p~ K,'visfo; e~, ~& ~

5ocU1~ ' i J : : : i s .<L4AC ~n SystematicallyDistorted Communication 369

i.oo k :::"--X 0;~ I 20' o()
55
munication, what it isthat wedonot-yet-
know. However, this "hermeneutic" con-
sciousness of translation difficulties proves
tobeinadequate when applied to systemati-
cally distorted communication. For in this
case incomprehensibility results from a
faulty organization of speech itself. Obvious
examples are those clearly pathological
speech disturbances to beobserved, for ex-
ample, among psychotics. But the more im-
portant occurrences of thepattern of system-
atically distorted communication are those
which appear in speech which is not con-
spicuously pathological. This iswhat ween-
counter in the case of pseudocommunica-
tion, wheretheparticipants donot recognize
any communication disturbances. Pseudo-
communication produces asystemof recip-
rocal misunderstandings which, due to the
falseassumption of consensus, arenot recog-
nizedassuch. Onlyaneutral observer notices
that theparticipants donot understand one
another....
Freuddealt withtheoccurrence of system-
aticallydeformed communication inorder to
definethescopeof specificallyincomprehen-
sible acts and utterances. He always envis-
aged the dream as the standard example of
such phenomena .... Heemployed the in-
sightsgainedfromclinical phenomena asthe
keytothepseudonormality, that istothehid-
denpathology, of collectivebehavior and en-
tire social systems. In our discussion of psy-
choanalysis as a kind of linguistic analysis
pertaining to systematically distorted com-
munication, weshall first consider theexam-
pleof neurotic symptoms.
Threecriteriaareavailablefor definingthe
scopeof specific incomprehensible acts and
utterances. (a) Onthelevel of language, dis-
torted communication becomes noticeable
because of the use of rules which deviate
from the recognized system of linguistic
rules.... Using dream texts, Freud exam-
ined, in particular; condensation, displace-
ment, absence of grammaticalness, and the
use of words with opposite meaning. (b) On
the behavior level, the deformed language
game appears in the form of rigidity and
compulsory repetition. Stereotyped behavior
patterns recur insituations involvingstimuli
which cause emotionally loaded reac-
'1.
On Systematically
Distorted
Communication
[iirgen Habermas ~rfq(3
(tCf7o): : 205,-(2
Jurgen Habermas (b. 1929) isthe most impor-
tant second-generation member of the Frank-
furt School. Devising a brilliant synthesis of
social theory influenced by Marx, Weber,
Freud, Parsons, and others, he has created his
own unique perspective as a latter-day de-
fender of the ideals of the Enlightenment. Key
to his work is an attempt to complement
Marx's focus on the labor process with the no-
tion of communicative practices. Of impor-
tance for the prospects of democracy, he be-
lieves, are situations characterized by "undis-
torted communication," which involves an
ideal speech situation in which the partici-
pants interact as relative equals without coer-
cion and with an open and tolerant willingness
to listen to the arguments of others. In this es-
say from 1970, Habermas uses Freudian ideas
to discuss some of the impediments that make
realizing the ideal speech situation difficult.
l. \X ihere difficulties of comprehension are
theresult of cultural, temporal, or social dis-
tance, wecan say in principle what further
information we would need in order to
kchieve understanding: we know that we
must decipher the alphabet, become ac-
~uainted with lexicon and grammar, or un-
covercontext-specific rules of application. In
attempting to explain unclear or incompre-
liensiblemeaning-associations weareableto.
recognize, within thelimits of normal com-
~eprinted from "On Systematically Distorted Com-
'munication:' J lirgen Habermas, Inqui ry, 13, 1970, pp.
. 1'05-218, by permission of Scandinavian University
P.ress,Oslo, Norway.
2.1. The reestablished original scene is
typically asituation inwhich the childha~
once suffered and repulsed an unbearable
conflict. Thisrepulse iscoupled with apro- ,
cessof desymbolization andtheformation of
a symptom. The child excludes the experi-
enceof theconflict-filledobject frompublic
communication (andatthesametimemakes
itinaccessibletoitsownegoaswell);itsepa-
ratestheconflict-ladenportion ofitsmemory
of theobject and, sotospeak, desymbolizes
themeaningoftherelevant referenceperson.
Thegapwhicharisesinthesemantic fieldis
then closedbyemployinganunquestionable
symbol inplaceof theisolatedsymboliccon-
tent. Thissymbol, of course, strikes usasbe-
ingasymptom, becauseithasgainedprivate
linguistic significance and can no longer be
used according to the rules of public lan-
guage. Theanalyst'sscenicunderstanding es-
tablishes meaning equivalences between the
elements of three patterns=-the everyday
scene, thetransference scene', and theorigi-
nal scene-and solvesthespecificincompre-
hensibility of thesymptom; thus it assistsin
achievingresymbolization, that is, thereen-
try of isolated symbolic contents into public
communication. Thelatent meaning of the
present situation becomes accessiblewhenit
isrelated totheunimpaired meaning of the
original infantile scene. Scenic under-
standing makes it possibleto "translate" the
meaning of the pathologically frozen com-
munication pattern whichhadbeenhitherto
unconscious andinaccessibletopublic com-
munication.
2.2. If weconsider everydayinterpretation
within the range of ordinary language or
translation fromonelanguage into another,
or trained linguistic analysisin'general, all of
themleading tohermeneutic understanding
of initially incomprehensible utterances,
then scenic understanding differs fromthat
hermeneutic understanding because of its
explanatory power.
2
That is, thedisclosureof
the meaning of specific incomprehensible
actsorutterances developstothesameextent
as, in the course of reconstruction of the
original scene, aclarification of the genesis
of thefaultymeaning isachieved. TheWhat,
thesemantic content of asystematically dis-
torted manifestation, cannot be "under-
370 Part Two: The Branches-Contemporary Social Theory + XIII. Critical Theory
tions.... (c) If, finally,weconsider thesys-
temof distorted communication asawhole,
wearestruckbythediscrepancy betweenthe
levelsof communication; the usual congru-
ency between linguistic symbols, actions,
and accompanying gestures has disinte-
grated.... There is a communication ob-
struction intheself between theego, which
iscapableof speechandparticipates ininter-
subjectively established language-games,
'/andthat "inner foreign territory" (Freud),
which is represented by aprivate or apri-
mary linguistic symbolism.
2. AlfredLorenzer has examined theana-
lytical conversation between physician and
patient fromthestandpoint of psychoanaly-
sisasanalysisof language. 1 Heconsiders the
process by which the meanings of specific
incomprehensible manifestations are de-
coded as anunderstanding of scenes linked
by analogy tothose inwhich thesymptoms
occur. Thepurpose of analytical interpreta-
tion is to explain the incomprehensible
meaning of thesymptomatic manifestations.
Whereneuroses areinvolved, thesemanifes-
tations arepart of adeformedlanguage-game
inwhich thepatient "acts":that is, heplays
anincomprehensible scenebyviolatingrole-
expectations inastrikingly stereotypedman-
ner. The analyst tries to make the sympto-
matic sceneunderstandable byassociatingit
with analogous scenes in the situation of
transference. Thelatter holds thekeytothe
coded relation between the symptomatic
scene, which theadult patient playsoutside
thedoctor's office, and anoriginal sceneex-
perienced inearlychildhood. Inthetransfer-
ence situation the patient forces the doctor
into theroleof theconflict-defined primary
reference person. Thedoctor, inthe roleof
the reflective or critical participant, can in-
terpret thetransference situation asarepeti-
tion of early childhood experiences; hecan
thus construct a dictionary for the hidden
idiosyncratic meanings of the symptoms.
"Scenicunderstanding" isthereforebasedon
thediscoverythat thepatient behaves inthe
same way in his symptomatic scenes as he
doesincertain transference situations; such
understanding aims at the reconstruction,
confirmed bythepatient inanact of self-re-
flection, of theoriginal scene.
.,
stood" if it isnot possible at the same time to
"explain" the Why, the origin of the sympto-
matic scene with reference to the initial cir-
cumstances which led to the systematic dis-
tortion itself. ...
Scenic understanding-in contrast to her-
meneutic understanding, or ordinary seman-
tic analysis-cannot be conceived as being a
mere application of communicative compe-
tence, free from theoretical guidance.
3. The theoretical propositions on which
this special kind of language analysis is im-
plicitly based can be elicited from three
points of view. (1) The psychoanalyst has a
preconception of the structure of nondis-
!torted ordinary communication; (2) he attri-
i butes the systematic distortion of communi-
~ cation to the confusion of two developmen-
tally following phases of prelinguistic and
linguistic symbol-organization; and (3) toex-
plain the origin of deformation heemploys a
theory of deviant socialization which in-
cludes the connection between patterns of
interaction inearly childhood and theforma-
, tion of personality structures. I would liketo
consider these three aspects briefly.
3.1. The first set of theoretical proposi-
tions concerns the structural conditions that
must be met if normal communication is to
obtain.
(a) In thecaseof anondeformed language-
game there isacongruency on all three levels
of communication. Linguistic expressions,
expressions represented inactions, and those
embodied in gestures do not contradict one
another, but rather supplement one another
by metacommunication ....
(b) Normal communication conforms to
intersubjectively recognized rules; it is pub-
lic. The communicated meanings are identi-
~, cal for all members of the language-commu-
nity. Verbal utterances are constructed ac-
cording to the valid system of grammatical
rules and are conventionally applied to spe-
cific situations. For extraverbal expressions,
which are not grammatically organized,
there islikewise alexicon which varies socio-
culturally within certain limits.
(c) In the case of normal speech thespeak-
ers are aware of the categorical difference
between subject and object. They differenti-
atebetween outer and inner speech and sepa-
On Systematically Distorted Communication 371
rate the private from the public world. The
differentiation between being and appear-
ance depends, moreover, on the distinction
between the language-sign, its significative
content (significatum), and the object which
the symbol denotes (referent, deno-
tatum) ....
(d) Innormal communication anintersub-
jectivity of mutual understanding, guaran-
teeing ego-identity, develops and is main-
tained in the relation between individuals
who acknowledge one another. On the one
hand, the analytic use of language allows the
identification of objects (thus the categoriza-
tion of particular items, the subordination of
elements under classes, and the inclusion of
sets). On the other hand, the reflexive use of
language assures arelationship between the
speaking subject and the language commu-
nity which cannot be sufficiently presented
by analytic: operations.
... The relation between I (ego), you (alter
ego), and we(egoand alter ego) isestablished
only by an analytically paradoxical achieve-
ment: the speaking persons identify them-
selves at the same time with two incompat-
ible dialogue roles and thereby ensure the
identity of the I (ego) as well as of the group.
The one being (ego) asserts his absolute non-
identity in relation to the other being (alter
ego); at the same time, however, both recog-
nize their identity inasmuch as each ac-
knowledges the other asbeing an ego, that is,
anonreplaceable individual who can refer to
himself as "1." Moreover, that which links
them both is a mutual factor (we), acollec-
tivity, which in turn asserts its individuality
in relation to other groups. This means that
the same paradoxical relationship is estab-
lished on the level of intersubjectively linked
collectives as holds between the individuals.
The specific feature of linguistic intersub-
jectivity exists in the fact that individuated
persons communicate on the basis of it. In
the reflexive use of language wepresent inal-
ienably individual aspects in unavoidably
general categories in such a way that we
metacommunicatively comment upon and
sometimes even revoke direct information
(and confirm it only with reservations). We
do this for the purpose of an indirect repre-
sentation of the nonidentical aspects of the
cessive phases of human symbol-organiza-
tion.
