Contributions of sociomateriality to organizational studies based on the theory of communicative action: Possibilities for dialogues between Jürgen Habermas and Karen Barad

Abstract

This essay aims to identify the potential contribution that a theoretical perspective based on sociomateriality can offer to organizational studies based on Jürgen Habermas’ concepts. We work specifically with one of the theoretical strands that contemplate sociomateriality - New Materialism based on Barad - and with the most recurrent Habermasian concepts, such as communicative action, the public sphere, worlds of life, and the system. We identify that Habermas’ theoretical work is open to dialogue with the sociomaterial perspective and outline a framework highlighting the main points of convergence and divergence between Habermas and Barad’s proposals, specifying the possibilities for integration. Overall, the analyses argue that it is possible to incorporate sociomaterial perspectives into empirical studies involving the Theory of Communicative Action and the main related ideas.

Keywords:
Sociomaterial; Ontology; Communicative action; Organizational studies

Resumo

A proposta deste ensaio é identificar as possíveis contribuições de uma perspectiva teórica baseada na sociomaterialidade para os estudos organizacionais que se apoiam em conceitos habermasianos. Especificamente, contrastamos o Novo Materialismo de Barad com os conceitos habermasianos mais recorrentes nos estudos organizacionais: agir comunicativo, esfera pública, mundos da vida e do sistema. Identificamos os pontos em que a obra teórica de Habermas fica aberta ao diálogo com a perspectiva sociomaterial, e estruturamos um quadro com os principais pontos de aproximação e distanciamento entre as propostas de Habermas e Barad, especificando as possibilidades de integração em pesquisas no âmbito dos Estudos Organizacionais. As análises desenvolvidas indicam a possibilidade de incorporação de perspectivas sociomateriais aos estudos empíricos baseados na Teoria do Agir Comunicativo e em suas principais ideias correlatas.

Palavras-chave:
Sociomaterial; Ontologia; Ação comunicativa; Estudos organizacionais

Resumen

El propósito de este ensayo es identificar las posibles contribuciones de una perspectiva teórica basada en la sociomaterialidad a los estudios organizacionales que se basan en los conceptos de Habermas. Específicamente, contrastamos el Nuevo Materialismo de Barad con los conceptos habermasianos más recurrentes en los estudios organizacionales: acción comunicativa, esfera pública y los mundos de la vida y del sistema. Identificamos los puntos en los que la obra teórica de Habermas se abre al diálogo con la perspectiva sociomaterial y estructuramos un marco con los principales puntos de aproximación y distanciamiento entre las propuestas de Habermas y Barad, especificando las posibilidades de integración en la investigación en el ámbito de los Estudios Organizacionales. Los análisis desarrollados indican la posibilidad de incorporar perspectivas sociomateriales en los estudios empíricos basados en la teoría de la acción comunicativa y en sus principales ideas relacionadas.

Palabras clave:
Sociomaterial; Ontología; Acción comunicativa; Estudios organizacionales

INTRODUCTION

Considering the emergence of socio-material theoretical perspectives as ontological and epistemological options for qualitative research rooted in realism and constructivism, this theoretical essay explores the potential contributions of sociomateriality to studies in the fields of social and organizational sciences, supported by Habermas’s theory of communicative action (TCA) (2012a; 2012b). We focus specifically on one sociomaterial theoretical strand: new materialism, as developed by Barad. Our aim is to examine the potential for cooperation between the two conceptual frameworks or, alternatively, to assess how Barad’s sociomaterial proposal can contribute to Habermasian-inspired social and organizational studies.

Sociomateriality privileges in its analysis both material and non-human elements, such as animals, memories, intentions, technologies, bacteria, movements, chemical substances, and plants, along with the interactions and mutual influences between humans and non-humans that give rise to the “social” (Fenwick, 2010). In the case of new materialism, grounded in the ontology of agential realism, agency is not confined to human action; rather, it emerges from relational networks of humans and non-humans, which affect and are affected by different life contexts, resulting in consequences for material, structural, and cultural configurations.

The necessary interweaving of material and non-material, human and non-human elements can significantly impact research in various fields of the Social Sciences by recognizing materiality as a constitutive element of social processes, thereby altering both their development and their outcomes. Given the increasing adoption of Habermas’s theoretical propositions, particularly the TCA, in research across the fields of administration, public administration, and organizational studies (Burrell, 1994; Kelly, 2004; Lara & Vizeu, 2019; Paula, 2015; Tenório, 1998; Vizeu, 2005), this essay investigates the possible contributions of sociomateriality to such studies. While Habermas’s theory of communicative action does not deny the role of materiality, it centers on dialogicity, deliberation, and the pursuit of mutual understanding and consensus, emphasizing rationality and, by extension, the human actor.

