View source for Sociological theory of Habermas - applied to organization of socio-technical systems

Habermas distinguished between two modes of action, '''''work''''' and '''''interaction''''', which correspond to enduring interests of the human species.

{|class=wikitable 
|style="padding: 10px" | '''work'''
|<span style="color:grey">Μodes of action based on the rational choice of efficient means, i.e., instrumental and strategic action forms.</span> <br>Work enables people to achieve goals and bring about material well-being through social labour. Its success depends upon achieving technical mastery over the environment of action.<br>The importance of work leads us to have a <u>technical interest</u> in the prediction and control of natural and social systems.
|-
|style="padding: 10px" |'''interaction''' 
|<span style="color:grey">Forms of [[communicative action]] in which actors coordinate their behaviors based on [[consensual norms]].</span> <br>Interaction enables human beings to secure and expand the possibilities for intersubjective understanding among those involved in social systems. The importance of interaction leads us to have a <u>practical interest</u> in the progress of mutual understanding. Disagreement between different groups threatens the reproduction of the socio-cultural form of life. It also makes it hard to control natural and social processes. 
|}

Habermas's distinction appropriates the classical Aristotelian contrast between ''τέχνη'' and ''πράξης'' for [[critical social theory]]. The result is a distinctively Habermasian critique of science and technology as ideology: 

* By reducing practical questions about the good life to technical problems for experts, contemporary elites eliminate the need for public, democratic discussion of values, thereby depoliticizing the population.

* The legitimate human interest in technical control of nature thus functions as an ideology —a screen that masks the value-laden character of government decision-making in the service of the capitalist status quo.

Unlike Herbert Marcuse, who regarded that interest as specific to capitalist society, Habermas affirmed the technical control of nature as a genuinely universal species-interest.

{|class=wikitable 
|style="padding: 10px" | '''power'''
|The exercise of power in the social process can prevent open and free discussion necessary for the success of the interaction.<br>Human beings have an <u>emancipatory interest</u> in freeing themselves from constraints imposed by power relations. It is through a process of genuine participatory democracy that they can learn to control their own destiny.
|}

==Important Points==
# Organizations are at the heart of the sociocultural life of humans.
# Organizations are the primary centers of social labour, social interaction and the exercise of power
# Thus, we all have a technical, a practical, and an emancipatory interest in their functioning 

Thus, we can conclude that systems inquiry (i.e., methods) into the functioning of organizations requires a minimum of three dimensions:
# Methods that allow us to explore the technical aspects of how goals are pursued in changing environments
# Methods that allow us to explore and consider the interactions between the participants
# Methods that consider power and domination issues 

==References==
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/)
* Jackson, M. C. (1988). Systems methods for organizational analysis and design. Systems Research, 5(3), 201-210.

[[Category: Systems concepts]]