ARTICLES HABERMAS’ FORMAL PRAGMATICS AND THE SPEECH ACT OF STEPHEN E Alfred Knight The concept of formal pragmatics exhibits the potential for rationality that is supposed to be implicit in the everyday language practices of societies. It is located in certain idealisations that guide communicative action to the extent that communication is linked to validity. While this reconstructive theory seeks to identify universal presuppositions of everyday communication in modern societies, this paper will show that it can be transposed onto an ancient communication (Stephen’s speech) as an example of communic- ative action. Interpreting Stephen’s speech according to Habermas’ formal pragmatics in the communicative framework, infers a conception of purpose and potential to build on this example for other speech acts and communicative processes in the Bible. The problem with communicative rationality is that it cannot be reduced to any local context without the risk of it becoming useless for universal application and falling into moral relativism. However, the Bible is full of idealised normative suppositions that can provide standards for justifiable purposive and illocutionary activity. Even though Habermas hopes to provide a post-metaphysical alternative to pre-modern ideals of normativity, it will be shown that the pre-modern biblical text can still be an inspiration for the communicative rationality he sought after. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse the speech act of Stephen in Acts 6:8–7:60 in relation to his formal prag- matics within the context of communicative action, as an example of critical biblical interpretation. Habermas’ formal pragmatics (previously known as ’universal pragmatics’)1 occupies a central place within the critical endeavour towards a construction of communicative rationality that implicitly validates the base of everyday speech. The introduction of this to the speech motifs found in the book of Acts can give rise to a reading of it that can fit into this framework. In The Theory of Communicative Action (vol. 1, 1984; vol. 2, (1987), Habermas presents a thoroughly systematic work that highlights the theory of language as a course to ground a critical social theory, and move from the critique of ideology to the reconstruction of presuppositions of uni- versal conditions for knowledge and action. This endeavour is referred to by Habermas as ‘formal pragmatics’ and it can be seen as a semi-transcendental analysis in the Kantian sense that reconstructs the universal pre-theoretical, implicit knowledge that enables practical processes of understanding (Habermas, 1984, 328). It is pragmatic because it focuses on the use of language rather than being empirical, which is concerned with just the description of specific language elements. Therefore, it can be used on speech acts, and these are seen as part of the broader soci- ological context. While this was intended for everyday communication in modern societies, it can be transposed onto an ancient communication like Stephen’s speech as an example of com- municative action. The number of speeches in the book of Acts varies from 24 to 36 depending on how one defines them – from major speeches to mere speech statements. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are an unusually large number of speeches in it, which take up at least 20 percent of the whole book. It means that the Lukan author placed a greater interest on speech material than others of his time,2 and this alone makes it an excellent work to undertake an analysis of ancient dia- logues in relation to formal pragmatics in the context of communicative action. This paper will focus only on the Stephen speech for practical reasons, although it is hoped that it will encourage THE BIBLE AND CRITICAL THEORY, VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1, 2010 MONASH UNIVERSITY EPRESS 04.1 further research, analysis and theological praxis of biblical discourse using the procedural ap- proach. The speech of Stephen was chosen in particular because it is a good example of New Testament discourse, and it is easily categorised into specific functional stages. Secondly, Stephen – as a Hellenised Jew and chosen leader – was probably familiar with the style of Greek rhetoric, and judging by his speech, well equipped to engage other learned people as a skilled apologist for the gospel (cf. Acts 6:10). Thirdly, he expresses different emotions through the course of his speech, and displays a deep passion for and belief in what he is saying. The paper will begin by introducing Stephen’s speech and evaluating the application of Habermas’ communicative theory to something biblical. The remainder of the paper will divide the speech into six sections, and each one will be looked at exegetically and then analysed in relation to Habermas’ pragmatics. The sections will be as follows: 1. Acts 6:8–7:1, Stephen’s activity that arouses initial opposition; 2. Acts 7:2-8, the patriarchal age; 3. Acts 