(a)Thearchaicsymbol-organization, which
resiststhetransformation of itscontents into
grammatically regulated communication,
canonlybedisclosedonthebasis of thedata
of speech pathology and by means of the
analysis of dreammaterial. ... Freud hadal-
ready noticed thelackof logical connections
in his dream analyses. He draws attention
particularly totheuseofwords withopposite
meaning, aremnant onthelinguistic level of
thegeneticallyearlier peculiarity of combin-
inglogicallyincompatible meanings. Prelin-
guistic symbols are emotionally loaded and
remain fixedtoparticular scenes. Thereisno
dissociation of linguistic symbol and bodily
gesture. Theconnection to aparticular con-
text issostrongthat thesymbol cannot vary
independently of actions. Although the pa-
laeosymbols represent aprelinguistic basis
for theintersubjectivity of mutual existence
and shared action, they do not allowpublic
communication in the strict sense of the
word.
... Prelinguistic symbol-organization
doesnot allowananalytically satisfyingcate-
gorization of the objects experienced. Two
typesof deficienciesarefoundinthecommu-
nication and thought disturbances of psy-
chotics: namely "amorphous" and "frag-
mented" speechdisorders.' Inboth casesthe
analytic operations of classification aredis-
turbed. Inthefirst, afragmentation of struc-
ture isapparent which does not allowdisin-
tegrated singleelements tobecompiled into
classes according to general criteria. Inthe
second, an amorphous structure appears
which does not allowaggregates of superfi-
ciallysimilar andvaguelycompiled thingsto
be analyzed.... Animistic Weltanschauun-
gen, for example, areformed inaccordance
withsuchprimary classes.
(b) The symbol-organization described
here, whichprecedes languagegenetically,is
atheoretical construct. Wecannot observeit
anywhere. But the psychoanalytical decod-
ing of systematically distorted communica-
tion presupposes such a construction, be-
cause that special typeof semantic analysis
introduced here as "scenic understanding"
resolvesconfusions of ordinary speechbyin-
372 Part Two: The Branches-Contemporary Socia! Theory . X III. Critical Theory
ego, aspects which are not sufficiently cov-
ered by the general determinations and yet
cannot bemanifestly represented other than
byjust these determinations. Theanalytical
use of language is necessarily embedded in
thereflexiveuse, because theintersubjectiv-
ityof mutual understanding cannot bemain-
tained without reciprocal self-representation
on. the part of the speaking subjects. Inas-
,much asthespeaker masters thisindirect in-
. formation onthe metacommunicative level,
he differentiates between essence and ap-
pearance. The understanding we come to
about objectscanbedirect, but thesubjectiv-
ity we encounter when we speakwith one
another remains, indirect information, only
at the level of appearance. The categorical
meaning of thiskindof indirect communica-
tion, inwhich theindefinable individualized
aspect of aperson isexpressed, andhisclaim
upon individuality is maintained, is some-
thing wemerely reifyintheontological con-
cept of essence. In fact this essence exists
onlyinitsappearances.
(e) Finally, normal speechisdistinguished
by the fact that the sense of substance and
causality, of spaceandtime, isdifferentiated
according towhether thesecategories areap-
plied to the objects within aworld or to the
linguistically constituted world itself, which
allowsforthemutuality of speakingsubjects.
The interpretational schema, "substance,"
has a different meaning for the identity of
items which can beclearly categorized ana-
lytically fromthat which it has for speaking
and interacting subjects themselves, whose
ego-identity, ashas been shown, just cannot
be grasped by analytically clear-cut opera-
tions. Theinterpretational schema of causal-
ity,when applied to observable events, leads
to the concept of "cause";when it isapplied
to an association of intentional actions it
leads totheconcept of "motive." Inthesame
way "space" and "time" undergo adifferent
schematism whenviewedinregard tophysi-
cally measurable properties of observable
events fromthat which they undergo when
viewed according to experienced inter-
actions....
3.2. Thesecond set of postulates concerns
the connection between two genetically sue-
terpreting them either as forced regression
backtoanearlier level of communication, or
as the breakthrough of the earlier formof
communication into language. Onthebasis
of theanalyst's experiencewith neurotic pa-
tients, wecan, ashasbeenshown, recognize
the function of psychoanalysis as language
analysis, insofar as it allowsseparated sym-
bolic contents, which leadto aprivate nar-
rowingof public communication, toberein-
tegrated into common linguistic usage. The
performance of theanalyst inputting anend
to the process of inhibition serves the pur-
poseof resymbolization; inhibition itself can
therefore beunderstood as aprocess linked
todesymbolization. Thedefensemechanism
of inhibition, which isanalogous toflight, is
revealed by the patient in his resistance to
plausible interpretations made by the ana-
lyst.Thismechanism isanoperation carried
onwithandbylanguage; otherwiseit would
not bepossible to reversetheprocess of re-
pulsion hermeneutically, i.e., precisely by
. means of aspecial typeof semantic analysis.
