Canadi anJ ournal

ofPol i t i cal andSoci al Theory/ Revuecanadi ennedet heori epol i t i que

et soci al e, Vol ume14, Numbers 1- 3 (1990) .
HABERMAS CONFRONTSTHE
DECONSTRUCTIONISTCHALLENGE: ONTHE
PHILOSOPHICALDISCOURSEOFMODERNITY
IanAngus
J urgenHabermas, ThePhi l osophi cal Di scourseofModerni t y. Transl at ed
byFrederi ckLawrence. Cambri dge, Massachuset t s
: TheMITPress, 1987,
pp. 430.
Among cri t i cal ci rcl es i n
Nort h Ameri can uni versi t i es duri ng t he
1970' s, t heworkof t heFrankfurt School was
anessent i al poi nt of refer-
ence. But i nt hel ast decade,
t hi s cent ral i t yhas beendi spl acedbyt het ext s
t hat are l umpedt oget her under t he
t erm"post moderni sm. " Theshi ft
fromt he"i mmanent cri t i que" of t heFrankfurt School t o t he
"di scourses"
of post moderni smi s afundament al change i n t he cont ent
andst yl e of
"cri t i cal t heory. " Agenui nel y radi cal cri t i cal t heory must cont i nual l y
renewt hequest i ons "What i s cri t i cal ? " and"Of what are wecri t i cal ? "
Int hi s cont ext , i t i s bot h arare andani mport ant
event whenJ urgen
Habermas, t he most promi nent cont emporary
represent at i ve of t he
Frankfurt School , publ i shes abook cri t i cal of t he mai n
post moderni st
t hi nkers . As Habermas cl earl y document s, t hework of Ni et zsche
i s t he
ent ryi nt opost moderni t y. Consequent l y, hemust rej ect t heformul at i ons
of t heearl i er generat i onof Frankfurt cri t i cs, especi al l y Horkhei mer
and
Adornoi nDi al ect i c ofEnl i ght enment , wheret hei nfl uence
of Ni et zsche
i s deci si ve. Whereas t hey movedfromi mmanent cri t i que of t he con-
t radi ct i ons
of
capi t al i sm
t oat ot al i zi ngcri t i que of West ernci vi l i zat i on,
I ANANGUS
Habermas i s concerned t o recover t hel ost possi bi l i t y of moderni t y-a
phi l osophy of communi cat i vepraxi st hat i ncorporat esspeci f i c
sci ent i f i c
( i . e. val i di t y-ori ent ed) cri t i ques i nt odi scursi ve( i
. e. i nt ersubj ect i vel y-ori -
ent ed) ref l exi onandt hereby ext endst hepossi bi l i t i es of reduci ngdomi -
nat i oni n pract i cal cont ext s.
I n a key passage i n t he i nt roduct i ont o Di al ect i c of
Enl i ght enment ,
Horkhei mer and Adorno expressed t he t ransi t i on t hat t hei r workhad
undergone. "Event houghwehadknownf or many years t hat t hegreat
di scoveri es of appl i edsci encearepai df or wi t hani ncreasi ng
di mi nut i on
of t heoret i cal awareness, west i l l t hought t hat
i n regardt osci ent i f i c ac-
t i vi t y our cont ri but i oncoul d
berest ri ct edt ot hecri t i ci smor ext ensi on
of speci al i st axi oms. "'
Previ ousl y, i n bei ng l i mi t ed t o cri t i ci zi ng or
ext endi ng
speci al i zedknowl edges wi t h regard t o t hei r i mpact ont he
whol esoci o-hi st ori cal l i f eworl d, Cri t i cal Theory assumedt hef ramework
of t hi s l i f eworl dasgi ven. Whi l e
speci al i zed knowl edges mi ght f unct i on
ei t her t omyst i f y or t o enl i ght en, t he
i nt egri t y of t he wi der cat egori es
wi t hi nwhi cht heal t ernat i ve
of "i deol ogy or enl i ght enment " coul dbef or-
mul at ed
was not i nquest i on. Thus, i n t he f ashi on of Marx, one coul d
speakof t hei nt ernal "cont radi ct i onsof capi t al i sm" ( or "moderni t y") and
of "progress, " however del ayed or mut ed, i n ant i ci pat i ng
t hei r over-
comi ng.
Thi st urni ngi n Cri t i cal Theory was mot i vat edby t he"i nsi ght " t hat , not
onl y wast heexpect edprogressnot f ort hcomi ng, but t hat newf orms of
domi nat i onwerei ssui ngf romexact l y t hoseproduct i vef orcest hat were
expect edt oprovi dei t s mot or. I npart i cul ar, t hey hadi nmi ndaut omat i on
andot her advances i n i ndust ri al product i on, t hepsychol ogy of manage-
ment andpubl i c rel at i ons, and
t hemass decept i onpract i cedby t henew
medi a
of communi cat i on
.
One mi ght repl y, of course, t hat i t i s no
surpri se t hat t hese
progressi ve f orces are "di st ort ed" under capi t al i st
rel at i ons
of product i on. But t hepoi nt i s t hat t ospeakof di st ort i oni s t o
assume
t hat
t hef orcesof product i onaret hemsel vesprogressi ve, or per-
haps "neut ral , " andt hat
t hei r use f or dest ruct i ve ends i s anext ri nsi c
f act or. However, i n t he deat h camps,
f or exampl e, t radi t i onal ant i -
Semi t i smt akes
ona newgenoci dal pot ent i al preci sel y because of i m-
provement s i nmeans of t ransport at i on and
organi zat i on. Thus, t heob-
j ect of cri t i cal t hought was broadened
f romcont emporary cont radi c-
t i ons t o t he process of West ern ci vi l i zat i on as a
whol e, wi t h a speci al
i nt erest i nt hecont emporary condi t i onst hat
exacerbat egeneri cf ormsof
domi nat i on. Subj ect i vereason, whi ch
enabl es t hedomi nat i onof nat ure,
assert s i t sel f t hrough
subj ugat i nganal i en"Ot her. " I nt ernal nat urei s sub-
duedt hroughpsychi c
repressi on andext ernal nat ure t hrough sci ence
and t echnol ogy.
Thepresent epoch i s charact eri zed by "revol t s of na-
t ure"z whi chi nt ensi f y t het ensi ons
i nherent i n t heci vi l i zi ngprocess and
f orce cri t i cal t hought t ot urnf rom
cont radi ct i ons wi t hi n t he gi ven l i f e-
worl dt o t hecri t i queof ci vi l i zat i on, f romMarx
t o
Ni et zsche.
