Write and organize | Xu Yuedong
Habermas is one of the most influential thinkers today. He made his debut in the 1960s. By the 1980s, Habermas had completely established himself as a philosopher and social theorist. In 1994, when Habermas officially retired, he was then governor of Hesse, Hans Eicher
(Hans Eichel)
He even held a grand banquet for Habermas at his official residence to congratulate him on his honorary retirement. In 2001, Habermas was awarded the "Peace Prize for the German Book Industry" and was then President Johannes Law
(Johannes Rau)
and Chancellor Schroeder
(Gerhard Schröder)
As well as the main leaders of various government departments and the president of the parliament, the then German foreign minister Fischer told the media, "Habermas is the philosopher of our country", and the German media even referred to Habermas as "the Hegel of the Federal Republic of Germany".
Habermas
From the study of social history and intellectual history in the public sphere, to the study of pragmatics, to the theory of communicative rationality, to the thinking of political philosophy and legal philosophy, Habermas's thought is voluminous, all-encompassing, and the theoretical system is intricate. His theory of pragmatics of meaning and the theory of communicative rationality provided theoretical support for his political philosophy and sociological theory. Moreover, Habermas's grandiose theoretical system offers its own answers to many of the problems facing modern life, which are intricately woven together by knowledge from multiple disciplines. Here are some of the main keywords of Habermas's thought that we have selected for you, for a brief overview of his thought map.
Public domain
Habermas's concept of the public sphere, from his first major work, Published in 1962, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, runs through his thinking. Habermas writes, "The bourgeois public sphere is a peculiar historical formation that first appeared in England and France in the 17th and 18th centuries, and then spread with the modern nation-state throughout 19th-century Europe and the United States." Among private groups reading daily newspapers, weekly or monthly reviews, a loose, unorganized but open and flexible network of exchanges slowly formed. Theatres, museums, concert halls, as well as venues such as cafes, tea rooms and salons, provide a public space for entertainment and dialogue. These early public spheres gradually extended along the social dimension, shifting the focus from art and literature to politics. ”
In Habermas's public sphere, citizens who participate freely are equal to each other, rationally discuss public affairs without state interference, and form public opinion to supervise public power. The public sphere is a space for the free discussion of public affairs outside of political power, between bourgeois civil society and the state or government.
The first transformation of the public sphere was the birth of the bourgeois public sphere, which shifted from the public sphere of the nobility to the public sphere of the citizens. Of course, the participants in the bourgeois public sphere are always limited to a small number of rich and educated men. But the public sphere, as a kind of utopia, is worth pursuing.
Structural Transformation of the Public Domain, by Habermas, Publisher: Xuelin Publishing House, Translator: Cao Weidong et al., Published: 1999-1
The "re-feudalization" of the public sphere began in the 19th and 20th centuries. As newspapers and magazines became more popular, many mass media began to serve capital more. Public opinion has also gradually become a place where political organizations manipulate public opinion. Public power gradually expanded into social and private life, and the boundaries between public and private spheres gradually blurred. The public sphere has in fact declined. At the end of Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas makes a hopeful projection. In his view, it was still possible for the public sphere, which was inherent in institutions such as political parties, to function in the public sphere. With the right political and social environment in place, the widening rift between the idea of the public sphere and the socio-political reality may be able to bridge again.
Communicative rationality
Habermas distinguishes between two behaviors: communicative behaviors and instrumental, and strategic behaviors. Habermas believed that the latter parasitized the former. Instrumental behavior refers to the actor's action as a means to achieve an end, and strategic behavior is also a tool behavior. Instrumental behavior is the practical result of instrumental rationality. The basis of communicative behavior is communicative rationality.
Because the communicative behavior is a kind of interactive behavior that occurs between "subject-subject" in accordance with the requirements of validity and uses language symbols as the medium, the purpose of which is to achieve understanding and consistency between subjects, and thus maintain social integration, orderliness and cooperation.
