HABERMAS AND THE UNFINISHED PROJECT OF MODERNITY Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity Edited by Maurizio Passerin d’Entréves and Seyla Benhabib ‘The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts,ise MIT Pes eition, 197 ‘Thrcllacon © Poy Pes, 1996 Caper 18 Sudha Vor, 1981 (Chaps 2,3, 4 and 9 © Blackwel Publishes, 1989 "Chape 6 © Bache Pusher, 1990 ‘Alot haps © individual authors, 1996 All ight reserved: No pro hit book may be epedscd in ay form by Shy store or mecha means Gling phoccopying, ering oF Tnlomtion worage snd rea) wathour permis wring fom the publishes ‘ined and bound in he United Sees of Americ. Liteary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ‘aberas andthe unfished poet of meri: ia says on ‘The pnp Gacure of mosey eed by Mas Pes Entre a Sys Beal 1 om{tuls in comemporary Geman scl ough) indus Bblogpie reener and de. Contes: Mody vers pom Jug Hebernat—The douse fade! Hed DalinayDecnacucton ontodeim, and stilwophy/Chistopter Nort Spin the fence David C.Hoy— Finbermas and Fou James Shs Toesubjecviy andthe monaie So fh pose Jol Whoo vermont lnc a James Bohma-abermas and he guson of sey Diana Cole—The ray fe Jy M,BestenThe aj of ice In oso “dacoure Davi lng ISBN 0.262.016 (hs paper) ~ISBN'0.262-S40800 (ga spe 1 Habeony Jig Folssphsce Dis der Moderne. 2. Paso, ‘Moderna cena. 3. Phxopiy, Maden —T3th ceeiry. 4, Chiaton, Moin” Polnopy. Puen rte, Mat, 353 Beha SelM Sr. suserbaanss 936 190-420 9s.4cn6e CONTENTS s ‘ List of Contributors Acknowledgements Introduction Maurisio Passrin 'Entréves Modernity: An Unfinished Projet ingen Habermas PARTI CRITICAL REJOINDERS ‘The Discourse of Modernity: Hegel, Nitaache, Heidegger and Habermas a - Fred Dalimaye constriction Postmodernism and Philosophy Viabermas on Beride yt (Critopher Norris Splicing the Diference: Habermas's Ctitigue of Derrida Davsd Concens Hoy Habermas and Foucault James Schade Incrsujetvty andthe Monadic Coe of the Psyche: Habermas and Caworads onthe Unconscious Jord Whitebook En 59 ra Ww 1mPARTI THEMATIC REFORMULATIONS 7 Two Versions ofthe Linguistic Turn: Habermas and Poststrctaralism James Bohman 8 Habermas and the Question of Aleity Diana Coole 9 The Causality of Fater Modernity and Modernism in Habermas Jay M. Bernstein 10 The Subjec of Justice in Postmodern Discourse: Aesthetic Judgement and Political Rationalicy David Ingram Index 197 2 24s 269 303 CONTRIBUTORS SeylaBenhabib is Professor of Poltial Theory at Harvard University She isthe author of Ctique, Norm, and Uxopar 1986), Suating ihe Self (1992), The Reluctant Moderns of Flamh Arend (1996) orauthor of Fens Contention (1995), editor of Democracy and Diference 1996) and cordtor of Fominim at Ctigu (1987), The Commiative Eis Controversy (1990) and On Max Hortheiner 11395, Jay M, Bernstein is Profesor of Philosophy a the University of Ect He's the author of The Phosophy ofthe Nove (1984), The Fae of Ar (1989) Recovering Eta Life (1985) ander of The Frankfre School Crtcl Assessments (1994, 6 volumes). James Bobman is Asociate Profesor of Philosophy at St Lous University, He isthe author of New Philosophy of Socal Science {1991} and cord of After Philosophy (1987) and The Interpretive Turn 1991), Diana Cool is Seioe Lectures in Political Theory at Queen Macy and Westeld College, University of London. she s the author of Women n Folia! Theory (1993, 2nd edn) and Pltes and Negatio= sy (1986. Feed Dallmaye is Professor of Govemment a he University of Note Dame. Hi numerous publications inclade Beyond Dogma and Despair (1981), Tuslight of Subjectivity (1981), Language and Poles (1384), Polis wnd Pris (1988), Creal Enramters 1989), Margins of Polizeal Disconse (1989), Between Frankfort and Pret hnarg (1991), Lifoworld, Modenty ad Crtgue (191), Ge W. Hegel (1993) and The Other Hetegger (1993, “Mauri Passrin Entrées is Snio Lecturer in Polit! Theory a the Univerty of Mancheser Hl isthe author Modernity, le,«and Community (1980), The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt (1594) "and coveditor of Public and Private: Legal, Polincal and Philosophical Perspectives (1996). Jlngen Habermas is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus a the Univer Sity of Frankfure. His many publications include The Theory of Communicative Action (1984-7), On the Logic ofthe Social Sciences (1988), The Structural Transformation ofthe Public Sphere (1989), {The New Consertatiam (1989), Moral Consciousness and Commu sicative Action (1990), Postmetaphysical Thinking (1992), Jusfica ion and Application (1993) and Betteen Facts and Norms (1995) David