This theoretical essay seeks to identify possible contributions of a sociomaterial theoretical perspective to organizational studies grounded in Habermas’s concepts. We engage with new materialism, as developed by Barad, which embraces sociomateriality, and with key Habermasian notions, such as the communicative spirit in the public sphere and the lifeworld that give meaning to the system.

Our theoretical path highlights potential points of contact between new materialism (as an ontological framework that incorporates sociomateriality) and the central concepts of Habermas’s work (notably the TCA), culminating in an interactive framework. We begin by presenting the theory of new materialism and Barad’s core arguments. We then discuss the main propositions of TCA. Additionally, we consider contributions from other authors who have jointly engaged with Habermasian and sociomaterial references. Through this dialogue, we identify the points of convergence and possible integration between the two theoretical perspectives and propose ways in which sociomateriality can enrich Habermasian organizational studies.

This proposal does not seek to be conclusive. As Meneghetti (2011) emphasizes regarding the nature of the theoretical essay, our intention is not to arrive at definitive truths. Rather, the expected outcome is to stimulate further reflection on the topic and to promote reconstructive dialogues (Paula, 2015), such as those initiated by Andrade, Alcântara, and Pereira (2019) in their engagement between Habermas and Freire. In this learning process aimed at transcending incompleteness (Paula, 2015), we acknowledge both convergences and complementarities, while also recognizing the irreconcilable differences that persist.

NEW MATERIALISM

New materialism is a field of study focused on social and material practices rooted in post-structuralist thought, feminism, culturalism, and theories of historical materialism. It explores the complex relationships that arise from human and non-human agencies and acknowledges that the formation of everyday life incorporates materiality (Costa & Funck, 2017; Fox & Alldred, 2015; Moura, 2016; Scott et al., 2014).

Moura (2016) presents the similarities between different sociomaterial approaches:

(1) everyday practices are constructed and modified through the dynamic interaction between human activity and non-human elements; (2) all material elements, or rather sociomaterial elements, form a heterogeneous union composed of technical, natural, and cognitive components; (3) all entities (human and non-human, hybrid and separate, knowledge and systems) are perceived as effects of connections and activities; everything is achieved through the existence of a “web” of relationships (Moura, 2016, p. 40).

The sociomaterial approaches presented by Moura (2016) include new materialism, actor-network theory, historical-cultural activity theory, complexity theory, and spatiality, among others. For reflections on sociomateriality, this article adopts Barad’s new materialism, which is considered the most prominent perspective within this line of research (Hein, 2016).

Fox & Alldred (2015) argue that new materialism has emerged over the past two decades as an approach fundamentally focused on the material functioning of power, emphasizing social production rather than social construction. In a similar vein, Costa & Funck (2017, p. 904) state that “[...] New materialism points to the need to make a political and epistemological shift from the human (and Eurocentric rationality) to the post-human,” and regard these new approaches as contributing to an ontological transformation—one that moves from the idea of an objective and universal reality to the recognition of multiple worlds or realities.

Scott et al. (2014), drawing on Dolphijn & van der Tuin (2012), characterize new materialism as a cultural theory that does not privilege meaning over matter or culture over nature. It seeks to overcome dualisms such as subject and meaning, nature and culture, subject and object, treating these poles as co-constitutive elements within a complex fabric. It also promotes a conception of agency that is not restricted to human actors. New materialism shifts the focus of social research away from an exclusively human-centered approach, toward an understanding of how networks or relational configurations operate and are affected at the material-cultural level and across micro, meso, and macro scales. It explores movements of territorialization and deterritorialization, aggregation and disaggregation, and the consequences that these dynamics entail (Costa & Funck, 2017; Fox & Alldred, 2015; Hein, 2016; Moura, 2016).

Epistemologically, the core principles of new materialism include a careful consideration of material agency and its influence on human action; a primary focus on the relations among actors within any assemblage; and an inquiry into the questions of matter and meaning that arise from these relations (Fox & Alldred, 2015; Scott, Martin, & Schouten, 2014). These inquiries are accompanied by a commitment to “[...] revolutionize feminist theories, disciplinary fields and, above all, the limits of the perverse dichotomy between human and non-human, which underpinned Western modernity and constituted the coloniality of power” (Costa & Funck, 2017, p. 904).

