Jürgen Habermas, the name means a power in today's world. His treatises, whose citation rates are among the best in our time. His political essays, once published, will attract attention and even sensation. In the fields of humanities and social sciences, he has a large number of readers, researchers and followers.
Today is the thinker's 90th birthday. Happy birthday, Habermas!
Jürgen Habermas (born 18 June 1929) was a German writer, philosopher, sociologist, and second-generation figure of the Frankfurt School.
The 90-year-old Habermas, whose lifelong career in communication theory and communication practice has met numerous award ceremonies and award speeches in the course of his research career of more than 60 years. Those were countless moments of glory for him. For example, Stephen Müller-Dom, author of The Biography of Jürgen Habermas: Intellectuals and Public Life and a German sociologist
(Stefan Müller-Doohm)
In his biography, Habermas's glory was not only his frustrations, humiliations, and hardships.
Probably few people know about Habermas's physical condition at birth: congenital cleft lip and palate. This forced him to undergo surgery many times as a child, and even when he grew up, he was never able to completely eliminate the nasal sounds that are characteristic of patients with cleft lip and palate. He was even considered unfit for teaching. For Habermas, this was clearly a misjudgment.
Even in the past decade, Habermas, who is now in his eighties, has given speeches around the world, continued his strong dialogue with the world, and intervened in policy and ideological debates. Stephen Müller-Dom looks back on Habermas's decade in his biography: How to start at 80 and move towards 90? Is it aggressive to keep him focused on the public domain?
The original author | Stephen Mueller-Dom
Integrate | Rodong
The Biography of Jürgen Habermas: Intellectuals and Public Life, by Stephen Müller-Dom, translator: Liu Feng, edition: Sohn ∣ Social Sciences Academic Press, June 2019
On the day of the eightieth birthday,
Is he "Habermas with world power"?
On June 10, 2009, The Time used a strange headline on its front page, a line of eye-catching characters that exuded the air of an entertainment tabloid: "Habermas holds world power."
(World power Habermas)
, presumably secretly more than thomas mann.
A few small lines can be seen below the large characters: "If there is one person today who can explain reality to us, this person is Habermas." On his 80th birthday, this influential German intellectual is loved and sought after all over the world. The coloured pictures and captions are also in the style of street tabloids, with birthday stars in a library of world literature arranged in the shape of an amphitheater, with a serious look and a look as if they were looking into the distance.
Habermas himself did not comment on this, but was careful to mention it, from which it can be inferred that he undoubtedly considered the newspaper's practice to be grandstanding. At the very least, he did not refute the public remarks made by the female publisher of Time, saying: "The power-wielding figures of the world who rely entirely on the non-coercive coercive power of better arguments have not yet appeared in the history of the world." ”
A few years later, on December 10, 2012, he expressed a similar meaning in an interview with the Rhine-Post, saying the headline was a "clumsy joke."
"Intellectuals can exert at most some influence through their own public discourse. They have no power. Power is inextricably linked to a position, and only by having such a position can one exert one's will forcefully on others. Intellectuals, on the other hand, rely on their vague influence not on empowerment, but on the persuasive power of their speech and the power of the media that disseminates them. For example, because I only speak in newspapers, my influence is even more limited. ”
Habermas in the study.
The Time Weekly article in the middle of Habermas' birthday special issue is more serious. Thomas Ashor points out in the text that language occupies a central place in Habermas's philosophy. He concludes the article by saying that Habermas "brought the whole republic together through the controversy he provoked, changing the views of both himself and his opponents."
Another page of the newspaper published the blessings of his colleagues in the philosophical circles and intellectuals from all over the world. Dworkin writes: "Jürgen Habermas is not only the most famous philosopher in the world who is still alive, but even his famous one is already very famous. "Turkish sociologist Ahmed Chidem
(Ahmet .ig.dem)
"Habermas is discerning and discerning about all the situations in which ideas are vulnerable, such as universities that are 'managed' like corporations, media that have lost the power of discourse, and politics that choose only between the worst and the worst," he writes. ”
Richard Senit
（Richard Sennett）
In summary:
"For us, Habermas was a contemporary writer, not an intellectual hero, so we are not concerned with his place in the history of German thought, but with his ability to stimulate discussion."
Towards the age of 90,
Continue his cause of ideological polemics
On October 28, 2010, Habermas published a new title in The New York Times titled "Leadership and Mainstream Culture."
（Leadership and Leitkultur ）
The article described the change in the political mentality in Germany, and soon the French newspaper Le Monde was titled "Europe is tired of xenophobia."
(iEurope sick of xenophobia)
Reprint this article.
He cited three typical phenomena of the moment: a stereotypical hatred of immigrants, especially Islamic immigrants; the popularity of a new type of politician who shyed away from any party political discussion with detachment; and a reaction to spontaneous political protests that strongly demanded inclusion in major project decisions. He drew the attention of readers in the United States and France to the current xenophobic tendencies in Germany, which were incompatible with the constitution of a country that considered itself free and open, and whose expatriate population was by far less than the emigrant population.