HABERMAS
I nhi s ear l y wor k, Haber mas
was concer nedt o cr i t i ci z e andext endt he
concept of t he
publ i c spher ef r omear l y bour geoi s soci et y by di st i ngui sh-
i ng i nst r ument al act i on f r omcommuni cat i ve
i nt er act i on. Thus, t her e
emer gedal ayer ed i nt el l ect ual pr oj ect i nvol vi ng
epi st emol ogi cal sel f - r e-
f l ect i on on t he i nt er est s i ncor por at edi nt o
t he r esear ch pr ogr ams of t he
human sci ences, a t heor y of di scur si ve
pr act i ce, and i ncor por at i on of
speci f i c sci ent i f i c
r esear ches i nt o publ i c r ef l ect i on ai med at enl i ght en-
ment . I n
or der t o pur sue t hi s pr oj ect Haber mas must def end a l i mi t ed
concept . of cr i t i que t hat r emai ns t i ed t o moder ni t y even
whi l e de-
vel opi ng i t s unr eal i z ed possi bi l i t y- a phi l osophy
of i nt er subj ect i ve r ea-
son.
Haber mas di scer ns a
"per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on" i n t ot al i z i ng cr i -
t i que i n whi ch
cr i t i que "l oses i t s or i ent at i on" ( p.
127) .
Subj ect i ve
r eason
advances t hr ough t he cr i t i que of myt h, andends by asser t i ng
a pur e i n-
st r ument al i t y whi ch i t sel f becomes myt hi cal
by r epr essi ngany concept
of a meani ngf ul r el at i on t o an Ot her asi de
f r omdomi nat i on. Thus, t he
cr i t i que of ci vi l i z at i on i ndi ct s
r eason as t he per pet r at or of domi nat i on,
but does so wi t h t he t ool s of r eason
. The r at i onal cr i t i que of myt h, be-
cause of i t s consequences, i s t ur ned
agai nst r eason i t sel f . But t hi s t ot al -
i z i ng cr i t i que, at l east i n
Hor khei mer andAdor no, i s st i l l meant t o con-
t r i but e t o enl i ght enment . Thi s
i t cannot do, Haber mas cl ai ms, because i t
"t ear s downt he bar r i er bet ween
val i di t y andpower " ( p. 119) . By cr i t i ci z -
i ngr eason as cul pabl e i nsoci al domi nat i on t he cr i t i que of ci vi l i z at i on
r e-
moves t he Ar chi medean poi nt out si de domi nat i on
f r omwhi ch a de-
nunci at i oncanpr oceed. Whi l e
i deol ogy cr i t i que r el i es oni mmanent cr i -
t i que of t he unr eal i z ed pot ent i al
of bour geoi s cul t ur e, t ot al i z i ng cr i t i que
woul dhave t ogener at e i t s own
nor mat i ve j ust i f i cat i on- whi ch, accor d-
i ng t o Haber mas, i t cannot do.
Thi s per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on l eads t ot woconsequences
whi char e
cent r al f or Haber mas' s eval uat i on of post moder n
wr i t er s : Tot al i z i ng cr i -
t i que under val ues t he cent r al aspect of
demyt hol ogi z at i on as "di f f er en-
t i at i on of basi c concept s" ( p. 114) . As agai nst
t he t ot al i z i ng power of
myt h t o i nt egr at e al l phenomena i nt o a pat t er n
of consi st ent concept s,
moder ni t y i nvol ves an i nt er nal di f f er ent i at i onof
t he spher es of sci ence,
ar t , r el i gi on, pol i t i cs, andso f or t h. Al so, i n a cor r el at i ve manner ,
t ot al i z -
i ng cr i t i que
el evat es one of t hese spher es t o
exempl ar y st at us- t he
aest het i c
avant - gar de wi t h i t s f ocus on t he wor l d- di scl osi ng
aspect of
l anguage- t o
t he negl ect of l ear ni ng pr ocesses i n t he
l i f ewor l d, even
t hough t he not i on
of a "pur el y aest het i c exper i ence" i s f or med
t hr ough
t he pr ocess of di f f er ent i at i on
( p.
307,
339) .
Hegel at t empt edt o
"subl at e" [ aut heben] t he di f f er ent i at i on of moder n
soci et y i n a concr et e
t ot al i t y by f usi ngt he act ual i t y of cont empor ar y
hi s-
t or ywi t h t he essent i al
r el at i ons of concept s . Thesubsequent
di vi si on be-
t ween r i ght and l ef t Hegel i ans
cent r ed on t he f ai l ur e of t hi s synt hesi s
such t hat "t he Young Hegel i ans del i ver
t hemsel ves over t o hi st or i cal
t hi nki ngi n anunphi l osophi cal way" ( p. 54) ,
wher eas t he r i ght Hegel i ans
2
3
I ANANGUS
( begi nni ng wi ththe ol d Hegel ) pr ogr essi vel y r etr eat f r omhi stor y i nto
pur el y conceptual r el ati ons . Thus, Haber mas j udges that wear esti l l con-
tempor ar i es of
the
YoungHegel i ans because our task i s sti l l to i ntegr ate
r eal
hi stor y
wi thconceptual total i zati on
. He attempts to sol ve thepr ob-
l ems of the phi l osophy of the subj ect by r ecuper ati ng and devel opi ng
systemati cal l y an i nter subj ecti ve concepti on of r eason.
But the gr owthi n r ef l exi vi ty, i n uni vcr sal i sm, and i n i ndi vi du-
ati on under gone by the str uctur al cor e of the l i f ewor l d i n the
cour se of i ts di f f er enti ati on nowno l onger f i ts thedescr i pti onof
ani ntensi f i cati onwi thi n thedi mensi ons of thesubj ect' s r el ati on-
to- sel f. Andonl y under thi s descr i pti on- that i s, f r omthe
per -
specti ve of thephi l osophy of the subj ect- coul d
soci etal r ati on-
al i zati on, the unf ol di ng of the r ati onal
potenti al of soci al pr ac-
ti ce,
be
r epr esented
as
the
sel f - r ef l ecti on of a soci etal macr osub-
j ect . Thetheor y of communi cati on candowi thout thi s f i gur e of
thought ( p. 345) .
I t i s f r omthi s per specti ve, devel oped i n mor e detai l i n other wor ks,
that Haber mas unl oads hi s pol emi c agai nst the postmodemi sts. He doc-
uments thei r per f or mati ve contr adi cti ons, de- di f f er enti ati on of soci al
spher es and exper i ences, and
el evati on of wor l d- di scl osi ng l anguage i n
or der to ar guethat cr i ti cal thought goes astr ay wheni t i s total i zed . Si nce
cr i ti que cannot gener ate nor mati veandr ati onal cr i ter i a f r omi tsel f al one,
i t must pr oceed i mmanentl y, agai nst the backgr ound of a l i f ewor l d that
i t must conceptual i ze but cannot master cr i ti cal l y .
Stemmi ng f r omNi etzsche, Haber mas di scer ns two br anches of post-
moder n phi l osophy.
