Angus - Habermas confronts the deconstructionist challenge.pdf

8/10/2019 Angus - Habermas confronts the deconstructionist challenge.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/angus-habermas-confronts-the-deconstructionist-challengepdf 1/13

Canadi an J ournal of Pol i t i cal and Soci al Theory/ Revue canadi enne de t heor i e pol i t i queet soci al e, Vol ume 14 Number s 1- 3 1990)

H ERM S CONFRONTS THE

DECONSTRUCTI ON ST CH LLENGE ON THEPH LOSOPH CAL D SCOURSE OF MODERN TY

I an Angus

J ur gen Habermas, ThePhi l osophi cal Dscourse of Moderni ty Tr ansl at edby Fr eder i ckLawrence Cambr i dge, Massachuset t s TheM T Press, 1987,pp 430

Among c r i t i c a lc i r c l e si n North Amer i can uni ver si t i es dur i ng t he1970 s, t he work of t he Frankf ur t School was an es s ent i a lpoi nt of r e f e r -ence But i nt he l a s tdecade, t h i scent ral i t yhas been di spl aced by t he textst h a t ar e l umped t oget her under t he t e r m post moder ni sm The s h i f tfrom he i mmanent cri t i que of t he Frankf ur t School t o t he di scour sesof postmoderni sm s a f undament al change i n t he cont ent and s t y l eof c r i t i c altheory genui nel y radi cal c r i t i c a ltheory must cont i nual l yrenew t he quest i ons What i s c r i t i c a l ?and Of what are we c r i t i c a l ?

I n t h i scont ext , i t i sbot h a rar e and an i mpor t ant event when J ur genHabermas t he most promnent cont empor ar y r epr esent at i ve of t heFrankf ur t School , publ i shes a book c r i t i c a lof t he mai n post moder ni st

t hi nker s

As Habermas cl earl y document s, t he work of Ni et zsche i s t heentry i nto post moder ni t y Consequent l y, hemust r e j e c tt he f or mul at i onsof t he e a r l i e rgener at i on of Frankf ur t c r i t i c s especi al l y Horkhei mer andAdorno i nDi al ect i cof Enl i ghtenment , where t he i nf l uence of Ni et zschei s deci si ve Whereas t hey moved from i mmanent cri t i que of t he con-t radi ct i ons of capi t al i sm t o a t o t a l i z i n gcri t i que of West ern c i v i l i z a t i o n



I ANANGUS

Habermas i s concerned t o recover the l ost possi bi l i t y of moderni ty-aphi l osophy of communi cati ve pr axi s that i ncor por at es speci f i c sci ent i f i c

( i. e

val i di ty- or i ented) cr i t i ques i nt o di scurs i ve ( i. e i nt ersubj ect i vel y- ori -ent ed) ref l exi on and thereby extends the possi bi l i t i es of reduci ng dom-nat i on i n pr acti cal contexts

I n a key passage i n the i nt roduct i on t o Di al ect i c of Enl i ghtenmentHorkhei mer and Adorno expressed t he t r ans i t i on that t hei r work hadundergone Even though w had known f or many years that the greatdi scover i es of appl i ed sci ence ar e pai d f or wt h an i ncr easi ng di mnuti onof t heor et i cal awareness w s t i l lthought that i n regard t o sci ent i f i c ac-t i v i t your cont r i but i on coul d be restr i ct ed to t he c r i t i c i s mor extensi onof speci al i st axi om .

Pr evi ousl y, i n bei ng l i m t ed t o cr i t i ci z i ng orextendi ng speci al i zed knowedges wth regard t o t hei r i mpact on t hewhol e soci o- hi stori cal l i f eworl d, Cri t i cal Theory assumed the f rameworkof t h i s l i f ewor l das gi ven Whi l e speci al i zed knowedges mght f unct i onei t her t o myst i f y or t o enl i ght en, the i ntegri t y of t he wder cat egor i eswthi n whi ch the al t er nat i ve of i deol ogy or enl i ghtenment coul d be f o rmul ated was not i n questi on Thus i n t he f ashi on of Marx one coul dspeak of the i nt er nal cont r adi ct i ons of capi t al i sm or moder ni t y ) andof progr ess, however del ayed or mut ed i n ant i ci pat i ng t hei r over -comng

Thi s t ur ni ng i n Cr i t i cal Theory was moti vated by t he i nsi ght that, notonl y was the expect ed progress not f orthcomng but that w orm ofdomnat i on were i ssui ngfrom exact l y thoseproducti ve f or ces that wereexpect ed to provi de i t smot or I npart i cul ar, they had i nmnd automati onand other advances i n i ndust r i al producti on t he psychol ogy of manage-ment and publ i c rel at i ons, and the mass decepti on pr acti ced by the w

medi a of communi cat i on One mght r epl y, of course, that i t i snosurpr i se that these pr ogr essi ve f or ces are di st or t ed under capi tal i strel at i ons of producti on ut thepoi nt i s that t o speak of di s t or t i on i s t o

assume that t he f orces of producti on are themel ves pr ogr ess i ve, or per-haps neut r al , and that t hei r use f or dest r uct i ve ends i s an extr i ns i cf act or However i n the death camps f or exampl e t r adi t i onal a n t iSemti sm t akes on a new genoci dal pot ent i al pr eci sel y because of i mprovements i n means of t r ansport at i on and or gani zat i on Thus the ob-j ect of c r i t i c a lthought was broadened f rom contemporary cont r adi c-t i ons t o t he process of West ern c i v i l i z a t i onas a whol e wth a speci ali nt er est i n t he contemporary condi t i ons that exacerbate gener i c f orm ofdomnat i on Subj ect i ve reason, whi ch enabl es t he domnati on of nature,asserts i t s e l fthrough subj ugat i ng an al i en Oher . I nt er nal nature i s sub-dued through psychi c r epr essi on and ext er nal nature through sci enceand technol ogy The present epoch i s char act er i zed by revol t s of na-ture z whi ch i nt ens i f y t he t ensi ons i nher ent i n t he ci vi l i zi ngprocess andforce c r i t i c a lthought t o turn f rom cont r adi ct i ons w thi n t he gi ven l i f eworl d t o t he cr i t i que of ci vi l i zat i on, from Marx t o N etzsche



