技术理性扩张背景下交往理性非工具性原则的弱化问题

The Weakening of the Non-Instrumental Principle of Communicative Rationality amid the Expansion of Technological Rationality

摘要: 技术理性不断嵌入数字媒介、平台治理与社会交往过程，使哈贝马斯交往理性所坚持的非工具性原则面临新的现实张力。本文以交往理性的非工具性原则为中心，首先梳理交往行动与有效性要求的理论关系；其次引入福柯的微观权力视角，将其作为识别交往过程中隐性影响机制的分析工具，而不以否定交往理性的规范诉求为目的；再次提出“数字交往理性”这一研究概念，将算法透明性、数据正义和平台责任纳入交往理性有效性要求的数字化补充框架。文章认为，数字环境中的沟通扭曲已经不只是主体之间的直接操控，还表现为信息排序、数据处理和平台规则对交往条件的预先塑造。因此，交往理性的有效性要求需要从话语内容进一步延伸至交往条件：真实性要求应包含可核验的信息来源与算法解释，正当性要求应关注数据处理和规则制定的公平性，真诚性要求则应延伸到平台对自身技术介入方式的说明责任。由此，交往理性可以在保持其规范核心的同时获得数字时代的现实适应性。

Abstract: The expansion of technological rationality into digital media, platform governance, and everyday communication creates new tensions for Habermas’s non-instrumental principle of communicative rationality. This article focuses on the non-instrumental principle of communicative rationality and examines the principle through three steps. First, it clarifies the relation between communicative action and validity claims. Second, it introduces Foucault’s analysis of micro-power as an analytical resource for identifying subtle mechanisms that shape communication, rather than treating it simply as a rejection of communicative rationality. Third, it proposes the concept of “digital communicative rationality” and explores how algorithmic transparency, data justice, and platform responsibility can supplement the validity claims in digital environments. The article argues that communicative distortion in digital settings is no longer limited to direct manipulation among participants; it also arises from the prior shaping of communicative conditions through information ranking, data processing, and platform rules. Accordingly, the validity requirements of communicative rationality must extend beyond discourse content to the conditions of communication: truth should include verifiable information sources and appropriate algorithmic explanation, rightness should address fairness in data processing and rule-making, and sincerity should include platforms’ responsibility to disclose their technological interventions. This reconstruction preserves the normative core of communicative rationality while improving its capacity to respond to contemporary digital communication.