One, based on the Ni etschean cr i ti que of meta-
physi cs, comes thr oughHei degger to Der r i da. The second, begi nni ng
f r omNi etzsche' s geneal ogy of power and desi r e, comes thr oughBatai l l e
to Foucaul t . I t i s cl ear that Haber mas has a l ot mor e sympathy wi th the
l atter . Whi l e he consi der s i ts cr i ti que of moder ni ty one- si ded- f ai l i ng to
consi der the r eal gai ns i n enl i ghtenment al ongsi de i ts di sci pl i nar y as-
pects- i t has never thel ess pr oduced i mpor tant empi r i cal anal yses of
moder n power . The pr obl emi s sol el y wi thi ts sel f - under standi ng . I n a
penetr ati ng account of the devel opment of Foucaul t' s wor k, he ar gues
that the l ater theor y of power enf ol ds a dual i ty conceal edby i ts genesi s :
on the onehand, i t i s an empi r i cal anal ysi s of power f or mati ons, on the
other , i t i s a conceal ed theor y of consti tuti on, a tr ancendental anal ysi s of
the condi ti ons under whi ch empi r i cal power f or mati ons or i gi nate,
devel op, anddecay. Onl y becauseof thi s conceal eddual i ty do Foucaul t' s
hi stor i cal anal yses take on thei r embl emati c char acter as cr i ti ques of
moder ni ty- because these condi ti ons ar e not speci f i c to psychi atr y,
cr i mi nol ogy or sexual i ty but consti tuti ve of the epoch of moder ni ty
i tsel f .
Later , Haber mas r etur ns to the "doubl es" that Foucaul t di agnosed i n
TheAr cheol ogy of Knowl edge as pr oduced by thehumansci ences i n the
contr adi ctor y attempt at sel f - knowl edge char acter i sti c of moder ni ty:
24
HABERMAS
t r anscendent al / empi r i cal , consci ous/ unconsci ous, and cr eat i ve act or /
al i enat ed f r omor i gi n. He ar gues t hat t hese unr esol vabl e doubl es be-
t ween whi ch t heor y osci l l at es ar e pr oduced by t he exhaust i on
of t he
phi l osophy of t he subj ect and di sappear when communi cat i ve pr axi s i s
t aken as t he st ar t i ng poi nt . 3 Wher eas empi r i cal andt r anscendent al can-
not be cannot be "medi at ed, " apar t i ci pant can subsequent l y r ef l ect on
hi s act i on f r omt he per spect i ve of t he ot her . Si mi l ar 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 c
moder n subj ect r ender i ng t he opaci t y of t he i n- i t sel f i nt o a f ul l y con-
sci ous f ori t sel f ) can be r ef or mul at ed as t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he
hor i zon of an i nt ui t i vel y gi ven, unpr obl emat i c backgr ound of t he l i f e-
wor l dandt her epr oduct i on of t hel i f ewor l d t hr ough communi cat i ve i n-
t er act i on. Cr i t i cal r ef l ect i on on obj ect i vi st i c i l l usi ons, or r ei f i cat i ons, i s
di r ect ed t owar dt he r epr oduct i on of t he l i f ewor l d t hr ough communi ca-
t i ve pr act i ce. Thus, i n a cer t ai n sense t he i nt er subj ect i ve communi t y
i s
r esponsi bl ef or t hese i l l usi ons, even t hough t hey have not (necessar i l y)
been del i ber at el y engender ed. Such r ef l ect i on i s di r ect ed t owar d si ngl e
i l l usi ons ; i t "cannot make t r anspar ent
t het ot al i t y of acour se of l i f e i n t he
pr ocess
of
i ndi vi duat i on
or of
a
col l ect i ve way of l i f e" (p. 3 00) . Thus, i t
can nei t her r ecapt ur e a pur e or i gi n
nor be absol ut el y al i enat ed f r omi t .
The ot her
br anch of post moder ni smf ar es l ess wel l . Not hi ng posi t i ve
i s sai d about ei t her Hei degger
or Der r i da
.
I n di scussi ng t he "t ur ni ng" i n
Hei degger ' s wor kaf t er Bei ngandTi me, Haber mas ar gues t hat he r ecr e-
at es t he pr obl ems of t he phi l osophy of t he subj ect r at her t han over com-
i ng t hem. Whi l e i n af i r st st ep Hei degger over t ur ns t he pr i or i t y of pr opo-
si t i onal t r ut h, never t hel ess, i n a second, he vi ews wor l d- di scl osur e as an
event pr i or t o t he i nt er subj ect i ve under st andi ng of meani ng. Haber mas
asser t s t he cont r ar y: "[ T] he hor i zon of t he under st andi ng of meani ng i s
not pr i or t o, but subor di nat e t o, t he quest i on of t r ut h" (p. 154) . Thus,
Hei degger r et ur ns t o a"t empor al i zedphi l osophy of or i gi ns" i n whi ch t he
di scl osi ve event r ei gns over al l subsequent occur r ences, and i s t her eby
r ai sed above any cr i t i cal i nvest i gat i on. 4 Der r i da accept s Hei degger ' s cr i -
t i que of met aphysi cs but r ej ect s t he myt hol ogy of or i gi ns and t ur ns t o
wr i t i ng as t hewor l d- di scl osi ng event wi t hout ei t her subj ect or or i gi n. He
"r enews t he myst i cal concept of t r adi t i on as an ever del ayed event of
r evel at i on" (p. 183 ) . Whi l e Haber mas acknowl edges t he af f i ni t y of t hi s
t hought , whi ch "r et ur ns t o t he hi st or i cal l ocal e wher e myst i ci smt ur ns
i nt o enl i ght enment " (p. 184) , t o t hat of Schol em, Ador noand Benj ami n,
hedeni es i t anyenl i ght eni ng r ol e. Ador noacknowl edged t he par adoxes
of t ot al i zi ng cr i t i que and devi sed a st r at egy of i ndi r ect communi cat i on
f r omt he per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on i t ent ai l ed. Hi s negat i ve di al ect i cs
dr ewf r omt he aest het i c
avant - gar de f or an access t o t he obj ect t hat was
undi st or t ed
by subj ect i ve r eason. I n t hi s r espect , Der r i daandAdor noar e
on t he same gr ound- t hey ar e concer ned
t o deci pher t he nor mal case
f r omt he poi nt of vi ewof t he ext r emes . However , wher eas Ador no ut i -
l i zed t he per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on i n or der t o l i ber at e t he ut opi an
2
5
I ANANGUS
t hemat i c wi t hi nphi l osophy, Der r i dawant s t o cl ear awayt he
met aphysi -
cal di f f er ent i at i on
i nt o genr es .
