Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:16:35.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reluctant Postmodernism of Jürgen Habermas: Reevaluating Habermas's Debates with Foucault and Derrida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2022

Peter J. Verovšek Open the ORCID record for Peter J. Verovšek [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Politicians and scholars alike have blamed postmodernism—and the identity politics that have emerged in its wake—for the pathologies of the early twenty-first century. Despite his limited defense of the Enlightenment and his disputes with his French contemporaries, I argue that Habermas's philosophy displays many postmodern characteristics that are often overlooked. These include its decentering of the autonomous subject, its skepticism towards metaphysics, and its rejection of stadial philosophies of history. In light of the fact that Habermas adopts weaker versions of many postmodern commitments, I reconsider his disputes with Foucault and Derrida regarding the legacy of the Enlightenment. I conclude that rather than interpreting Habermas as a conservative critic of his more radical counterparts in France, we should instead see these three thinkers as part of a shared attempt to come to terms with the problems of postwar Europe in a public, discursive manner.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 84 , Issue 3 , Summer 2022 , pp. 397 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of University of Notre Dame

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Javier Burdman, Ruth Abbey, and two anonymous reviewers from this journal for their most helpful insights and comments on this paper. Any remaining infelicities are mine alone.

References

1 Tom Rockmore, Habermas on Historical Materialism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 166.

2 Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 72, 65. For more on the political implications of this critique, see Karppinen, Kari, Moe, Hallvard, and Svensson, Jakob, “Habermas, Mouffe and Political Communication,” Javnost—the Public 15, no. 3 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Maurizio Passerin d'Entrèves and Seyla Benhabib, eds., Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity, 1996); Chris Thornhill, Political Theory in Modern Germany (London: Blackwell, 2000), 173.

4 Habermas quoted in Michaël Foessel and Jürgen Habermas, “Critique and Communication: Philosophy's Missions,” Eurozine, Oct. 16, 2015, 4.

5 Michel Foucault, “What Is Enlightenment?,” in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: New Press, 1997), 312.

6 Richard T. Peterson, Democratic Philosophy and the Politics of Knowledge (State College: Penn State University Press, 1996).

7 Klaus Brinkbäumer, Julia Amalia Heyer, and Britta Sandberg, “We Need to Develop Political Heroism: Interview with Emmanuel Macron,” Der Spiegel, Oct. 13, 2017.

8 For example, Richard Seymour, “How Postmodernism Became the Universal Scapegoat of the Era,” New Statesman, June 24, 2021; Aaron Hanlon, “Postmodernism Didn't Cause Trump. It Explains Him,” Washington Post, Aug. 31, 2018; Mark Lilla, “The End of Identity Liberalism,” New York Times, Nov. 18, 2016.

9 Matthias Fritsch, “Futures of Habermas's Work,” Los Angeles Review of Books, Aug. 11, 2019, https://www.lareviewofbooks.org/article/futures-habermass-work/.

10 For example, Foessel and Habermas, “Critique and Communication,” 4–5.

11 Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures, trans. Frederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987).

12 Manfred Frank, Die Grenzen der Verständigung: Ein Geistergespräch zwischen Lyotard und Habermas (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988).

13 Critchley, Simon, “Remarks on Derrida and Habermas,” Constellations 7, no. 4 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Thomas McCarthy, “The Critique of Impure Reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School,” Political Theory 18, no. 3 (1990).

15 Beatrice Hansen, Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical Theory (London: Routledge, 2000).

16 Johnson, Pauline, “Romantic and Enlightenment Legacies: Habermas and the Post-modern Critics,” Contemporary Political Theory 5, no. 1 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 These differences are highlighted by Seyla Benhabib, “Democracy and Difference: Reflections on the Metapolitics of Lyotard and Derrida,” Journal of Political Philosophy 2, no. 1 (1994): 1–23.

18 Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox (New York: Verso, 2000), 93.

19 Karppinen, Moe, and Svensson, “Habermas, Mouffe and Political Communication,” 9.

20 I borrow and adapt this phrase from Seyla Benhabib, The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

21 Jane Flax, Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 32ff.

22 Pierre Bourdieu, “Vive le Streit! Jürgen Habermas zum Geburtstag,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, June 18, 1999.

23 I do not provide a general overview of postmodernism, but merely identify elements that are helpful for understanding both the affinities between Habermas's philosophy and postmodernism, as well as the differences that remain.

24 Jürgen Habermas, “What Does Socialism Mean Today? The Revolutions of Recuperation and the Need for New Thinking,” in After the Fall: The Failure of Communism and the Future of Socialism, ed. Robin Blackburn (London: Verso, 1991), 36, 41–42, emphasis in original.

25 Lyotard, Postmodern Condition, xxiv.

26 Ibid., 23.

27 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (London: Unwin, 1985), 13, emphasis in original.

28 Ibid., 23.

29 Judith Butler, “Contingent Foundations,” in Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange, by Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and Nancy Fraser (New York: Routledge, 1995), 37.

