Science, teaching, and technology

Online version ISSN 1851-1716

Science. Technology teaching n.37 Concepción del Uruguay Nov. 2008

HUMANITIES - SOCIAL SCIENCES: COMMUNICATIONS

Educational planning as a tool for democratization: a view from

epistemological

Educational planning as a democratization tool: an epistemological perspective

Andretich, Gabriela

A first version of this work was prepared in 2005 for the Master's in Policy and Management of
Education, National University of Luján (Buenos Aires, Argentina); submitted in May 2007 and accepted
in August 2008.

**) Research teacher, Assistant Professor of Education Planning, Faculty of Sciences of the
Education, National University of Entre Ríos, Paraná (Argentina). andregun@[Link]

Resumen: Este artículo presenta un repaso de las principales perspectivas de planeamiento educativo en
Latin America: Normative Planning, the influence of the Strategic perspective and the proposal of
Participatory Situational Strategic Planning, detailing the essential components of the
most influential currents in Latin American education. Then, they are explained from a perspective
epistemological, the conceptions of rationality implicit in each perspective of planning. It is made
particular emphasis on the proposal of the Chilean Carlos Matus (Situational Strategic) with the aim of
advance in the analysis of the possibilities and limits that this option offers to the construction of a
intersubjective and democratic proposal for planning in the educational field (in terms
Habermasians). Finally, some issues are stated that would enable the continuity of the debate.
exposed.

Palabras clave: Educación; Planeamiento educativo; Democracia escolar

I. Introduction

The democratization of educational institutions is not a new aspiration; there are many works
from different disciplines - that address this topic. However, the interesting productions, the
The everyday reality of schools demonstrates the difficulties in achieving this goal.

If we start from understanding planning as a political instrument to think about and create future action,
as a process that acts as a mediator between the knowledge of reality and the action that is to be
to undertake between the present that one wants to change and the future that one wishes to reach, we can affirm
that it can become an effective tool to democratize schools and
universities and from there generate a multiplier effect in society. This hypothesis makes sense in
both the planning process entails a collective, intersubjective rationality. This is not easy or
siempre se ha planteado de esta forma.

This article will present the main trends in planning and what has been taken from them.
education specifically, emphasizing the processes of rationality, that is, finding the o
the logics of thought, action, and planning practices in each paradigm. This
the last implies the underlying epistemological analysis in each position to advance towards a
critical and participatory positioning.

II. The paradigms at play in the educational field

Throughout the 1960s, the idea of educational planning in America began to take shape.
Latina; in its beginnings it arises as a normative and/or reactive approach characterized by reductionism.
illegitimate of all actions to behaviors and the artificial elimination of the 'other' (Matus, 1987). The
Planning, from this traditional perspective, is conceived as a methodology and a set of
specialized techniques implemented by experts and aimed at establishing the mechanisms
norms to achieve the objectives that are established. The result of this task is the Book Plan. In this
type of planning is not included with the other, and the uncertainty of the plan is not perceived, recreating a
illusion of certainty, of control over reality. This process is also merely normative because it establishes the
the normative should be based on the being defined and characterized in the definitive diagnosis. The normative defines what should be

necessary and possible.

This planning phase did not generally succeed in concretizing plans but rather in conducting studies of the systems.
educational without causing major changes in the sector. Such a way of planning entered into crisis not only in
the educational sphere but in the planning as a whole around the 1970s by various
reasons: its inefficiency in adequately addressing the needs of society, its rigidity regarding
the non-review and consequent update of the quantitative proposals and the necessary obsolescence
that exhibited their goals when the mere passage of time made them incorrect or conflicting.
to reality.

In addition, with the strong emergence of neoliberal thinking in capitalist societies, planning
the development entered a cone of shadows, a phenomenon that also affected it, both nationally and
regional, in our country (Rofman, 2006).

From local and/or regional political processes, first in Europe and then in Latin America, began
During the 1980s, an alternative methodology known as Planning began to be considered.
Strategic, which drew on critical theoretical contributions from Normative Planning or Goals and from
successful experiences at the urban level (Rofman, 2006).

The meaning of the term strategy comes from the Greek word strategos, 'military leaders',
traditionally used in the field of military operations. In recent years, this concept
has evolved in such a way that, from its origin, new applications have emerged. The use of
The term strategy, in planning, means much more than its military meaning where it is
simply the science and art of employing a nation's armed force to achieve objectives
determined by their leaders.

In relation to business schools, strategic planning or strategic management is a

perspective that mainly comes from the private world and postulates that no organization has
object but rather a mission oriented towards the environment. In fact, at the moment an organization stops
Meeting the needs of the context begins to disappear from the competitive environment. For this
school, the strategy is the pattern or plan that integrates the main goals and policies of an organization
and, at the same time, establishes the coherent sequence of actions to be carried out (Lira, 2006). From this perspective,
quickly adopted by the business environment, the strategy is seen as the creation of a unique
and valid position considering a system of different actions; it is to choose what to do and what not to do, in
which markets to enter and which not, and what actions are advisable to take in order to "convince" the customer.
consumer.