Haber mas i dent i f i es t hr ee pr oposi t i ons onwhi ch
Der r i da' s r het or i cal
cr i t i ci smi s bui l t . 1) Li t er ar y cr i t i ci smi s not " sci ent i f i c, " but
as r het or i cal
as " l i t er at ur e. " 2) Phi l osophi cal t ext s ar e accessi bl e i n t hei r
f undament al
cont ent byl i t er ar y cr i t i ci sm. 3) Rhet or i cal cr i t i ci sm
appl i es t o t hewhol e
cont ext of t ext s, i nwhi ch
genr edi st i nct i ons ar edi ssol ved. I t al so f ol l ows,
f r omt he
concept of " gener al l i t er at ur e" i mpl i ed her e, t hat l i t er ar y t ext s
ar e accessi bl e t o t he cr i t i que of met aphysi cs. I n shor t , Der r i da' s
de-
const r uct i oni st st andpoi nt i s based uponar ever sal of t he
subor di nat i on
of r het or i c t o phi l osophy t hat el abor at es anew
r het or i c i n whi chbot h
t he cr i t i que of met aphysi cs ( t hat def i nes
" phi l osophy" ) andwor l d- di s-
cl osi ng l anguage ( t hat def i nes
" l i t er at ur e" ) mer ge i nt o a concept of
wr i t i ngt hat
i mpl i es del ayof meani ng, absence of cl osur e, andpr ol i f er a-
t i on of di scur si ve i nt er vent i ons .
Ther ear et womai npoi nt s i n Haber mas' s r ej oi nder t o
Der r i da. Taken
t oget her , t hey at t empt t o sust ai n
t he subor di nat i on of t hewor l d- hor i zon
t o t he
pr obl emof t r ut h. F i r st , he ar gues t hat " nor mal " and" l i mi t "
uses of
l 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 andt r eat ed i n t he same
manner as t he deconst r uct i oni st s suggest . They
ar gue, or of t en si mpl y
assume,
t hat because any st at ement can be quot ed ( r econt ext ual i zed) ,
andsi nce
meani ngchanges wi t h cont ext ( andt her e i s an i nexhaust i bl e
pl ur al i t y of cont ext s) , t hat any t ext i s open t o an uncont r ol l abl e
mul t i -
pl i ci t y of i nt er pr et at i ons . Thus, i t seems t hat any nor mal usage
depends
si mpl yuponat empor ar yst abi l i zat i onof l i mi t usages andt hat
onecan not
begi n f r oman " i n pr i nci pl e"
separ at i on bet ween nor mal i t y and ab-
nor mal i t y. Haber mas
r esponds t hat nor mal usage occur s r el at i ve t o t he
" shar ed backgr ound knowl edge
t hat i s const i t ut i ve of t he l i f ewor l d of a
l i ngui st i c
communi t y" ( p
.
197) . Thus, when backgr ound knowl edge
does
become pr obl emat i c, t he soci al act or s engage i ndi scussi onwhi ch
appeal s
t o " i deal i zi ngsupposi t i ons" or i ent edt or epai r i ngi nt er subj ect i ve
agr eement .
Consequent l y, t he pl ur al i t y of i nt er pr et at i ons of at ext i s not
si mpl y open; i t i s
const r ai ned by t hi s or i ent at i ont owar di deal consensus .
F r omt hi s i deal consensus, a
di st i nct i onbet weennor mal andl i mi t cases
canbe sust ai ned
andt he pr ol i f er at i on of meani ng i s hel d wi t hi n det er -
mi nabl e bounds. Haber mas st at es
i t t hi s way,
I t i s not habi t ual l i ngui st i c pr act i ce t hat det er mi nes j ust what
meani ngi s at t r i but ed t o a t ext or an
ut t er ance. Rat her , l anguage
games onl y wor k because
t hey pr esuppose i deal i zat i ons t hat
t r anscend any par t i cul ar
l anguage game; as a necessar y condi -
t i on of possi bl y
r eachi ngunder st andi ng, t hesei deal i zat i ons gi ve
r i se t o t heper spect i ve
of anagr eement t hat i s open t o cr i t i ci sm
on t he basi s
of val i di t y cl ai ms ( p. 199) .
Thus, communi cat i ve act i on cont ai ns a uni ver sal moment t houghout a
pl ur al i t y of cont ext s .
26
HABERMAS
Communi cati veacti on
draws
upon
theresources of thel i f eworl dtore-
producethecomponents of cul ture, soci ety andperson
. I nsof ar
as
these
processes of reproducti on arel ess andl ess guaranteedby tradi ti on,
they
tendtowardl egi ti mati on through consensus between
thosei nvol ved i n
thecommuni cati veprocesses themsel ves. Habermas admi ts that thi s i s
ani deal i zedproj ecti on, but
argues that
i t
i swel l - f ounded. Rati onal i zati on
of thel i f eworl d i mpl i es both di f f erenti ati on of
spheres anda " thi cken-
i ng" of therel ati ons betweendi f f erenti ated spheres
and
the
l i f eworl das
awhol e. Theconti nui ty of meani ngi s re- establ i shed throughout di f f er-
enti ati on
by
cri ti que. Abstract procedures of di scursi ve wi l l f ormati on
operate,
not i n thei sol ated spheres, but i n thei r rel ati on to the whol e
l i f eworl d. Thus,
" abstract, uni versal i sti c procedures f or di scursi ve wi l l
f ormati onevenstrengthensol i dari ty i n
l i f e
contexts
that are nol onger
l egi ti matedby tradi ti on" ( p. 347) . I nshort, f ormal and
abstract di scursi ve
procedures f uncti on i n concrete contexts to extenduncoercedconsen-
sus among parti ci pants. 5 Accordi ng to Habermas, f undamental soci al
conf l i cts occur nei ther wi thi n speci f i c di f f erenti ated systems nor i n an
undi f f erenti ated l i f eworl d, but i n the boundari es between the two.
Whi l edi f f erenti ati on, andtheconsequent sel f - ref erenti al cl osure of sys-
tems, rul es out di rect i nterventi on i n f uncti onal systems ( such as eco-
nomi cs
andpol i ti cs) , therei sani ncreasedcapaci tyf or restri ctedcri ti que
of systems i n thei r rel ati on to thel i f eworl d.
Habermas' s attempted renewal of modernphi l osophy
through i nter-
subj ecti vel y- ori ented cri ti que conf ers acentral si gni f i cance
onthe
con-
cept of the " l i f eworl d" that headopts f romphenomenol ogy.
However,
thi s concept i s usedi ntwodi f f erent ways: Ononehandi t i s understood,
consi stent wi th i ts use i n the phenomenol ogi cal tradi ti on, as " the
i mpl i ci t, the prepredi cati ve, the not f ocal l y present background"
( p.
