How to Open Communicative Dialogue for All Humanity

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 25 Aug 2025

Glen T. Martin, Ph.D. – TRANSCEND Media Service

20 Aug 2025 – One of the factors that has signaled hope for our benighted human condition during the past century has been the philosophies of the evolutionary upsurge of the cosmos as this becomes ever more conscious among human beings.  Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950) saw the deep evolutionary spirit as moving humanity toward “world union.”  Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) saw the cosmic evolutionary process as moving humanity toward an “Omega point” of unification through love and cooperation. Ken Wilber (born 1949) sees humanity as growing through evolutionary stages toward “integral” and “holistic” modes of consciousness bringing us together, beyond capitalism and its system of militarized sovereign nation-states. However, there is another aspect of our common humanity that compliments these visions, as I hope to show in this article. It rests on insight into the communicative foundations of our common human lifeworld.

In The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1995), philosopher Jürgen Habermas traces the development of the modern world since the renaissance through its major philosophical thinkers from Descartes to Kant to Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Derrida, and Foucault.  As is well-known, the modern period is defined by the rise of science and the scientific world view that first culminated in the “Newtonian Paradigm” during the 18^th century.  Central to the 18^th century there also emerged the “Enlightenment Paradigm” in which the concepts of democracy, freedom, human rights, sovereign nation-states, universal rationality, and social progress developed within European and Western consciousness (and have since spread worldwide).

During the 19^th century, Karl Marx revealed the structural systems of exploitation and dehumanization hidden beneath the “free enterprise” slogans of capitalism. He called into question the Enlightenment ideal of democratically elected governments “of the people” by showing the ways in which such governments functioned as simply the steering mechanisms for big capital that really controlled things behind the scenes and that covered up its system of exploitation through “bourgeois slogans” such as “human rights, the rule of law, free enterprise, and will of the people.” Marx’s vision of a liberated democratic socialism abolishing class exploitation and moving toward a transformed communal communism functioned as critique of the Enlightenment ideal through a realization of its true inner drive toward human liberation. Hence, Marx’s critique did not demolish the Enlightenment ideal but simply revealed its propaganda and impediments in favor of a deeper realization of that ideal.

Yet the critique of modernity was about to become more fundamental and even devastating. Since the philosophy of Nietzsche in the late 19^th century, these Enlightenment ideals have truly fallen upon hard times. Nietzsche directly contradicted all these ideals by claiming that no values any longer had credibility since modern science had removed the apparent foundations from all ideals making them nothing more than subjective illusions.  Derrida and Foucault, in turn, carried his critical analyses into the 20^th century with equally devastating visions.

Derrida analyzed the meaning of propositions to show that no single, coherent concept of meaning is possible only “differences” among ever more differences and ambiguities among yet ever more ambiguities. He therefore called our ordinary concepts of meaning and truth radically into question. Foucault, on the other hand, appeared to unmask the human sciences (such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, and history) through a structural analysis revealing that the apparent meaningfulness of these endeavors was built upon illusions covering a substratum of meaningless structural formalisms. With such thinkers, the world moved from “Modernism” into a “Post-Modernism” in which the very concept of “truth” had disintegrated in the face of these withering critiques. This “truthlessness” appeared confirmed by the endless propaganda and the social chaos of wars and violence into which both capitalism and the system of sovereign nation-states had dragged humanity by the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

Nevertheless, it appeared to many thinkers that something had been missed within this postmodern onslaught. Could the concept of reason and truth be salvaged from this maelstrom?  For example, there have been major critiques of the dominant concept of “rationality” in the modern world such as those by Lewis Mumford in Technics & Civilization (1934), Martin Heidegger in The Question Concerning Technology (1949), Jacques Ellul in The Technological Society (1965), or Hans Jonas in The Imperative or Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (1984). These thinkers understood that the dominant mode of rationality since the rise of science in the 17^th century had evolved as an “instrumental and technological rationality” centering on the calculability and manipulability of things at the expense of other forms that rationality might take. As Heidegger put it in the above-named work, technological rationality looks at the world through a “frame” of “the autonomous will and its desires” with the world appearing merely as “standing reserve” for manipulation by this will. (Hence, perfect for capitalism, but very bad for people and nature.)