Now, starting from a political concern about planning in the area of Economics.
the Chilean Carlos Matus develops, also during the 1980s, a perspective of
Situational Strategic Planning (PES) that substantially differs from strategic proposals.
heirs of Scientific Management and the Business School. For Matus (1987), the PES refers to a
a special type of human action, intentional and reflexive, through which the producer of the action expects
consciously achieve certain results in a situation of cooperation or conflicts with others. It is
a tool for change that facilitates the connection between doing and thinking and signifies a break
epistemological when considering the other as a competitive actor present in the design of one's own action. The
appearance of that other actor who, from their positioning and from their social practices, interests,
values and beliefs, interprets reality situationally (from their worldview).

According to that author, a plan should be structured through a very broad process of consultations.
population, through very different methods of understanding the general opinion about needs
basic aspects to face and the hierarchy and importance of them. In that sense, popular participation does not
should be limited to the phase of defining the main guidelines of a plan but must also
include the follow-up process for its eventual application, the ongoing review of its postulates
essentials and the evaluation of the results (Rofman, 2006).

The Matusian approach has had and continues to have a significant influence throughout Latin America and its
fundamentals have been transferred to different areas of public intervention, education among them.
Assuming this position implies acknowledging that actors make use of knowledge for action
a different way than what happened in traditional planning.

One basic issue is, then, to distinguish from an epistemological perspective, the instrumental action,
typical of the application to the natural sciences, which establishes a relationship between the explaining subject and the subject
explicado, y la acción social, que implica la interacción entre dos o más sujetos o actores de un juego
(Matus, 2000).

III. The central features of the different planning perspectives: epistemological approach

The Regulatory Planning, conceived as a tool to introduce and maintain rationality,

coordination, continuity, and technical efficiency that the administrative management of education was lacking, it
based on the following postulates:

The actor who plans is outside or above the planned reality and does not coexist in that reality with others.
actors who also plan.

The actions produced by subjects are predictable and enumerable because they respond to a theory of
social behavior known and knowable; then, the subject controls and directs a differentiated object
that it is possible to diagnose. This diagnosis is guided by the search for objective truth and, in
consequence, it must be unique. To a single actor that plans corresponds a single diagnosis, a single
concept of time and a unique and absolute truth. The explanation allows for prediction and therefore the
control of the future.

The planned object follows laws and is unable to create unpredictable movements for the subject who
planning, that is, it does not consider other social actors with the capacity to produce strategic actions.

4. In order to understand reality and gain the ability for foresight and future evolution, it is necessary to discover
the laws of functioning of social behaviors. Forecasting and prediction are the same thing.

The actor who plans has all the power and, therefore, only economic resources are scarce; not
existen oponentes. El contexto del plan es la armonía y la concertación central desde quien planifica.

6. The objectives are conceived as rules to be fulfilled, regardless of the context and their feasibility.
of realization. The plan thus refers to a set of inherent elements and on paper has 'final
"closed" because the terminal situation is known just like the means to reach it.

All these postulates that have governed Educational Planning in Latin America have not only been limited.
questioned but, currently, with the advance of neopositivist and neoliberal positions
conservative, there are many sectors that advocate for them. The intention, for example, to incorporate the
the Total Quality movement in Administration and Management of schools has won over more than
an institution. This movement has surely advanced at the cost of associating in the popular imagination the
public with the inefficient and bureaucratic and, therefore, reinstated the need to insist on the
privatization of education as a solution. Obviously, that discourse of total quality (and the methodology
of planning that implies) has behind it a neoliberal worldview that breaks with the logic of
the rights and gradually establishes the logic of the capitalist market. In doing so, that new discourse
about education seeks to implement a technical rationality and remove the political aspects from the process
educational, co-opting and invalidating all possibility of democratization of education (Gandin and
Gandin, 1999).

The underlying epistemology of this perspective is the Galilean tradition of causal explanation or
mechanistic commonly known as positivism; a stance that incurs in three basic principles: the idea of
unity of the scientific method among the diversity of thematic objectives of scientific research; the
consideration that the natural sciences are exact, and in particular that physics and mathematics
they establish a standard or methodological ideal that measures the degree of development and perfection of all the
other sciences, including the humanities, and the characteristic view of scientific explanation. Such
explanation is "causal" in a broad sense; it consists of the subsumption of individual cases under laws
hypothetical generalizations of nature, including human nature (Von Wright, 1979).

In Normative Planning, given the certainty of causal effects, rationality is imposed.

technique for finding an optimal solution to well-structured problems with known solutions. The
Representation of reality can be a system of equations that has a mathematical solution.

The concept of diagnosis of this type of planning implies a description of the components of the
reality in order to discover, evaluate, and explain the specific situation and predict its probable evolution to
less than it is intervened to direct it (Martínez and Olivera Lahore, 1969). To this conceptualization
we can directly relate it to the pragmatist idea of the positivist conception, according to which the
Science serves to direct action.

It is noted that the conclusions of a diagnosis take on the structure of a practical syllogism that
consists of a) a statement of a desired state of the situation, b) knowledge of the rule, c)
description of the context or situation and d) recommendation for action (Macchiarola, 2005). The prediction
future ignores the uncertainty and contradictions inherent in social processes; actions are
they thereby reduce to observable and measurable regular behaviors.

III.1. Epistemological Foundations of Situational Strategic Planning

The epistemological foundations of the PES are presented below. This perspective is not considered
a proposal among the possible current ways of planning, but one that, with some
specific considerations, it can be upheld as the most accurate path towards the realization of the
democratization of educational institutions. Many experiences, especially in Brazil, confirm
this assertion. According to Matus, it is about promoting adequate mechanisms of representation,
contribute to the participation of groups and stimulate attitudes that make the
commitment to the adopted goals.