I N N US

( begi nni ng w th t he ol d Hegel ) pr ogr essi vel y retreat f rom hi stor y i n t opur el y concept ual r el ati ons Thus, abermas j udges that we ar e s t i l lcon-

t empor ar i es of t he Young Hegel i ans because our task i s s t i l lto i ntegraterea l hi stor yw th conceptual t o t a l i z a t i o n e at t empt s t o sol ve t he pr ob-l ems of t he phi l osophy of t he subj ect by r ecuper at i ng and devel opi ngsystemati cal l y an i nt er subj ect i ve concept i on of r eason

But t he gr owt h i n r e f l e x i v i t yi n u n i v c r s a l i s mand i n i n d i v i d u -a t i o nunder gone by t he s t r u c t u r a lcore of the l i f ewor l di n t hecourse of i t sd i f f e r e n t i a t i o nnow no l onger f i t st he descr i pt i onofan i n t e n s i f i c a t i o nw thi n the di mensi ons of the s u bj ec t sr e l a t i o n -t o - s e l f nd onl y under t h i s descri pt i on- that i s f r o mt he per-spect i ve of the phi l osophy of t he subj ect- coul d

s o ci et a lr a t i on-a l i z a t i o nthe unf ol di ng of t he r at i onalp ot ent i alof soc i alp ra c -t i c e be r epresent ed as t he s e l f - r e f l e c t i o nof a s o c i et almacr osub-j e c t The theory of communi cat i on can do w t hout t h i sf i gur e oft hought ( p 345)

I t i sfrom t h i s per spect i ve, devel oped i n more det ai l i not her wor ks ,that abermas unl oads hi s pol em c agai nst t he post modemsts e doc-ument s t hei r per f or mat i ve cont r adi cti ons, de- di f f er enti ati on of s o ci alspher es and exper i ences, and el evati on of wor l d- di scl osi ngl anguage i nor der t o ar gue that c r i t i c a lt hought goes astray when i t i s total i zed Si ncecri t i que cannot gener at e nor mat i ve and r ati onal c r i t e r i afrom t s e l fal one,i t must proceed i mmanent l y, agai nst t he backgr ound of a l i f eworl d t ha ti t must concept ual i ze but cannot mast er c r i t i c a l l y

Stemmng from Ni et zsche, abermas di scer ns two br anches of post-moder n phi l osophy One based on t he Ni et schean cri t i que of met a-physi cs, comes t hr ough Hei degger t o Der r i da The second, begi nni ngf rom Ni et zsche s geneal ogy of power and d e s i r e comes t hr ough B a t a i l l et o Foucaul t t i s cl ear that abermas has a l ot more sympathy w t h t hel a t t e r Whi l ehe consi der s i t s cr i t i que of moder ni t y one- si ded- f ai l i ngt o

consi der t he rea l gai ns i n enl i ght enment al ongsi de i t s di sci pl i nary as -pects- i t has never t hel ess produced i mpor t ant empi r i cal anal yses ofmoder n power The probl em s sol el y w t h i t s sel f - under st andi ng I n apenet r at i ng account of t he devel opment of Foucaul t s wor k, he ar guesthat t he l a t e rt heor y of power enf ol ds a dual i ty conceal ed by i t s genesi s

on t he one hand, i t i s an empi r i cal anal ysi s of power f or mat i ons, on t heother, i t i sa conceal ed theory of const i t ut i on, a t r ancendent al anal ysi s oft he condi t i ons under whi ch empi r i cal power f or mat i ons or i gi nate,devel op, anddecay Onl y because of t h i sconceal ed dual i ty do Foucaul t shi stor i cal anal yses take on t h e i rembl emat i c character as cr i ti ques ofmoder ni t y- because these condi t i ons ar e not speci f i c t o psychi at r y,cr i m nol ogy or sexual i t y but const i tut i ve of t he epoch of moder ni t yi t s e l f

L a t e r abermas returns t o t he doubl es that Foucaul t di agnosed i nThe r cheol ogy of Knowedge as produced by t he human sci ences i n t hecont r adi ct or y at t empt at sel f - know edge charact er i sti c of moder ni t y

4



H BERM S

t r anscendent al / empi r i cal , consci ous/ unconsci ous, and creat i ve act or/al i enat ed from or ig in He ar gues that these unr esol vabl e doubl es be-tween whi ch theory o s c i l l a t e sar e produced by t he exhaust i on of t hephi l osophyof t he subj ect and di sappear when communi cat i ve pr axi s i st aken as t he s t a r t i n gpoi nt Whereas empi r i cal and t r anscendent al can-not be cannot be medi at ed, a par t i ci pant can subsequent l y r e f l e c tonhi s acti on from t he per spect i ve of t he ot her S i m l a r l y ,t he consci ous/unconsci ous opposi t i on whi ch l eads t o t he concept of t he her oi cmodern subj ect r ender i ng t he opaci t y of t he i n - i t s e l fi nto a f u l l ycon-sci ous f ori t s e l f can be r ef or mul at ed as t he rel at i onshi p between t hehor i zon of an i n t u i t i v e l ygi ven, unpr obl emat i c backgr ound of t he l i f

worl d and t he r epr oduct i on of t he l i f ewor l dthrough communi cat i ve i n-t er act i on C r i t i c a lref l ect i onon o b j e c t i v i s t i ci l l u s i o n s ,or r e i f i c a t i o n s ,i sdi r ected toward t he r epr oduct i on of t he l i f ewor l dthrough communi cat i v epr act i ce Thus, i n a cer t ai n sense t he i nt ersubj ecti ve communi ty i sr esponsi bl e f or t hese i l l u s i o n s ,even t hough they have not ( necessar i l y)been del i ber at el y engender ed Such ref l ect i on i s di r ected t owar d si ngl ei l l u s i o n s i t cannot make transparent t he t o t a l i t yof a course of l i f i nt heprocess of i ndi vi duat i onor of a col l ect i veway of l i f e ( p 300) Thus, i tcan nei t her recapture a pur e ori gi nnor be absol ut el y al i enat ed from t