Couzens Hoy is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California Santa Cruz, He isthe author of The Critical Cirle (1978), fditor of Foucault: A Critical Reader (1986) and co-author of Critical ‘Theory (1994). David Ingram is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Universiy, ‘Chicago. Fei the author of Habermas and the Dilectic of Reason [1989), Critical Theory and Phlosoplhy (1990), Reason, History and Politics (1995) and coveditor of Critzal Theory: The Essential Readings (1991) (Christopher Norris is Profesor of English at the University of Wales in Cardi. His many. publications include Deconstruction (1982), “The Deconstructive Turn (1983), The Contest of Faculties (1985), Derrida (1987), Poul dean (1988), Deconstruction and the Interests ‘of Theory (1988), Spinoza ad the Origins of Modern Critical Theory (1980) aad The Truth about Postmodernism (1993) James Schmidt is Profesor of Political Science at Boston University Hee is the author of Merleaw-Ponty: Between Phenomenology and Stracturalizm (1988) and edivor of What Is Enlightenment? Eight ‘ont Century Answers aed Twentieth Century Questions (1996) Joel Whitcbook is practising peychoanalyst and teaches philosophy tnd paychoanaltic theory a the New School for Socal Research, New York, He is the author of Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory 11998) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. cee este edt tt Cae hance Pe ae eG ares ei re re cxcacts from igen Habermas, The Philosophical Disc ofINTRODUCTION Maurizio Passerin d’Entréves Since its publication in 1985, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity" has been the object of a wide-ranging debate in the disciplines of philosophy and social theory, politcal science and literary ctcism, intellectual history and cultural studies. The reasons for this are not hard to come by. The book presented a broad and imaginative thesis about the unfolding of a philosophical discourse fof modemity from Kant to Hegel to Nietsche and ics dramatic Sdénouement in the wetings of Heidegger and Derrida, on one side land Bataille nd Foucault, on the other coupled with 4 sophisticated defence of the normative content of moderity. In doing 40 it st 3 thalenge ro many influential notions about the character of the ‘modern age. Against the depiction of modernity as 8 spene epoch, a8 having exhausted the promises and projects of its philosophical mentors in the Enlightenment, Habermas set out 0 defend the Unrealized normative potential of modernity. This defence is based fon Habermas's theory of modernity and communicative rationality presented in his earlier two-volume Work, The Theory af Commun ative Action i that work Habermas offered a systematic theory of focietal and cultural modernization capable of explaining both the Schievements and the pathologies of modernity. Crucial to that elfort twas the paradigm shift from the philosophy of consciousness #0 the Philosophy of language, and from a subject-centeed to a communica: five conception of reason and rationality. The importance of thi paradigm shift is crucial in understanding Habermas's criticism of postmodern thinkers and is elaborated at length in the main chapets Of The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: only by going beyond the philosophy of tubjctvty can Habermas hope to vindicate the ‘ational potential of modernity, fo redeem its promise of emancipa- tion and enlightenment, however qualified this may be inthe face of the pathologies ofthe modern age2 MAURIZIO PASSERIN D'ENTREVES A number of crucial issues are at stake in the debate between Habermas andthe poxmariss, These have o donot ml with the legitimacy ofthe moder age, but with question of rationality, ruth, subjectivity, power, justice, morality, and the role of the ‘esthetic. A full way of addressing the contrast between Haber ‘nas and the postmodeenstson these ses by distinguishing ew fundamental hia onestations perating behind thee spective postions, Thee are cented around two diferent senses of respons- Bigs esponsibility to act vs a responsibility to otherness While Habermas. privileges the tespoasibiliy to act in the world in a foroatvely justifed way, the postmodernist celebrate che respons bility to othemess, namely, the openness to diference, dissonance and ambiguity.” These two senses of responsiblity are linked in turn, {o two uilferen understandings of the primary function of language language can be understood primarily in terms of is capacity 10 {coordinate action (Habermas), or primarily in terms of Is