The PES is a theoretical-practical proposal based mainly on the following postulates:

The subject that plans is understood in the planned object; in turn, the planned object
it includes other subjects who also plan, so the planner does not have guaranteed
forehand the ability to control the other.

-It is no longer possible to have a single diagnosis of reality or objective truth, as there are various actors who
they coexist and therefore there will be various explanations about reality. Only the explanation is possible.
situational where each subject explains reality from their particular position or self-reference.

Social actors create possibilities in a creative social system that only partially follows laws.
It is possible to reduce human action to decipherable "behaviors." The problems it addresses
Planning is quasi-structured. Poorly defined uncertainty dominates the social system.

Power is scarce and limits the viability of what should be; it considers the 'can be' and the 'will to do'.
Planning must encompass the issue of overcoming or circumventing the resistance of others to one's own plan.
Matus refers to the dissatisfaction regarding the causality of the natural sciences (associated
the traditional planning) and to oppose it presents the concept of situation. For
to conceptualize it, in principle, takes from Weber (1968) the term verstehen as the "way of understanding"
personal level the reasons and beliefs behind people's actions." Such a term, for him, can
to be understood from within, from the perspective of someone who is situated in reality
and tries to explain." He acknowledges that, in contrast to pure physical-mathematical reason, there is a narrative reason;
Consider, furthermore, that there is no action at a distance but that one only acts in the present.

If we refer to different studies on the development of the term comprehension, we find many
common points with Matusian thought. The basic idea of this analysis is that it starts from the idea of
Dilthey, for whom understanding is to understand the other inasmuch as the other is also a subject like me, not a
object (Schuster, 1995). Regarding the methodological aspect, Weber - founder of sociology - advances
comprehensive in relation to positivist sociology - with a proposal for hypothesis production, and attempts
reconstruct the motives or reasons that an individual has.

Matus also recovers from Gadamer the idea of interpretation 'with agreement'; he picks up from his work.
the idea that we are always within the situation, and that clarifying it is a task that never is
completely fills it in, and incorporates a semantic dimension into the explanation by admitting in it the
senses of the actors; it is not based on general laws because it does not admit the existence of
regular behaviors. The explanation, then, is a more ideographic than nomothetic study in
he seeks to understand the individual and unique particularities of each situation. Gadamer contributes
also an idea of coherence; the assumption that the scientist does not intervene is no longer present. The
The researcher has their position that imposes a horizon, the target image in situational planning.

With all these contributions, Matus formulates a planning proposal based on critical analysis of the
situation surrounding the planner, taking into account, in turn, the perspective of other actors
with the purpose of reaching a consensus with them. Regarding the break in relation to the paradigm
structural functionalist that supports normative planning, its complex analysis category
it represents an important advancement. However, there are still explanations that allow it to be situated in a
diametrically different epistemological perspective.

IV. The perspectives of rationality...

In a world of scarcity like the one we face, the urgency to bring order to things seems to be the
premisa que fortalece las tendencias racionalistas. Hablamos de la necesidad y la posibilidad de recuperar
reason and the pursuit of 'more rational actions'. Still, we may ask ourselves: order for what?
What nature? What kind of rationality are we talking about?

The concept of rationality has a double meaning. Firstly, it refers to the set of assumptions
and practices that enable people to understand and shape their own experiences and those of others.
Secondly, it refers to the interests that define and qualify the way each one structures and
faces the problems that arise in the lived experience" (Giroux, 1990 in Mena et al, 2005:39)

Following Giroux's idea, analyzing the implicit rationality in planning processes involves
uncover the underlying logic of interests, most of the time not explicitly stated, find the or the
logics of thought, of action, of planning practices.

Let's focus on Habermas's rationality framework, which undoubtedly starts with analyzing and critiquing.
the Weberian approach. Weber considered two types of rationality: instrumental (of means in
relation to ends), rational action directed at the fulfillment of ends, and the substantive, practical or
regulation, which would be the final action for the fulfillment of values. For Habermas (1984), what
Weber considers rationality as the way in which subjects justify their preferences or how they orient themselves.
in relation to values. For its part, it proposes three types of rationality: the instrumental that would be
marked by technical tasks of control or appropriation of nature and the states of things that
they are part of the objective world, knowing objectively about the best technical means (objectivity); the
strategic: the process of choosing ends among several alternatives of action, when it is necessary to take into account
it counts the decision of rational opponents. Both types of rationality are oriented towards the
achieving success: the first (which is not social), for the attainment of a desired state of affairs; the
second (social actions), determined by the great influence over an opponent's decisions. By
finally, it speaks of the communicative rationality of action, in which the actions of men
they are coordinated not through the egocentric calculation of results, but through acts of
understanding. Success is not prioritized; rather, individual goals are pursued on the condition that
the respective action plans can harmonize with each other, based on a shared definition of the
situation (the negotiation with the other actors). It is a social action.

The immanent rationality of everyday communicative practical action refers to the practice of
argumentation as a form of appeal that makes it possible to continue the communicative action with others
means, when a disagreement can no longer be absorbed by everyday routines and, however, does not
he wants to decide by resorting to the direct or strategic use of force.

It is clear, then, that the actions inherent to normative planning are what Habermas calls
instrumental actions. These are teleological actions according to goals that Macchiarola synthesizes,
following Habermas:

In them, 'the agent subject intervenes in the world with the intention of producing a desired state in it,
through the choice and application of suitable means" (Habermas, 1984, 369).