The ot her br anch of postmoderni sm ar es l es swel l Not hi ng posi t i vei s s a i dabout ei t her Hei degger or Der r i da I n di scussi ng t he t ur ni ng i nHei degger s work a f t e rBei ng and Ti me, Habermas ar gues that he recre-a t e s t he pr obl ems of t he phi l osophyof t he subj ect r at her than overcomi ngt hem Whi l e i na f i r s tstep Hei degger overturns t he p r i o r i t yof pr opo-s i t i onal t r u t h,never t hel ess, i n a second, he vi ewswor l d- di scl osur eas anevent pr i or t o t he i nt ersubj ecti ve under st andi ng of meani ng Habermasasserts t he contrary [T]he hor i zon of t he under st andi ng of meani ng i snot pr i or t o, but subor di nat e t o, t he quest i on of truth ( p 154) Thus,Hei degger returns t o a t empor al i zedphi l osophyof ori gi ns i nwhi ch t hedi scl osi veevent r ei gns over al l subsequent occurrences, and i s therebyr ai sed aboveany c r i t i c a li nvesti gat i on Der r i da accept s Hei degger s c r i -t i que of met aphysi cs but r e j e c t st he myt hol ogyof ori gi ns and turns t owr i t i ngas t he wor l d- di scl osi ngevent wi t hout ei t her subj ect or orig in He r enews t he myst i cal concept of t r adi t i on as an ever del ayed event ofr evel at i on ( p 183) Whi l e Habermas acknowl edges t he a f f i n i t yof t h i st hought , whi ch returns to t he h i s t o r i c a ll ocal e where myst i ci smturnsi nto enl i ght enment ( p 184) , to t h a t of Schol em dorno and Benj am n,he deni es i t any enl i ght eni ngrol e dorno acknow edged t he par adoxes

of t o t a l i z i n gcri t i que and devi sed a str at egy of i ndi r ect communi cat i onf rom he per f or mat i ve cont r adi cti on i t ent ai l ed H s negat i ve di al ect i csdrew from he aest het i c avant - gar de f or an access t o t he obj ect that wasundi st or t ed by subj ecti ve reason I nt h i srespect, Der r i daand dorno areon t he same ground- they ar e concer ned t o dec i pher t he nor mal casefrom t he poi nt of vi ew of t he ext r emes However whereas dorno u t i -l i z e dt he per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on i n or der t o l i b e r a t et he ut opi an

25



I ANANGUS

t hemat i c wi t hi n phi l osophy, Der r i daw nts t o cl ear away t he met aphysi -c al di f f erenti ati on into genres

Habermas i d e n t i f i e sthree pr oposi t i ons on whi ch Der r i da s rhetor i calc r i t i c i sm s b u i l t 1) Literarycr i t ic ism s not sc i ent i f i c ,but as rhetor i calas l i t e r a t u r e 2) Phi l osophi cal texts are accessi bl e i nt hei r f undament alcont ent by l i t e r a r ycr i t i c i sm 3) Rhet or i cal c r i t i c i smappl i es t o t he whol econt ext of t e x t s ,i nwhi ch genr e di sti nct i ons are di ssol ved I t a l s of ol l ows,from he concept of general l i t e r a t u r e i mpl i ed here, t hat l i t e r a r ytextsar e accessi bl e t o t he cri t i que of met aphysi cs I n short, Der r i da s de-const r ucti oni st st andpoi nt i s based upon r eversal of t he subor di nat i onof rhetor i c to phi l osophy t hat el abor at es new r het or i c i n whi ch both

t he cri ti que of met aphysi cs t h a t def i nes phi l osophy ) and wor l d- di s-cl osi ng l anguage t h a t def i nes l i t e r at ur e )mer ge into a concept ofwr i t i ngt hat i mpl i es del ay of meani ng, absence of cl osure, nd p r o l i f e r a -t i on of di scur si ve i nt er vent i ons

There are two mai n poi nt s i n Haber mas s r ej oi nder t o Der r i da Takentogether, t hey at t empt t o sust ai n t he subor di nat i on of t he wor l d- hor i zont o t he probl em of truth F i r s t ,he argues t hat nor mal nd l i m t uses ofl anguage we coul d al so say l i t er al and met aphor i cal l anguage, or ser i ous and pl ayf ul use) cannot be l evel l ed nd treated i n t he samemanner as t he deconst r uct i oni st s suggest They argue, or of t en si mpl yassume, t hat because ny st at ement c n be quot ed ( r econt ext ual i zed) ,and si nce meani ng changes wi t h cont ext ( and there s n i nexhaust i bl ep l u r a l i t yof cont ext s) , t hat ny text s open t o an uncont r ol l abl e mul t i -p l i c i t yof i nt er pr et at i ons Thus, i t seems t hat ny nor mal usage dependssi mpl yupon t empor ar y s t a b i l i z a t i o nof l i m tusages nd t hat one can notbegi n f rom n i n pr i nci pl e separ at i on between nor mal i t y nd ab-nor mal i t y Habermas r esponds t h a t nor mal usage occurs r e l a t i v et o t he shar ed backgr ound know edge t ha t i s consti t ut i ve of t he l i f eworl dof l i n g u i s t i ccommuni ty ( p 197) Thus, when b ckground know edge

does become pr obl emat i c, t he s oc i alactors engage i n di scussi on whi chappeal s t o i deal i zi ng supposi t i ons or i ent ed t o r epai r i ng i nt er subj ect i ve greement Consequent l y, t he p l u r a l i t yof i nt er pr et at i ons of text i snotsi mpl y open t i sconst r ai ned by t h i sor i ent at i on tow rd i de alconsensus