Therefore, in order to compensate for the lack of instrumental rational cognition, Habermas believes that we need to communicate rationality. Communicative rationality refers to rationality that is implicit in the structure of human speech and shared by all who can speak. Communicative rationality is not centered on a single subject, but is recognized by the objectification of knowledge. Communicative rationality involves dialogue, in the paradigm of mutual understanding between subjects, speaking and acting. Habermas called the process of replacing strategic behavior with "communicative rationalization."
Rational communication context and effectiveness requirements for reaching consensus
Habermas's theory of meaning is a pragmatic theory of meaning, a theory of the theory of language use that is more concerned with what language does. Habermas argues that the pragmatic function of speech is expressed in allowing interlocutors to build consensus among subjects, which in turn forms the basis of their next actions.
Habermas argues, "If you don't figure out how to use speech to understand something, people don't know what it is to understand speech." "The basic function of language is to coordinate the behavior of many independent subjects, which makes everyone interact in an orderly manner and without conflict. Habermas hopes to achieve social integration through the formation of consensus. To reach a consensus, Habermas believes that there are two prerequisites, one is the ideal communication situation, and the other is the effectiveness requirement.
Rational communication situations require that the opportunities to participate in the discussion be equal and open, that the content of the communication be free, and that participants can raise any opinions or questions. Moreover, communication is not disturbed by external powers, it is not compulsive, and everyone has the freedom to speak and not to speak. In addition, participation in communication must be a rational, sincere and open attitude, and other participants must be respected and recognized.
The speaker's verbal behavior has three different requirements for validity: authenticity, legitimacy, and sincerity. Authenticity means that both the content of the language and the language itself are real. Legitimacy means that it is appropriate and reasonable in terms of ethics. If the listener does not think that what we say is sincere, true, and legitimate, consensus is difficult to reach. In order to achieve understanding, in Habermas's view, the participants must first understand what everyone says, know the literal meaning of the speaker's words, and then be able to guess the speaker's intentions, understand the reasons for the legitimacy of what the speaker says, and accept these reasons and the language used.
Negotiate theory
What if there are disagreements, failures in communication, or if the listener rejects the speaker's validity request? The listener will challenge the reasons behind the speaker's validity requirements, which leads to negotiation. Negotiation is a reflective exchange in which no consensus is reached, and it aims to reach consensus. Negotiation is particularly important as a mechanism for regulating the daily conflicts of modern society, for repairing and renewing consensus, and for rebuilding the rational basis of social order. Because the listener challenges the reason behind the speaker's validity requirements, the negotiation is also closely related to the validity requirements. The three requirements for validity (authenticity, legitimacy, and sincerity) correspond to three kinds of negotiation: theoretical negotiation, moral negotiation, and aesthetic negotiation.
In addition, negotiation is very complex, it should not only have an ideal communication situation, but also meet the requirements of effectiveness, and it must conform to some kind of "negotiation principle". Simply put, the language of negotiation conforms to basic logic and semantic rules. In the avoidance of unjust obstruction and coercion, all those who have the ability to speak and act can participate in the negotiations, everyone has the right to question and make any assertion, and everyone has the right to express his attitude, wishes and demands.
The Theory of Communicative Behavior, by Jürgen. Habermas, Publisher: Shanghai People's Publishing House, Translator: Cao Weidong, Published: 2004-8-1
While the rules of the negotiation are idealized, it gives participants the opportunity to express their views equally and rationally, regardless of their differences in identity, ensures that the discussion is inclusive and extensive, and prevents deception and coercion.
Living worlds and systems
In Habermas's eyes, communicative behavior and negotiation are social glues. Habermas's distinguished communicative and instrumental behaviors correspond to the living world and system in Habermas's social theory, respectively, which are two different spheres of social life, and these two spheres of social life constitute this society.
The living world "constitutes the background of the practice of communication", it uses language and symbols as the medium, communication rationality as the operating rules, and "the subjects of communication strive to jointly solve the problems they encounter in their daily lives". Habermas uses the living world to refer to informal, unmarketable areas of social life, such as family and domestic work, culture, non-partisan political life, mass media, volunteer organizations, and so on.