capacity to clove the world (Heidegger and Dersda). The conception of Tinguage as ation-coordinaing goes hand in hand with the priority fven to the fise sense of cesponsibiity (the responsibilty £0 act), ‘While the view of language as world-dsclosingcomesponds closely £0 the peony given to the second sence of responsibility (the respons. bili to ochemess) While the ewo senses of responsibilty, and their associated conceptions of language, should not be seen as mutually fxclusiveg itis indeed the case that they represent the polarities Stound which the debate berween Habermas and the postmodernists has been conducted. “The chapters of this book, writen by 2 team of leading philos: ‘ophers, social scientists, intellectual historians and literary critics, fepreseot the frst systematic and detailed assessment of the mait theses of The Pbilosaphical Discourse of Modernity and ofthe crucial Issues a stake in the debate between Habermas and the postmodern ists They are writen from a variety of theoreial standpoints and brientations. and reach each diferent conclusion as to te fifa ths and valiity of Habermas's work: Bur they ae all united in thee hreempt to engage with Habermas by means of rational dialogue insed om csteal appraisal and. constructive response, that i, by felying on those discursive toa through which the unfinished project ‘of modernity may continue to unfold, “The volume opens with a wellknown and influential essay. by iabermas, “Modemity: An Unfinished Project’, in which some ofthe principal themes of The Philosoplical Disconse of Modernity are Uiseusted inthe context ofa erteal engagement with contemporary heoconservative cultural and political tends.” Habermas notes the Fise ofa neoconservative critique in the 1970s and 1980s that focuses IvrRopuerioN 3 on the supposedly aninomian consequences of the ‘adversary cul: Sure In the wrtings of Daniel Belh modernist eure s scaned of Unleashing hedonistic’ motives incompacle wh the rational dist ime of economic fe and of undermining the moral fabri of soy. ‘Agnns the anomic forces spurred hy cultural modernity, Bel pleads for a religious cevival that would presumably restore faith intra, divon, authority and the conventions of everyday hie. Habermas Apel points ut that naconservstis s onfused ines understanding ‘oF the reltion benwen culture and scey abuts to cultural modernism all dhose pahologeal or dysfunctional syndromes, such {5 hedonism, naeissm, lack of socal deny, eidrawal from San and chev option hat are ly the prt of 4 Successtal eaptatt modermistion of the economy and sect. The changed attues towards work, consumption, achievement and ler rere deep ihtons asthe prove social moderation. The systemic imperatives of at expand économy anda bureaucrat state sete by te et of mone dnd power have penetrated deeply nt the communicative infrastruc ture ofthe eworld,endangermg the proceses Of cual reproduc tion, social inepration and socialization. The syndromes of loo of mean, anomi and penalty dads wel se dais ‘of protest, originate i response to the coloniing pressure of the ezhimy and the wate teu he Heword Bu eocnseraine locrines turn our aRention precisely sway fom such socal processes: they project the causes which they do not bring to Tigh ‘tothe plane of subversive culture and ity wovcates” ‘By drawing the dsinction between societal moderation and cultural moderation, and showing how the former responsible for those pathologial syndromes mstakenlystriburd to the late, Habermas is able to rebut the clams of neoconservative cites of modesty. Atthe same tine, heis able to provides beter daphosts Gf the pathologies onginang from with the sphere of cultural iodo is He aru that whe octal modes Character by th growing atonomy of subsystems of purposive fational action steered by the media of money and power faker Economy and admanstative sae), whose untammeled expansion teads tothe colonization ofthe Ifeworl, cultural moderation s characterized by the increasing. differentiation of cultural value spheres science, morality, st) governed by distin clams to rly truth righeess, athena embodying eiferentratonality Steines (cognitive insramenta, moralpractcaly sesthetcexpes sive. These difrenated value domains have come the objec of profesinal discourses uch as theones of selene of moray std Furspradence, of at and aesthetic enticum) that have become the Preserve of expee cultures, The elit sping off of expert culres4 MAURIZIO PASSERIN D'ENTREVES foam he everyday sovdernanding of ey acto ad he eet ftonion of traditions, generate ceean cultural