From hi s i dealconsensus, di sti ncti on between nor mal nd l i m tcasesc nbe sust ai ned nd t he prol i f erati on of meani ng s hel d wi t hi n deter-m nabl e bounds Habermas s t a t e s t t h i sway,

t snot ha bi t ua ll i n g u i s t i cp r a c t i c etha t determnes j us t whatmeani ng s at t r i but ed t oa t ex tor an utterance Rather,l anguagegames onl y work because t hey presuppose i d e a l i z a t i o n stha tt r anscend any p a r t i c u l a rl anguage g me as a necessary condi -t i o nof pos s i bl yr eachi ng under st andi ng, these i deal i z at i onsgi v er i s et o t he per spect i ve of an agr eement tha t sopen t o c r i t i c i s mon t he bas i sof v a l i d i t ycl ai ms ( p 199)

Thus, communi cat i ve act i on cont ai ns a uni ver sal moment t houghout apl ural i ty of cont ext s

6



H ERM S

Communi cati ve act i ondraws upon t he resources of t he l i f ewor l dt o r e-produce t he component s of cul t ur e, soci et yand per son I nsof ar as these

processes of r epr oduct i on are l e s sand l e s sguar ant eed by t r a d i t i o n ,t heyt end t owar d l egi t i mat i ont hr ough consensus between those i nvol ved i nt he communi cat i ve processes t hemsel ves Habermas adm t s t hat t h i si san i deal i zedpr oj ect i on, but ar gues t h a t i t i swel l - f ounded Rat i onal i zat i onof t he l i f ewor l di mpl i es bot h di f f erent i at i onof spher es and a t hi cken-i ng of t he r e l a t i o n sbetween di f f erent i at ed spher es and t he l i f ewor l dasa whol e The cont i nui t yof meani ng i s r e- est abl i shed t hroughout d i f f e r -ent i at i on by cr i t i que Abst r act procedures of di scursi ve wi l lf or mat i onoperat e, not i n t he i sol at ed spheres, but i n t h e i rrel at i on t o t he whol e

l i f ewor l d Thus abs t r ac t , uni ver s al i s t i cprocedures f or di scursi ve wi l lf or mat i oneven st r engt hen s o l i d a r i t yi n l i f econtexts t h a t ar e no l ongerl egi t i mat edby t radi t i on ( p 347) I nshort, f or mal and abstr act di scursi veprocedures f unct i on i n concrete contexts t o ext end uncoerced consen-sus among par t i ci pant s Accor di ngt o Haber mas , f undament al soci alconf l i cts occur nei t her wi t hi n s p e c i f i cdi f f erent i at ed syst ems nor i n anundi f f er ent i at ed l i f eworl d, but i n t he boundar i es between t he t woWhi l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ,and t he consequent s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a lcl osur e of sys -t ems, rul es out di rect i nt er vent i on i n f unct i onal syst ems ( such as eco-nomcs and pol i t i cs ,there i san i ncr eased capaci t yf or rest ri ct ed cr i t i queof syst ems i n t hei r rel at i on t o t he l i f eworl d

Haber mas s at t empt ed r enewal of modern phi l osophy t hr ough i n t e r -subj ect i vel y- or i ent edcr i t i que confers a cent ral si gni f i canceon t he con-cept of t he l i f eworl d t hat he adopt s f r o mphenomenol ogy Howevert h i sconcept i sused i nt wo di f f er ent ways On one hand i t i sunder st ood,consi st ent wi t h i t s use i n t he phenomenol ogi cal t r a d i t i o n ,as t hei mpl i c i t ,t he pr epr edi cat i ve, t he not focal l ypr esent backgr ound ( p

300) On t he other, i n cont i nui t yw th t he Weberi an concerns of C r i t i c a lTheor y, he speaks of t he di f f e r e nt i at e d( p 345) and rat i onal i zed

l i f eworl d ( p 346) 6 But t he l i f ewor l d i n t he f i r s t sense, as i mpl i c i t ,cannot be rat i onal i zed I ndeed, t he l i f ewor l dcanbe popul at ed, t o ani ncreasi ngextent, by rat i onal i zedsyst ems, but t hey e x i s t wi t hi n t he un-t hemat i c backgr ound of t he l i f ewor l d Thi s i snot a mere t erm nol ogi cals l i p

Habermas subst i t ut ed a phenomenol ogi cal concept of t o t a l i t yf or aHegel i anone because t he l a t t e ri s i mpl i cat edi n t he i l l u s o r yt hemat i zat i onof t he t o t a l i t yof al l condi t i onedspher es charact eri sti c of t he phi l osophyof t he subj ect But t o t a l i t y ,when underst ood as t he hor i zonof ever ydayi nvol vement s, can never be t hemat i zed as such and, therefore, canneveri t s e l fbe rat i onal i zed I t i st he hor i zonof t he p l u r a l i t y(not t ot al i t y ofrat i onal i zed syst ems But , i n t h i s c a s e , i t i s m sl eadi ng t o speak of r e -s t r i c t e dcr i t i que as medi at i ngdi f f erent i at ed syst ems and l i f ewor l dsi nceonl yt wo t hemat i zed el ement s can be medi at ed Ei t her cr i t i que si mpl ydi ssol ves a system c bl i ndspot i n t o i t sbackgr oundor i t i sdi r ect ed towardt he t o t a l i t yas hor i zon I nt he f i r s tcase, i t i s a part i cul ar i nt er vent i on that