Materialist ontologies attribute a relational and emergent meaning to materiality, extending their analytical focus to a wide range of issues, from globalization to identity (Fox & Alldred, 2015). The authors further highlight that Barad (2003, 2007, 2014) challenges the nature-culture dualism by asserting that construction does not negate materiality.

BARAD’S PERSPECTIVE

Barad (2007) explains that agential realism is based on a philosophy of transcendence and identity, also referred to as aggressive realism (Hein, 2016). Agential realism is:

[...] an epistemological and ontological framework that cuts across many of the well-worn oppositions that circulate in traditional realism versus constructivism, agency versus structure, idealism versus materialism, and poststructuralism versus Marxism debates. In its reformulation of agency and its analysis of the productive, constraining, and exclusionary nature of natural cultural practices, including their crucial role in the materialization of all bodies, agential realism goes beyond performativity theories that focus exclusively on the human/social realm. Agential realism takes into account the fact that the forces at work in the materialization of bodies are not only social and the bodies produced are not all human. It also provides a way to incorporate material constraints and conditions and the material dimensions of agency into poststructuralist analyses. (Barad, 2007, p. 225).

Barad summarizes new materialism as an entanglement between matter and the social that challenges modern dualisms —such as nature and culture, subject and object, facts and interests (Scott et al., 2014). It thus encompasses epistemological, ontological, and ethical dimensions, and aims to overcome dichotomies, including the divide between the material and the discursive (Costa & Funck, 2017; Fox & Alldred, 2015; Hein, 2016; Scott et al., 2014). In this framework, materiality is not viewed as a mere effect or consequence of discursive practices but rather as the product of a mutual implication between material and discursive actions (Barad, 2007).

Barad (2007) explores the role of textuality and language in shaping reality, challenging the primacy of discourse over materiality. She argues that we are inevitably embedded in the realm of language and that materiality is inseparably intertwined with the linguistic and the discursive: the relationship between the material and the discursive is one of mutual constitution (Hein, 2016).

According to Barad, three core concepts are essential to understanding new materialism: (a) matter, (b) intra-action, and (c) agency.

Matter—as substance, phenomenon, or differentiation—belongs to the sphere of becoming rather than fixed being. It is not conceived as a static property of independent objects, but as something enacted through intra-active processes. Matter is not a thing but an action, continually produced and productive (Barad, 2007). It does not refer to an inherent or abstract property of objects that exist independently; rather, it refers to phenomena in the process of materialization (Barad, 2007; Hein, 2016).

Phenomena are the smallest-scale units of matter, comparable to atoms or the fundamental units of reality. They are primary ontological entities that emerge through ongoing intra-activity (Barad, 2003, 2007; Hein, 2016). Barad (2007, p. 36) defines phenomena ontologically as “the ontological inseparability of agentially intra-acting components.” Changes in matter produce changes in meaning and vice versa, all occurring within highly entangled systems or, as Barad puts it, intra-active systems (Scott et al., 2014).

Intra-action, in Barad’s (2007) formulation, is directly linked to the rejection of dichotomies. Through intra-actions among specific agencies, the boundaries and properties of the “components” of phenomena are defined, and their associated concepts gain meaning. These relations do not pre-exist but emerge through specific intra-actions within phenomena. Intra-action thus represents a reformulation of traditional causality, emphasizing the mutual constitution of entangled agencies (Barad, 2003).

Agency, in Barad’s (2007) agential realism, is closely tied to intra-action. It is not limited to human actors, nor is it simply expanded to include non-human elements. Rather, human and non-human entities are understood as non-fixed, and agency encompasses all configurations that rework their materiality and relational arrangements (Hein, 2016).

Accordingly, in Barad’s (2007) agential realism, new materialism is grounded in the mutual constitution of entangled agencies through intra-action. This framework opens new perspectives for organizational studies that draw on Habermas’s theoretical propositions, especially his concepts of the public sphere and communicative action. Within this context, a central question emerges: What are the possible interfaces between a sociomaterial perspective and Habermasian thought?

HABERMAS AND THE THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION

According to Andrews (2011), Habermas’s essays, developed since the 1960s, are guided by the ideal of a critical theory of society that seeks to propose solutions for emancipation. Among other elements, the “linguistic turn” distinguishes him from other theorists of the Frankfurt School (Andrews, 2011).