Culture, society and personality are the three major areas of the modern living world. "Culture is divided into scientific and technical fields, legal and moral fields, and art and art criticism according to different requirements of validity, such as questions of authenticity, integrity, and taste. On the basis of the primary system of society (such as the family, the church, and the legal order), different functional systems (such as modern economy and state management) have been formed, and they have their own unique development paths through their own medium of communication (monetary and administrative power). Finally, individual structures are the product of a process of socialization that enables people to find their place in complex societies as they grow up from generation to generation. ”
The living world is a force for social integration, preventing the division of meaning, the conflict of behavior, and the condition for critical reflection. In addition, the living world is the intermediary of social symbols, socio-cultural reproduction, and the carrier of the continuation of traditions.
Systems can be divided into two distinct subsystems: economic systems and administrative systems, which are mediated by money and power, respectively. The living world can be divided into the private sphere and the public sphere, where the medium of exchange between the private sphere and the economic system is money, while the public sphere and the administrative system exchange power. Money and power became the coordinating mechanisms of the capitalist economy and state administration. Habermas argues that systems are deeply embedded in the surfaces of social life, and that actors can easily fall into the instrumental behaviors that the system presupposes.
The main function of the system is to reproduce the material of society. In addition, the two subsystems also coordinate and integrate behaviors. Corresponding to the "social integration" of the living world, Habermas called it "system integration". When the development of modernization makes it difficult to achieve the goal of social integration, systematic integration can reduce the burden of social integration and integrate society.
However, Habermas points to the dangers inherent in system integration. On the one hand, the system disconnects the actor's goals from understanding and consensus, ignoring the importance of some economic or administrative actions and not reflecting on their results. In addition, the system is inherently opaque, contrasting with the living world. Second, the ultimate goals of actors within the system are not really up to them.
Colonization of the living world
Habermas said that modern society exists in a fragile balance between systems and the world in which they live. However, because the system is embedded and parasitic on the living world, the living world has priority. While systems depend on the living world, systems tend to erode and destroy the living world. The system colonizes the living world, making the living world more and more commercialized and bureaucratized, resulting in a fragile balance between the system and the living world.
The capitalist economic and administrative system is gradually separated from the family, the cultural sphere and public sphere institutions such as the mass media. As instrumental rationality becomes more rampant, they gradually invade the living world and weaken its function. Culturally, as the laws of the market control the circulation of cultural goods, society loses its cultural consensus. In society, social integration is slowly replaced by systematic integration, and the regulation of social relations is carried out not through interaction but through unequal power operation. In terms of personality, the original non-market field has been marketized and bureaucratized, and the inner dimension of the human spirit has been weakened and lost its criticality. Habermas called these pathologies of the living world "social pathology."
The colonization of the living world has led to a reduction in shared meaning and mutual understanding, erosion of social bonds, breeding social rifts, growing feelings of helplessness, leaving people without a sense of belonging, and can even lead to moral decay and the upheaval and collapse of social order. Habermas therefore argues that we need to protect the living world from colonization by curbing the system of money and power, and ensure that there are enough unregulated, unmarketable spheres of social life to create social integration. Habermas pinned his hopes on the system of a democratic welfare state that allowed individual moral and politically appealing nonviolent protest groups to exert influence on it.
Modernity: an unfinished business
In 1980, habermas, while receiving the Adorno Prize, delivered a speech on "Modernity: An Unfinished Business." The speech caused a stir because habermas opposed the postmodernist currents that were popular at the time. Habermas argues that modernity is a cause, not a historical stage, and that it can and should be accomplished, but not yet.
Habermas supports a certain view of social progress. He believes that social development can be seen as a learning process, and the main body of the post-custom society in modern society can better coordinate actions and maintain social order than the main body of the custom society and the main body of the pre-custom society in the pre-modern society. But Habermas is far from naïve optimist. His critical research is to analyze the various "social pathologies" caused by modernization.