7



I AN N US

i l l u s t r a t e st he f a i l u r eof a gi ven at t empt at systemc cl osur e but cannott hemat i ze t he si gni f i cance of t h i sf or t he form of l i as a whol e I n t he

second case, cri t ique i s di r ected t owar d t he hor i zonal t o t a l i t ybut needspr eci sel y t he t ool s of t o t a l i z i n gcri t ique t h a t Habermas has r ul ed out ofor der By sl i ppi ng back i n t o a Hegel i an concept i on of t ot al i t y ast heaggr egat e of r el at i ons of t hemat i zed sys t ems i n t h i s way Habermasobscur es t he f undament al r edi r ecti on of C r i t i c a lTheory that a phe-nomenol ogi cal concept i on of t o t a l i t yr equi r es

Thi s conf usi on of two senses of t he l i f ewor l dunder m nes t he not i on ofuni ver sal i t y i n Haber mas s f i r s tpoi nt i n r esponse t o Der r i da He ar guedt hat a di sti ncti on between nor mal and l i m tcases can be sust ai ned be-

cause l anguage games pr esuppose i deal i zat i ons t hat transcend any p a r-t i cul ar l anguage game (quoted above) But what i s t he char act er of t h i st r anscendence? Ei t her i t i sw t hi n a met a- l anguage game, of whi ch t hepar amount case i s Hegel s uni f i cati on of di f f er ent i at ed spher es, or i t i sr el at ed t o t he pl ural i tyof syst ems bel ongi ng t oget her w t hi n a commonhor i zon I n t he l a t t e rcase, t he hor i zon i t s e l fcannot pr ovi de a uni ver sal -i t ythat woul d f uncti on as r egul at i ve w t hi n a speci f i c l anguage gameI ndeed, we must under st and t he t hemat i zat i ons t h a tgi ve r i s et o r a t i o n a l -i zed sys t ems as i mpl i cat i ng t he l i f eworl das a whol e, but must det er m net he manner of t h i si mpl i cat i on mor e pr eci sel y The pl ural i ty of sys t emsexi s t w thi n an unt hemat i zed t o t a l i t y Thi s hor i zon def i nes t he pl ural -i t yof sys t ems as bel ongi ng t oget her i n pr i nci pl e, that i s t o s a y as notext er nal t o one anot her But t he actual r el at i ons between syst ems- andi t i sthese r el at i ons t hat char acter i ze t he l i f eworl d as a whol e are apr oduct of soci al pr acti ce That i s t o s a y t he i npr i nci pl e r el at i ons ofsys t ems are i ndef i ni tel y pl ur al t h e i ractual r el at i ons are est abl i shed bysoci al pr acti ces speci f i c t o t he gi ven s t a t eof a soci o- hi stor i cal l i f eworl d

However t he r el at i on between t he p l u r a l i t yof syst em whi ch i s est ab-l i shed by t he soci al pr act i ces of tr ansl at i on between syst ems- i s not

wel l char act er i zed as a t r anscendence, but i s rather an emer gent uni -versal i ty produced by t he i nt er acti on between par t i cul ar l anguagegames Thus, Haber mas s r estr i ct ed c r i t i c i s mcannot appeal t o c r i t e r i aoft ru th that transcend a di scour se t he concept of t ru th emerges f romt r ansl at i on and, cont r ar y t o Haber mas , occur s w thi n t he wor l d- hor i zon

The second poi nt i n Haber mas s r ej oi nder t o Der r i da per t ai ns t o t hespeci f i c char acter i sti cs of l i t e r a r ydi scour se Whi l e narr ati ves i n ever ydayl i f e and i n l i t e r a r yworks have a s imlar structure, t he l i t e r a r yworkconf er s an exempl ar y el abor at i on t h a t t akes t he case out of i t s cont extand makes i t t he occasi on f or an i nnovat i ve, wor l d- di scl osi ve, and eye-openi ng r epr esent at i on i n whi ch t he r het or i cal means of r epr esent at i ondepar t f romcommuni cati ve r out i nes and take on a l i f eof t hei r own (p

203) Mor e general l y, i n speci al i zed l anguages t he r het or i cal el ement s ofl anguage ar e enl i sted f or t he pur poses of pr obl em sol vi ng( p 209) Thus,Der r i da obscur es t he char acter i sti cs of ever yday, i nt r amundane l i n g u i s -t i cpr acti ce and conf uses i t w t h a r t i s t i cwor l d- di scl osi ve l anguage by i g-

2



H BERM S

nor i ng t he process of t he di f f erent i at i onof ar t from everyday pr act i cethat has al l owed t he aut onom zat i on of t he wor l d- di scl osi ngf unct i on

Habermas concl udes t h a t corr el at i ve t o t he i ncreasi ng aut onomy of ar tl i t e r a r yc r i t i c i s mhas taken on t he task of medi at i ng between ar t and t heeveryday worl d S i m l a r l yphi l osophy di rect s i t s e l ft o t he f oundat i on oft he var i ous aut onomous spher es- such as sci ence, mor al i t y and l aw andconnect s t hem o t he t o t a l i t yof t he l i f eworl d Bot h l i t e r a r yc r i t i c i s mandphi l osophy u t i l i z erhet or i cal l anguage, but they begi n from d i f f e r e n -t i ated spheres and therefore subor di nat e r het or i c t o a d i s t i n c tf o r mofar gument at i on ( p 210)

As has been poi nt ed out above, t he l i f eworl dconsi sts of a p l u r a l i t yof

l anguage games, or di scour ses some of whi ch ar e s u f f i c i e n t l ydi f f eren-t i ated t o be cal l ed syst ems ) , bel ongi ng t oget her w t h i n a common h o r i -zon and i n a cont i nuous process of t ransl at i on such t h a t t he uni versalmoment does not hover above t hem but emerges f rom hei ri nt eract i on