30 Flax, Thinking Fragments, 32.

31 Ibid., 33.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 34.

34 Ibid.

35 Benhabib, Seyla, “Epistemologies of Postmodernism: A Rejoinder to Jean-François Lyotard,” New German Critique, no. 33 (1984): 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 133, 132, emphasis in original.

37 Ibid., 7.

38 Seyla Benhabib, “Epistemologies of Postmodernism,” 107.

39 Han-Pile, Béatrice, “Is Early Foucault a Historian? History, History and the Analytic of Finitude,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 31, no. 5–6 (2005): 586CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Michel Foucault, “What Is Enlightenment?,” 312.

41 Ibid.

42 Immanuel Kant, “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?,” in Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 54, emphasis removed.

43 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), 6, 33, 30.

44 Michel Foucault, On the Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 2002), 422.

45 Foucault, “What Is Enlightenment?,” 318.

46 Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988); John R. Searle, “Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida,” Glyph, no. 1 (1977): 198–208; Raoul Moati, Derrida/Searle: Deconstruction and Ordinary Language, trans. Timothy Attanucci and Maureen Chun (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014).

47 Nancy Fraser, “Pragmatism, Feminism, and the Linguistic Turn,” in Feminist Contentions, 157.

48 Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 23ff.

49 Geoffrey Bennington, Interrupting Derrida (London: Routledge, 2000), 16.

50 Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), 162.

51 Bennington, Interrupting Derrida, 1.

52 Rodolphe Gasché, The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986).

53 Jacques Derrida, “Declarations of Independence,” New Political Science 7, no. 1 (1986): 10.

54 Derrida, Jacques, “The ‘World’ of the Enlightenment to Come (Exception, Calculation, Sovereignty),” Research in Phenomenology 33 (2003): 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Joel Whitebook, “Intersubjectivity and the Monadic Core of the Psyche: Habermas and Castoriadis on the Unconscious,” in Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on “The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity,” ed. Maurizio Passerin d'Entrèves and Seyla Benhabib (Cambridge: Polity, 1996), 172.

56 Maurizio Passerin d'Entrèves, introduction to Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, 13.

57 Jürgen Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays, trans. William Mark Hohengarten (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 145.

58 Fraser, “Pragmatism, Feminism, and the Linguistic Turn,” 157.

59 Colin Koopman, Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 172.

60 Allen, Amy R., “Emancipation without Utopia: Subjection, Modernity, and the Normative Claims of Feminist Critical Theory,” Hypatia 30, no. 3 (Summer 2015): 525CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Allen, Amy R., “The Anti-Subjective Hypothesis: Michel Foucault and the Death of the Subject,” Philosophical Forum 31, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 113–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” in Image-Music-Text (New York: Hill and Wang, 1978).

63 Jürgen Habermas, “On the German-Jewish Heritage,” Telos 44 (Summer 1980): 130.

64 Jürgen Habermas, Philosophical-Political Profiles, trans. Frederick G. Lawrence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983), 173.

65 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1999), 34.

66 Critchley, “Remarks on Derrida and Habermas,” 459.

67 Habermas, Philosophical-Political Profiles, 175.

68 Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 97.

69 Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), 486.

70 Fritsch, “Futures of Habermas's Work.”

71 Ungureanu, Camil, “Derrida on Free Decision: Between Habermas’ Discursivism and Schmitt's Decisionism,” Journal of Political Philosophy 16, no. 3 (2008): 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 McCarthy, “Critique of Impure Reason,” 438.

73 Amy R. Allen, The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 32.

74 Ibid., 11.

75 Theodor W. Adorno, History and Freedom: Lectures 1964–1965, ed. Rolf Tiedemann, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge: Polity, 2006), 143.

76 I have expanded on this in Verovšek, Peter J., “Historical Criticism without Progress: Memory as an Emancipatory Resource for Critical Theory,” Constellations 26, no. 1 (2019): 132–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 For more on the paradigm of collective memory and its differences from the philosophy of history, see Verovšek, Peter J., “Collective Memory, Politics, and the Influence of the Past: The Politics of Memory as a Research Paradigm,” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4, no. 3 (2016): 529–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Jürgen Habermas, Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews, ed. Peter Dews (London: Verso, 1992), 77.

79 Jürgen Habermas, “The Postnational Constellation and the Future of Democracy,” in The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, trans. Max Pensky (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 26–37.

80 Habermas quoted in Martin Joseph Matuštík, Jürgen Habermas: A Philosophical-Political Profile (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), 10.

81 Jürgen Habermas, “Public Space and Political Public Sphere: The Biographical Roots of Two Motifs in My Thought,” in Between Naturalism and Religion (London: Polity, 2008), 18.

82 Jürgen Habermas, The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, trans. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989), 234.

83 Habermas, “Public Space and Political Public Sphere,” 17, 21.

84 Habermas in Claudia Czingon, Aletta Diefenbach, and Victor Kempf, “Moral Universalism at a Time of Political Regression: A Conversation with Jürgen Habermas about the Present and His Life's Work,” Theory, Culture & Society 37, no. 7–8 (2020): 13.