300) . Ontheother, i n conti nui ty wi ththeWeberi anconcerns of
Cri ti cal
Theory, he speaks of the " di f f erenti ated" ( p. 345 ) and
" rati onal i zed
l i f eworl d" ( p. 346) . 6 But the l i f eworl d i n the f i rst sense, as
i mpl i ci t,
cannot berati onal i zed. I ndeed, thel i f eworl dcanbe" popul ated, " to an
i ncreasi ngextent, by rati onal i zedsystems, but they exi st " wi thi n" theun-
themati c backgroundof thel i f eworl d. Thi s i s not ameretermi nol ogi cal
sl i p.
Habermas substi tuted a phenomenol ogi cal concept of total i ty f or a
Hegel i anone
becausethel atter
i s
i mpl i catedi nthei l l usorythemati zati on
of thetotal i ty of al l
condi ti oned
spheres
characteri sti c of thephi l osophy
of
thesubj ect . But total i ty, whenunderstood as thehori zonof everyday
i nvol vements, cannever bethemati zedas suchand, theref ore, cannever
i tsel f berati onal i zed. I t i s the hori zonof thepl ural i ty ( not " total i ty" ) of
rati onal i zed systems. But, i n thi s case, i t i s mi sl eadi ng to speak of re-
stri cted cri ti que as medi ati ng di f f erenti ated systems andl i f eworl dsi nce
onl y twothemati zed
el ements canbe " medi ated. " Ei ther cri ti que si mpl y
di ssol ves asystemi c bl i ndspot i ntoi ts backgroundor i t i s di rectedtoward
thetotal i ty as hori zon. I nthef i rst case, i t i s aparti cul ar i nterventi on that
2
7
I ANANGUS
i l l us t r at es t he f ai l ur e of a gi ven at t empt at s ys t emi c
cl os ur e but cannot
t hemat i ze t he s i gni f i cance of t hi s f or t he f or mof l i f e as a whol e. I n t he
s econd cas e, cr i t i que i s di r ect ed t owar dt he hor i zonal t ot al i t y but needs
pr eci s el y t he t ool s of t ot al i zi ng cr i t i que t hat Haber mas has r ul ed
out
of
or der .
By s l i ppi ng back i nt o a Hegel i an concept i on of t ot al i t y as t he
aggr egat e of r el at i ons of t hemat i zed
s ys t ems i n t hi s way Haber mas
obs cur es t he f undament al r edi r ect i on of Cr i t i cal Theor y t hat a phe-
nomenol ogi cal
concept i on of t ot al i t y r equi r es .
Thi s conf us i onof
t wo
s ens es of
t he l i f ewor l dunder mi nes t he not i onof
uni ver s al i t y i n Haber mas ' s f i r s t
poi nt i n r es pons e t o Der r i da. He ar gued
t hat a di s t i nct i on bet ween nor mal and l i mi t cas es can be s us t ai ned
be-
caus e l anguage games "pr es uppos e i deal i zat i ons t hat t r ans cend any par -
t i cul ar l anguage game"
( quot edabove) . But what i s t he char act er of t hi s
t r ans cendence? Ei t her i t i s wi t hi n
a met a- l anguage game, of whi ch t he
par amount cas e i s Hegel ' s uni f i cat i on of di f f er ent i at ed s pher es , or i t i s
r el at edt o t he pl ur al i t y of s ys t ems bel ongi ngt oget her wi t hi n a
common
hor i zon. I n t he l at t er cas e, t he hor i zoni t s el f cannot pr ovi de a uni ver s al -
i t y t hat woul d f unct i on as r egul at i ve wi t hi n a s peci f i c l anguage game .
I ndeed, we mus t under s t andt he t hemat i zat i ons t hat gi ve r i s e t o r at i onal -
i zeds ys t ems as i mpl i cat i ng
t he l i f ewor l das a whol e, but mus t det er mi ne
t he manner of t hi s i mpl i cat i on mor e pr eci s el y. The pl ur al i t y of s ys t ems
exi s t "wi t hi n" an unt hemat i zed t ot al i t y. Thi s hor i zondef i nes t he pl ur al -
i t y of s ys t ems as bel ongi ng t oget her "i n pr i nci pl e, " t hat i s t o s ay, as not
ext er nal t o one anot her . But t he act ual r el at i ons bet weens ys t ems - and
i t i s t hes e r el at i ons t hat char act er i ze t he l i f ewor l d as a whol e- ar e a
pr oduct of
s oci al pr act i ce . That i s t o s ay, t he "i n pr i nci pl e" r el at i ons of
s ys t ems ar e i ndef i ni t el y pl ur al ; t hei r act ual r el at i ons ar e es t abl i s hed by
s oci al pr act i ces s peci f i c t o t he gi ven s t at e of a s oci o- hi s t or i cal l i f ewor l d.
However , t he r el at i on bet weent he pl ur al i t y of s ys t ems - whi chi s es t ab-
l i s hed by t he s oci al pr act i ces of "t r ans l at i on" bet ween s ys t ems - i s not
wel l char act er i zedas a "t r ans cendence, " but i s r at her an emer gent uni -
ver s al i t y pr oduced by t he i nt er act i on bet ween par t i cul ar l anguage
games . Thus , Haber mas ' s r es t r i ct edcr i t i ci s mcannot appeal t o cr i t er i a of
t r ut h t hat t r ans cend a di s cour s e ; t he concept of t r ut h emer ges f r om
t r ans l at i onand, cont r ar y t o Haber mas , occur s wi t hi n t he wor l d- hor i zon.
The s econd poi nt i n Haber mas ' s r ej oi nder t o Der r i da per t ai ns t o t he
s peci f i c char act er i s t i cs of l i t er ar y di s cour s e . Whi l e nar r at i ves i never yday
l i f e and i n l i t er ar y wor ks have a s i mi l ar s t r uct ur e, t he l i t er ar y wor k
conf er s an "exempl ar y el abor at i on t hat t akes t he cas e out of i t s cont ext
andmakes i t t he
occas i on f or an i nnovat i ve, wor l d- di s cl os i ve, and eye-
openi ngr epr es ent at i on i n
whi cht he r het or i cal means of r epr es ent at i on'
depar t f r omcommuni cat i ve r out i nes andt ake on a l i f e of t hei r own" ( p.
203) . Mor e gener al l y, i ns peci al i zed l anguages t he r het or i cal el ement s of
l anguage ar e enl i s t edf or t he pur pos es of pr obl em- s ol vi ng( p. 209) .
Thus ,
Der r i da obs cur es t he char act er i s t i cs of
ever yday, i nt r amundane l i ngui s -
t i c pr act i ce andconf us es i t wi t h ar t i s t i c wor l d- di s cl os i ve l anguage by i g-
28
HABERMAS
nor i ng t he pr ocess of
t he di f f er ent i at i on of ar t f r omever yday
pr act i ce
t hat has al l owed t he aut onomi zat i on
of t he wor l d- di scl osi ng f unct i on
.