Consequent l y, t he di sct i nct i on between nor mal and l i m tusage can bemade but i t i s r e l a t i v et o a gi ven di scour se, not t o t he t o t a l i t yof t hel i f eworl das Habermas suggest s Di f f erent i at i onof rat i onal i zed syst emsi mpl i es that i nt er vent i on i n these syst ems must st ruggl e w t h nor mal us -age and r ul es est abl i shed w t h i n t he syst em I n t h i ssense, Habermas i scorrect t o say that such i nt er vent i on

cannot be di r e ct ( p

365)

But t hesi t uat i on i s di f f erent w t h respect t o genres of c r i t i c i smwhi ch at t empt t o medi at e syst ems and l i f eworl d Si nce t he l i f eworl d i s onl y accessi bl et hr ough t he p l u r a l i t yof di scour ses, t h i sso- cal l edmedi at i on i s act ual l y aprocess of t ransl at i on t hat const i t ut es t he speci f i c character of a gi venl i f eworl d As such, t hese genr es, especi al l y rhet ori c and phi l osophy,ar e not r e a l l ygenres at l l but s t r a t e gi esoccur r i ng at t he poi nt of t r a ns l a-t i on that ai m o rescue wor l d- di scl osur e f r o mi t s f or get t i ng w t h i n t hesedi ment ed pr act i ces of est abl i shed di scour ses- t hough there ar e i mpor t ant di f f er ences between s t r a t e g i e s

At t h i s poi nt we can d i f f e r e n t i a t eAdor no s s t y l e from Der r i da s

dorno u t i l i z e sgenr e di sti nct i ons i n order t o oper at e w t h i n phi l osophy( and a l s ow t h i n l i t e r a r yc r i t i c i s mmusi c c r i t i c i smand soci ol ogy) eventhough t he mot i ve f or negat i ve d i a l e c t i c sseems t o come from avant -garde ar t al one The mot i ve i s compar abl e i n Der r i dabut i s u t i l i z e dt oundercut genr e di st i nct i ons and reveal t hem as rhet or i cal pl oys To begi nfrom di sti nct i ons i n order t o l eadout of them toward t he l i f eworl d i s di f -f er ent f rom nt er vent i on i n t he p l u r a l i t yof di scour ses consti t ut i ng t hel i f eworl ddesi gned t o under cut t he val i di t y- cl ai msof a gi ven di scour se

Habermas does not f or mul at e t h i s di f f er ence pr eci sel y and hi s l ect ur ef or mat al l ows hi m t o avoi d a syst emat i c compar i son of dorno andDer r i da Ador no s procedure r esembl es i deol ogy cri t i que even though i tcanno l onger r e l yon t he l i f eworl dcont ext that woul d t i especi f i c c r i -t i ques to gener al enl i ght enment Der r i da s i nt ervent i ons, however , t i et he condi t i ons f or a speci f i c di scour se t o t he wor l d- hor i zonw t h i nwhi chthey emerge Whi l e dorno can onl y destroy total i zi ng cl ai ms whi l e r e-

29



I N N US

j ect i ng any t heor i zat i on of t he whol e as a Hegel i an total i tar i ani smDerr i da s deconstructi on of speci f i c t ot al i zat i ons poi nt s toward t he

worl d- hori zon by engagi ng i n al l t he t ransl at i ons ( especi al l y the i mpos-si bl e ones) t hat di scl ose the f ormati on of t he hi stori cal epoch

I n hi s l a s t l ecture, Haber mas summar i zes hi s three mai n obj ect i ons t ot he post moderni st wr i t er s One, they cannot account f or t hei r own posi -t i on, and ar e di scour ses wthout a pl ace ( p 337) Two, they ar e gui dedby normati ve i nt ui t i ons whi ch rej ect subj ect i vi t yundi al ect i cal l y Three,there i s no syst emat i c pl aceenvi saged f or everyday prac t i ce As we havesuggest ed above, Haber mas i s r i ght t o mai ntai n a uni ver sal component -and t hus a nor mal / l i m t di st i nct i on- i n the face of the pl ur al i t y of con-

texts champi oned by post moderni st s, but he l ocat es i twrongl y, i n c l a s s i -cal f ashi on, as a met a- di scour se rather than i n t he act i vi ty of t ransl at i onbet ween contexts He osci l l ates bet ween a Hegel i an and a Husser l i anconcept of total i ty and thereby at t empt s t o mai ntai n a di f f erent i at i on ofgenres that rej ect s t he cont i nuous t ransl at i on bet ween di scour ses con-st i tut i ve of t he new r het or i c of t he post modern condi t i on Nor maldi scour se occurs w thi n di f f erent i at ed genres, but t hese ar e const i t ut edi n r ef er ence t o t hei r l i m t s i n t he worl d- hori zon

Or i ent at i on tothe hori zon of t he l i f ewor l ddoes not ent ai l a rej ect i onof the i mportance of the everyday as Haber mas cl ai ms, but rather a recog-ni t i on t hat the everydayness of t he everyday i s const i t ut ed wth refer-ence t o i t s l i m t s Thus, the theory and pr ac t i ce of tot al i zed cr i t i que i snecessary t o uncover the hori zon t hat ci r cumscr i bes the soci o- hi stor i call i f ewor l d Whi l e t he procedure of t ot al i zi ng cr i t i que cannot be l e g i t i -mat ed wth r ef er ence t o c r i t e r i a sol el y w thi n t he gi ven l i f ewor l d i t s e l f ,thi s does not i mpl y, as Haber mas i n s i s t s ,t hat i t thereby becomes si mpl yarbi t rary I n t he phenomenol ogi cal t r adi t i on such r ef l ect i on i s l egi t i -mat ed by the t r anscendent al r educt i on, whi ch al l ows the syst emat i cexpl i cat i on of t he hor i zons w thi n whi ch exper i ent i al contents aregi ven Haber mas rej ects t he t r anscendent al i sm of phenomenol ogy out ofhand ( p 297, 358) , and here he i s at one wth the domnant t rend ofpostmoderni sm Ni et zsche, as i s cl ear f rom the f i f t hbook of The GaySci ence, was wel l aware of hi s own ref l exi ve paradox-that he mustu t i l i z e the concept of t r u t h i n or der t o c r i t i c i z e i t t hat he i s s t i l lpi ous

