시민성의 전제로서 의사소통 합리성

Abstract

Social Studies Education has three different traditions, pursuing good citizens, informed citizens and rational citizens. However, despite efforts so far, it is hard to state that Social Studies Education has successfully cultivated ideal citizens. The reason that Social Studies Education finds it difficult to cultivate citizenship is that the philosophy itself that makes the background of these three citizenships has its logical and practical limits. Theoretical backgrounds of three citizenships pursued by Social Studies Education are liberalism and communitarianism. Liberalism backgrounds informed citizens and rational citizens. And communitarianism does Good citizens. Liberalism is characteristic of the independent self and instrumental rationality. Individual liberty comes before social values and the society is contractually established based on reciprocity. However, the independent self shows errors in both legitimacy and feasibility, which created ethical confusion as a result. In addition, instrumental rationality created irrationality. On the other hand, communitarianism is characteristic of the constitutive self and internalization of common good. There is a risk of totalitarianism or conservatism as it stands as an antipode of liberalism and the process of constitution of common good is not clear. Also it bears a limit that it does not present a normative foundation to evaluate conflictual common good. In the past, studies that explored significance and contents of citizenship in the perspective of liberalism or communitarianism were the mainstreams. However, the tendency to dialectically accept and complement these two theories is dominant in the current flow of studies. Communicative rationality becomes a premise of citizenship as it complements the two theories and regulates communication between the two when two citizenships are dialectically accepted. First, Communicative rationality overcomes the perspective of the self of communitarianism and liberalism by pursuing mutual subjectivism. The perspective of mutual subjectivism prepares for normative backgrounds of ethics and becomes a foundation to overcome relative ethical point of views. Second, the possibility to understand ideal discourses and request for verification of truthfulness, normativeness, and fidelity provide a normative foundation to contemplate the process of constitution of common good, the limit of communitarian citizenship, and mutual understanding and the process of agreement that takes place in the perspective of liberalism. Third, Communicative rationality is a comprehensive rationality that overcomes one-dimensional rationality of two citizenships. Thus, it plays a role to regulate simultaneous use of two rationalities and to correct distortions. Fourth, Communicative rationality is the citizenship that simultaneously realizes judgment and participation. Fifth, Communicative rationality is capable of critically contemplating distorted powers.