Your passage is strongly aligned with Habermas, particularly his theory of communicative action and its vulnerability to distortion through power asymmetries. Let’s assess it in relation to his key ideas:

1. The ‘Unforced Force’ of a Better Argument & Communicative Rationality

Habermas argues that rational discourse depends on the unforced force of the better argument, where interlocutors engage in deliberation free from coercion. Your claim that when coercion takes over, truth as a communicative ideal collapses is entirely in line with Habermas’s thought. He sees distortions in communication (whether through economic, political, or systemic pressures) as undermining rational-critical debate.

2. Systematic Distortion & Power Relations (Micro, Meso, Macro)

Your reference to micro, meso, and macro levels of power maps well onto Habermas’s distinction between:

• Lifeworld (Lebenswelt) – the shared background of meaning and norms that enable communication.
• System (Systemwelt) – economic and bureaucratic structures that operate via instrumental or strategic rationality rather than communicative rationality.

By suggesting that power at different levels distorts communication, you align with his critique of how systemic forces (macro: economic/legal/bureaucratic systems), institutional imbalances (meso: organizations and political structures), and interpersonal hierarchies (micro: everyday discourse and social norms) erode communicative rationality.

3. The Danger of Strategic Reasoning

Your concern that focusing on one’s own aims distorts reasoning is closely tied to Habermas’s distinction between communicative rationality (aimed at mutual understanding) and strategic rationality (aimed at self-interest or manipulation). He critiques how modern institutions push discourse away from truth-seeking toward negotiation driven by power asymmetries.

4. The Loss of Shared Traditions & Legal Substitution for Deliberation

Your passage suggests that the erosion of shared traditions and conventions has led to legal formalism taking over the role of communicative action. This is highly Habermasian. He warns that, in modern societies, the colonization of the lifeworld by the system (especially law and bureaucracy) replaces genuine public deliberation with procedural or technocratic solutions, leading to a legitimation crisis.

5. The Consequences: Breakdown of Coordination, Identity, and Solidarity

Habermas argues that communicative action is the foundation of social integration. Your claim that distorted communication undermines coordination, solidarity, and identity formation aligns with his belief that:

• Rational discourse is the basis for societal cohesion.
• When discourse is distorted, social integration becomes fragile.

Does Your Passage Align with Habermas?

Yes, it’s very faithful to his thought. The only thing you might want to clarify is whether you see law as a necessary but insufficient substitute for communicative action (which Habermas would agree with) or as an outright failure (which might lean more toward a Foucauldian critique).