The cause of modernity has not been completed because the problems of modernity have still not been solved. Habermas believes that attempts to stop and reverse the process of modernization are futile, and that those alternatives to modernity and modernization are even less satisfactory.
The fruits of modernity—the growth of knowledge, economic growth, and the expansion of individual freedom—are all things we cannot afford to lose. The completion of modernity means finding a way to reconnect the expertise generated in the process of enlightenment with common sense and the world of life and the public good, so as to enjoy the cultural, technological, and economic potential of modern society. This task requires, first and foremost, that "the modernization of society can develop in other non-capitalist directions."
The "two-track" structure of politics
Habermas distinguishes between the informal and formal basic political spheres. The informal sphere of politics consists of a spontaneous, "chaotic," "anarchic" set of interactions and negotiations, what we might call "civil society," which forms individual opinions and wills. The formal political sphere is an institutional arena for exchanges and discussions, with decision-making as its purpose, and it can form the will to democratize. This is also the "double track" of politics.
Habermas argues that a sound politics of negotiation must be two-track, and that such deliberative politics relies on effective interaction between "two tracks." When the formal political sphere is able to absorb the public opinion of civil society, the function of the political system is sound. Habermas placed particular emphasis on bottom-up input from civil society, where will in the informal political sphere can influence the formal political sphere through the appropriate channels. In healthy democracies, policies and laws introduced in the formal political sphere are often in tune with public opinion in civil society.
Habermas's discursive politics advocated a kind of proceduralist politics, in which he wanted to implement the principle of communicative rationality and negotiation in order to achieve the goal of transcending liberalism and republicanism. He closely unified the liberal view of human rights with the republican view of popular sovereignty, in which individual rights and popular sovereignty are mutually premised. When formal political institutions can accept modest input from the bottom up, the policies and laws of these political institutions are rational. Since democracies must be properly embedded in civil society, civil society must be protected.
Constitutional patriotism
Habermas claims that under modern conditions, the only appropriate way to identify with the traditions of the nation-state in which he lives is through "constitutional patriotism." The term was born during public debate in the mid-1980s, when some Historians in Germany relativized nazi-era crimes. Habermas believed that it would be perverse to create a past that Germany was proud of. The only patriotic patriotism that is politically and morally appropriate is based on the universal principles of the constitutional state.
"For us, the people of the Federal Republic of Germany, constitutional patriotism means, in addition to other factors, pride in the fact that we have succeeded in the eternal victory over fascism, in establishing a just political system, and in which it is based on a just and liberal political culture."
Civic identity with great cultural background differences cannot be guaranteed by ethnicity and blood, and political consensus should be established in the general participation of citizens. The Constitution is a legal provision of political consensus that comprehensively reflects the universal values of society and is approved by the whole people through consultation. Citizens' identification with the Constitution reflects the identification with the state, which in turn embodies democratic politics. At the time, Habermas believed that citizens were directly identified with universal democratic and moral principles.
Later, Habermas changed his view, arguing that a democratic constitution must take root in a political culture that meets the various conditions of the region. First, a democratic constitution must be consistent with the morality of post-custom. Second, a democratic constitution must resonate with the ethics of all cultural groups in the political community. Finally, political culture needs to be underpinned by social and welfare rights in order for citizens to experience "the fair value of their rights," that is, citizens can feel the benefits of participating in a common political culture.
European integration and post-ethnic structure
Reflecting on the two world wars of the 20th century, Habermas argues that Europeans "must abandon the conceptual model on which nationalist, xenophobic mechanisms depend." Moreover, globalization has altered the fragile balance between economic growth and social welfare. The "flight of capital" has forced many governments to adopt low tax policies to retain capital. It is not easy for governments to implement policies that curb the side effects of capitalism.
Habermas recognized the social achievements of the nation-state, which left a historical legacy of citizenship and popular sovereignty, but he understood that nationalism was dangerous. Particularist nationalism is exclusive. Moreover, the ties of blood and clans precede politics and are easily manipulated by politicians. Under the double onslaught of globalization and cultural pluralism, nationalism has become a persuasive but dangerous reaction, which Habermas sees as a step backwards.
