Literary Theory

Series 1; Handout #13

Jurgen Habermas (1929-): similar to “classical liberals,” called “conservative” today in that he supports ideals of liberal democracy (equal treatment before law universal reason, possibility of justice) as opposed to more authoritarian political systems; prefers “welfare state” to state socialism. (On this issue he is opposed by Foucault, Lyotard, and Derrida who see Habermas’ support for the Enlightenment project of Reason as code for oppressing the supposedly “irrational” Other. Habermas says THEY are real “conservatives.”)

“The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” (1962): “the bourgeois public sphere” is private people coming together as a public, apart from public authorities themselves, “to engage them in debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor.” The growth of the bourgeoisie creates the “Public Sphere,” which, in turn, plays a crucial role in the French Revolution, the Enlightenment, and Modernity because of its emphasis on shared standards of Reason and Justice. See the diagram on page 1748. (Note how this is pre-postmodern/pre-Derrida.)

“Modernity--an Incomplete Project” (1980): The belief in modernism is being replaced by ironic historical reference; does anyone believe in an avant-garde anymore? Does that mean the end of history/progress? If all is permitted, then what’s the point of rebellion? Can new norms be established?

What about the isolation of intelligencia brought about by specialization? Are not conservative charges of elitism in the academy justified? How can the intelligencia return to the public sphere that has been filled by . . . ? Was this integration of the intellectual/artistic culture with the public sphere not the goal of the Modernist revolt—essentially a continuation of Enlightenment bourgeois attack on absolutism via Reason? Isn’t Postmodernism/poststructuralism in an alliance with premodern conservatism and hence conservative? Shouldn’t intellectuals support universal rights, the rule of law and economic justice instead of challenging the very sustainability of these ideals, imperfect though they may be in execution?