pathologies which Fe ee eae Ley rms of dao acral He er th pas of cual modern, 4 a ee Teast ogre ap ibe cate poy of ma Og cht aur randy ce all's Ceo af cma Aen Sey eee posite core USA Bn” oe! annodenny(poropbes ch a5 ee ute patie Rous Bena He ee Senedd ote ete To ae Boa of Molen, Habeas prove Pee ett aural fr run» comatmct 0 e aan eet Ee ey ane of bedroom aie Be ee br beeves fu ey ca oy be SELON chin way peeing seins Sd a nc ony pli te en pe aa te Seen oe colons Fee a arse the diemed Soma of of the Mewar a OSS cercponine exper care serra aa A cee Wa crea ca crs Stoeray ean tase en a2 un Se re a icchaed reomacion of moder ihe Pst ay see frst dependent fats at Sls Bement ty mre aoa ei ena tan lr be wched te proce cal Seca sed as bbe tomar econ Perens tee eat sown sway coe Crt an rem fami othe oon 2 beste sens Fe cy on ty own tern rather han exaing inte nontalgia for premodern tation, or enchusistically embrac: a rt pom, vkig an od ing a wcbnu t fPeza Habermas eat Grey ope sr fel pros of moe Te conc) ofa we eh er poe te eof oe chage aranoa itcal Rejoinders tet ene ar sh a Cee ede eke a ce INrRopucTION s guts jus by cole in Haberman’ psalm while Hegel, in the wake of Kang, inaugurates the broad and ‘multifaceted discourse of modemiy, Nietzsche marks the emergence (of an antdiscourse that ejects modernity, and Heidegger represents the leading philosophical gure of a postmodern discourse deriving in large part from Niewsche ‘According to Habermas, Hegel waste fis philosopher to develop «clear and sytemati understanding of modemity. Together with his Philosophical precursors, Hegel located the core of modernity in the peri of stbecoiy: Sac,» pnciple had lead Ben hh ighted by Kant, who conceived subjectivity as the foundation of the separate domains of science, morality and art Yer, in parsing Bis Snalytical tsk, Kant did not view the differentiation of reason as 4 problem, or the separation of modern value spheres 36 2 source of iremption (Enzo). Consequently, be ignored the need for synthesis ruling from his analysis. Ths was precisely the motive of Hegel's philosophy, his attempe to provide rational synthesis that ‘would reconcile the dirempeed aspects of modern reason and restore the integrity of ethical ie. The fs artempe at such a synthesis can bbe found in Hegel's early theologial wetngs, charaeterized by 3 omantic or mythopoctc vision of reconciliation which the young, Hegel shared with Shellg ad Holden. n poston obo the ‘orthodoxy of postive religion and che abstraciness of Enlightenment reason, these Swings appealed to a puriied public faith or civil teligiosiy a5 the ethical bond eeconcling the conflicting elements of ‘modern social life. The same writings also spoke of a ‘nexus of guile ‘or ‘causality of destiny” asthe cypher forthe experience of common Suffering that’ would bring about a reconciliation of criminally Severed relationships. However, at Hegel himself recognned, the ‘eal of reconciliation embodied in evil religion or in the recognition fof a nexus of guile relies on premodern lifesorms, suchas the Greek polis and the eaely Christan communities, which modernity, has ‘nevitbly lft behing, ‘Similar difficulties beset another early work of Hegel, the so-called oldest Systemprogramm formulated in Frankfurt while he was sill lander the influence of Schelling and Holdelin. In that programme, the funetion of reconciliation was attsibuted to art and the aesthetic imagination. Rational religion was presumed to yield to arin order to develop ino a popular veligon; the monotheism of reason was fo be joined tothe polytheism of the imagination to pasuce an astheic iiythology inthe service of eas. The inadequacy ofthis programme Wwas soon recognized hy Hegel. He argued that since modernity 1s based’ ‘on subjectivity and the power of crteal reflection, only philosophical reason |Vermunf) could achieve the hoped-for recoil tation and overcome the aporias of modern subjectivity. This might6 MAURIZIO PASSERIN D’ENTREVES. was £0 find igs explicit articulation in Hegel's notion of ‘absolute Spirit Absolute sprit the ‘conssming eciviy of selfliscovery’ heunconditionaly seit productive sell relation editing subject. iy and ejecting, nature and spn, finite and init. In this ‘way, Habermas note, Hegel wled the plosophy of subjetiviry “Yor te purpoe of overcoming subject centered reason. By means of tae mare Hegel can convict modernity of ofences without faving secourse to anshing thee than the principle of subjectivity immatent within (PDM, 34. "The selfgamscendence oF moderity accomplished by ‘absolute spit i