Habermas’ communicative rationality theory advocates for the reformulation of the conception of reason from an individualistic perspective to that formulated through an inter-subjective communication process. Accordingly, the role of logic and science in defining knowledge can be replaced by the reasoning of a given people. In this case, knowledge and principles of action are constituted by the community. While the theory has been considered less effective in situations where there are inequalities in reference to gender, race, and culture, the reasoning is a legitimate principle for promoting interactions and effective decision-making within society.

Embracing a communicative rationality approach promises the attainment of mutual understanding among the players. Discussions, debates, and arguments are considered significant in situation where collective reasoning is required in the planning process. Such cases entail a reasoning capacity involving the community (Healey 144). It is not enough to just focus on pure logic and individualistic perspective when dealing with matters of collective concern. Communicative rationality is desired to not just promote cohesion within the group but to offer a suitable agreement on how to manage issues collectively.

The assertions of the communicative rationality have been criticized by some scholars who argued that the theory is not suitable in contemporary societies that are marred by cleavages (Healey 144). However, it is observed that the desire of the people to work together and understand their struggle in the current society justifies the relevance of communicative rationality. Most people put emphasis on economic growth and development with minimal focus on the societal challenges and their influence. Therefore, upholding the principles of communicative rationality is important in contemporary societies.