Para poder encontrar uma base comum de justificação de princípios e normas que, sob condições de um pluralismo social e cultural, pudessem ser publicamente reconhecidos, Habermas faz uma reconstrução do ponto de vista sob o qual é possível fundamentar imparcialmente normas de ação. De acordo com a concepção habermasiana de democracia, a legitimidade das normas depende da institucionalização de procedimentos que promovem a deliberação e aumentam as chances de se alcançar decisões válidas de acordo com o uso público da razão. Nesse sentido, Habermas defende que somente o procedimento, ao invés dos resultados ou de razões substantivas, constitui o parâmetro decisivo de aceitabilidade racional e de legitimidade. Esse procedimento se refere à troca discursiva de razões na qual os participantes buscam chegar a um acordo somente com base no melhor argumento, ancorando a validade das normas na possibilidade de um acordo racionalmente fundamentado por parte de todos os possíveis concernidos, considerados participantes em discursos racionais. / In order to find a comom ground of justification to principles and norms that, under conditions of a cultural and social pluralism, could be publicly recognized, Habermas reconstructs the point of view under wich it is possible to found impartially norms of action. According to Habermass conception of democracy, the legitimacy of norms depends on the institutionalization of procedures that foster deliberation and increase the chances of arriving at valid decisons according to the public use of reason. In this sense, Habermas defends the view that it is only the procedure, rather than outcomes or substantive reasons, wich constitute the decisive parameter for legitimacy. This procedure refers to the discursive exchange of reasons in wich participants strive to reach agreement solely on the basis of the better argument, and it anchors the validity of norms in the possibility of a rationally founded agreement on the part of all those who might be affected, insofar as they take on the role of participants in a rational debate.

The International Township of Auroville was inaugurated as an international experiment in Human Unity on the southeast coast of India in 1968. My research on Auroville constitutes a case study of collective decision-making. Coding extracts from the weekly internal newsletters of the Township 1975 to 2000 in the qualitative software program, NVivo, I reconstruct features of decision-making in the township which I argue form implicit agreements on principles of organization. Illocutionary action, the effort to reach mutual understanding, underscores each of these principles. Illocutionary action is the building block of Jurgen Habermas Theory of Communicative Action and his Discourse Ethics. Because of the correspondence between decision-making in Auroville and the formulations of Jurgen Habermas, I apply key dimensions of Habermas theory to developments in the township in order to identify the practical consequences of adherence to the primacy Habermas pays to illocutionary action. In this way, I submit his theory to practical test. Contrary to the theoretical expectations of Habermas, decision-making characteristic of lifeworld continues to play a role in steering the systems developed to facilitate the expansion of the Auroville Township.

The International Township of Auroville was inaugurated as an international experiment in Human Unity on the southeast coast of India in 1968. My research on Auroville constitutes a case study of collective decision-making. Coding extracts from the weekly internal newsletters of the Township 1975 to 2000 in the qualitative software program, NVivo, I reconstruct features of decision-making in the township which I argue form implicit agreements on principles of organization. Illocutionary action, the effort to reach mutual understanding, underscores each of these principles. Illocutionary action is the building block of Jurgen Habermas Theory of Communicative Action and his Discourse Ethics. Because of the correspondence between decision-making in Auroville and the formulations of Jurgen Habermas, I apply key dimensions of Habermas theory to developments in the township in order to identify the practical consequences of adherence to the primacy Habermas pays to illocutionary action. In this way, I submit his theory to practical test. Contrary to the theoretical expectations of Habermas, decision-making characteristic of lifeworld continues to play a role in steering the systems developed to facilitate the expansion of the Auroville Township.

No description available.

No description available.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2003--Bochum.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Jack David Mezirow. Dissertation Committee: Barbara Brandi Spencer. Bibliography: leaves 231-240.

Diss.--Philosophie--Frankfurt am Main--Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, 1985.

Diss.--Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät--München--Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 1990.

Zugl.: Århus, Universiẗat, Diss., 2008.