repeated a the lerel of “objecve spn” m Hegel’ theory ihe modem state. The man novation of The Philosophy of Right {Sto be found inthe notion of sv socety aS a sphere of private els melting betwen teary athe wee Fal this ‘otion and juntaposing ito the ate, Hegel was able to account ath forthe advances of modernity and for i divisive effects Moreovrs by showing how chil society wat bath preserved and Sublated athe structures ofthe modeen state, Hepes Philosophy of ight promoted» selfsransendence of modernity which reamed at itscoce the moder principle of subjectivity ‘lavng uthned lege nator postion, Habermas then goes on to cities for failing to overcome the dremgtions of modernity. ie conta fois pentous approbation of Hegel or having adhered to the modcen principe of subjectivity, Habermas now eicizs him foe remaining Rosage to a seltenclosedsubyctnty unable to pet foror a synthetic function ® By claiming the power ofsythesis for tbvolte spit Hegel merely presupposes what he has to demon- Strte arch, that absolute spr can recon those divisions which todein scaggn has unfolded. The same peablr reappeats in Hegel's toton of objective sii. According to Habermas, he sate, a8 the Embodiment of objective sp sonable to reconcle the eiviions of Shodern polscl ie. Such seconetation cane assured enly on {Te supposition ofan absolte conceived as pare or nite subject ii athe domain of ethical fe this construction results the Prony of the higher subjectivity ofthe ate over the subjective Fcedom of the india Sh sccnd line of ecg is directed atthe presimed abstractness a Hegel mature thought: the teeny of ebjeine apd abso Spare to become the object of passive contemplation entirely ‘Gmoved fom cial engagement with the wodd, Rented nto lf tr imo is own absolutenss, Hegelian Vermunft ean accomplish at is'a paral reconeilaton, namely, within the confines of hilo ph, either than betven philosophy snd the actual, Only Latent in I lay works ths tendency to pasty 5 said to emerge strony in Hegats late sytem, incudng his Philosophy of Right. At this INTRODUCTION 7 point, his thought a lngeecrtcized exiting reality but only suet {espe a Amory raped n hough hw pera Dallmaye Hinds the divon besween the young and the matute Hegel, or between 3 romantic, mythopotc oxtok and sm abstract or untainted ronan ovtdraes hs major objection however tas to do with Habermas characterization of Hegcan Vero On the one hand, Habermas objects to Hegel's notion of abso spit for remaining locked ina scl-contained sje, win the Clnfiges of monological knowledge. Absolute spins described Ss “consuming ativiry of selediscovery, at an “unconditionally ‘ei-produstne slfvelavon. On the osher hand, Heplan spt towed ay» detached realm a6 passively controled “objective Teawo’ that no longer informs o¢ rally shapes the wort. Now, this characterization of Vern at both unceasing aetiy 3nd pusive contemplation is nor tenable. At Dalimayr observes, the EEmbination of consuming atvty and sel production ves Vermunft Left Hegshan Avon, wile the treatment of spite 8 3m Biv fea amen nyt contempt caren vetoes of Right Hegelanism. Under the pressure of these opposed rea Higgs pilsophy is lable to Be som ander To ore is ny fequires the acknowledgement hat Hegel's “pint” designates 2 Inetaphysical or ontological category. Ax such 2 eategory, spn is tot simply subjective capac or an objective atonal pane, it 2 "Ursin presupposed by both which allows for ter Mal ‘eoncation Dalimaye then turns tothe second major figure in Habermas philosophical nacatve, that of Nietsche, According to Habermas, ‘isthe maupurted 9 radeal aonicoure that eed the ene framework of the Enlightenment. stead of working within the trond parameters of the dialectic of enighenment 35 ket ue by Hegel ind he succor, Nictche wants 0 explode the tty framework of occdenral reason. within which the Competitors of lef and Right Hegelian sil moved. His anthumanism, cov tied by Heidegger and Bataille i two diferent direction, the fea challenge tothe discourse of modmy. Habermas lodge 40 train objecttonsapuinst Nherache. Fis, a oppoed tothe moderate Stance of Wagnerand the Remanace, for whom the figure. of Dionysos was Wend wt tha of Chk, Nettche opt exc Sively for the experience of Dionysian frenzy and ends up i an ations! and boundless subjetvism. Closely baked to th charge of sobjecviom vs Habermas second oopetion, deed. agaist ‘ictche'siratonaiom and his abandonment of rational andar, ‘Specially those of scence an moray. For Habermas, ‘Nictasche Smrinues the Romantic purfeation of the aesthetic phenomenon