Reasons and the Acceptance of Authoritative Speech

An Empirically Grounded Synthesis of Habermas and Bourdieu

Bibliographic Data

ID2363845
AuthorsSebastián G Guzmán, Sebastián Guzmán (0000-0002-6463-5844, New School for Social Research, New York, NY, USA, corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume31
Issue3
Pages267-289
Publication date2013-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSociological Theory (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0735-2751 • E-ISSN: 1467-9558
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0735275113502968
OpenAlexW2323302974
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited44

This article proposes an empirically grounded theory of the acceptance of authoritative speech beyond contexts of deliberation. I synthesize Habermas's and Bourdieu's influential theories on the topic by specifying factors that lead to either a prereflexive acceptance or a critical evaluation of the claims made by people in positions of authority. To do so, I assess each author's theses in four types of contexts covered by three empirical studies that analyze reactions to authoritative speech. I find that people can autonomously reject authoritative speech if they have the necessary cultural resources, such as relevant personal experience or contradictory background norms, or if they are strongly motivated-for example, by disappointed expectations. Otherwise, individuals are likely to accept what authorities say without regard for reasons. The synthetic theory proposed better grasps the potentials and limitations of people's critical capacities-a crucial task for democratic and critical sociological theory

Critical theory · Deliberation · Democracy · Empirical research · Epistemology · Grounded theory · Political science · Politics · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Law · Psychology · Social and Cultural Dynamics · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology