I wonder whether two theoreticians as diametrically opposed to each other as Habermas and Mouffe, would ever agree to have a coffee break, sit on the same table, and talk about the public sphere - which has been used as an abstraction for mapping the role/function/potential of the blogoshpere (the Russian one in my case!) Im sure Habermas would suggest a table for two, close to the window, in order to catch glimpses of the sun because this is what all rational people want after all. They want a nice place close to the window, so Habermas would exclude the possibility of Mouffe refusing such a "rational" suggestion. Of course Mouffe, would refuse to sit at that spot merely because she wanted to make a point: a consensus is not the ONLY prerequisite to interact in the public space (the coffee shop); instead she would engage Habermas' work in an agonistic manner (paying the due-respects to a clever fellow philosopher) in order to prove him wrong. SO, in case Habermas would have invited her for a coffee, Chantal would refuse in a direct manner just to demonstrate quite empirically the existence of tension in the logic of democracy: everybody is entitled to an opinion and to its enactment!
Habermas and the Structural Tranformation of the Public Sphere
The work of Jurgen Habermas has been cited (or at least referred to) by anyone who writes on philosophy, communication, or politics. For the neophytes though, it is important to note that Habermas decided to explore the public sphere (koina in Greek) both as ideology and as a normativity - the former referring to the liberal dogma of an ideal public sphere, while the latter to the account of specific "normal" practices the individuals performed in that particular space. For Habermas, the public sphere was the salon or any other place that hosted a critical conversation. Here, the bourgeoisie as a class is extremely important since it attained its self-understanding and self-articulation through adopting the principle of publicity and using it against the state. They succeeded in doing so because they were fully privatized individuals (who appeared in public) with a double identity; on one hand they were "owners of goods and persons and [one the other they were] one human being among others."[1] The duality spotted by Habermas is quite relevant for the case of the Russian bloggers, who are using publicity against the state with the help of the Internet. In order to avoid anachronisms of course, I dont imply that 18th c. English, French, and German bourgeoisie are reincarnated as Russian bloggers! Nevertheless, there is a relevance since Habermas put forward the idea that private sphere "challenged the authority of the monarch through interiorized human experience."[2] In the Russian case, the "interiorization" of the private sphere was forced by the state in the first place, through promoting family values and stability. However, in order to understand the phenomenon of the Russian blogging process specifically, Habermas' insights are more or less inadequate.
Habermas and the Structural Tranformation of the Public Sphere
The work of Jurgen Habermas has been cited (or at least referred to) by anyone who writes on philosophy, communication, or politics. For the neophytes though, it is important to note that Habermas decided to explore the public sphere (koina in Greek) both as ideology and as a normativity - the former referring to the liberal dogma of an ideal public sphere, while the latter to the account of specific "normal" practices the individuals performed in that particular space. For Habermas, the public sphere was the salon or any other place that hosted a critical conversation. Here, the bourgeoisie as a class is extremely important since it attained its self-understanding and self-articulation through adopting the principle of publicity and using it against the state. They succeeded in doing so because they were fully privatized individuals (who appeared in public) with a double identity; on one hand they were "owners of goods and persons and [one the other they were] one human being among others."[1] The duality spotted by Habermas is quite relevant for the case of the Russian bloggers, who are using publicity against the state with the help of the Internet. In order to avoid anachronisms of course, I dont imply that 18th c. English, French, and German bourgeoisie are reincarnated as Russian bloggers! Nevertheless, there is a relevance since Habermas put forward the idea that private sphere "challenged the authority of the monarch through interiorized human experience."[2] In the Russian case, the "interiorization" of the private sphere was forced by the state in the first place, through promoting family values and stability. However, in order to understand the phenomenon of the Russian blogging process specifically, Habermas' insights are more or less inadequate.
Chantal Mouffe and the Political
Going back to the "imaginary coffee break" between Mouffe and Habermas, further elaboration on Mouffe's cold hearted rejection is needed. She said NO because her understanding of politics and the political are primarily "agonistical." she claims that the political is antagonism" inherent in human relations...can take many forms and
emerge in different types of social relations."[3] While the notion of politics for her is consisted of "practices, discourses, institutions which seek to establish a certain order and organize human co-existence in conditions that are ALWAYS potentially conflictual because they are affected by the dimension of the political."[4] Mouffe's insights are heavily influenced by the works of Karl Schmitt and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who offer -in their own way- a critical point of view on politics which challenges the idea of consensus altogether. Schmitt shows clearly that the lethal "flaw" in liberalism is its sheer avoidance of politics as such (Mouffe elaborates on that in her book On The Political), and instead it concentrates its attention on technology, on progress, or on anything but POLITICS! On the other hand, Wittgenstein points out that any form of individuality (and especially democratic) stems from identification with certain values, and "this is a complex process that takes place through a manifold of practices, discourses and language games."[5]
Above all, for Wittgenstein (as Mouffe states) prior to any consensus there must be an agreement of judgments, which is taken for granted in the liberal political organization of human life. Therefore, when there is an instance of rejection (in this case Mouffe's) liberalism appears ill-equipped for its successful management.
Above all, for Wittgenstein (as Mouffe states) prior to any consensus there must be an agreement of judgments, which is taken for granted in the liberal political organization of human life. Therefore, when there is an instance of rejection (in this case Mouffe's) liberalism appears ill-equipped for its successful management.
Now, back to the Russian bloggers and blogosphere. Undoubtedly, the Habermasian development of the bourgeois public sphere carries historical and sociological significance, yet in case of procedures and rules that dictate behavior Habermas falls short. For him, rationality -which has its roots in private property and personal interest of a market economy- dictates decisions and the rules of the game; however, rationality does not explain the vast diversity of individuals who comprise the Russian blogosphere (from Sobchak - a Russian TV talk-show hostess till political activists and artists who belong to very different backgrounds) nor can it explain the frequent use of humor that overtly appeals to the emotional rather to the rational. All of them share something in common, which is a fervent anti-Putin sentiment. And this something pushes them to create new practices and procedures fostering political action, but above all cultivating responsibility for any action. At least Wittgenstein would have liked that take on the Russian blogosphere...
This post is dedicated to my favorite artists Ave and Ren, whom I thank for the long walks along the Danube and inspiring conversations.
No comments:
Post a Comment