Haber mas concl udes
t hat , cor r el at i ve t o t he i ncr easi ng aut onomy
of ar t ,
l i t er ar y cr i t i ci smhas
t aken ont he t ask of medi at i ng bet ween
ar t and t he
ever yday wor l d. Si mi l ar l y,
phi l osophy di r ect s i t sel f t o t he
f oundat i on of
t he
var i ous aut onomous spher es- such as sci ence,
mor al i t y andl aw- and
connect s
t hemt o t het ot al i t y of t he l i f ewor l d.
Bot h l i t er ar y cr i t i ci smand
phi l osophy
ut i l i ze r het or i cal l anguage, but
t hey begi n f r omdi f f er en-
t i at ed spher es and t her ef or e
subor di nat e r het or i c t o " a di st i nct f or m
of
ar gument at i on" ( p.
210) .
As has been poi nt ed out above, t he l i f ewor l d
consi st s of a pl ur al i t y of
l anguage games, or
" di scour ses" ( some of whi char esuf f i ci ent l y
di f f er en-
t i at ed t o becal l ed " syst ems" ) ,
bel ongi ngt oget her wi t hi na common
hor i -
zon and i n a cont i nuous
pr ocess of t r ansl at i on such t hat
t he uni ver sal
moment
does not hover above t hembut
emer ges f r omt hei r i nt er act i on.
Consequent l y,
t he di sct i nct i on bet ween nor mal and
l i mi t usage can be
made, but i t i s r el at i ve t o a gi ven di scour se, not
t o t he t ot al i t y of t he
l i f ewor l d as Haber mas suggest s. Di f f er ent i at i on
of r at i onal i zed syst ems
i mpl i es t hat i nt er vent i on i nt hese syst ems
must st r uggl e wi t hnor mal us-
age and r ul es est abl i shed wi t hi n
t he syst em. I n t hi s sense, Haber mas
i s
cor r ect t o sayt hat such i nt er vent i on
cannot be " di r ect " ( p.
365) .
But t he
si t uat i on
i s di f f er ent wi t hr espect t o genr es
of cr i t i ci smwhi chat t empt t o
" medi at e" syst ems and l i f ewor l d
. Si nce t he l i f ewor l d i s onl y
accessi bl e
t hr ough t he
pl ur al i t y of di scour ses, t hi s so- cal l ed medi at i on i s
act ual l y a
pr ocess of t r ansl at i on
t hat const i t ut es t he speci f i c
char act er of a gi ven
l i f ewor l d .
As such, t hese " genr es, " especi al l y
r het or i c and phi l osophy,
ar e not
r eal l y genr es at al l , but st r at egi es occur r i ng
at t he poi nt of t r ansl a-
t i on t hat
ai mt o r escue wor l d- di scl osur e
f r omi t s f or get t i ng wi t hi n t he
sedi ment ed pr act i ces
of est abl i shed di scour ses- t hough
t her e ar e i m-
por t ant di f f er ences
bet weenst r at egi es .
At t hi s poi nt we
can di f f er ent i at e Ador no' s
st yl e f r omDer r i da' s.
Ador no ut i l i zes genr e
di st i nct i ons i n or der t o oper at e
wi t hi nphi l osophy
( and al so wi t hi n
l i t er ar y cr i t i ci sm, musi c cr i t i ci sm
and soci ol ogy) even
t hough t he
mot i ve f or negat i ve di al ect i cs
seems t o come f r omavant -
gar de ar t al one. The
mot i ve i s compar abl e i n Der r i da but
i s ut i l i zed t o
under cut genr e
di st i nct i ons andr eveal t hemas r het or i cal
pl oys. Tobegi n
f r omdi st i nct i ons
i n or der t o l ead out of t hem
t owar d t hel i f ewor l d i s di f -
f er ent f r om
i nt er vent i on i n t he pl ur al i t y of di scour ses
const i t ut i ng t he
l i f ewor l d desi gned
t o under cut t he val i di t y- cl ai ms
of a gi ven di scour se.
Haber mas
does not f or mul at e t hi s di f f er ence
pr eci sel y and hi s l ect ur e
f or mat al l ows hi mt o avoi d a
syst emat i c compar i son of
Ador no and
Der r i da. Ador no' s pr ocedur e
r esembl es i deol ogy cr i t i que even
t houghi t
canno l onger r el y on t he
l i f ewor l d cont ext t hat woul d
t i e speci f i c cr i -
t i ques t o gener al enl i ght enment .
Der r i da' s i nt er vent i ons, however ,
t i e
t he
condi t i onsf or a speci f i c di scour se t o
t hewor l d- hor i zonwi t hi n
whi ch
t hey
emer ge. Whi l eAdor no can onl y
dest r oy t ot al i zi ng cl ai ms whi l e
r e-
29
IANANGUS
j ect i ng any t heor i zat i on
of t he whol e as a Hegel i an t ot al i t ar i ani sm,
Der r i da' s deconst r uct i on of speci f i c t ot al i zat i ons poi nt s
t owar d t he
wor l d- hor i zon byengagi ng i nal l t he t r ansl at i ons ( especi al l yt he "i mpos-
si bl e" ones) t hat di scl ose t he f or mat i on of t he hi st or i cal epoch.
Inhi s l ast l ect ur e, Haber mas summar i zes hi s t hr ee mai n obj ect i ons t o
t he post moder ni st wr i t er s . One, t heycannot account f or t hei r ownposi -
t i on, andar e "di scour ses wi t hout apl ace"
( p. 337)
.
Two, t heyar e gui ded
bynor mat i ve i nt ui t i ons whi ch r ej ect subj ect i vi t y
undi al ect i cal l y. Thr ee,
t her ei s nosyst emat i c pl aceenvi sagedf or ever ydaypr act i ce . As we have
suggest edabove, Haber mas i s
r i ght t omai nt ai n auni ver sal component -
and t hus anor mal / l i mi t di st i nct i on- i n t he f ace of t he
pl ur al i t y
of
con-
t ext s champi onedbypost moder ni st s, but hel ocat es i t wr ongl y, i ncl assi -
cal f ashi on,
as a met a- di scour se r at her t han i n t he act i vi t y of t r ansl at i on
bet ween cont ext s . He
osci l l at es bet ween aHegel i an and a Husser l i an
concept of t ot al i t y and t her ebyat t empt s t o mai nt ai n a
di f f er ent i at i on of
genr es t hat r ej ect s t he cont i nuous t r ansl at i on bet ween
di scour ses con-
st i t ut i ve of t he newr het or i c of t he post moder n condi t i on. Nor mal
di scour se occur s
wi t hi n di f f er ent i at ed genr es, but t hese ar e const i t ut ed
i n
r ef er ence t o t hei r l i mi t s i n t he wor l d- hor i zon.
