Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Legitimation Problems in Late capitalism - Essay fontThe term legitimation is derived from Weberian sociological tradition, whereas the term crisis is a derivative of and from the Marxist compend of Capitalism (Ramussen.1976). Let us first attempt to discuss the key monetary value legitimation and crises and how these terms although derivatives of earlier thought have been given new meanings through Habermasian analysis. It needs to be understood that Habermas has drawn critical clearions, blurred but distinct boundaries between sociological evolution on the partly historical and partly sociological continuum. His estimation of advanced Capitalism is different from what Karl Marx analyzed and prophesied about. Marx had analyzed the Capitalism of liberal capitalism variety which functioned without state intervention an Adam Smithsonian Laiisez-Fare capitalism. It had its own crisis, which Marx analyzed and perhaps predicted. Whereas the object or rather subjective focus of Haberm asian analysis is modern, advanced capitalism with its unique attributes of state intervention and its concomitant urge for a value structure of its own, it therefore has its own particular form of crisis relating to legitimation and at long last motivation (ibid. pp.350). The term Legitimation has its roots in the Weberian tradition, in weberian usage the term occurs with its counterpart of domination (Ramussen.1976), a legitimate stratification of order and for order in the society, expressed in the form of legal system, a codification of dominant values, whereas Habermasian Legitimation is devoid of its excess baggage of domination, and is based on communicative competence (Habermas. 1975).Having discussed the key terms and their basis of occurring in the Habermasian analysis, let us now move on to attempting to trace the roots of this conceptualization. It may be argued that Habermass point of departure about history of development of companionable theory is derived from Arist otles distinction between episteme and phronesis, between science and prudence (Ramussen.1976). This distinction provides a useful preserve for politics from the stark and empiricist basis. Because the philosophy modeled on (pure episteme) would give priority to an elitist control, as natural science sought to control nature(ibid). Therefore it may be understood that the precedence of phronesis over episteme forms the basis of hollow assumptions for Habermas. Moving further from these premises a brief reference can be made to Habermass critique of Marx in interpretation of kinship of philosophy and science. The relationship between the two has been termed as ambiguous at best (ibid). However the Habermas does not seem to agree with Marxs assumption that science itself would provide the grounds for the salvation of modern society. In Habermass own view it is necessary, in light of the adjudged failure of Marxs analysis, to continue the quest of a critical theory of society which will turn out in human liberation (Habermas. 1976). It is now pertinent to take recourse to what Habermas has conceptualized. At the outset the argument begins with the stated purpose of achieving A Social scientific invention of Crisis inimical to State-regulated capitalism (Habermas.1976.pp.1). Initially a theoretical framework is defined based on an