The actor is guided by the achievement of their objectives and weighs the consequences of the action.

Teleological action is instrumental "when we consider it under the aspect of adherence to rules.
action techniques and we evaluate the degree of effectiveness of the intervention in a physical state" (Habermas,
1984:385)

They require interventions aimed at decision-making by choosing between alternative means for the
achievement of goals.

The benchmarks or justification for such rational choices are the technical rules that
they rest on an empirical knowledge. This knowledge implicit in the rules of instrumental action is expressed
as technology, that is, "conditioned imperatives, which prescribe how they should be organized in a way
rational in accordance with the means to achieve given ends" (Habermas, 1984:236).

They are based on empirical generalizations and refer to their context, also in a generalizing manner.

Normative planning focuses, then, on technical tasks of control (or appropriation) of the
nature and the states of things that are part of the objective world. The correlate of that
Rationality is an empirical knowledge about the best technical means, governed by objectivity or by the
uniformity (Uribe Rivera, 1995).

According to the model of rational action according to ends, the actor is oriented towards achieving their own
goals, subject all other consequences of the action to calculation as secondary conditions of the
success aspired to, measuring the success of the action by the degree to which it manages to produce, through the
intervention in the world (or through omissions), the desired state of affairs (Habermas, 1984)(2). This
tipo de planeamiento se basa en acciones de comportamiento, definidas por Matus como aquéllas
predictable with certainty or only probabilistically, because they respond to a behavior function
of an individual, a social group, or an institution.

On the other hand, we can affirm -following Macchiarola- that the actions inherent to the approach of
Situational Strategic Planning is, in Habermas's terms, strategic actions:

Their rational actions are in accordance with goals and consist of the evaluation of possible alternatives.
behaviors that result from the deduction of maxims and values.
The underlying rules of rational choice according to goals are present. But the reference point for the
election is no longer the fulfillment of technical rules but the success in the competition with the adversary.

The other is an opponent, whose decisions I can try to indirectly influence through deterrence or
"reward" (Habermas, 1984:280).

It is a competition to maximize profits and minimize losses. The success of the actions
strategic is measured by the influence we manage to exert on the decisions of an opponent that we make
competence.

The other also acts rationally according to ends; therefore, each actor must take into account
in its elections the decisions of the other, acting strategically, that is, trying to influence the
adversary and weakening their position.

They suppose, just like instrumental action, a monological attitude, as the actors act
oriented towards success and, to achieve it, they influence the decisions of others.

Actions are coordinated through an egocentric calculation of interests or utility. One only acts
cooperatively as long as it is convenient in the egocentric calculation of profits.

Following Macchiarola's explanatory development, it is argued that the strategic actions typical of
PES are actions driven by a strategic judgment in the context of interactive calculation; here the
The strategist does not make plans based on behaviors, although it may be possible to discover the code.
operational on which its strategic judgment is based (Matus, 1984:753). This planning assumes, just like
instrumental action, a monological attitude - that is, the intentional relationship of a consciousness with its
content-, as the actors act oriented towards success and, to achieve it, they influence decisions of
the others. Actions are coordinated through an egocentric calculation of interests or utility. They
It is, according to Habermas, an instrumental order since the participants, in their interactions,
They instrumentalize each other to achieve their own ends.

Coinciding with Macchiarola (2005), one only acts cooperatively as long as it is convenient in the
ego-centered calculation of utilities. In this way, from the standpoint of its ontological assumptions,
this type of action requires nothing more than a single world: the objective world which, according to Habermas, is the
totality of the entities about which true statements are possible.

The explanations regarding the type of epistemology and, therefore, the rationality involved in each
planning posture allows for a very important progress of the PES in relation to
Normative Planning. Habermas's contributions, however, introduce a warning that is a priority.
consider whether what we are seeking is a planning process that opens the doors to democratization of
school management: up to this point, the proposal of the PES does not surpass the strategic action oriented towards success, for
that we cannot yet speak of communicative rationality from the Matusian perspective.

Habermas links his theory of action with Austin's speech act theory, and argues that in the
contexts of strategic interaction are dominated by perlocutionary acts, that is, those that seek
to cause an effect on the listener. But it holds that, if one wants to succeed, that perlocutionary purpose
It should not be disclosed. Influence is sought over another in an asymmetric social situation.
(Macchiarola). The interactive calculation, then, typical of the Situational Strategic Planning approach,
it is a strategic action. Referring to that type of calculation, Matus says: "...any judgment of actor A
is necessarily referred to actor B, and any judgment of actor B is inevitably referred to the
actor A. Therefore, the most effective action of actor A depends on the action of B that precedes it or the
continue. Likewise, the most effective action of actor B depends on the action of A that precedes or follows it.
(Matus, 1987:110).

Add Macchiarola: "That interactive calculation requires the study of the other, who can be an opponent or a
creative cooperator. Therefore, Matus proposes for the PES the technique of games, which is a type of simulation.
a human condition that represents a conflict between opposing forces and takes place in compressed time
anticipated. Indeed, in the PES it is understood that each actor foresees an objective situation (OS) that is
it contradicts that of the other. Both start from an initial situation (IS) that has different meanings for.
each opponent. Thus, we have two directional arcs (NE- SW) expressed in conflicting planes. The
The planning problem is that each force has to overcome active and creative resistance.
from the other to reach the target situation, for which it has to build different strategies. Success
The strategy will be determined by the destruction of the opponent's plan viability" (Macchiarola, 2005).