Thefleeingego, which has to submit tothe
. demands of outer reality in aconflict situ-
, ation, hides itself fromitself by eliminating
.a thesymbolicrepresentation of unwanted de-
~mandsofinstinct fromthetextofitseveryday
r: consciousness. Bymeans of this censorship
therepresentation of theprohibited object is
+excommunicated frompublic communica-
tionandbanished tothearchaic level of pa-
laeosymbols. Moreover, theassumption that
<neurotic behavior is controlled by palaeo-
symbols,andonlysubsequently rationalized
byasubstitutive interpretation, offersanex-
'planation for the characteristics of this be-
:.haviorpattern: for itspseudocommunicative
,:tfunction,for itsstereotyped andcompulsive
. form, for its emotional load and expressive
Content, and, finally, for its rigid fixation
'uponparticular situations.
If inhibition canbeunderstood asdesyrn-
bolization, then it followsthat theremust be
acorrespondingly linguistic interpretation
forthecomplementary defensemechanism,
which does not turn against the self but
ratheragainst outer reality,i.e.,forprojection
anddenial. Whileinthecaseofinhibitionthe
language-gameisdeformedbythesymptoms
formedinplaceof theexcommunicated sym-
On Systematically Distorted Communication 373
bols, thedistortion inthecaseof this defense
mechanism results directly fromtheuncon-
trolledpenetration ofpalaeosymbolic deriva-
tivesintolanguage. Inthiscasethetherapeu-
tic typeof language analysis doesn't aimat
retransforming the desymbolized content
into linguistically articulated meaning, but
aims rather at aconsciously achieved com-
munication of theintermingled prelinguistic
elements.
Inbothcasesthesystematic distortion can
beexplainedbythefact that palaeosymboli-
callyfixedsemantic contents haveencysted
themselves, like foreign bodies, into the
grammatically regulated use of symbols.
Languageanalysishasthedutyof dissolving
this syndrome, i.e., of isolating thetwolan-
guagelevels. Thereis, however, athird case:
theprocesses ofthe creativeextensionoflan-
guage. In this caseagenuine integration is
accomplished. Thepalaeosymbolically fixed
meaning-potential is then brought into the
open arid-is thus made available for public
communication. This transfer of semantic
contents fromtheprelinguistic intothecom-
mon stockof language widens the scopeof
communicative action as it diminishes that
of unconsciously motivated action. Themo-
mentof success in the use of creative lan-
guageisamoment of emancipation....
3.3. Psychoanalysis, which interprets the
specific incomprehensibility of systemati-
cally distorted communication, can no
longer strictlyspeakingbeconceivedaccord-
ingtothetranslation model whichappliesto
simple hermeneutic understanding or ordi-
nary semantic analysis. For the obscurities
which controlled "translation" fromprelin-
guistic symbolism to language does away
with are ones which arise not within the
scope defined by a givenlanguage-system,
but rather within language itself. Here it is
theverystructure of communication, hence
thebasis of all translation, that wearecon-
cernedwith. Semantic analysisofthisspecial
typetherefore needsasystematic pre-under-
standing whichpertains tolanguageandlin-
guisticcommunication assuch, whileonthe
other hand our ordinary semantic analysis
proceeds ad hoc fromatraditionally deter-
mined pre-understanding which istested and
revisedwithin theprocess of interpretation.
standing owesits explanatory power-as we
have seen-to the fact that the clarification
of asystematically inaccessible meaning suc-
ceeds only to the extent to which the origin
of the faulty or misleading meaning is ex-
plained. The reconstruction of the original
scenemakes both possible at thesametime:
thereconstruction leads toanunderstanding
of themeaning of adeformed language-game
andsimultaneously explains theorigin of the
deformation itself. Of course, theconnection
between semantic analysis and causal expla-
nation doesn't become evident until one
shows that the categorical framework of the
theory used-in our case the Freudian
metapsychology-is based onanat least im-
plicitly underlying language theory. Ihave
outlined onlysomeofthe assumptions which
extend tothestructure of normal communi-
cation and tothemechanisms of systematic
distortion of communication. Theseassump-
tions havetobedeveloped within theframe-
workof atheory of communicative compe-
tence.
