A Critique of Habermas' Theory of Practical Rationality

DISCUSSION

259

a specific system of action has significant impact upon the normative system. The idea that the technology in itself is neither good nor bad, that it has significant impact upon the normative system; and that it is the use of technology which makes it positive or negative, is very simplistic. Technology, to some extent, dictates its own useY The practical significance of technology is becoming more pronounced with the invasion of technology into the domains of the human body and soul. Examples of this recent development can be found in research in the areas of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Even the traditional distinction between a neutral invention and a partisan innovation is becoming obsolete by the logic and form of contemporary research and technology. My major criticism of Habermas' theory of practical rationality, however, is related to his naive isolation of practical issues from instrumental ones. Basically, for Habermas there exists no profession- alism at the level of practical questions, and consequently rational ends are defined through the consensus of the people in a situation of free debate and communication. Unfortunately, reality is not that simple. (1) Any political choice among alternative policy issues presupposes assumptions about the concrete and factual consequences of these policies. If political choice is restricted to empty rhetoric concerning abstract words -- like "equality", "freedom", and "justice" -- Habermas' model of rational politics might be realizable. Probably tyrants and dictators would also vote for justice, liberty, and freedom. But if political choice and practical decision deal with alternative institutional arrangements and concrete policy issues, and expression of preference or vote for or against alternative policies requires factual data con- cerning the social, economic, cultural, and political consequences of various policies. Therefore, even if the analytical autonomy of ends from means is accepted, the knowledge of statements of fact remains directly relevant and necessary for rational practical choice. Long ago, Max Weber recognized the significance of the social sciences for political choice.34 But if rational practical choice presupposes sociological knowledge, then the Habermasian definition of practical rationality cannot be accepted. There are at least two reasons for this: First, sociological, economic, and political knowledge is not shared by the masses. Second,