Foucault–Habermas debate

The Foucault - Habermas debate was discharged in writing confrontation between philosopher Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas, which was continued after Foucault's death in the secondary literature. Content, they turned essentially a conflict between Habermas ' concepts of communicative action and discourse ethics on the one hand and Foucault's approaches of genealogy and power / knowledge to another. In this case, both the question of which of these approaches would be to defend philosophically better, and which would respond in practice more effectively to the role of power in the philosophy presented.

In a broader sense, including through the participation of other discussants, they evolved into a discussion about the place and role of humanism, Enlightenment and Modernity in the world. Especially followers of Habermas regarded it as a fundamental debate between modernism and postmodernism.

• 2.1 humanism
• 2.2 Power and communication

Expiration

Foucault and Habermas discussed on several occasions the work of the other. While Habermas The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity Michel Foucault devoted two chapters in his band, several short clashes with Habermas with Foucault are scattered in different texts. Much of the debate was held in nebeneinanderherlaufenden discussions, which were only designed by the secondary literature to a debate. Moreover, both thinkers could not agree on exactly what is the content of their debate. An agreement, which was also complicated by the fact that both underwent significant substantive changes in the course of their thinking. For example, Habermas criticizes notions of Foucault, who had this represented mainly in the mid-1970s, while Foucault answered from the perspective of his theory from the early 1980s.

Foucault: Two lectures

Michael Kelly reconstructs the real debate of four steps. The first step in forming the two lectures that Foucault delivered in 1976 at the College de France. In this he spoke to Habermas not concrete, but treated the content of the subject area that should be centrally later: the differences between legal and disciplinary power, his conception of local criticism, and the genealogical method to the critique of power.

Habermas: The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity

A few years later, a reply Habermas ' in two chapters in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, which are specific dedicated Michel Foucault. The texts date back to lectures held Habermas to Foucault's lifetime, but only appeared in print after his death. This Habermas focused in particular on the role of power in Foucault's philosophy and the resulting normative consequences. When Foucault criticism conceive themselves as a form of power, it is impossible to formulate a critique of power, without undermining their own arguments.

Foucault: structuralism / post-structuralism and What is Enlightenment?

Foucault, in turn, has published two texts on the topic, in which he appeals to Habermas on the edge: the interview structuralism and post-structuralism, published in 1983, and the lecture What is Enlightenment, published in 1984 texts, which prompted Foucault to the quip that Habermas is not with him. an opinion is, but he himself thought of Habermas would be something more.

In What is Enlightenment presented Foucault reiterates its positive relationship with Immanuel Kant and its access to Kant's notion of critique dar. At the same time, however, he explained, where the differences with Habermas are present: in the conception of ethics and standards of modernity, which in turn determine, what is the philosophical conception of criticism. Habermas seemed to fall away a key point of debate after Foucault's text What is Enlightenment? had read. There Foucault had placed in the series of modern philosophy, making a major point of disagreement was dropped.

The final text of Habermas, in which it manifests itself within the debate is Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present, which he wrote on the death of Foucault. He acknowledges Foucault's analysis of the company, but maintains that Foucault's critique of power undermines the normative basis on which it was based.

Planned personal debate

A planned formal debate between Habermas and Foucault, which was scheduled for November 1984 from the University of California at Berkeley, due to the early death of Foucault did not take place. Here vary the statements on the form and content of the event. According to Foucault, the Americans had proposed this debate and tried to run past the point of modernity, because he was himself as Antimodernist or postmodernist. However, this met with his lack of understanding, because he certainly saw himself as a Modernist and held the terminus of the Modern unproblematic.

According to Habermas, Foucault had his lecture What is Enlightenment? held directly before recommending Habermas in March 1983 a joint conference. Richard Rorty, Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfus after the planning should attend the conference.

In the secondary literature

The debate was subsequently reconstructed in the years after Foucault's death, especially in the secondary literature and continued. The estimates to be more diverse. Michael Kelly writes in the preface to his anthology of the debate, it was often marked by Habermasianern and often one-sided ' taking place in terms of Habermas. In addition, they will be distorted by a strong presence Heidegger -inspired interpretation. Amanda Anderson, however, describes the debate as one, the same, serve a " bloodless coup of Foucaultianer " in Habermas only as cues for an idealized rationalist position.

Prominent participants in the further debate, for example, Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, Richard J. Bernstein and Thomas A. McCarthy, who continue to develop the critique of Foucault, and James Schmidt and Thomas Wartenberg, Gilles Deleuze, Jana Sawicki and Michael Kelly, who argue that Foucault's criticism was justified, albeit not as Habermas consider it necessary.

From the followers of Habermas, Foucault is accused of all, he was not able to justify his conception of normative criticism.

Points for discussion

Humanism

The two thinkers have different views on humanism. While Habermas conceives it as a description of dialogical openness that is absolutely liberating, Foucault represents more ambivalent views and understands humanism as a force of self-empowerment that includes as much off as. Habermas interprets itself as in the wake of Rousseau and his Social Contract standing and sees himself as a defender of democracy and human rights. Foucault's attitude is clearly ambivalent. For Foucault promises humanism to disadvantaged groups such as women, non-Europeans or poor emancipation, but imposed uniformity, excluding those that do not fit into the general categories of humanism. Rationality dictates clear standards that can be managed by a technocratic elite easily. Simultaneously with this formation in society also passes through each individual self-knowledge and self-control, which ensures that the innermost identity as subject has synchronized with the innermost identity of other subjects, creating a sense of freedom and solidarity establishes, for the older thinkers like Rousseau still held extensive external action is required.

For Foucault, humanism is contingent, a phase in human development that followed the absolutism, and will be replaced by the dissolution of the subject. Concepts such as consciousness or rights are irrelevant in such a phase. Particular detail, he addresses these issues in Discipline and Punish (1975) and draws on his thoughts from The Order of Things. In his text What is Critique? Foucault rejects the idea of ​​a universal humanity. This was determined by their main speakers Locke, Rousseau and Kant in a way that they mainly wealthy European men included, and others - women, non-Europeans, workers - the status as full-fledged members of the human only to the extent concedes, as she have disciplined an image of wealthy European men. An object of criticism is to deconstruct the taken as humanism. Specifically, Habermas, Foucault speaks in the same text by accuses him of general principles of reality - as humanity - to identify from which he can then determine what is true or false, with or without cause, real or illusory, scientific or ideological, is legitimate or abusive. Criticism should not be primarily concerned with their own truth, but shed light on the specific historical conditions in which it operates.

Power and communication

The standard interpretation of the various positions Habermas writes to the attitude that critical practice takes place in consensus-oriented communicative actions that are not limited by power relations, while Foucault is attributed to situate critical practice in strategic actions that are strongly influenced by power relations.

Foucault describes different understandings of humanism. For example, can be called into question by legal awareness and premonitions (Heidegger ). The universality of humanity is geneologisch in question. Habermas idealizes his desired " consensus-oriented communicative actions " by not recognizing structuring power relations.