HABERMAS, GOFFMAN, AND COMMUNICATIVE ACTION - IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

In his Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas (1984, 1987) argues th at because Goffman's dramaturgy emphasizes the goal-oriented or strate gic nature of actors' self-presentations, it fails to establish the co nditions for noncoerced or reasoned communication After reviewing Habe rmas's negative reading of Goffman, 1 assess both Habermas's and Goffm an's theories in the context of professional practice and organization al behavior I suggest that certain programs in the social psychology o f organizations, such as Argyris and Schon's (1974) action research, s hare Habermas's one-sided view of Goffman's actor as an opportunistic, insincere manipulator. This misreading of Goffman results from a fund amental confusion over the ontology and epistemology of ''impression m anagement.'' I conclude that if Habermas's theory of communicative act ion is to advance further that is, if it is ever to adequately link wi th the empirical social world it must come to move concrete terms with the nature of the presented self