사회과는 좋은 시민, 현명한 시민, 합리적인 시민의 세 가지 이질적인 시민성을 동시에 추구해왔다. 하지만 이 세 가지 시민성의 배경인 자유주의와 공동체주의 철학이 논리적, 실제적 한계를 지님에 따라 사회과도 이상적인 시민성을 함양하는데 어려움을 겪고 있다. 자유주의는 독립적 자아와 도구적 합리성을 특징으로 한다. 독립적인 자아관은 정당성과 타당성 측면에서 모두 오류를 보이고 있으며 도구적 합리성은 합리성의 역리 현상을 초래했다. 공동체주의는 구성적 자아와 공동선의 내면화를 특징으로 한다. 공동체주의의 핵심개념인 공동선은 구성과정과 평가기준에 대한 규범적 토대를 제시하지 못하는 한계를 지니고 있다. 현재 자유주의와 공동체주의 시민성 이론이 직면한 한계는 이들 이론의 철학적 가정에서 오는 것이기 때문에 이론 내부에서는 해결이 불가능하다. 이에 현재의 학문적 흐름은 두 이론을 서로 대립시키고 어느 한쪽의 우선성을 주장하기보다는 변증법적으로 수용하여 상호보완하려는 경향이 우세하다. 의사소통 합리성은 두 시민성을 변증법적으로 수용할 때, 다음과 같이 두 이론 각자의 한계를 보완하면서 동시에 두 이론의 교류를 규제․감독할 수 있으므로 시민성의 전제가 된다. 첫째, 의사소통 합리성은 상호주관적 영역을 지향함으로써 공동체주의와 자유주의의 자아관을 극복한다. 둘째, 이러한 상호주관적인 자아관은 윤리의 규범적 토대를 마련하여 상대주의적 윤리관을 극복하는 기초가 된다. 셋째, 이상적 담화상황의 이해가능성, 진리성, 규범성, 진실성의 타당성 검증 요구는 공동체주의 시민성의 한계인 공동선의 구성 과정과 자유주의적 관점에서 이뤄지는 합의과정을 성찰할 규범적 토대를 제공한다. 넷째, 의사소통 합리성은 역사적, 다층적 성격의 덕을 통합시켜준다. 다섯째, 의사소통 합리성은 상호주관성 영역을 창출함으로써 진정한 합의를 도출해낼 수 있다. 여섯째, 의사소통 합리성은 두 시민성의 일면적인 합리성을 극복하는 포괄적 합리성이다. 따라서 의사소통 합리성은 두 합리성의 동시사용을 규제하고, 왜곡을 시정하는 역할을 담당한다. 일곱째, 의사소통 합리성은 판단과 참여를 동시에 실현하는 시민성이다. 마지막으로 의사소통 합리성은 왜곡된 권력을 비판적으로 성찰하는 능력을 지니고 있다.

Social Studies Education has three different traditions, pursuing good citizens, informed citizens and rational citizens. However, despite efforts so far, it is hard to state that Social Studies Education has successfully cultivated ideal citizens. The reason that Social Studies Education finds it difficult to cultivate citizenship is that the philosophy itself that makes the background of these three citizenships has its logical and practical limits. Theoretical backgrounds of three citizenships pursued by Social Studies Education are liberalism and communitarianism. Liberalism backgrounds informed citizens and rational citizens. And communitarianism does Good citizens. Liberalism is characteristic of the independent self and instrumental rationality. Individual liberty comes before social values and the society is contractually established based on reciprocity. However, the independent self shows errors in both legitimacy and feasibility, which created ethical confusion as a result. In addition, instrumental rationality created irrationality. On the other hand, communitarianism is characteristic of the constitutive self and internalization of common good. There is a risk of totalitarianism or conservatism as it stands as an antipode of liberalism and the process of constitution of common good is not clear. Also it bears a limit that it does not present a normative foundation to evaluate conflictual common good. In the past, studies that explored significance and contents of citizenship in the perspective of liberalism or communitarianism were the mainstreams. However, the tendency to dialectically accept and complement these two theories is dominant in the current flow of studies. Communicative rationality becomes a premise of citizenship as it complements the two theories and regulates communication between the two when two citizenships are dialectically accepted. First, Communicative rationality overcomes the perspective of the self of communitarianism and liberalism by pursuing mutual subjectivism. The perspective of mutual subjectivism prepares for normative backgrounds of ethics and becomes a foundation to overcome relative ethical point of views. Second, the possibility to understand ideal discourses and request for verification of truthfulness, normativeness, and fidelity provide a normative foundation to contemplate the process of constitution of common good, the limit of communitarian citizenship, and mutual understanding and the process of agreement that takes place in the perspective of liberalism. Third, Communicative rationality is a comprehensive rationality that overcomes one-dimensional rationality of two citizenships. Thus, it plays a role to regulate simultaneous use of two rationalities and to correct distortions. Fourth, Communicative rationality is the citizenship that simultaneously realizes judgment and participation. Fifth, Communicative rationality is capable of critically contemplating distorted powers.

Social Studies Education has three different traditions, pursuing good citizens, informed citizens and rational citizens. However, despite efforts so far, it is hard to state that Social Studies Education has successfully cultivated ideal citizens. The reason that Social Studies Education finds it difficult to cultivate citizenship is that the philosophy itself that makes the background of these three citizenships has its logical and practical limits. Theoretical backgrounds of three citizenships pursued by Social Studies Education are liberalism and communitarianism. Liberalism backgrounds informed citizens and rational citizens. And communitarianism does Good citizens. Liberalism is characteristic of the independent self and instrumental rationality. Individual liberty comes before social values and the society is contractually established based on reciprocity. However, the independent self shows errors in both legitimacy and feasibility, which created ethical confusion as a result. In addition, instrumental rationality created irrationality. On the other hand, communitarianism is characteristic of the constitutive self and internalization of common good. There is a risk of totalitarianism or conservatism as it stands as an antipode of liberalism and the process of constitution of common good is not clear. Also it bears a limit that it does not present a normative foundation to evaluate conflictual common good. In the past, studies that explored significance and contents of citizenship in the perspective of liberalism or communitarianism were the mainstreams. However, the tendency to dialectically accept and complement these two theories is dominant in the current flow of studies. Communicative rationality becomes a premise of citizenship as it complements the two theories and regulates communication between the two when two citizenships are dialectically accepted. First, Communicative rationality overcomes the perspective of the self of communitarianism and liberalism by pursuing mutual subjectivism. The perspective of mutual subjectivism prepares for normative backgrounds of ethics and becomes a foundation to overcome relative ethical point of views. Second, the possibility to understand ideal discourses and request for verification of truthfulness, normativeness, and fidelity provide a normative foundation to contemplate the process of constitution of common good, the limit of communitarian citizenship, and mutual understanding and the process of agreement that takes place in the perspective of liberalism. Third, Communicative rationality is a comprehensive rationality that overcomes one-dimensional rationality of two citizenships. Thus, it plays a role to regulate simultaneous use of two rationalities and to correct distortions. Fourth, Communicative rationality is the citizenship that simultaneously realizes judgment and participation. Fifth, Communicative rationality is capable of critically contemplating distorted powers.

Communicative action, Communicative rationality, liberals, communitarians, citizenship, Social Studies Education