Fol l owng thi s, and agai nst Habermas s est i mat i on p 121) , Horkhei merand Adorno i n Di al ect i c of Enl i ghtenment , were commt ted t o a reasont hat i s s t i l lnot yet r at i onal enough Thei r text i s i ntended t o prepare theway f or a pos i t i ve noti on of enl i ghtenment whi ch w l l r el ease i t f rom

entangl ement i n bl i nddomnat i on Beyond the t radi t i on, yet awar e t hati t i st he t r adi t i on t hat has opened thi s beyond, postmodern c r i t i c i s moperates i n a par adoxi cal moment , but thi s i s not necessar i l y a p e r -f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on Whi ch i s perhaps why the popul ari zed ver-si ons of postmoderni sm at tempt t o si mpl y abandon the probl emati c ofsel f - j ust i f i cat i on and grounds . Never t hel ess, Haber mas gi ves both the



H ERM S

t r anscendent al and t he par adoxi cal r e f l e c t i v es el f j us t i f i cat i onsshorts h r i f tand, at t hi spoi nt , f a i l st o encount er hi s obj ect of c r i t i c i s m

Habermas di scover s i n bot h br anches of post modern t o t a l i z i n gc r it i que a per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on such t hat t hey cannot account f ort hei r own st andpoi nt due t o a f a l s eequat i on of t ruth and power Fromt h i sf ol l owsa one- si ded char acteri zat i on of moder ni t y as onl y a cl osedmet aphysi cs and/ or di sci pl i nary appar at us He r em nds us t hat moder -n i ty has a l s omade si gni f i cant i nr oads i n r ecogni zi ng i ndi vi dual r i g h t sreduci ng- scarci ty, l i m t i nga r b i t r a r ypower , and so fo r th Out of t h i smorenuanced eval uat i on, Habermas ar gues t h a t t he pr oj ect of moderni tywhi ch means di f f erent i at i onof autonomous spher es and t he t ransl at i on

of speci al i zed knowl edges i n t ot he l i f ewor l d- canbe r escued and ex-t ended To put i t more concret el y, soci al i smi s a radi cal i zat i onof l i b e r a li sm and forgets t h i sf a c t onl y at t he pri ce of a danger ous f l i r t a t i o nwi t hu n j u s t i f i a b l epowers Thus, our task i s t he connect i on of empi r i cal h i story wi t h concept ual c r i t i q u e and we are t he cont empor ar i es of t heYoung Hegel i ans

There ar e i ndeed two f or ms of c r i t i q u e but Haber mas s ar gument doesnot j u s t i f yan abandonment of t o t a l i z i n gcri t i que However i t does standas a t hor ough def ence of t he s t i l lr el evant resources of rest ri ct ed cri t i que

wi t hi n t he nor mal i t yset t l ed by t he h i s t o r i c a lepoch

ar el e f t

wi t h t hetask of t hi nki ng t he rel at i on bet ween what we may c a l l s o ci a l andepochal c r i t i c i s mThe ori ent at i on t o communi cat i vei nt eracti on s u f f i c e st o r eveal f or ms of dom nat i on embedded i n pr act i ces wi t hi n i ndust r i alsoci et y I t i sbased on t he di s t i nct i on bet ween l abour ( nat ur e- di r ected)and i nt ersubj ect i vi t y ( consensus- or i ent ed) f undament al t o Haber mas srevi si on of C r i t i c a lTheor y, whi ch i s a r ewor ki ng of t he Kant i and i s t i n ct ion bet ween nat ur e and hi stor y t h a t i schar act eri sti c of modern t hought

I n t h i sf or m, c r i t i c a ltheory r egai ns i t s capaci t y of det er m nat e negat i onof speci f i c soci al i nj ust i ces by r et r eat i ng from t he uni versal i zat i on ofcri t i que toward t he hor i zons of h i s t o r i c a lepochs I t canonce agai nspeakof cont r adi cti ons, but at t he pri ce of ceasi ng t o speak of a whol e formof l i f e But , t o t he ext ent t hat new oci al movements c a l l in to quest i ont he v i a b i l i t yof i ndustr i al soci et y, t h i sdi st i nct i onmust i t s e l fbe c r i t i c i z e d

Epochal c r i t i c i s mseeks i n embodi ed pr axi s bot h t he or ig inof t he separa-t ion of i nt eract i ve capaci t i es f r o m natur e and gl i mpses of other possi -b i l i t i e s I nt h i ssense, pr evi ousl y s i l e n t natur e i sbr ought i n t odi scour seand di scour se r ecogni zes i t s own mat eri al i t y Thi s new het or i c i s char-a c t e r i s t i cof t he post modern condi t i on, whi ch i s a t ur ni ng poi nt not onl y

wi t h respect t o modern capi t al i smbut a l s oWestern c i v i l i z a t i o ni t s e l f

Atsuch a t ur ni ng, we cannot si mpl yel i m nate t he doubl es producedby t hehuman sci ences, as bot h Foucaul t and Habermas at t empt Rather , wemust t hi nkt hr ough t he i nt ensi f i cati onof t he doubl i ng t h a t t he two f or msof cri t i que br i ng f or war d are i n a moment i n whi ch t he t ur ni ngbet ween epochs al l ows t he i nst i tut i onof epochs t o become v i s i b l e Forbetter or wor se, we are cont empor ar i es of Ni et zsche, not of t he Young