Ican sum up my thesis as follows. The
common semantic analysis of incomprehen-
sibleutterances, which leads tohermeneutic
understanding, makes use of the non-ana-
lyzedcommunicative competence of anative
speaker. Onthe other hand, the special type
of semantic analysis which deals with mani-
festations of asystematically distorted com-
munication and affords .an explanatory
understanding, presupposes atheory of com-
municative competence. It isonlyinvirtueof
anatleast implicit hypothesis concerning the
nature-and theacquisition of communicative
competencethat explanatorypower canbeac-
cordedtothis (particular) semantic analysis.
374 Part Two: The Branches-Contemporary Social Theory +X III. Critical Theory
The theoretical propositions deal, as de-
scribed, with the preconditions of normal
communication, with two levels of symbol
organization, and with the mechanism of
speech disorder These theoretical assump-
tions can be organized in the structural
model.
Theconstructions of "ego" and "id" inter-
pret the analyst's experiences inhis encoun-
tering theresistance of hispatients. "Ego" is
J "theinstance which fulfils the function of re-
ality-testing and of censorship. "Id" is the
name giventothose parts of theself that are
isolated from the ego and whose repre-
sentations become accessible in connection
with theprocesses of repression and projec-
tion. The "id" is expressed indirectly by the
symptoms which closethe gap which devel-
opsineverydaylanguage when desymboliza-
tion takes place; direct representation of the
"id" is found in the illusory palaeosymbolic
elements dragged into the language by pro-
jection anddenial. Now,thesameclinical ex-
perience which leads to the construction of
an ego- and id-instance, shows also that the
defense mechanisms usually work uncon-
sciously. For this reason Freud introduced
thecategory of "superego": anego-foreignin-
stance which isformed out of detached iden-
tifications with the expectations of primary
reference persons. All three categories-ego,
id, and superego-reflect fundamental expe-
riences typical of asystematically distorted
communication. Thedimensions established
byidand superego for thepersonality struc-
ture correspond to the dimensions of defor-
mation of the intersubjectivity of mutual
understanding in informal communication.
So the structural model which Freud intro-
duced as the categorical frame of metapsy-
chology canbereduced toatheory of deviant
communicative competence."
4. Ihavechosen psychoanalysis asmyex-
ample in order to differentiate between two
typesof interpretation andtwoformsof com-
munication.
Fromtheviewpoint of alogic of explana-
tion, this example of thesemantic analysis of
specific incomprehensible manifestations is
of interest because, inaunique way,itaffords
simultaneous hermeneutic understanding
and causal explanation. Theanalyst's under-
Endnotes
1. A. Lorenzer, Symbol und Verstehen im psycho-
analytischen Prozess, Vorarbeiten zu. einer
Metatheorie der Psychoanalyse, forthcoming,
Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt a. M. 1970.
2. Cf. S. Arieti, The Intrapsychic Self, Basic
Books, NewYork1967; also H. Wemer andB.
Kaplan, Symbol Formation, J ohn Wiley, New
York 1967; P. Watzlawick, J . H. Beavin, and
D. D. J ackson,Pragmati cs i n Human Commu-
nication, W. W. Norton: New York1967, esp.
chs. 6and7.
3. SeeL. C.Wynne, "Denkstorung undFamilien-
beziehung bei Schizophrenen," Psyche, May
1965, pp. 82ff.
On SystematicallyDistorted Communication 375
4. For further elaboration seeJ urgen Habermas,
Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp Verlag:
Frankfurt a. M. 1968, chs. 10and 11. .
1 ,
f
, i
I'