Matus (1987) distinguishes three types of strategies that can be combined with each other: cooperation strategies,
co-optation and conflict. Cooperation strategies seek consensus among the parties through
negotiation when the factions have overlapping interests regarding the results; those of
cooptation occurs when the problem presented does not pose a conflict of interest: there an actor
makes the other join their proposal without modifying it, and in the strategies of conflict or confrontation
-where interests are irreconcilable-, the situation is resolved by the relations of power: one wins and
another loses. All of them are framed in a self-centered calculation of profits.

In summary, the PES implies, on one hand, the explanation of the situation from the perspective of the
actors, on the other hand, a strategic game where an opponent with objectives is included
contradictory decisions that are attempted to be influenced through perlocutionary acts
(Macchiarola). Habermas explains this as strategic rationality where, in this last dimension,
It is necessary to take into account the decisions of rational opponents. This rationality is also
oriented towards success, success determined by the degree of influence over an opponent's decisions,
observing the rules of rational choice. But the reference point for choice is no longer the
compliance with the technical rules but the success in competing with the opponent. The other is a
opponent whose decisions I can attempt to influence through various types of strategies (of cooperation,
of cooptation and conflict), all aimed at achieving freedom of action against opponents and
reach the desired target image.

So, it is clear that Situational Strategic Planning cannot be seen as a simple

relationship between means-ends (automatic transition from a set of actions towards a desired end). In
this position, the use of means or instruments does not, by itself, lead to the expected result, which
it would be the target situation, as it averages a whole internal and external socio-institutional process among them,
forces and counterforces, of advances and retreats, of consensus and conflicts, which are what, in
definitive, determine the success or failure of the initiatives. We are talking, then, about a rationality
politics.

Here is where it should be clarified that political rationality is linked to obtaining control and functioning of
a specific institutional structure or a set of them, and this leads those who sustain it to
deploy a comprehensive logic of the rules of the game, such as, for example, negotiation and the
perception of the character of the relevant actors. This often remains in the realm of the
pragmatic.

To advance the proposal of democratization, it is necessary to turn our gaze towards Habermas and the
communicative rationality of action. When talking about communicative action, Habermas refers to the
interaction, at least, between two actors capable of developing a language and establishing a relationship
interpersonal. In that context, the actors seek to understand each other about a situation of action in order to
thus coordinate their action plans by mutual agreement and, with that, their actions. The central concept is
interpretation, referring mainly to the negotiation of definitions of the situation. The language
occupies a fundamental place in this scheme; linguistic understanding appears as a mechanism
of coordination of the action. In the rest of the actions, the language only appears in some of the
aspects that it offers; only in the communicative action does it appear as a means of understanding in itself.

That understanding functions as a coordinating mechanism of action can only mean that the
participants in the interaction agree on the validity they intend for their outputs
or manifestations, that is to say, that intersubjectively recognize the 'validity claims' 'with which they
they present some." (Habermas, 1987a:143)
According to this last author, talking about communicative action involves the involvement of the lifeworld.
in its entirety, that is, in its structural components: culture, society, and personality. The
the structure of the world of life is a communicative structure that, under the functional aspect of
understanding serves the tradition and the renewal of cultural knowledge. Likewise, from the perspective of
coordination of action, serves social integration and the creation of solidarity, and under the aspect of
socialization, to the formation of personal identities (Habermas, 1987b). Addressing this proposal, the
the rationality of Matus's proposal would be based more on the objective world in which the
participants in the communicative action intend for the stated propositions to be true, that
in an objective world, in which man's action is pragmatic. If rationality is restricted to the
effectiveness of this type of actions, there is a risk of understanding human action as a whole as
a great strategic plan, in which people are systemically integrated and stitched together (Hoyos
Vázquez, 1995.

Although Matus also raises the ethical question, which is what preserves the value of the human person.
facing the overwhelming force of other rationalities, and argues that Situational Planning
recover the role of the person above the systems by giving them the possibility to develop actions
aimed at transforming reality, that position of ethical-political rationality could not be identified.
with the Habermasian approach to communicative ethics. It must be admitted that in Matus, the political prevails and
This may imply the accumulation of power, of control, as the political decision-maker requires results.
visible. It is also valid to clarify that there is not just one type of political rationality. This could range from
an extreme governed by the 'clientelist' approach as a means of connecting with the population to another point where
a participatory interaction model is proposed.

An attempt to overcome...

Quienes estamos preocupados por la democratización de los procesos decisorios de las instituciones
students wondered if it is possible to have a new planning approach that is not based only on
actions directed towards success, but sustained in speech acts, in a situation of symmetric dialogue.

This implies recovering everything recently raised about the communicative rationality of the
action, identified as a counterbalance to the predominance of technocratic and strategic rationality,
that is, the one that occurs when the action plans of the involved actors are not coordinated through
not through a self-centered calculation of results, but through acts of understanding; when the participants
they are not primarily oriented towards success but rather pursue their individual goals, under the condition of
that their respective action plans can harmonize based on a shared definition of the
situation. The full validity of communicative rationality would be supported by the growing development of
the cognitive-moral capacities of individuals, of the normative capacities of social groups
and the critical judgment capabilities of the cultural knowledge of citizens.