He criticized critics and politicians, especially those with populist views, who demanded that Muslim immigrants must accept the Judeo-Christian tradition; this, he said, was not only a simplification of liberal democracy, that is, an ethnic understanding, but also an arrogant violation of Judaism and a disregard for the fate of German Jews.
Speeches are habermas's daily routine.
On June 19, 2012, Habermas gave a speech at the Siemens Foundation in Munich, in which he began by proposing that a distinction must be made between the idea of "goodness" and the idea of "justice." The lecture was given by the philosopher Heinrich Meier
(Heinrich Meier)
One of the lectures in the "Politics and Religion" series. At this event, Habermas met with the Protestant theologian Friedrich Wilhelm Graf
(Friedrich Wilhelm Graf)
Discussions took place. During that evening's discussion, Graff described himself as a "religious intellectual" who, in his view, "religion is the 'most dangerous spiritual drug' one can imagine."
What worries Habermas is the violent energy lurking in religious fundamentalism, "which cannot be ignited by the spark of a changing worldview." Western culture, based on the universally binding nature of the Enlightenment heritage, must be open to the perspective of other cultures. This perspective "reminds us of the atrocities of imperialist conquest and colonization, of the crimes we committed in the name of high standards, in order to make the West aware of the intolerant character of eurocentrism" in general". At the end of the speech, Habermas reiterated his call for the natural right to accept religion and to respect it, because no one can know whether "the process of continuous interpretation of the potential meaning of religion that has not yet been realized has been exhausted."
Regarding the dialogue, Gayle commented in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that Habermas "spoke in Munich ... Outspoken, but careful, like a good surgeon who doesn't want to suffer unnecessary pain." As Meier introduced him as a scholar of religion for sociological interests alone, he only mildly retorted that he was studying religion "as a resource for studying itself," a philosophy that does not narrow itself from a naturalistic-scientist perspective, but wants to make full use of its semantic potential."
Habermas smiling in the conversation.
In this regard, compared to Giocho Agamben, who used Heidegger's philosophical discourse
(George Agamben)
He showed more empathy for Henrich and Spemann..." He "preached and celebrated theological cause through the use of superb and exquisite language, starting from a character who was born without a sense of religion, and made this Siemens Foundation Night magical."
But then he asked the only question, straight to the point: "If this is true, that is, that the claim of the truth of religion is not only applicable to one doctrine, but that religious cognition also occurs as a socialization of religion, that is, as a means of salvation, then Habermas asks why theologians are increasingly detached from the liturgical practice of the church?" ”
Is it aggressive or something else,
Making Habermas a controversial figure?
For more than 60 years, Habermas was present as a political writer and critical intellectual. He continued to intervene in public affairs, leaving his mark on several, some, and even rather intense public discussions and controversies. "As intellectuals, there is a price to pay for publicly expressing their opinions on the issue of polarization of opinions. We must learn to face people's hostility in life. Sometimes it can endure malice for decades. On June 18, 2004, Habermas said this in an interview with the Evening News.
Because of his "clear involvement in public affairs", the above controversies have become events that have caused great repercussions and widespread dissemination. Habermas, who was first noticed in the public sphere, was a man who used every opportunity available to comment in the print media and express impactful and controversial views.
This impression is due not only to the high media exposure caused by his intensive voices, but also mainly because, or especially because of, his engagement strategy, which is the way in which he uses polemical tactics to attract public attention and influence the public agenda when making comments on current affairs.
Documentary Jjürgen Habermas In Stanford (1988).
Jürgen Cober, July 24, 2009
（Jurgen Kaube）
In an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung titled "Those Conflicts You Know," he said that "conflicts" are the most newsworthy: "For news reports, arguments, or morally charged arguments, most of the time make further arguments superfluous." In this regard, a symbiotic relationship of interests has developed over the years between Habermas and the media, which — unlike the symbiotic phenomenon of the animal kingdom — contains and exploits both strong disgusts. ”
Habermas on the political stage has no defensive stance. He once commented that Heine said that he intended to polarize his readers "because when he was creating he expected the appearance of discordant tones". This sentence can be interpreted as Habermas's cryptic self-description.
When it comes to getting involved in politics and expressing opinions on a particular event, Habermas usually tends to attack rather than defend. This is due to specific political motives and ambitions that are the driving force behind his offensive in the political public sphere, using the weapon of intellectual polemics and even the tactics of language to express political positions. Especially in the political and ideological struggle between the left-wing liberal and liberal conservative camps, Habermas did not hesitate to use all rhetorical means to occupy the high ground of interpretation of historical heritage.
In this struggle, he preferred the form of open letters. Although the letter writers treated each other with courtesy and recognized each other as participants due to the format of the letters, the correspondence mentioned in this book was exchanged
(Mainly correspondence with Topich, Spemann and Sontheimer)
From the perspective, both sides of the confrontation are throwing out extreme views.
