dd0af6108251fc9e376998a6b337b158c97e714f3b42bfe7f22663</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9930-6306 ; 0000-0002-8116-3922 ; 0000-0001-9000-3296 ; 0000-0002-2109-2130</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2666604043/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2666604043?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,11686,24148,25751,27922,27923,36058,37010,44361,44588,74665,74896</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</creatorcontrib><title>Is there a lack of consensus on consensus theory? Habermas’ communicative action theory contextualized in public administration</title><title>Cadernos EBAPE.BR</title><addtitle>Cad. EBAPE.BR</addtitle><description>Abstract Considering the criticisms of Habermas’ communicative action theory, this essay problematized and reflected on another possible criticism: scholars of the theory, despite presenting a common understanding - enlightenment and emancipation of man - do not reach a consensus on what this theory represents compared to other theories and rationality types. The guiding question of the essay is: does the transition proposed by Habermas from other rationality types to the communicative concern an interparadigmatic theory or a paradigmatic leap? Methodologically, we adopted the conception of an essay according to which authors and readers need to recognize that reality can be understood in different ways. The discussion, contextualized in public administration, allowed us to understand that considering the communicative action theory as having an interparadigmatic character does not mean it is a mere gathering of other theories because it surpasses those it dialogues with, additionally presenting a radical shift. We propose that the Communicative action theory comprises a paradigmatic leap with interparadigmatic characteristics. Finally, we present implications of this discussion for Public Administration.
Resumen Cada vez más, la investigación sobre la gestión de las organizaciones culturales se destaca al reconocer las contribuciones simbólicas y materiale Considerando las críticas a la teoría de la acción comunicativa de Habermas, este ensayo problematizó y reflexionó sobre otra posible crítica: los estudiosos de la teoría en cuestión, a pesar de presentar un entendimiento común -iluminación y emancipación del hombre-, no llegan a un consenso sobre lo que esta teoría representa, en comparación con otras teorías y tipos de racionalidad. La pregunta orientadora del ensayo fue: ¿la transición propuesta por Habermas de otro tipo de racionalidad a la comunicativa concierne a una teoría interparadigmática o un salto paradigmático? Metodológicamente, adoptamos la concepción de ensayo según la cual autores y lectores deben reconocer que la realidad puede entenderse de diferentes formas. La discusión, contextualizada en la administración pública, permitió entender que considerar la teoría de la acción comunicativa como de carácter interparadigmático no significa que sea un mera agrupación de otras teorías, pues va más allá de aquellas con las que dialoga, presentando, además, un cambio radical. Proponemos que la teoría de la acción comunicativa comprende un salto paradigmático con características interparadigmáticas. Finalmente, presentamos las implicaciones de esta discusión para la administración pública.
Resumo Considerando as críticas à teoria da ação comunicativa de Habermas, este ensaio problematizou e refletiu sobre outra possível crítica: estudiosos da teoria em questão, apesar de apresentarem um entendimento comum - iluminação e emancipação do homem -, não chegam a um consenso sobre o que essa teoria representa, quando comparada a outras teorias e tipos de racionalidades. A questão norteadora do ensaio foi: a transição proposta por Habermas de outros tipos de racionalidades para a comunicativa diz respeito a uma teoria interparadigmática ou a um salto paradigmático? Metodologicamente, adotamos a concepção de ensaio segundo a qual autores e leitores precisam reconhecer que a realidade pode ser compreendida de diferentes maneiras. A discussão, contextualizada na administração pública, permitiu-nos compreender que considerarmos a teoria da ação comunicativa como possuidora de um carácter interparadigmático não significa que a mesma seja um mero ajuntamento de outras teorias, porque ela ultrapassa aquelas com as quais dialoga, apresentando, adicionalmente, uma mudança radical. Propomos que a teoria da ação comunicativa compreende um salto paradigmático com características interparadigmáticas. Por fim, apresentamos implicações dessa discussão para a administração pública.