7:9-19, Israel in Egypt; 4. Acts 7:20-43, the Moses story; 5. Acts 7:44-50, the temple; and 6. Acts 7:51-60, Stephen’s personal application and con- clusion. There are several issues in this particular biblical passage that could only be examined briefly – the debate over the authorship and authenticity of the speech; the legality of Stephen’s trial; the debate over the existence of an anti-temple trend in early Christianity; and whether the execution of Stephen could have been legally sanctioned by the Sanhedrin or if it was an illegal ‘lynch-mob’ response. These are important and interesting issues, but nevertheless detract from the focus of understanding the narrative function of the speech. The text will be approached exegetically as stated, but for the same reason, it will not be in-depth. Instead, the focus will be on relating the speech to Habermas’ theory. Similarly, this paper does not set out to offer an in- depth critique of Habermas either; both these approaches would have fallen outside the aim and the scope of this paper and what was trying to be achieved. One of the premises for Habermas’ project of the theory of communicative action is that communicative discourse can be emancipatory, and that forms of discourse have a type of priority over other forms of linguistic usage. His aim is to continue to improve on the dialectic of enlight- enment rationality free from the constraints of the philosophies of consciousness. This can be made clearer using Saussure’s (1959) distinction between diachronic and synchronic schemata for understanding language. Diachronic follows the model of the enlightenment, understanding language in a historical-evolutionary scheme, while synchronic is an a-historical scheme that isolates language from time, seeing it as a structure of internal relations. Therefore, if language has synchronic elements, it need not be associated with modernity or solely based on an evolu- tionary model. The historical study of language, for example, can still be approached diachron- ically, evaluating language evolving in characteristics and complexity – but even in this, it has been discovered that language is universally complex regardless of its place in time; that is, an ancient language can be just as complex as a modern one (Saussure, 1959). Importantly, the discovery of synchronic systems in language presents problems for the diachronic approach in the philosophical study of language and modernity, because the diachronic cannot link its prin- ciples to a specific temporally discernable form of linguistic apprehension. As a result, value as- sumptions often have to be associated with diachronicity when studying language, and this in turn is inconsistent with a modern scientific approach. It does not mean that language cannot be studied diachronically, but the value assumptions associated with it have to be given up. For Habermas, the polemic in modernity is this need to have a certain validity, without forcing it to rely on synchronic schema and avoid the potential error of basing arguments on pre-modern 04.2 HABERMAS’ FORMAL PRAGMATICS AND THE SPEECH ACT OF STEPHEN ARTICLES theoretical assumptions. It is difficult to determine whether his project is closer to the diachronic model or the synchronic, but it is clear he is attempting to develop a structure of normativity in language that originates out of itself. It is still not clear whether philosophy can do this, as it depends on our conceptions of philosophy, but theological normativity in scriptural language may be able to help. Ultimately, Habermas’ aim is decidedly different. While the aim of this paper is to provide a contributory element for the reading of theology, Habermas’ is to provide a basis for a post- metaphysical (modern) concept of reason (Habermas, 1979). To him, religion and theology in the public sphere are positive as the upholder of cultural life, but he argues that moral theory must be post-religious, because religious authority undermines human autonomy (Adams, 2006, pp. 1–4). The public sphere must not remain the territory of one particular kind of tradition be- cause it is there to host all traditions. Be that as it may, the attempt to develop a kind of usefulness from a biblical speech motif will bring with it its own concept of reason that can be extrapolated not only from the text, but also from the theological presuppositions of that particular kind of text, to which the speech of Stephen belongs. Furthermore, as Nicholas Adams points out, Habermas shows no knowledge of post-liberal theology, and his approach fails to do justice to contemporary theology (2006, p. 2). However, according to Habermas, all Christians can enter into a moral debate despite denominational or cultural differences because they share a tradition, and all substantive ethical practices have their roots in religious life (Habermas, 1989). If we can reduce any complexity to ‘religious life and thought’ then a full understanding of post-liberal theology is not necessary.