An Analysis of Role-competence Theory

Abstract

J. Habermas' theory of personality development has not been paid attentions so much as his other theories i. e. theory of social development and theory of communicative-action. In this paper, I attempt to explore the logic of this theory by examining the category of role-competence. Theory of role-competence involves a combination of role theory and theory of ego-development. Habermas tries to synthesize many schools that are opposed to each other in these two fields and to make it clear that role-competence has a mediating quality closing the gap between morality of social members and social norm structures.In order to synthsize existing role theories Habermas analyzes the critical debates about T. Parsons' theory and presents a revised understanding in accordance with the symbolic interactionism's perspective. His main intention of this study is to make role theory sufficient to explain the development of individuality and the independence of a personality.Concerning ego-development Habermas points out a convergence of three main theoretical traditions i. e. ego-psychology, cognitive-developmental psychology and symbolic interactionism. And he constructs a synthetical model of personality development, being based on especially J. Piajet's theory of development. Through these studies Habermas insists that role-competence is an important ability to solve conflicts and to manage interactional norms and that this competence makes up the structure of a personality with cognitive-competence and communicative-competence.He also presents a framework that is of use when analyzing rational personalities under the conditions that cause conflicts and developmental disorders. The kernel of his framework, I think, is the distinction and connection between communicative-competence and role-competence. He says that communicative-competence is necessary but is not enough for the development of role-competence.