Habermas an Alternative to Marxist

Habermas

An Alternative to Marxist Revolution

Habermas continues in the tradition of Kant and the Enlightenment by forming a theory of rationality as found in interpersonal linguistic communication, instead of in the cosmos or the knowing subject. His emphasis is then on the human potential for reason as a basis from which the world could be transformed into a more humane, just and egalitarian society. To this end then he aimed to advance human emancipation through social theory, while at the same time also keeping in touch with a framework of universal morality. Thus, the Universal pragmatics argument holds that all speech acts are focused upon an inherent goal, which is mutual understanding. It follows that all human beings have the competence to realize this goal by means of communication.

As such then, Habermas's main problem with the Marxist theory is that it does not recognize the entire scope of the lack of freedom within human society, or the means to correct this. The human element, according to Habermas, is what Marxism lacks. Marx for example views human evolution only in terms of economic progression. This is too narrow a scope for Habermas. Thus, instead of economic evolution occurring in a linear and deterministic fashion, Habermas disagrees with Marx's view by asserting that this evolution is dynamic and unpredictable.

Furthermore, Habermas steers away from Marx's theories by focusing on the concept of crisis rather than the ideas of revolution and class struggle proposed by the latter. For Habermas, the crisis entails the fact that individual needs are not met by society, and furthermore that institutions in place to meet these needs use their power to manipulate individuals instead. The interaction between individuals to respond to the crisis is called communicative action. This is an action that, according to Habermas, includes all human ways of thinking and language. This faculty is then what leads to human understanding and agreement, and making plans for common action. Change is thus effected by coming together and agreeing rather than by revolution as a mode of change. Thus, if there is a move from capitalism to communism, this will occur by reason and communicative action. This process is then offered as a solution to the crisis in which modern society finds itself. Thus critical analysis and communication, rather than the violence of revolution, is seen as the most effective tool for social change.

I am not sure that I entirely agree with Habermas's optimistic view of the human ability to understand each other. Elements such as the hunger for power, and the human tendency to refuse the other's viewpoint in favor of their own seem to defeat the purpose of communicative action. On the other hand, however, I think that with enough effort and understanding, it could be possible to make communicative action work. This will however take considerable effort to not only understand other human beings, but also the theory itself, as well as how to implement it. Indeed, if one considers newsworthy events, violent revolution as a mode of change appears much more instinctive to human beings than communicative action.

Foucault's Theory of Power

For Habermas, Foucault's theory of power is over generalizing and universalizing. He thus dismisses the latter philosopher's theory as reductionistic and contradictory. Once again Habermas uses philosophical reason rather than mechanical evolution as a basis from which to change the corruptive power held by authorities and institutions. Foucault on the other hand sees power and reason as intertwined with each other. Thus there is no good or bad within power structures themselves, but rather in how they are implemented. Habermas however finds this problematic, and argues that there is then no ground from which to effect the necessary change in of these power structures in order to make them more beneficial for society.

In Foucault's view, there are dangers inherent in holding a large amount of power, whereas for Habermas, power is necessarily bad and in need of change. Foucault's view of power includes knowledge, or truth, in a mutual relationship with this power, and they affect each other in equal part. This, according to Habermas, is ambiguous and problematic. According to Habermas, knowledge has been distanced from power in several important ways that Foucault refuses to recognize.

In coupling power with knowledge and truth, Foucault thus paints a rather bleak picture of modernity. From his point-of-view, emancipation from power structures is neither possible nor as such necessary. Instead, it is necessary to debate and critique whatever problems arise in order to effect change. Nonetheless, complete emancipation will never be possible, because evolution has dictated the rising of power structures in order to maintain order in society. The associated danger is that power can be abused in several ways to oppress the powerless. It is against this that Habermas exerts his theory; that all power, in the form of oppressive structures, is necessarily bad.