3



I ANANGUS

Hegel i ans Our task i snot t o connect reason and hi s t or y,but t o comprehend t he hor i zon w t hi n whi ch reason and hi st ory ar e al ways al r eady

connect ed Thi s task must necessar i l y be a di scour se wi t hout a pl ace The m xi ng of modes can onl y be j u s t i f i e dby t he l i ghti t sheds on t hef i xi ng of pl aces by t he epochal hor i zon

Depar tment of Communi cat i onUni ver si t yof Massachuset t s at Amherst

Notes

1 Max Hor khei mer andTheodor Ador no, Di al ect i cof Enl i ght enment Trans J ohn Gum

mng w York Her der and Herder , 1972, p xi

The di f f er ences among t hose of t he f a s tgener at i on of t he Frankf ur tSchool i neval uat i ngt he pr ogr essi ve and r egressi ve aspect s of t hese r e v o l t sof natur e have been document edi n P a t r i c i aJ agent ow cz Mi l l s ,Woman Nat ur e and Psyche w Haven and LondonYal eUni versi t yP r e s s ,1987, pp 147- 77

3 Si nceHaber mas onl y di scusses Husser l d i r e c t l yi n t he cont ext of t he devel opment ofDer r i da s wor k, he does not seem awar e t h a t , i nr et ur ni ng t o Foucaul t s TkeAr cheol ogyof Know edge for t he el aborat i on of hi sown t heory, he return t o t he poi nt r eached byHusser l i n The C r i s i sof t he European Sci ences and Transcendent al Phenomenol ogyFoucaul t s e a r l ywork does not phi l osophi cal l y advance Husserl s probl emat i c, but

si mpl y ext ends t i n t ot he domai n of t he human sci ences

4

Haber mas argues t h a tt he t ur ni ng i nHei degger s t hought t o t he event ofappr opr i at i oni s i nexpl i cabl e as an i nt e r n aldevel opment f romBei ng and Ti me and der i ves f romt heexper i ence of adher ence t o, and t hen di sappoi nt ment w t h, Nat i onal Soci al i sm Wthout mni mzi ng t hi s hi s t or i calexper i ence as an i nf l uence i n Hei degger s t hought , t hep r i o r i t yof event i sal r eady present i nt he ear l i erwork and t he exper i ence of f asci smas wor l d- hi st or i cal i s shared a l s oby t he f i r s tgener at i on of t he Frankf ur t School Thep r i o r i t yof t he event i nt he exper i ence of t ruth i nt hese gener al term) i sc har a ct e r i s t i cof phenomenol ogy as such Haber mas seems, at t h i spoi nt , t obe caught at t he l evel ofant i - Hei degger pol em c of t he f i r s tgener at i on of C r i t i c a lTheor y

5 Thus, Haber mas s e t s asi de t he c r i t i queof f or mal i smtha t charact er i zes bot h t he f i r s tgener at i on of Cr i t i c alTheor i st s and phenomenol ogy Thi s conver gence on i nst r umen-t al reason i skey f or t he i nt egrati on of t hese two t r a di t i ons See I anH Angus, Techni queand Enl i ght enment : L i m t s of l nst r ument al Reason Washi ngt on Cent r e f orAdvancedResear ch i nPhenomenol ogy and Uni versi t y Press of Amer i ca, 1984

6

I n a ddi t i on,he suggest s t hat c r i t i queof t r a di t i on,i n ori ent i ng t oward s o ci a lreproduc-t i o nt hr ough consensus, yi el ds t he abst r act i on of uni ver sal l i f eworl dstructures f romt he pa r t i c ul a rconf i gur at i ons of t o t a l i t i e sof f or ms of l i f et h a t a r i s eonl yas p l u r a l ( p 344)

Thi s may be const r ued as a cont r i but i on t o phenomenol ogy i nsof ar as t he dual aspectof t he l i f eworl d as uni ver sal and as s oc i o- h i s t o r i c al l ypa r t i c ul a rwas r ecogni zed by

Husserl , but there was not a c or r e l a t i veaccount of t hehi s t o r i c alcondi t i ons underwhi ch

t he di st i nct i onbetween t he two coul d be made

7

Di al ect i cof Enl i ght enment , op ci t p xvi Hor khei mer and Adorno quot e N et zsche sref l exi veaccount of hi sown pi et y on p 115

8

I n t h i sconnect i on t he di f f er e ntt r a j ec t or i esof C B Macphersonand Geor ge Gr ant i nr ecover i ng t he humani st bas i s ofp o l i t i c sar e per t i nent t o t he ar gument here Whi l eMacpherson was concer ned t o r e t r i eveand ext end t he l i ber a lt r a di t i on,Gr ant br oke

32



H ERM S

w t h soc ia l i smbecause of i t s i ncor por ati onof l i ber a lass umpt i ons have addressed t h i scompar i soni n George Gr ant s Pl at oni cRej oi nder t o Hei degger Lew st on/ Queenst on The dw n Mel l enP r e s s 1987, chapter I VI n t h i sc a s e a si nmany others, t he

duals i de s

of subl ati on a s preser vati on and t r anscendence have been i mpossi bl e t o hol d i nharmony

t has been suggested t h a t due t o t h i s di s t i nc t i onHaber mas cannot pr oper l y addresswhat i s at i ssue i n t he envi r onment al , f e m n i s t and a nt i nuc l e armovement s S e e f o rexampl e, J oel Whi t ebook, The Pr obl emof Nat ur e i n Haber mas i n Tel os No 40,Summer 1979; Nancy F r a s e r What s Cr i t i cal bout Cr i t i calTheor y The Case ofHaber mas and Gender i n New Ger man Cr i ti que, Number 35, Spr i ng/ Summer 1985 ;I anH ngusand Pet er G Cook, Nucl ear Technol ogyasI deol ogy i n anadi an j ournalof Pol i t i c al and Soci al Theor y, Vol XI No 1 2 1987

Angus - Habermas confronts the deconstructionist challenge.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Angus - Habermas confronts the deconstructionist challenge.pdf