Or i ent at i on t ot he hor i zon of t he l i f ewor l d does not ent ai l ar ej ect i on
of t hei mpor t anceof t heever ydayas Haber mas cl ai ms, but r at her ar ecog-
ni t i on t hat t he "ever ydayness" of t he ever ydayi s const i t ut edwi t h r ef er -
ence t o i t s l i mi t s . Thus, t he t heor y and pr act i ce of t ot al i zed cr i t i que i s
necessar yt o
uncover t hehor i zon t hat ci r cumscr i bes t hesoci o- hi st or i cal
l i f ewor l d. Whi l e
t he pr ocedur e of t ot al i zi ng cr i t i que cannot be l egi t i -
mat ed wi t h r ef er ence t o cr i t er i asol el y
wi t hi n t he gi ven l i f ewor l d i t sel f ,
t hi s does not i mpl y, as Haber mas i nsi st s, t hat i t t her ebybecomes si mpl y
ar bi t r ar y. In 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 t he t r anscendent al r educt i on, whi ch al l ows t he syst emat i c
expl i cat i on of t he hor i zons wi t hi n whi ch exper i ent i al cont ent s ar e
gi ven. Haber mas r ej ect s t he t r anscendent al i smof phenomenol ogyout of
hand ( p .
297,
358), and her e he i s at one wi t h t he domi nant t r end of
post moder ni sm. Ni et zsche, as i s cl ear f r omt he f i f t h bookof
The
Gay
Sci ence, was wel l awar e of hi s own r ef l exi ve par adox- t hat
he must
ut i l i ze t he concept of t r ut h i n or der t o
cr i t i ci ze i t , t hat he i s st i l l pi ous.
Fol l owi ngt hi s, andagai nst Haber mas' s est i mat i on( p.
121), Hor khei mer
andAdor no i n Di al ect i c of Enl i ght enment , wer e
commi t t ed t o ar eason
t hat i s st i l l not yet r at i onal enough. Thei r t ext "i s i nt endedt o pr epar e t he
wayf or a posi t i ve not i on of enl i ght enment whi ch wi l l r el ease
i t
f r om
ent angl ement i n bl i nddomi nat i on. "' Beyondt het r adi t i on,
yet awar et hat
i t i s t he t r adi t i on t hat has opened t hi s
beyond, post moder n cr i t i ci sm
oper at es i n a par adoxi cal moment , but t hi s i s not
necessar i l y a ' per -
f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on. ( Whi ch i s per haps
whyt he popul ar i zed ver -
si ons of post moder ni smat t empt t o si mpl y
abandon t he pr obl emat i c of
sel f - j ust i f i cat i on and gr ounds . )
Never t hel ess, Haber mas gi ves bot h t he
HABERMAS
t r anscendent al and t he par adoxi cal r ef l ect i ve
sel f - j ust i f i cat i ons shor t
shr i f t and, at t hi s poi nt , f ai l s t o encount er
hi s obj ect
of
cr i t i ci sm.
Haber mas di scover s i n bot h br anches of post moder n t ot al i zi ng cr i -
t i que a per f or mat i ve cont r adi ct i on such t hat t hey cannot account f or
t hei r own st andpoi nt due t o a f al se equat i on of t r ut h
and power
.
Fr om
t hi s f ol l ows a one- si ded char act er i zat i on of moder ni t y as onl y a cl osed
met aphysi cs and/ or di sci pl i nar y appar at us . He r emi nds us t hat moder -
ni t y
has al so
made si gni f i cant i nr oads i n r ecogni zi ng i ndi vi dual r i ght s,
r educi ng- scar ci t y, l i mi t i ng ar bi t r ar y power , andsof or t h. Out
of
t hi s
mor e
nuanced eval uat i on, Haber mas ar gues t hat t he pr oj ect of moder ni t y-
whi chmeans di f f er ent i at i onof aut onomous spher es and t he t r ansl at i on
of speci al i zed
knowl edges i nt o t he l i f ewor l d- can be r escued and ex-
t ended. Toput i t mor e concr et el y, soci al i sm
i s ar adi cal i zat i on of l i ber al -
i sm, andf or get s t hi s f act onl y at t hepr i ce of a danger ous f l i r t at i on wi t h
unj ust i f i abl e power s Thus, our t ask i s t he connect i on of empi r i cal hi s-
t or y wi t h concept ual cr i t i que, and we ar e t he cont empor ar i es of t he
Young Hegel i ans .
Ther ear ei ndeed t wof or ms of cr i t i que, but Haber mas' s ar gument does
not j ust i f y anabandonment of t ot al i zi ng cr i t i que. However , i t does st and
as
a
t hor oughdef enceof
t hest i l l r el evant r esour ces of r est r i ct ed cr i t i que
wi t hi n t henor mal i t y set t l ed byt hehi st or i cal
epoch.
We
ar el ef t wi t ht he
t ask of
t hi nki ng t he r el at i on bet ween what we may cal l soci al and
epochal cr i t i ci sm. Theor i ent at i ont o communi cat i vei nt er act i onsuf f i ces
t o r eveal f or ms of domi nat i on embedded i n pr act i ces wi t hi n i ndust r i al
soci et y. I t i s based on t he di st i nct i on bet weenl abour ( nat ur e- di r ect ed)
and i nt er subj ect i vi t y ( consensus- or i ent ed)
f undament al t o Haber mas' s
r evi si on of Cr i t i cal
Theor y, whi chi s a r ewor ki ng of t he Kant i an di st i nc-
t i on
bet weennat ur e andhi st or yt hat i s char act er i st i c of moder nt hought .
I n t hi s f or m, cr i t i cal t heor y r egai ns i t s capaci t y of det er mi nat e negat i on
of speci f i c soci al i nj ust i ces by r et r eat i ng f r omt he uni ver sal i zat i on of
cr i t i quet owar dt hehor i zons of hi st or i cal epochs . I t canonceagai nspeak
of " cont r adi ct i ons, " but at t he pr i ce of ceasi ng t o speakof a " whol e f or m
of l i f e. " But , t o t heext ent t hat newsoci al movement s cal l i nt o quest i on
t hevi abi l i t y of i ndust r i al soci et y, t hi s di st i nct i onmust i t sel f be cr i t i ci zed.