As part of this movement to reveal alternative dimensions of rationality other than the technological, Habermas examined the work of Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904) in which Weber concludes that civilization has ended in an “Iron Cage” of late capitalism that included both the “loss of meaning” and the “loss of freedom.”  Habermas shows that implicit (but hidden) within Weber’s assumptions was a different version of rationality that can be termed “communicative rationality” or “dialogue directed toward mutual understanding.” Habermas points out that Weber’s pessimism was unfounded since there is a deeper dimension of rationality belonging to our common human “lifeworld” that alters our understanding of the potential and prospects for human civilization.

This “communicative rationality” that belongs intrinsically to our intersubjective lifeworld, according to Habermas, has been buried beneath, or “colonized by,” the functional systems that have dominated the modern world: the economic system of capitalism and the political systems of sovereign nation-states.  Technological and instrumental thinking has dominated both these systems, so that even the democratic “social welfare” nations of Europe are beset with bureaucratic and functional difficulties that are insoluble on their own premises. You cannot empower human rights, dignity, and freedom under these functionalist systems that have colonized the life-worlds of people in these societies by minimizing and marginalizing communitive forms of rationality.

Habermas addresses the question of how to activate and empower a “public sphere” that is relatively autonomous from the functionalist systems of the sovereign state apparatus and the capitalist system.  Human beings are intrinsically “intersubjective” beings whose essence (lifeworld) is inherently communicative. In The Pragmatics of Communication (1998), he shows that language itself would be impossible without this communicative dimension.  Hence, the existence of language (for all human beings) means that “dialogue directed toward mutual understanding” is possible everywhere and that the fact that we are language-constituted-beings means that a “solidarity” of mutual understanding is our fundamental human potential lying at the very heart of language itself and to date largely unrealized. An “ideal speech situation” of genuine communication leading to mutual understanding is implicit in every speech act that we make.

Consciousness of these dynamics of the “colonization of the lifeworld by systems imperatives” and the implicit potentialities of all human languages opens for us possibilities for a conscious evolution toward human liberation.  We can recognize impediments to the realization of ideal speech situations, such as people entering into dialogue through ego competitiveness, or dogmatic ideologies, nation-state rivalries, or positions of social dominance over one another. Such things are impediments to authentic dialogue leading to genuine collective social solidarity and hence the possibility of a liberated civilization premised on that solidarity and not on nation-state wealth and power, nor on capitalist institutionalized greed.

The Enlightenment ideal (the ideal of modernity) of free, democratic persons relating to one another with equality, dignity, and progressive empowerment remains valid once we understand the fundamental differences between functionalist and technological reasoning and the communicative reasoning that has been colonized and derailed by capitalism and the bureaucratic apparatus of the sovereign nation-states. Both of these, Habermas declares, are “manifestations of a colonization of the lifeworld by the imperatives of functional systems that externalize their costs on the other.” Their costs are significant, since these systems both dehumanize and instrumentalize persons and operate in terms of the exploitation and destruction of nature. Authentic human liberation requires a “public sphere” generating a “universal solidarity” in which a liberated communicative rationality guides humanity toward a redeemed future of genuine solidarity and intersubjective mutual understanding.

How might this be accomplished?  Habermas recognizes that the human phenomenon is intrinsically communicative—that all persons speak a language or languages. And he associates our inviolable “human dignity” with this fact. In The Future of Human Nature (2003), he affirms that “human dignity is in a strict moral and legal sense connected with this relational symmetry” that gives us the possibility of “relations of mutual respect, in the egalitarian dealings among persons.” He concludes, “The logos of language embodies the power of the intersubjective, which precedes and grounds the subjectivity of speakers.”

The so-called “autonomy of the modern self,” atomistically operating within a “democratic capitalism” as one of many atoms of self-promotion and self-interest, is here superseded by a relational self that finds intersubjective empowerment through processes of communicative dialogue directed toward mutual understanding and solidarity with all other persons. Language is not a consequence of human subjectivity. Rather, our human subjectivity arises from the prior intersubjective “logos of language.” And (in spite of the cultural relativism that has emerged worldwide) once this understanding concerning the deeper rationality of the human intersubjective lifeworld becomes clear, there is no longer (in principle) any blockage to the unification of all persons within a single human civilization.

Such a vision is implicit in the work of Habermas. However, he ultimately fails to envision such a planetary civilization with any clarity.  In The Postnational Constellation (2001), he observes that “the revolutionary birth of modern nation-states” during the past 200 years, “has fallen on such hard times” because of the phenomenon termed “globalization” in which these territorial nation-states are being superseded by planetary communications, economics, and intermingling, calling into question these states as a “more or less convincing institutional form.”  Yet he fails to speculate as to what institutional form might best replace this system of competing, militarized nation-states.