Several planning specialists, including the Brazilian Uribe Ribera, the Argentine Testa, and the same one
Matus, in his latest works, has focused on reviewing previous approaches in the search for one
surpassing PES in the sense of communicative rationality, where planning is a system of
speaks of pretensions of validity in which an intersubjective coordination of action operates, at the level
from the common definition of a situation (explanatory moment) and the intentions of the actors
In this case, it is about making agreements on claims of validity.
regarding regulatory actions directed towards the future, that is, commitments to action endowed with
legitimacy. The communicative vision of planning implies, ultimately, the rescue of one's own world
internal decision-making process.

The premise of Uribe Rivera (1995) is that planning must extend its rationality. Understood
traditionally as a rational activity supporting teleological rationality in the Weberian sense
From the production of economic or political efficacy, planning should be considered.
mainly as a form of communicative rationality. This Brazilian author argues that in the
strategic approach there is an overestimation of the political that brings about devaluation and, in certain
cases, the denial of technical calculation. The overvaluation that this approach makes of the conflict may
determine an objectivizing perspective that does not tend toward the interactive relationships that characterize the
planning. By generalizing the conflict, the approach relatively disregards the possibility of
understanding, cooperation, and negotiation. Starting from the relative validity of planning
strategic in conflictual contexts, Uribe's criticism is directed at the attempt to make that calculation a
type of general synthesis rationality. It starts to imagine the virtual alternative of planning
decentralized, fully concerned about legitimacy, that is, based on formed convictions
and negotiated within civil society and capable of articulating flexibly and pragmatically the
different calculation criteria that are part of the area. For this, try to coordinate the theoretical approach of
Habermas with strategic planning in the social area. Strategic elaboration and doing.
Communicative are the starting point of the proposal; they are the two forms of rationality about the
how the understanding of the social order is built for Habermas. The social order, therefore, is
strategically constitutes -through the calculation of the economic and political profits it entails
reification of the actors - and communicatively - through intersubjective understanding,
linguistically mediated, regarding facts, social norms, and subjective realities- (Uribe
Rivera, 1995: 13.

Matus (2000), in a posthumous work, aims to deepen the concept of strategy by saying
that, unlike instrumental action, social action must reconcile technical efficiency and effectiveness
with strategic viability and human judgment of acceptability; this latter task is complex because
not only traverses the behaviors of the sciences but also penetrates into the world of values, the
human judgment and passions. It expresses that social practice inevitably unites action
social with instrumental action. Pure instrumental action does not exist in the process of social production;
therefore, at the action level it is necessary to reconcile evaluation criteria and decision-making on the
plays that can be conflicting, such as:

1. The differences between efficiency and effectiveness, products of paradigms built within the
narrow boundaries of the different behaviors of the sciences, which can be
contradictory (for example, economic effectiveness versus ecological effectiveness).

2. The difference between technical efficiency and effectiveness with the criteria of strategic viability, for
to reconcile what is technically and scientifically possible and advisable with what may be politically
viable, if it requires a change in the behavior of the opponents (economic effectiveness vs effectiveness
policy and feasibility.

3. The differences between technical efficiency and effectiveness against human judgment of acceptability, in
function of dominant values, to reconcile what is technically possible and politically viable,
with what is socially acceptable according to human ethical, moral, and solidarity judgment (for
Example: Is the death penalty acceptable through technically effective means?

When talking about acceptability, it refers to the fact that the action must be agreed upon or communicative, according to
the terminology of Habermas, and says regarding this

...in the coordinated action, the coordination between the proponent and the partner is achieved through the
cooperative understanding among the participants of the game in relation to a collective purpose or
common benefit. In that case, the participants of the social game are not oriented towards their own success,
unless in the realization of an agreement, as a required condition for all participants to
interaction can achieve their own goals. Coordination requires a collective intentionality
embodied in an agreement, cannot be imposed unilaterally. It is validated by its acceptability.
2000:42)

The importance he gives to understanding can be taken as an argument in his favor. This would be the
process of obtaining an agreement between linguistically and interactively competent subjects. That
The agreement is based on common convictions, reached through a discursive performance. In that
measure, the agreement is rational, that is, it cannot be torn away through an instrumental action
about the situation of the action or through a calculated influence on an opponent's decisions.
One of the distinctive traits of this type of interaction lies in the conception of understanding as a
an end in itself and not as the solution to a coordination problem among subjects who act seeking
success. These communicative actions take place in the world of life, that is to say in '...the totality
diffuse constituted by the capacities or cultural, social or personality representations,
accumulated or acquired through cooperative communication processes, that the participants of a
action situations are assumed as a background framework for their interpretive tasks" (Uribe
Rivera, 1995:29.

Although Matus seemed to confuse every interaction with strategic action, communication is
implicit in the Matusian theoretical body to the extent that it tries to apply the theory of speech acts
to planning and in how it defends a democratizing conception of planning. In this sense,
assimilate the planning process to a communicational process as an articulated system of the five types
of speech acts that the theory of conversations enunciates, actions in which, through
language, we were able to understand each other on any matter. That understanding is not just the result of
not only on the speaker but on the interaction between speaker and listener; the success of a speech act depends on the
cooperation of both.

We can consider that the types of speech acts occur in the planning process if we maintain
that this last one:

It contains assertions, as the situational explanation integrates pure assertions with

causal bets that must be verified or falsified in practical experience or attributed a truthfulness
or provisional falsehood through the experimentation or simulation of processes while waiting for real time
from its verification in practice.