</description><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Communicative action</subject><subject>Communicative rationality</subject><subject>Habermas</subject><subject>MANAGEMENT</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Philosophers</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Public Administration</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Social participation</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Weber, Max (1864-1920)</subject><issn>1679-3951</issn><issn>1679-3951</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpNUctuFDEQHCGQiEJ-gJMlzhvaj7HHJ4QiICtFygE4W22PDV5mxos9gzac4DP4Pb4kXiYKa6llu7uqVOpqmpcULmmr4TWVSm-4bikDRgEoPzxpzh6bT0_ez5uLUnZQD9dCKDhrfm8Lmb_67AmSAd03kgJxaSp-KkshaTr5VFjKd2_INVqfRyx_f_2p03Fcpuhwjj-qhJtjpazAI3P2h3nBIf70PYkT2S92iI5gP8YpljnjEf6ieRZwKP7i4T5vPr9_9-nqenNz-2F79fZm4xiDwwaRBdQOJEDfAwZJoWMtDU57rqTWHUrLubK07ZxWXlERuBXMBq8CY1Ly82a76vYJd2af44j5ziSM5l8j5S8G8xzd4I21KDQK34HuRAdO096HXnHRcat866rW5apVXPRDMru05KmaNx-PqzYPWbC651pUikp4tRL2OX1ffJn_U6o3KUGA4BXFVpTLqZTsw6NNCuYYtTmVX6Pm92oCnAE</recordid><startdate>20220301</startdate><enddate>20220301</enddate><creator>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES</creator><creator>ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA</creator><creator>PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE</creator><creator>GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</creator><general>Fundação Getulio Vargas, EBAPE - Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas</general><general>Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CLZPN</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>GPN</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9930-6306</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8116-3922</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-3296</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-2130</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220301</creationdate><title>Is there a lack of consensus on consensus theory? Habermas’ communicative action theory contextualized in public administration</title><author>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES ; ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA ; PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE ; GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c220x-aa2fa9c0600dd0af6108251fc9e376998a6b337b158c97e714f3b42bfe7f22663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Communicative action</topic><topic>Communicative rationality</topic><topic>Habermas</topic><topic>MANAGEMENT</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Philosophers</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Public Administration</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Social participation</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Weber, Max (1864-1920)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Latin America & Iberia Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SciELO</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Cadernos EBAPE.BR</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Athayde, ANDRÉ LUIZ MENDES</au><au>ALVES, LUÍS FERNANDO DE SOUZA</au><au>PAULA, PABLO PERÓN DE</au><au>GOMES, ADALMIR DE OLIVEIRA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is there a lack of consensus on consensus theory? Habermas’ communicative action theory contextualized in public administration</atitle><jtitle>Cadernos EBAPE.BR</jtitle><addtitle>Cad. EBAPE.BR</addtitle><date>2022-03-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>164</spage><epage>178</epage><pages>164-178</pages><issn>1679-3951</issn><eissn>1679-3951</eissn><abstract>Abstract Considering the criticisms of Habermas’ communicative action theory, this essay problematized and reflected on another possible criticism: scholars of the theory, despite presenting a common understanding - enlightenment and emancipation of man - do not reach a consensus on what this theory represents compared to other theories and rationality types. The guiding question of the essay is: does the transition proposed by Habermas from other rationality types to the communicative concern an interparadigmatic theory or a paradigmatic leap? Methodologically, we adopted the conception of an essay according to which authors and readers need to recognize that reality can be understood in different ways. The discussion, contextualized in public administration, allowed us to understand that considering the communicative action theory as having an interparadigmatic character does not mean it is a mere gathering of other theories because it surpasses those it dialogues with, additionally presenting a radical shift. We propose that the Communicative action theory comprises a paradigmatic leap with interparadigmatic characteristics. Finally, we present implications of this discussion for Public Administration.