In his writings, Habermas does not appear aware of the development of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth that was written by hundreds of world citizens working together during the period 1968 to 1991, a Constitution that has engendered a number of sessions of a “Provisional World Parliament” and that is being updated for the 21^st century in preparation for the 16^th session of the Parliament (PWP16) that will meet in Pondicherry, India, this December, 2025. This Earth Constitution unites humanity under a Democratic World Parliament that ends war, protects universal human rights, and preserves and restores our planetary ecosystem.  Could this Earth Constitution be the key to uniting humanity within a universal intersubjective solidarity that redeems and fulfills our tragic human history?

At present, I am a member of a “Commission for Legislative Review” that is studying and updating the Earth Constitution for presentation of suggested revisions at PWP16. This Commission includes multiple voices, but one main internal division that I see involves the different points of view of those who think in terms of the idea of trying to reform the broken system of militarized sovereign nation-states with its corrosive universal capitalism and those who think that the Constitution needs to reform the very premise of human relationships from one of bureaucratic functionalism (that presently characterizes all nation-states) to the ideal of a new human consciousness of unity, solidarity, and dignity.

Of particular difficulty in these discussions is the transitional period once some of the nations have ratified the Constitution and are beginning to operate through the emerging World Parliament while others retain their militarized sovereign condition along with their weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Should the emerging Earth Federation have a military?  Should its nations that have joined the Federation retain their WMDs “just in case,”  perhaps as a “deterrent” to those non-federation nations that may be hostile?   These are contentious issues on this Commission to revise the Earth Constitution, for the Constitution includes specific steps to be taken for conversion from the system of militarized sovereign nations to a tricameral World Parliament. These steps do not address these questions, since the Constitution is not a philosophical document offering a philosophy of transition.

In my view, clinging to the weapons and militarism (even for “self-defense”) defeats the entire premise of the Constitution that rests on the ascent of humanity from a functional and technocratic system of economics and bureaucratic management to a non-military intersubjective solidarity resting on authentic dialogue directed toward mutual understanding. If we are appealing to the people of Earth (as opposed to their governments) to ascend to a civilization based on their authentic lifeworld communicative abilities, then we cannot place functionalist and technocratic impediments into the process of ascent.  We cannot cling to the outdated militarism with its ability to dehumanize and target designated “enemies” while at the same time advocating the movement toward human intersubjective solidarity.

This transitional period from partial federation (after a few nations have ratified the Constitution) to the full federation for all people and nations of Earth must be marked by an emphasis on conscious evolution, on the elimination of impediments to communicative action and on fostering dialogue that is not hindered by the possibility of a military backup should that dialogue fail.  We cannot retain the impediments to communication at the same time that we expect our communicative potential to transform and redeem us.  The transition to an Earth Federation of dialogue and intersubjective solidarity will happen because we appeal directly to the people of Earth, regardless of those governments that at first refuse the join the federation. For the inner lifeworld of every person is in fact communicative, and not instrumental.

In turn, the liberation of humanity through a dialogical earth federation will empower the cosmic upsurge described by thinkers like Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard de Chardin, and Ken Wilber. For these reasons, the progress toward a liberated human intersubjective solidarity may happen rapidly. Human beings will see the limits of technocratic and functional rationality and the transforming power of communitive rationality. They will embrace this evolutionary process throughout our entire endangered planet and rapidly drop the absurdities of militarism, capitalism, and nation-state sovereignty.  At bottom, the Earth Constitution takes its stand not on wealth or power but on human dignity—that intersubjective dignity that is inextricably linked to our capacity for dialogue directed toward mutual understanding.

______________________________________

Dr. Glen T. Martin:
– Member, TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment
– Professor of Philosophy Emeritus
– Founder/Chairperson Emeritus, Program in Peace Studies, Radford University
– President, World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA);
– President, Earth Constitution Institute (ECI)
– Author of twelve books and hundreds of articles concerning global issues, human spirituality, and democratic world government; a recipient of many peace awards.
www.earthconstitution.world – Email: gmartin@radford.edu

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 25 Aug 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: How to Open Communicative Dialogue for All Humanity, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.