It contains expressions, as the author of the plan qualifies the facts through adjectival phrases that accept,
they reject and hierarchize the assertions. For example, at the explanatory moment we are pleased with
certain results when we achieve growth in enrollment, we regret or condemn certain
situations when we declare the levels of critical poverty unacceptable and prioritize issues and
operations when we assert that the problem of unemployment is more important than that of
inflation.

- Contains statements, as it designates those in charge or responsible for the design and execution of the
proposals that it includes.

It contains directives because it orders others, those designated by the statements, to execute and take on.
certain obligations. For example, it orders a minister to execute the operation.

It contains action commitments, because the operational proposals of the plan are commitments that, in
ultimately, the author assumes before the population and the social forces of a country.

The idea to emphasize is, then, the advancement in positions in such a way that it is no longer just an actor.
only that it acts on the world to achieve objectives through the choice and application of means
optimal, nor of a subject that influences the decisions of others to overcome their resistances and
to destroy the viability of the opponents' plans, but of a set of actors who seek a
rationally motivated consensus through understanding and argumentation, to reconcile
different individual plans, in an ideal speaking situation. This form of planning can only
to develop in a democratic context marked by principles of freedom, tolerance, justice, search
of truth, symmetrical relationships and mutual respect, where human reason emancipates itself from force
from tradition, from ideological distortions, from threats of domination, manipulation or control
(Macchiarola, 2005).
Uribe Ribera supports this motion by showing that Matus's theoretical body is transparent in several.
instantes esa razón comunicativa no siempre identificada por los críticos del [Link] incursión que él
this is demonstrated by the philosophy of language of Austin and Searle. In the same direction operate the
conception of the multiple perspectives of situational analysis, communicated in totality, and its
democratic (or democratizing) argumentation. In this sense, the criticism of the reifying nature of
strategic focus experiences a refraction. There are contents in Matus that surpass the mere calculation
strategic in conflict situations. The concept of situation is one of them.

Uribe Ribera also asserts that Matus could be rescued for a communicative perspective as well.
for its approach to the flexibility of the existing relationships between genotype and phenotype structure and for the
subordination of the strategic to the concept of situation, in the sense of barely recognizing the former
as a partial calculation. In relation to this, it should be made clear that not every situation is strategic, that
a strategic situation contains, at the same time, an internal communicative moment of each one of
the actors or world of life and, ultimately, that strategic situations can be transformed
in cooperative or negotiated situations due to the dissemination by all groups of the worlds of the
collective life of the inherent values of democracy.

Undoubtedly, as Cantero (2001) expresses, the proposal by Matus and his followers is a tool that
it implies an appropriation of knowledge for action and the incorporation of a set of concepts
operational categories that, unlike analytical categories, are used to intervene in the resolution of the
own problems, in an interactive, creative, multireferenced process, in which each subject,
converted into an actor, from his interests and needs, uses his various sources of power to achieve his
purposes.

VI. Pending issues...

In theory, the proposal of the PES and its revisions is very interesting when thinking about
democratize decision-making processes in the public sphere. However, some issues remain.
pending issues that allow for the discussion to remain open.

Although it may seem that the review of the PES method achieves a proposal for intersubjective construction of
planning, there are restrictions that prevent full compliance with the conditions of an ideal situation
of speech. I am referring to the power struggles inherent in institutional dynamics, as well as to the
hegemonic and counter-hegemonic confrontations in the larger political field. Matus himself
it recognizes when it says 'in practice, social conversations are opaque and controlled. They are not
always understandable, their propositional content is falsified, they are applied to incorrect acts, and the ...
intentions.

Furthermore, depending on the players' interests and the control they have over the conversations, they
They amplify and cushion at their convenience." (Matus, 2000.32)

In relation to the previous point, the analysis of the difficulty of finalizing the proposal can be complemented.
from Habermas with what Halliday expressed when he says that the theory of communicative competence does not
surpasses other attempts to present a description that engages us and is interesting
consequences in practice, as the alternative to the systemic theoretical approach of empiricists is a
form of practical rationality based on the 'unfounded hope' that human life
it will be perfected if theorists are guided by the concern of ensuring an 'ideal consensus', and that the
Habermas himself acknowledged that: "...this inevitable fiction is the basis for the humanity of interaction.
the men who are not yet men" (Halliday, 1995:126).

We cannot fail to consider the complexity. One can refer to Zolo's work (1992) where...
refers to it as the cognitive situation in which the agents find themselves, whether they are
individuals or social groups. The relationships that agents build and project onto their environment in their
attempt to self-orient -that is, disposition, prediction, planning, manipulation- will be more or
less complex according to the circumstances. It can be recognized in Matus's posthumous work the
concern about the issue of complexity when it states: "...the most serious drama of our time
refers to the gap between our ability to govern social systems and the complexity
increasing that these provide to be led towards democratically assumed objectives" (Matus,
2000:437)

Beyond the new developments of authors close to our context such as Maturana, Sotolongo
Codina, Delgado Díaz or Denise Najmanovih herself, Matus's thought evidences in itself a
constant concern about measuring and considering the multiple converging components in everything
social problem.

Another point to consider -thinking about school governance- is whether there is alignment between the rationality of
who leads the institution and the rest of the individuals that make it up: teachers, parents,
students... Do they all have the same project? Do they all seek the common good? The gap between is well known.
bureaucratic rationality of the State and its dependencies and the rationality of the lifeworld. We
we ask, then: Is there not a risk that the world of systems will colonize the world of the
vida propio del interior de las organizaciones?