Therefore, nation-states need to find new legitimization reasons for themselves in order to adapt to the tide of globalization and move towards the world pattern of post-nation states. Habermas opposed neoliberalism's position of defending the nation-state and postmodernism's position of abandoning the nation-state altogether, arguing that it was too early to abandon the nation-state. He summed up a dialectic of the process of European modernization, and he wanted to adjust a new equilibrium relationship to build a worldwide political community, a political concept that was in line with the trend of globalization: "post-national democracy". This new world political community is a "world internal affair without a world government" based on a global civil society based on social movements and non-governmental organizations. We need to build effective transnational institutions to complement the shortcomings of the nation-state in response to global market integration.
Post-Ethnic Structure, author: [de] Jürgen Habermas, Publisher: Century Wenjing| Shanghai People's Publishing House, Translator: Cao Weidong, Published: 2019-1
Because in Habermas's view, there are two ways to solve this globalization dilemma. The neoliberal solution is to adapt to pressures from the global economy, to reduce costs, reduce welfare, and expose individuals to risk. The consequence of the programme is that the economic winner will become the social loser.
Another option is that, in order to harness the economy, politics must also be globalized. This means creating a supranational political system. If the post-national political system can control the global market and create a political entity with the authority and power to regulate this large market, govern the globalized economy and make transfer payments to ensure social justice and the proper functioning of the market.
Relatively speaking, the EU is an ambitious example of the path to the supranational state. Habermas argued that modern democracy is not based on a racial or ethnic identity, but on an open relationship of interaction and the resulting political culture. If Europe had a "political public sphere," it could build a transnational national identity.
Of course, Habermas did not underestimate the difficulties faced by the EU in its economic and political integration plans. Habermas has often disclosed his concerns about the EU crisis in the media. He believes that the EU crisis is not only a debt crisis, but also because the EU has been planned and monopolized by the political elite from the beginning, and the European government is in a two-sided undesirable situation, and the recent Brexit is the embodiment of the common crisis of EU member states.
But Habermas does not see this as a failure of the transition from national democracy to transnational democracy, arguing that Britain's idea of "taking back control" is due to a sense of loss of control caused by the erosion of the nation-state democratic spirit, which is an important prerequisite for the survival of the citizens of their own society. Habermas criticized EU politics for not being rooted in civil society, but on the basis of depriving the broad masses of people of major political and economic decisions.
How to promote the development of a network of discussions and contacts throughout Europe, as well as the development of European civil society and political culture, has become an urgent issue. According to Habermas, "the emergence of a European federal state worthy of the term European democracy depends on the development of an integrated public sphere throughout Europe within a unified political culture: there must be a civil society that embraces interest groups, non-governmental organizations, civic movement groups, etc., and naturally there must be a party system compatible with the arena of Europe." ”
References: A Biography of Jürgen Habermas, by Stefan Müller-Doohm, Publisher: Sohn ∣ Social Sciences Literature Press, Translator: Liu Feng, Published: 2019-6-18
Habermas, author: Finleyson, Publisher: Yilin Press, Translator: Shao Zhijun, Year: 2010-1
Cao Weidong on Habermas, author: Cao Weidong, Publisher: Peking University Press, published in 2005-09-01
Philosophical Terms of Modernity, by Habermas, Publisher: Yilin Publishing House, Translator: Cao Weidong, Published: 2011-1
Between Facts and Norms, by Habermas, Publisher: Triptych Bookstore, Translator: Tong Shijun, Year of Publication: 2003-08
Crisis of Legalization, by Jürgen Habermas, Publisher: Shanghai People's Publishing House, Translators: Liu Beicheng, Cao Weidong, Published: 2009-11-1
Embracing the Other, author: [de] Jürgen Habermas, Publisher: Shanghai People's Publishing House, Translator: Cao Weidong, Published: 2002-10-01
Author: Xu Yuedong
Editor: Xu Yuedong Proofreader: Zhai Yongjun