Despite criticisms of his propositions, Habermas’s thinking has influenced various fields of knowledge (Elder-Vass, 2017). His work is extensive, and for the purposes of this article, we highlight, in addition to the TCA, his reflections on the public sphere and on society as lifeworld and system. These elements are essential for understanding the TCA and together form a theoretical corpus that supports organizational scholars, particularly those addressing themes such as deliberative democracy, the public sphere, communication, and social management (Alcântara & Pereira, 2017; Cançado et al., 2013; Lara & Vizeu, 2019).

Habermas (2012a, 2012b) draws on Popper’s propositions regarding the objective, subjective, and social worlds to structure his concepts of lifeworld and system. He argues that interaction among these three worlds forms the basis for social constitution. The objective world encompasses everything that exists independently of individuals’ interpretations—material facts that can be empirically verified.

The social world comprises relationships and normative systems that regulate individual behavior. From this perspective, facts are subject to normative judgment and verification in terms of compliance with established norms. The subjective world, by contrast, concerns individual states accessible only to the person, enabling them to make judgments and assessments regarding sincerity.

Recognizing the importance of the necessary and ongoing interaction among these three worlds, Habermas (2012a, 2012b) structures his social theory around the concepts of system and lifeworld. The system refers to institutional spheres that concentrate social power, such as the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches, characterized by bureaucracy and mechanisms of financial, administrative, and economic control. Actions taken within these spheres lead to legislative decisions, political programs, policy statements, and other such measures. Within the system, strategic rationality prevails, marked by goal-oriented action and instrumental success, driven by actors’ self-interest and utilitarian exchange (Habermas, 2012b).

Surrounding the system is the lifeworld, where everyday interactions and informal relationships take place, constituting the public sphere. This domain is governed by communicative rationality, which seeks mutual understanding, consensus, and agreement through dialogical and discursive practices.

The continuous engagement with public issues by various social actors, through dialogue, argumentation, linguistic exchange, and discursive flows, gives rise to the public sphere, a concept extensively developed by Habermas (1997). It is not an institutionalized or concrete space but rather a communicative condition in which interlocutors pursue understanding, shape public opinion, and, under certain circumstances, influence decisions within the parliamentary system. Habermas defines the public sphere as “an alarm system equipped with non-specialized sensors, but sensitive within the scope of the whole society” (Habermas, 2003, p. 91), which detects and dramatizes social problems, thereby putting pressure on the political system.

Furthermore, Habermas (2003, p. 92) describes the public sphere as a network for the “communication of content, positions, and opinions,” in which public opinion is generated through language and communicative action. Habermas (2006) also acknowledges the media’s role as a key actor responsible for absorbing and thematizing demands expressed by central actors, such as politicians, and grassroots actors, including civil society and social movements. These demands are then conveyed through “news, reports, comments, conversations, scenes, images, shows and films with informative, controversial, educational or entertaining content” (Habermas, 2006, p. 415).

Habermas (2012a) further develops the notion of communicative action, which presupposes establishing a personal relationship between at least two subjects who speak and act with the goal of mutual understanding in situations open to consensus. In this model, language plays a central role. In communicative action, participants commit to arguments that aim for truth, veracity, and normative correctness through discourse. Such arguments are always provisional, open to new interpretations, and driven by the pursuit of understanding.

Therefore, communicative action represents a mode of using language in everyday interactions, through which participants in dialogue externalize, accept, or reject validity claims. However, Habermas (2012a) emphasizes that in contemporary, complex societies, where a wide range of topics circulate, there is an increased demand for communicative action as a means of achieving common agreement. Given that communicative action is a prolonged and challenging process, he argues that instruments such as generalized values, legal language, and social norms also play a crucial role in facilitating consensus (Habermas, 1997). From this perspective, even the system, despite the risk it poses of colonizing the lifeworld with its instrumental logic, can contribute positively by reducing the complexity that would arise if all decisions and actions were subjected exclusively to communicative rationality.

Although Habermas did not explicitly articulate an ontological position—leading to varied interpretations among scholars—he provides some clarification in his work published in Portuguese “A Ética da Discussão e a Questão da Verdad” (the ethics of discourse and the question of truth), where he identifies himself as “a realist on epistemic issues and a constructivist on moral issues” (Habermas, 2007, p. 47), further specifying that he is “a realist according to a pragmatic bias” (Habermas, 2007, p. 47). He also distances himself from radical constructivism by asserting: “I am convinced that, in practice, we cannot oppose an objective world made up of entities independent of the description we make of them” (Habermas, 2007, p. 47). The author adds:

Only the assumption, inherent in such realism, of an intersubjectively accessible objective world can reconcile the epistemic primacy of the horizon of the linguistically articulated lifeworld, which we cannot transpose, with the ontological primacy of a reality independent of language, which imposes limits on our practices (Habermas, 2004b, p. 39).