Briefly presented, these last ones are central issues for continuing to think about how to bring closer to the
different actors of an institution -the leaders with the led-, since I am convinced that the
planning as a reflective process, as a tool to mediate between each other, can be
socialized.

Notes

Federico Schuster explains it this way: 'Gadamer works with the text as a model (...) I
I take a text and start to read it, while reading it I project a sense, I project my ideas, my prejudices (judgments
previous), all my prior knowledge, I even try to give the text a meaning. A meaning
coherent from my previous knowledge, but many times the text resists being understood,
it resists being translated into my preconceptions. This generates a tension between the objectivity of the text and the
subjectivity of the interpreter; the only way, says Gadamer, to resolve this tension is to reach a
agreement, that is to say, reaching an agreement that in a sense will adapt the text to my tradition, to my
world of prejudices, etc. But at the same time, it is going to force me to change my prejudices..." (Schuster, 1995:37)

The teleological action is instrumental when we consider it from the perspective of compliance with
technical action rules and we evaluate the degree of effectiveness of the intervention in a physical state (...)
There are interventions aimed at decision-making by choosing between alternative means for
achievement of goals. The benchmarks or justification for such rational choices are the rules
techniques that rest on empirical knowledge." (Habermas:1984:384 and 453).

Habermas believes that the rationalization of the lifeworld implies the progressive differentiation of its
various elements. The world of life is composed of culture, society, and personality
(appreciate the influence of Parson and his action systems). Each of these elements refers to
interpretive guidelines or basic assumptions about culture and its influence on action, to guidelines
appropriate social relationships (society) and the way of being of people (personality) and of
behave. Engage in the communicative action and achieve understanding in each of these
elements leads to the reproduction of the world of life through the reinforcement of culture, the
integration of society and the formation of personality. Although these components are
inextricably linked in archaic societies, the rationalization of the lifeworld implies the
increasing differentiation between culture, society, and personality.

(4) The analysis of the different components of Austin's Speech Act Theory in relation to
Matusian thought was developed by Germán Cantero, Full Professor of the Planning chair.
Educational from the Faculty of Educational Sciences. National University of Entre Ríos, following
some considerations from Uribe Rivera.

Bibliographic references

1. AUSTIN MILLÁN,T.(2000). The 'three levels' of the lifeworld, by Jürgen Habermas.

<[Link] > [7th of September, 2007]
[ Links ]

2. CANTERO, G. (2001). Educating with the excluded: consciousness as praxis - struggle and coexistence. In: Proceedings of
Second National Congress of Educational Research in CD. Panel: The crisis of education - exclusion,
violence and marginality. (no pagination). [ Links ]

3. GANDIN, D.; GANDIN, L. (1999). Themes for a political-pedagogical project. Petrópolis: Vozes.
[ Links ]

4. HABERMAS J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action: Supplements and Preliminary Studies. Madrid:
Chair. [ Links ]

5. HABERMAS J. (1987a). La Acción Comunicativa. Madrid:Taurus. [ Links ]

6. HABERMAS J. (1987b). Theory of Communicative Action II. Critique of Functionalist Reason. Madrid:
Taurus. [ Links ]

7. HALLIDAY, J. (1995). Educación, Gerencialismo y Mercado. Madrid: Morata. [ Links ]

8. HOYOS VÁSQUEZ, G. (1995). Communicative ethics and education for democracy, in: Journal
Ibero-American Education, No. 7:65-92. <[Link] [Link]/oeivirt/[Link]> [January 10]
2007 [ Links ]

9. LIRA, L. (2006). Reappraisal of Planning for Development. CEPAL-Latin American Institute and
del Caribbean of Planning Economic y Social (ILPES). Santiago de Chile.
[Link] [January 20, 2007] [ Links ]

10. MACCHIAROLA, V. (2005). Planning approaches and the rationality of action. (no pagination) In:
<[Link] [January 10, 2005]. [ Links ]

11. MARTÍNEZ, M.J.; OLIVERA LAHORE, C. (1969). El Planeamiento de la institución [Link]: Aguilar.
[ Links ]

12. MATUS, C. (1987). Política, Planificación y Gobierno. Caracas: ALTADIR. [ Links ]

13. MATUS, C.. (2000).Teoría del Juego Social. Caracas: ALTADIR. [ Links ]

14. MENA, M: RODRIGUEZ, l; DIEZ, M. (2005). The design of distance education projects. Buenos
Aires: Edit. Stella and The Crunch. [ Links ]

15. ROFMAN, A. (2006). Evaluation of the information demands necessary for preparation
regional planning directives in the Province of Entre Ríos. Ongoing research in the
National University of Entre Ríos and pending tasks. Internal working document UNER, Concepción
from Uruguay (unpublished). [ Links ]

16. SCHUSTERF.(1995). El oficio de investigador. Rosario: Homo Sapiens. [ Links ]

17. URIBE RIVERA, F.J. (1995). Communicative action and social planning. A critique of the approach.
Strategic. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz Publishing. [ Links ]

18. VON WRIGHT, G. H. (1979): Explicación y Comprensión. Madrid: Alianza. [ Links ]

19. ZOLO, D. (1992). Democracia y Complejidad. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión. [ Links ]