Resumen Cada vez más, la investigación sobre la gestión de las organizaciones culturales se destaca al reconocer las contribuciones simbólicas y materiale Considerando las críticas a la teoría de la acción comunicativa de Habermas, este ensayo problematizó y reflexionó sobre otra posible crítica: los estudiosos de la teoría en cuestión, a pesar de presentar un entendimiento común -iluminación y emancipación del hombre-, no llegan a un consenso sobre lo que esta teoría representa, en comparación con otras teorías y tipos de racionalidad. La pregunta orientadora del ensayo fue: ¿la transición propuesta por Habermas de otro tipo de racionalidad a la comunicativa concierne a una teoría interparadigmática o un salto paradigmático? Metodológicamente, adoptamos la concepción de ensayo según la cual autores y lectores deben reconocer que la realidad puede entenderse de diferentes formas. La discusión, contextualizada en la administración pública, permitió entender que considerar la teoría de la acción comunicativa como de carácter interparadigmático no significa que sea un mera agrupación de otras teorías, pues va más allá de aquellas con las que dialoga, presentando, además, un cambio radical. Proponemos que la teoría de la acción comunicativa comprende un salto paradigmático con características interparadigmáticas. Finalmente, presentamos las implicaciones de esta discusión para la administración pública.
Resumo Considerando as críticas à teoria da ação comunicativa de Habermas, este ensaio problematizou e refletiu sobre outra possível crítica: estudiosos da teoria em questão, apesar de apresentarem um entendimento comum - iluminação e emancipação do homem -, não chegam a um consenso sobre o que essa teoria representa, quando comparada a outras teorias e tipos de racionalidades. A questão norteadora do ensaio foi: a transição proposta por Habermas de outros tipos de racionalidades para a comunicativa diz respeito a uma teoria interparadigmática ou a um salto paradigmático? Metodologicamente, adotamos a concepção de ensaio segundo a qual autores e leitores precisam reconhecer que a realidade pode ser compreendida de diferentes maneiras. A discussão, contextualizada na administração pública, permitiu-nos compreender que considerarmos a teoria da ação comunicativa como possuidora de um carácter interparadigmático não significa que a mesma seja um mero ajuntamento de outras teorias, porque ela ultrapassa aquelas com as quais dialoga, apresentando, adicionalmente, uma mudança radical. Propomos que a teoria da ação comunicativa compreende um salto paradigmático com características interparadigmáticas. Por fim, apresentamos implicações dessa discussão para a administração pública.</abstract><cop>Rio de Janeiro</cop><pub>Fundação Getulio Vargas, EBAPE - Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas</pub><doi>10.1590/1679-395120210013x</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9930-6306</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8116-3922</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-3296</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-2130</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1679-3951 |
ispartof | Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 2022-03, Vol.20 (2), p.164-178 |
issn | 1679-3951 1679-3951 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_bba49a4e8098480c91defd73483b7e5c |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; Publicly Available Content Database; ABI/INFORM Global; SciELO |
subjects | Communication Communicative action Communicative rationality Habermas MANAGEMENT Participation Philosophers Power Public Administration Rationality Social participation Society Weber, Max (1864-1920) |
title | Is there a lack of consensus on consensus theory? Habermas’ communicative action theory contextualized in public administration |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T16%3A44%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20there%20a%20lack%20of%20consensus%20on%20consensus%20theory?%20Habermas%E2%80%99%20communicative%20action%20theory%20contextualized%20in%20public%20administration&rft.jtitle=Cadernos%20EBAPE.BR&rft.au=Athayde,%20ANDR%C3%89%20LUIZ%20MENDES&rft.date=2022-03-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=164&rft.epage=178&rft.pages=164-178&rft.issn=1679-3951&rft.eissn=1679-3951&rft_id=info:doi/10.1590/1679-395120210013x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2666604043%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c220x-aa2fa9c0600dd0af6108251fc9e376998a6b337b158c97e714f3b42bfe7f22663%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2666604043&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_scielo_id=S1679_39512022000200164&rfr_iscdi=true |