As Vizeu (2011) assesses, Habermas defends the apprehension of human reality through language, considering three ontological spheres—the objective, subjective, and normative dimensions. Here, the notion of ontological plurality in human nature emerges; for him, an action is only rational if it makes sense to the subjects involved, with validation in the objective world (of facts), subjective (of feelings), and normative (righteousness and social legitimacy). Therefore, argumentation, a basic element of TCA, for Habermas, must provide validity in these three spheres and guarantee the intelligibility of what is being said (Habermas, 2004b; Vizeu, 2011).

With the presentation of Habermas’ theoretical proposals, we move toward reflecting on the possible interfaces between the author’s thought and sociomaterial perspectives.

PREVIOUS INCURSIONS OF MATERIALITY IN HABERMAS’ THOUGHT

Elder-Vass (2017), a scholar attentive to the ontology of critical realism, questions Habermas’s concepts of lifeworld and system, even characterizing their arrangement as “functionalist.” However, he acknowledges that Habermas’s framework leads to an optimistic political conclusion, particularly in its emphasis on the potential for resisting the dehumanizing forms of modernity through communicative action.

Elder-Vass (2017) brings Habermas into closer dialogue with sociomateriality by proposing a realist perspective in which concepts are understood as causal mechanisms capable of influencing various types of events, regardless of their exclusive location in one of the “worlds.” From this viewpoint, certain events and decisions may be shaped by mechanisms arising from both the lifeworld and the system—a stance that supports multifactorial causal explanations. In doing so, Elder-Vass repositions key elements of Habermas’s thought within a different ontological structure. This approach offers an alternative way of conceptualizing the distinction between the two worlds and opens space for considering economic activities that are not subject to capitalist market dynamics—activities Habermas would typically locate within the system.

Grace & Fonseca (2014) introduce a sociomaterial lens into Habermas’s thinking by reflecting on digital public spheres. They revisit the theoretical foundations of the public sphere and the TCA, particularly in light of their application in studies on digital information and communication Technologies (ICTs), while noting that such studies often overlook material aspects. Drawing on Paul M. Leonardi, Grace & Fonseca (2014, p. 791) argue that incorporating materiality as an analytical concept does not equate to defending a materialist epistemology: “On the contrary, insufficient attention has been given to the social construction of artifacts, and the constitutive interaction between the social and material as enacted within sociomaterial practices.”

Their analysis focuses on the public sphere as a domain of discursive connections that requires a theoretical approach aligned with digital ICT practices and grounded in the mutual constitution of the material and the social. They propose this perspective as a way to empirically analyze the public sphere by observing its constituent structure, thus moving beyond Habermas’s focus on intersubjective relations alone.

This internal movement toward greater contextual structures presents an affordance of a sociomaterial perspective in the analysis of the public sphere(s). Particularly relevant when contrasted to the normative theory of Habermas, the contextual multidimensionality of a sociomaterial perspective defers to dynamic and scalable empirical investigation for the description and analysis of networked structures. (Grace & Fonseca, 2014, p. 794).

Regarding the interaction between technical resources and society, Mingers & Willcocks (2014) point out that there are different theoretical perspectives, such as those of “social determinists” and “technological determinists.” One prioritizes the social aspects of technologies and human influence on them, while another emphasizes the restrictions that technologies impose on society. However, a third approach is taken by those who defend the mutual influence between technologies and society or even consider a necessary interweaving of society and materiality.

The studies cited illustrate the task of establishing connections between Habermas’ concepts and the sociomaterialist approach. Subsequently, we can directly highlight some suggestive passages in the author’s work to discuss the material issue. However, he does not explicitly conceive of this discussion, particularly in the TCA.

Mediation of technologies

At first glance, materiality in Habermas’s work seems limited to the material aspect of language itself. However, the argumentative process described in the TCA can also unfold between speakers mediated by material technologies, which may influence, either by constraining or enhancing, the outcomes of the search for consensus. Habermas’s (2012a, 2012b) acknowledgment of media and its specific materiality in discussions within the public sphere is particularly noteworthy.

