No abstract

American Journal of Sociology bermas, who recently admitted, "I have for a long time identified myself with that radical democratic mentality which is present in the best American traditions and articulated in American pragmatism" (Habermas 1985, p. 198). This statement is noteworthy not only because it holds fresh promise for a transatlantic dialogue, but also because it points to critical thinkers' renewed interest in liberal democracy and its emancipatory potential. While the search for common ground will be welcomed on this side of the Atlantic, it will also raise some eyebrows. There are many points on which critical theorists and writers steeped in pragmatism appear to part company. The former have a penchant for totalities, are conversant with rationality at large, and have profound reservations about bourgeois democracy, whereas the latter attend to the particular, revel in multiple rationalities, and place much stock in democratic institutions. So, when Habermas (1986, p. 193) describes pragmatism as "a missing branch of Young Hegelianism," he is sure to make some critics wonder if his European biases blinded him to pragmatism's native roots. I see nothing objectionable in the efforts to trace pragmatism's European lineage. Nor do I agree with those who think Habermas has gotten pragmatism all wrong. A movement as diverse as this lends itself to more than one reading, and Habermas does an important service by illuminating its various facets-most notably its political dimensionwhich American sociologists claiming the pragmatist legacy tend to ignore. Still, I want to take issue with Habermas because something is amiss in his analysis-the pragmatist sensitivity to indeterminacy, contingency, and chaos. This sensitivity is remarkably in tune with trends in modern science, and it deserves far closer attention from sociologists than it has been granted so far. It is my contention that taking objective indeterminacy seriously would require rethinking central conclusions in Habermas's theory of communicative action. In particular, I would like to show that Habermas elevated verbal intellect at the expense of noncognitive intelligence and thereby truncated the pragmatist notion of experience. I will also argue that incorporating the pragmatist perspective on democracy brings an important corrective to the emancipatory agenda championed by critical theorists. Critical theory and Habermas have received a fair amount of attention (

No abstract

This study aims to show that much of Erving Goffman

This article offers an alternative to classical hermeneutics, which focuses on discursive products and grasps meaning as the play of difference between linguistic signs. Pragmatist hermeneutics reconstructs meaning through an indefinite triangulation, which brings symbols, icons, and indices to bear on each other and considers a meaningful occasion as an embodied semiotic process. To illuminate the word-body-action nexus, the discussion identifies three basic types of signifying media: (1) the symbolicdiscursive, (2) the somatic-affective, and (3) the behavioral-performative, each one marked by a special relationship between signs and their objects. An argument is made that the tension between various type-signifying media is unavoidable, that the pragmatic-discursive misalignment is an ontological condition, and that bridging the gap between our discursive, affective, and behavioral outputs is at the heart of ethical life.