A Critique of Habermas' Theory of Practical Rationality

258

DISCUSSION

are, however, serious problems with this assumption. The practical choice of values is not only relevant to the choice of ends but to the choice of means for implementing the ends as well. An efficient choice of instrumental alternatives is based upon a cost-benefit analysis of various alternatives. Definition of costs and benefits, however, is mostly a practical issue. In fact, one significant arena of political struggle concerns the inclusion or exclusion of different damages or utilities in the realm of the relevant and effective calculation of costs and benefits. For example, ecological and generational consequences of technical choices are not included within the Liberalist logic of private capital. 29 In other words, the definition of efficiency and instrumental rationality presupposes a constant choice -- implicit or explicit -- of political and practical alternatives. Habermas' notion of interest in control and domination as the quasi- transcendental ground of natural sciences may also be questioned. Habermas' identification of the underlying interest of natural science and technology definitely reflects the cultural categories of the his- torical!y specific stage of Western industrial societies. Marcuse, for example, advocates the necessity of a dialogical conception of nature- human relations, an emphasis on interest in harmony rather than domination, and a non-neutral perception of technology.B° In addition to the quasi-transcendental interests, however, there are multitudes of practical and dialogical factors that are involved in the theoretical practice of natural sciences. Basically, Habermas comes close to a positivistic perception of the categories and logic of natural sciences. The meaning of the terms of propositions within scientific discourse, however, is defined and determined by the theoretical context, theore- tical assumptions, and structural totality of the propositions. 31 In other words, the model of ordinary language is not entirely alien to the structure of discourse in natural sciences. The logical positivist's notion of the meaning of terms as objective, isolated, representational and de- notative phenomena 32, modified but ultimately accepted by Habermas, is a very questionable theoretical standpoint. An important sociological problem with Habermas' theory of ration- ality is the naive assumption of the neutral character of technology. The fact that technological changes lead to institutional and cultural transformations does not need detailed argumentation. This implies that