Habermas (2012a) emphasizes the importance of communication technologies in the public dissemination of conversational content: “[...] a virtually present network of communicative contents, which may be distant in space and time, but must be accessible” (p. 332). He argues that the press and electronic media—clearly situated within a material framework—enable speech acts to be disseminated across unlimited contexts, thereby effecting an “unlocking of communicative action.”

The three worlds, lifeworld and system, and the situation of action

In his work Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas (2012a) argues that speech acts have simultaneous referents in the objective, subjective, and social worlds, as discussed by Karl Popper. In view of consensus, participants in communication must intersubjectively recognize the validity claims related to the three worlds: “Speakers and hearers use the reference systems of the three worlds as a framework within which they weave and interpret common definitions in relation to the situation of their action” (Habermas, 2012a, p. 221). Although they do not exactly coincide with Barad’s (2007, 2014) meaning of sociomateriality, the meanings of the objective, subjective, and social worlds presuppose materiality.

Habermas (2012a) considers the backdrop of a communicative manifestation to be an “action situation” that encompasses the three worlds. He illustrates this with the example of workers on a construction site discussing whether the newcomer should go to the kiosk to get beer during his break. In the hypotheses considered during the analysis of the situation, it becomes evident that elements of the objective (and material) world, such as the distance to the kiosk and the fact that the newcomer does not have a car, can directly influence the pursuit of consensus. This suggests that aspects of the objective world can directly impact interaction.

The action situations that constitute the communicative background and involve the three worlds are not fixed; they are part of a mobile horizon, representing a segment of the lifeworld in which material, social, and subjective elements intertwine with context-dependent understandings. Habermas (2012a, p. 226) refers to “components of the situation” as the selection of contextually relevant aspects that shape action oriented toward mutual understanding. Although the author does not explicitly consider materiality in terms of agency, it is possible to infer the materiality of the interactional horizon from his discussion.

Habermas’s definition of the objective world emphasizes its material dimension. When explaining truth claims in the context of externalizations, he refers to a state of affairs that is already given or existent—“[...] the world as the totality of objects about which we can state facts” (Habermas, 2014, p. 360).

The concept of the objective world encompasses everything that subjects, endowed with the capacity for speech and action, regardless of their interventions, “do not do themselves,” so that they can refer to objects that, even when subjected to different descriptions, can be identified with the same objects. (Habermas, 2014, p. 360).

The concept of the social world, created by human actors, refers to the interaction of subjects with the objective world, giving rise, for example, to institutions such as legislation, within which traces of materiality can also be identified. In this sense, the constitution of the lifeworld can be understood as resulting from the interplay among the three worlds, all permeated by material elements. Even the very conception of a system governed by teleological rationality, in interaction with the social world, entails the acknowledgment of materiality, as bureaucratic processes, the prominence of money, governmental structures, and other institutional mechanisms are materially embedded within the system.

Additionally, in the work Post-Metaphysical Thought, Habermas (2004a) reflects on the components of the lifeworld—culture, society, and personality—and their interconnection and mutual constitution. These reflections reinforce the possibility of conceiving both discursive and material elements as relevant to the analysis of social phenomena.

Rationality and the human actor

In TCA, the human role is predominant due to its rationality. This human faculty allows for the agency of validity claims, the contestation of claims presented by other human actors, and development aimed at the search for understanding and consensus. In certain passages, the author conceives of the human being as the result of interactions: “Actor as initiator of imputable actions and product of traditions in which he finds himself, of solidarity groups to which he belongs, and of socialization to which he is subjected” (Habermas, 2012a, p. 270). Thus, he warns that control over situations by actors “is never absolute.”

Despite the disagreements, clues in the author’s work allow for a sociomaterial look at his propositions.

POSSIBLE DIALOGUE: APPROACHES AND DISTANCES BETWEEN HABERMAS AND BARAD

Given the considerations above, we have organized and compiled points of approximation, distance, and integration between Barad’s new materialism and Habermasian research in Box 1.

Box 1
Dialogues between Barad’s new materialist approach and Habermas’s approach

Box 1presents points of convergence of sociomaterial perspectives and empirical studies based on TCA, along with the main related ideas in organizational studies. However, according to Paula (2015), we must also consider the distances between theories and adopt a learning posture for effective interaction among theories.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Considering the main objective of this work—to identify points of divergence and similarity between new materialism and studies based on TCA—a brief bibliographic review of both approaches was first conducted, focusing on their central concepts, theoretical foundations, and methodological orientations. The review identified new materialism as a perspective that encompasses sociomateriality, emphasizing the relationships between human and non-human elements, particularly through the work of Barad. Regarding Habermas’s theoretical framework, the concepts of the public sphere, lifeworld, and system were highlighted as central to understanding TCA.