85 Jürgen Habermas, “Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism,” Journal of Political Philosophy 13, no. 1 (2005): 1–28.

86 Habermas, Autonomy and Solidarity, 126.

87 Allen, End of Progress, 32, 174.

88 Flax, Thinking Fragments, 34.

89 Jürgen Habermas, Philosophical Introductions: Five Approaches to Communicative Reason (Cambridge: Polity, 2018), 154.

90 Dahms, Harry F., “Theory in Weberian Marxism: Patterns of Critical Social Theory in Lukacs and Habermas,” Sociological Theory 15, no. 3 (1997): 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking, 145.

92 Dahms, “Theory in Weberian Marxism,” 207.

93 Habermas, Philosophical Introductions, 154, emphasis in original.

94 Sabina Lovibond, “Feminism and Postmodernism,” New Left Review 178 (November–December 1989): 22.

95 Robert C. Holub, Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere (London: Routledge, 1991), 149.

96 Critchley, “Remarks on Derrida and Habermas,” 456, emphasis in original.

97 Lyotard, Postmodern Condition, 23.

98 Richard Wolin, The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 8.

99 Habermas, Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 282, 185.

100 Jürgen Habermas, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie (Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2019), 1:265.

101 Ibid., 1:14.

102 Jürgen Habermas, “Reply to My Critics,” in Habermas and Religion, ed. Craig J. Calhoun, Eduardo Mendieta, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen (Cambridge: Polity, 2013), 355, emphasis in original.

103 For more on the ways in which religion still “counts” and is “counted on” in the modern world, see Jacques Derrida, “Faith and Knowledge: The Two Sources of ‘Religion’ at the Limits of Reason Alone,” in Acts of Religion, ed. Gil Anidjar (Routledge: London, 2002).

104 Habermas, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie, 1:110. Since the forthcoming English translation was not available at the time of writing, I have translated the quotations from the original German.

105 Ibid., 1:118.

106 Ibid., 2:806 and 2:802, emphasis in original.

107 Habermas, Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 83–106.

108 Habermas quoted in Foessel and Habermas, Critique and Communication, 3, 4.

109 McCarthy, “Critique of Impure Reason,” 441.

110 Habermas quoted in Foessel and Habermas, Critique and Communication, 4.

111 Johnson, “Romantic and Enlightenment Legacies,” 70.

112 Habermas, Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie, 1:13.

113 Habermas quoted in Foessel and Habermas, Critique and Communication, 4.

114 Jürgen Habermas, “Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present: On Foucault's Lecture on Kant's What Is Enlightenment?,” in Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate, ed. Michael Kelly (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), 150.

115 Beatrice Hanssen, Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical Theory (London: Routledge, 2000), 149ff.

116 Fritsch, “Futures of Habermas's Work.”

117 Jürgen Habermas, The Past as Future, trans. Max Pensky (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 119.

118 Critchley, “Remarks on Derrida and Habermas,” 456, emphasis in original.

119 Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992).

120 Habermas quoted in Foessel and Habermas, Critique and Communication, 4.

121 Habermas in Czingon, Diefenbach, and Kempf, “Moral Universalism,” 13.

122 For example, Giovanna Borradori, ed., Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).

123 Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, “February 15, Or What Binds Europeans Together: A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in the Core of Europe,” Constellations 10, no. 3 (2003). See also Verovšek, Peter J., “Meeting Principles and Lifeworlds Halfway: Habermas's Thought on the Future of Europe,” Political Studies 60, no. 2 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124 Holub, Jürgen Habermas, 153.

125 Peter J. Verovšek, “The Philosopher as Engaged Citizen: Habermas on the Role of the Public Intellectual,” European Journal of Social Theory 24, no. 4 (2021).

126 Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972– 1977 (New York: Pantheon, 1980), 128.

127 Ibid., 62.

128 Biebricher, Thomas, “The Practices of Theorists: Habermas and Foucault as Public Intellectuals,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 37, no. 6 (2011): 729CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129 Kant, “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?,” 55, 57, emphasis in original.

130 Habermas quoted in Boris Frankel and Jürgen Habermas, “Habermas Talking: An Interview,” Theory and Society 1, no. 1 (1974): 53.

131 Ibid.

132 Ibid.

133 Habermas to R. W. Leonhardt (Die Zeit), 16.6.64, Habermas Vorlass, Korrespondenzen 1950er und 1960er Jahre, Folder 5—1964 (A–Z), Johann von Senkenburg Library at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main.

134 Foessel and Habermas, Critique and Communication, 4.

135 Theodor W. Adorno, Eingriffe: Neun Kritische Modelle (Frankfurt am Main: Edition Suhrkamp, 1963), 32.

136 Pöggeler, Otto, “Den Führer Führen? Heidegger und Kein Ende,” Philosophische Rundschau 32, no. 1 (1985)Google Scholar.

137 Foessel and Habermas, Critique and Communication, 4.

138 Johnson, “Romantic and Enlightenment Legacies,” 83.

139 Bourdieu, “Vive le Streit!”