Epochal cr i t i ci sm
seeks i n
embodi ed
pr axi s bot ht he
or i gi n of
t he separ a-
t i on of i nt er act i ve capaci t i es f r om" nat ur e"
and
gl i mpses of ot her possi -
bi l i t i es . I n t hi s sense, pr evi ousl y si l ent " nat ur e" i s br ought i nt o di scour se
and di scour se r ecogni zes i t s ownmat er i al i t y. Thi s newr het or i c i s char -
act er i st i c of t he post moder ncondi t i on, whi chi s at ur ni ng poi nt not onl y
wi t h r espect t o moder ncapi t al i smbut al so West er n ci vi l i zat i on i t sel f . At
such a t ur ni ng, we
cannot
si mpl y
el i mi nat e t hedoubl es pr oduced by
t he
human sci ences, as bot h Foucaul t and Haber mas at t empt . Rat her , we
must t hi nkt hr ought he i nt ensi f i cat i onof t hedoubl i ng t hat t het wof or ms
of cr i t i que br i ng
f or war d. We ar e i n
a
moment i n whi ch t he t ur ni ng
bet ween epochs al l ows t he i nst i t ut i onof epochs t o become vi si bl e . For
bet t er or wor se, we ar e cont empor ar i es of Ni et zsche, not of t he Young
3
1
I ANANGUS
Hegel i ans: Our t ask i s not t o
connect reasonandhi st ory, but t o compre-
hendt he
hori zon wi t hi n whi ch reason and
hi st ory are al ways al ready
connect ed
. Thi s t ask must necessari l y be a "di scourse
wi t hout a pl ace. "
Themi xi ng of
modes canonl y be j ust i f i ed by t he l i ght
i t sheds on t he
f i xi ng of pl aces by t he epochal
hori zon.
Depart ment of Communi cat i on
Uni versi t y of Massachuset t s
at Amherst
Not es
1 .

Max
Horkhei mer andTheodor Adorno, Di al ect i c
of Enl i ght enment . Trans. J ohn Gum-
mi ng. NewYork : Herder and
Herder, 1 972, p. xi .
2.

The
di f f erences amongt hose of t he f ast generat i on of t he
Frankf urt School i neval uat i ng
t he
progressi ve andregressi ve aspect s of t hese revol t s of nat ure have been
document ed
i n Pat ri ci aJ agent owi cz
Mi l l s, Woman, Nat ure andPsyche. NewHaven and
London:
Yal e Uni versi t y Press, 1 987, pp. 1 47- 77.
3.

Si nce
Habermas onl y di scusses Husserl di rect l y i n t he cont ext
of t he devel opment of
Derri da' s work, hedoes
not seemaware t hat , i n ret urni ng t o Foucaul t ' s
TkeArcheol ogy
of Knowl edgef or t he
el aborat i on of hi s ownt heory, he ret urn t o t he poi nt
reachedby
Husserl i n TheCri si s of t he
EuropeanSci ences andTranscendent al Phenomenol ogy
.
Foucaul t ' s earl y
work does not phi l osophi cal l y advance Husserl ' s
probl emat i c, but
si mpl y ext ends i t i nt o
t hedomai n of t he human sci ences .
4.

Habermas argues
t hat t he t urni ng i nHei degger' s t hought t o t he "event of appropri at i on"
i s i nexpl i cabl e as ani nt ernal devel opment
f romBei ng andTi me andderi ves f romt he
experi ence of adherencet o, and
t hen di sappoi nt ment wi t h, Nat i onal Soci al i sm. Wi t h
out mi ni mi zi ng t hi s hi st ori cal experi ence as an
i nf l uence i n Hei degger' s t hought , t he
pri ori t y of
"event " i s al ready present i n t he earl i er work and
t he experi ence of f asci sm
as worl d- hi st ori cal i s shared al so by
t he f i rst generat i on of t he Frankf urt School .
The
pri ori t y of t he event i n t he experi ence
of t rut h ( i n t hese general t erms) i s charact eri st i c
of
phenomenol ogy as such. Habermas seems, at t hi s
poi nt , t o be caught at t hel evel of
ant i - Hei degger pol emi c of t he f i rst generat i on of
Cri t i cal Theory.
5.

Thus,
Habermas set s asi de t he cri t i que of f ormal i smt hat charact eri zes
bot h t he f i rst
generat i on
of Cri t i cal Theori st s andphenomenol ogy. Thi s
convergence on"i nst rumen-
t al reason" i s keyf ort he i nt egrat i on of t hese t wot radi t i ons
.
See
I anH. Angus, Techni que
andEnl i ght enment : Li mi t s of l nst rument al Reason.
Washi ngt on: Cent re f or Advanced
Research i n Phenomenol ogy andUni versi t y Press of
Ameri ca, 1 984.
6.

I n
addi t i on, he suggest s t hat cri t i que of t radi t i on, i n
ori ent i ng t oward soci al reproduc-
t i on t hrough consensus, yi el ds "t he
abst ract i on of uni versal l i f eworl dst ruct ures f rom
t he part i cul ar conf i gurat i ons of t ot al i t i es of
f orms of l i f et hat ari seonl y as pl ural " ( p. 344) .
Thi s may be const ruedas a cont ri but i on
t o phenomenol ogy i nsof ar as t he dual aspect
of t he l i f eworl d as uni versal and as
soci o- hi st ori cal l y part i cul ar was recogni zed by
Husserl , but t herewasnot a correl at i ve
account of t hehi st ori cal condi t i ons underwhi ch
t hedi st i nct i on bet ween t he t wo coul dbe
made.
7.

Di al ect i c
of Enl i ght enment , op. ci t . , p. xvi . Horkhei mer
andAdornoquot eNi et zsche' s
ref l exi ve
account of hi s ownpi et y on p. 1 1 5.
8.

I n t hi s connect i on t he
di f f erent t raj ect ori es of C. B. Macphersonand
George Grant i n
recoveri ng t he
humani st basi s of pol i t i cs are pert i nent t o t he argument
here. Whi l e
Macpherson was concernedt o
ret ri eve and ext end t he l i beral t radi t i on,
Grant broke
3
2
HABERMAS
wi t hsoci al i smbecauseof i t s i ncor por at i on of l i ber al assumpt i ons . I have
addr essed t hi s
compar i son i n Geor ge
Gr ant ' s Pl at oni cRej oi nder t o Hei degger . Lewi st on/ Queenst on
:
TheEdwi nMel l enPr ess, 1987, chapt er I V. I n t hi s case, as i n manyot her s, t he
dual si des
of subl at i on
as " pr eser vat i on" and " t r anscendence" have been i mpossi bl e t o hol d i n
har mony.
9.

I t has been suggest edt hat , duet o t hi s di st i nct i on, Haber mas
cannot pr oper l y addr ess
what i s at i ssue i n t he envi r onment al ,
f emi ni st , and ant i - nucl ear movement s . See, f or
exampl 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 Fr aser , " What ' s Cr i t i cal About Cr i t i cal Theor y: The Case
of
Haber mas andGender " i n NewGer man Cr i t i que, Number
35, Spr i ng/ Summer 1985 ;
I anH. Angus andPet er G. Cook, " Nucl ear Technol ogyas
I deol ogy" i nCanadi anj our nal
of Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theor y, Vol .
XI , No. 1- 2, 1987.