We also identified authors and studies contributing to bridging sociomateriality and Habermasian thought. Elder-Vass (2017), for instance, related Habermas’s concepts to causal mechanisms within a critical realist ontology. Other examples include the work of Grace & Fonseca (2014) on digital public spheres, and the research by Mingers & Willcocks (2014) on the development of technologies, technical resources, and Society—each illustrating potential theoretical intersections between sociomateriality and TCA.

The recognition of interfaces between new materialism and key concepts of TCA suggests the possibility—still largely unexplored—of integrating sociomaterial dimensions into this theoretical framework. This integration can be advanced by discussing how material and human elements jointly contribute to the constitution of the lifeworld and the system.

As Habermas (1993, p. 112) suggests, we seek to make “recognizable what is common, but [leave] to the other its otherness,” particularly in areas where divergence is more pronounced. These divergences include: (a) TCA’s clear emphasis on the human subject and rationality; (b) the absence, in the Habermasian framework, of any notion of overlap—rather than mere relation—between the social and the material; (c) Barad’s broader conception of agency, which includes non-human actors—an idea absent from Habermas’s theory; and (d) the persistence of modern dichotomies in Habermas’s thought, which Barad aims to overcome in a more radical and integrated manner.

This theoretical essay aims to foster new reflections on both perspectives, explore the limits and possibilities of articulating them, and build upon the results discussed here. By presenting the convergences and divergences between new materialism and Habermasian thought, we acknowledge the limitations and potential challenges in operationalizing such an integration. Nevertheless, the prospect of analyzing the sociomaterial world through the lens of organizational studies remains promising. We therefore encourage further discussions that explore alternative paths and deepen the relationships between organizational studies and the Habermasian perspective. Our commitment in this work is to approach these possibilities through dialogicity and reflexivity.

Finally, we propose a new research agenda aimed at fostering cooperative dialogues. The recognition of sociomaterial dimensions in contexts such as social management, deliberative democracy, the formation and maintenance of public spheres (especially in light of new technologies and social networks), and labor relations in organizations, among others, would support the theoretical integration proposed here. The challenging dialogue within organizational studies—between the discursive and the material, between Habermas & Barad—is thus initiated, and already seems less daunting than initially anticipated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers and editors for their contributions to enhancing the manuscript and to the Graduate Program of the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA) for providing the infrastructure that made the development of this work possible