In these incidents, Habermas also proved himself to be an aggressive opponent, never flinching in the face of disagreements, but either using exaggerated descriptions or negative evaluations to dismember the other party's concepts in order to provoke a fierce reaction from the other side. When it comes to arguing with political opponents, he does not hesitate to appeal to specious evaluations and simplistic interpretations, to satire and sometimes to the human body, with sharp arguments
(ad hominem)
。
His focus is also on strategically exercising the power of interpretation. Most of the immediate reasons that drive him to make public statements are everyday political events. In this regard, the mere decision to speak publicly can be regarded as politically motivated behaviour. In this case, the intellectuals' divergence of positions goes beyond the dimension of everyday political disagreement; the controversy is more the result of years of struggles of political thought.
Habermas believed that cafes were public spaces that generated rational dialogue. Stills from Out of Rosenheim 1987.
He insisted that
Violent conflict can only be avoided through verbal behavior through arguments
In a way, Habermas's way of thinking and conceptual approach is so unique, even incomparable, that strictly speaking, there is hardly a clearly recognizable "school" of Habermas that focuses on a particular research focus. But through his work and writings as academic mentors, he has had an important and lasting impact on a large number of scholars. Philosophers, sociologists, and representatives of other disciplines also cite his theoretical categories and models.
The name Habermas is one of the most frequently cited names in the Social Science Citation Index. The secondary literature on his writings is numerous, piling up, and growing.
Of course, his theoretical designs, especially his theoretical conceptions of freedom of interaction and rationality of interaction, have aroused continuous and widespread discussion and disagreement in the academic community. In certain areas of philosophy, it is almost impossible to bypass his work by doing research, especially in the fields of rationality theory, the philosophy of language, and the theory of law and democracy. His diagnosis of the times is as widely accepted as ever, even outside academic circles, though he himself doesn't see it that way.
For Habermas, it is a good academic style to use dissent from his own views as an opportunity to resist the narrow understanding of his own limited ideas. He gave detailed responses to many of his criticisms. Attempts to demarcate with him often have the strange effect of apparently forming a small group of habermas opponents, a somewhat independent school of thought that is contrary to its theory.
In the face of hordes of critics who besieged him, Habermas repeatedly pointed out that his approach was a rational reconstruction aimed at unearthing knowledge embedded in the structure of intersubjectivity, that is, in the practice of daily interaction. In fact, this methodological principle does not provide a universally binding, validated, and morally good concept of relationship, but rather the opposite.
He said: "What disturbs me greatly is the repeated denunciation of my theory in the context of false rumors, the theory of communicative action ... A rationalist social utopia was proposed. And I do not regard a society that has been fully transparent as an ideal, nor do I want to suggest any kind of ideal society. ”
In the early years, Habermas was photographed in the courtyard of his home.
Among the representatives of postmodern thought, the one who disputed Habermas's claims of the universal validity of habermas's theory of non-coercive dialogue and the rules of dialogue was Jean-François Lyotard
（Jean-Fran.ois Lyotard）
Be the first. Manfred Frank
（Manfred Frank）
In his essay "The Intellectual Dialogue between Lyotard and Habermas," Lyotard's critique of Habermas is summarized, "He
in Horta
Can't help but doubt, if you don't have a never-ending discussion
('Controversy')
The freedom to go on, to reach consensus without any coercion, is in fact nothing more than a bureaucratic means of avoiding or suspending discussion. While Habermas in no way denies the irreconcilability of adversarial language games between the two sides of a conflict, he insists that the only way to avoid violent conflict is through argumentative verbal behavior, and there is no other choice.
Habermas also did not shy away from his main opponent in the field of social theory, Nikolaus Luhmann, although the "old-school European thinker" Luhmann was accustomed to posing as a "calm and detached enlightener" who refused to go far away. Luhmann proposed that the Enlightenment tradition, which aimed at rational ideas, be included in the "Museum of Social Archaeology.". According to the basic assumptions of communicative autologous systems theory, he argues that "communication rationality" has no basis. That is, he rejects the assertion that "from the language itself the ideal norm of seeking mutual understanding is obtained."
Habermas examines and studies in detail the systems-theoretical paradigm of society as a closed-operating system. His major dissenting from Luhmann's theory extends long beyond the 1970s when the two men argued over "social theory or social technology?" " category of controversy.
Unlike Luhmann's theory of social systems, Habermas insisted that, in addition to providing observations and descriptions, social theories must refrain from making any assertions about whether societies meet the standards of freedom, justice, and solidarity in their condition. One of his main objections to Luhmann's theory is that he argues that the functionalist rationality of systems theory confines itself to a complex covenant and is based on "the objectiveist self-understanding of man and his world." If we assume that society as a whole is a self-describing system, suppose that no unit in a functionally differentiated society can claim to be in a detached position
（Metaposition）
Then, "the critique of modernity necessarily lacks any point of reference."
Author: Stephen Muller-Dom Integration: Rodong
Proofreader: Zhai Yongjun