12 / 15
262
DISCUSSION
irrationality of the whole. Since economic decisions are made by
isolated individuals, the societal outcomes are a blind product of the
interaction of individuals' actions. The totality, in other words, is not
subject to rational, conscious and reflective decision making. 38 What is
overlooked in this analysis, however, is that subjugation of the totality
to "reason" requires centralized planning. The alienating, undemocratic,
bureaucratic, technocratic, and class character of such a form of society
is already established within various theories of neo-Marxism. The
alternative decentralized vision of socialism, however, resembles capi-
talism in terms of the irrationality of the totality.
I should emphasize that I am not advocating an "iron law of
oligarchy" or an inevitable contradiction between democracy and
efficiency. In fact, I believe that our knowledge of social forces and
dynamics is too limited to allow universal and a priori judgments on
issues like this. Whether Ellul's pessimistic view of the totalitarian
implications of complex technology is true 39, or whether Toffier's
optimistic accounts of the democratic consequences of computer
technology is right 4°, it is very difficult to decide in a categorical
fashion. My point is simply that Habermas' uncritical a
priori
assump-
tion of the harmony of instrumental and practical rationality is a very
dubious idea.
D. CONCLUS I ON
The underlying problem with Habermas' utopian optimism and his
theory of rationality seems to lie in his historicist assumption of the
unity of subject and object in socio-historical reality. For Habermas, the
contradiction between social structures and individually intended mean-
ings and consciousness is a historically specific phenomenon that can
be eliminated in a democratic society. That is why depth-hermeneutics
is a historically specific form of analysis. The fact, however, is that
even with the elimination of capitalism and commodity fetishism, the
inadequate knowledge of humans with regard to their actions, inter-
actions, and institutions will remain an integral fact of social life.
Consequently, the potential forms of conflict between the intentions
and the objective outcomes of human interactions will not be tran-
scended. Depth-hermeneutics, in other words, is not a temporary logic