References

• Alcântara, V. C., & Pereira, J. R. (2017). O locus da gestão social no contexto das inter-relações e tensões entre mundo-da-vida (lebenswelt) e sistema (system). Organização & Sociedade, 24(82), 412-431. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9240823
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9240823
• Andrade, L. F. S., Alcântara, V. C., & Pereira, J. R. (2019). Comunicação que constitui e transforma os sujeitos: agir comunicativo em Jürgen Habermas, ação dialógica em Paulo Freire e os Estudos Organizacionais. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(01), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395164054
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395164054
• Andrews, C. (2011). Emancipação e Legitimidade: uma introdução à obra de Jürgen Habermas Editora Unifesp.
• Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter.Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801-831. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839403365-008
  » https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839403365-008
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning Duke university Press.
• Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax, 20(3), 168-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623
• Burrell, G. (1994). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 4: The contribution of Jürgen Habermas.Organization Studies,15(1), 01-19. Recuperado dehttps://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/20125/
  » https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/20125/
• Cançado, A. C., Pereira, J. R., & Tenório, F. G. (2013).Gestão Social: epistemologia de um paradigma Editora CVR.
• Costa, C. L., Funck, S. B. (2017). O Antropoceno, o pós-humano e o novo materialismo: intervenções feministas. Estudos Feministas, 25(2), 903-908. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584.2017v25n2p903
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584.2017v25n2p903
• Dolphijn, R., & van der Tuin, I.(2012). New materialism: interviews & cartographies Open Humanities Press. Recuperado de:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303990071_New_Materialism_Interviews_and_Cartographies
  » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303990071_New_Materialism_Interviews_and_Cartographies
• Elder-Vass, D. (2017). Lifeworld and systems in the digital economy. European Journal of Social Theory, 21(02), 227-244. https://eldervass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Elder-Vass-2018a-Lifeworld-Systems-in-Digital-Economy-EJST-PPV.pdf
  » https://eldervass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Elder-Vass-2018a-Lifeworld-Systems-in-Digital-Economy-EJST-PPV.pdf
• Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-think the thing: sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621011012898
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621011012898
• Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2015). New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(04), 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458
• Grace, W. R., & Fonseca, F. (2014). Adopting a sociomaterial perspective for the analysis of digital public spheres. iConference 2014 Proceedings. iSchools. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/2142/47284
  » http://hdl.handle.net/2142/47284
• Habermas, J. (1993). Passado como futuro Tempo Brasileiro.
• Habermas, J. (1997). Direito e Democracia: entre facticidade e validade(Vol. 2). Tempo Brasileiro.
• Habermas, J. (2003). Mudança estrutural da esfera pública (Trad.: F. B. Siebeneichler). Tempo Brasileiro.
• Habermas, J. (2004a). Pensamento pós-metafísico(Trad.: L. Nahodil). São Paulo: Almedina
• Habermas, J. (2004b). Verdade e justificação: ensaios filosóficos (Trad.: M. C. Mota). Edições Loyola.
• Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(04), 411-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x
• Habermas, J. (2007). A ética da discussão e a questão da verdade (Trad.: M. B. Cipolla). Martins Fontes.
• Habermas, J. (2012a). Teoria do agir comunicativo 1: racionalidade da ação e racionalização social (Trad.: P. A. Soethe). Editora WMF Martins Fontes.
• Habermas, J. (2012b). Teoria do agir comunicativo 2: sobre a crítica da razão funcionalista Editora WMF Martins Fontes.
• Habermas, J. (2014). A ética do discurso Edições 70.
• Hein, S. F. (2016). The new materialism in qualitative inquiry: How compatible are the philosophies of Barad and Deleuze? Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies, 16(02), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616634732
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616634732
• Kelly, T. (2004). Unlocking the iron cage: public administration in the deliberative democratic theory of Jürgen Habermas.Administration & Society,36(1), 38-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399703257268
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399703257268
• Lara, L. G. A., & Vizeu, F. (2019). O potencial da frankfurtianidade de Habermas em estudos organizacionais. Cad. EBAPE.BR, 17(01), 01-11. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395171270
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395171270
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: University Press.
• Meneghetti, F. K. (2011). O que é um ensaio-teórico?Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 15(02), 320-332. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552011000200010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552011000200010
• Mingers, J., & Willcocks, L. (2014). An integrative semiotic framework for information systems: the social, personal and material worlds. Information and Organization, 24, 48-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.01.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.01.002
• Moura, E. O. (2016). A textura da gestão escolar como prática sociomaterial (Dissertação de Mestrado em Administração), Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB. Recuperado de https://www.academia.edu/93893699/A_textura_da_gest%C3%A3o_escolar_como_pr%C3%A1tica_sociomaterial
  » https://www.academia.edu/93893699/A_textura_da_gest%C3%A3o_escolar_como_pr%C3%A1tica_sociomaterial
• Paula, A. P. P de. (2015). Repensando os estudos organizacionais: por uma nova teoria do conhecimento Editora FGV.
• Scott, K., Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2014). Marketing and the new materialism. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(03), 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146714532471
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146714532471
• Tenório, F. G. (1998). Gestão social: uma perspectiva conceitual.Revista de Administração Pública,32(5), 07-23. https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/7754
  » https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/7754
• Vizeu, F. (2005). Ação comunicativa e estudos organizacionais Revista de Administração de Empresas,45(4), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902005000400002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902005000400002
• Vizeu, F. (2011). Uma aproximação entre liderança transformacional e teoria da ação comunicativa. Revista de Administração da Mackenzie, 12, p. 53-81. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712011 000100003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712011 000100003

• DATA AVAILABILITY
  The dataset supporting the results of this study was published in the article.
• REVIEWERS
  José Luiz Zanette (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, Center for Pragmatism Studies, São Paulo / SP - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1792-2020
• REVIEWERS
  One of the reviewers did not authorize the disclosure of their identity.
• PEER REVIEW REPORT
  The peer review report is available at this link: https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/93585/87501
• 13
  [Translated version] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator

Edited by

• EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
  Hélio Arthur Reis Irigaray (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9580-7859

• ASSOCIATE EDITOR
  Fabricio Stocker (Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro / RJ - Brazil). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-9127

Data availability

The dataset supporting the results of this study was published in the article.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 Sept 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  02 Jan 2024
• Accepted
  12 Sept 2024