REASON, POWER, AND THE PROJECT OF EMANCIPATION
Keywords:
the project of emancipation, the process of creation, Jurgen Habermas, power, domination, and exclusionAbstract
The focus of this article is the project of emancipation — alternately known as the Enlightenment project, or the project of modernity. The principal goal of this project is the elimination of domination and the emancipation of humanity. Having originated during the period of the Enlightenment, this project has powerfully shaped the course of European and world history. Yet despite centuries of progress, the project has still failed to achieve its goal. The article tries to answer one question: Why has the project of emancipation failed to achieve its goal? In answering this question I focus on the work of Jurgen Habermas — arguably the most important contemporary advocate of the project of emancipation — and his proposed solution of this problem. My analysis shows that Habermas, as many of his predecessors, still fails to solve the problem of exclusion. The failure to solve this problem is the main reason why Habermas and the Enlightenment more generally fail to eliminate domination and achieve emancipation. The article argues that in order to solve the problem of exclusion, our civilization must transcend the paradigm of the Enlightenment. It proposes a new theoretical approach that transcends this paradigm. The distinct feature of this new approach is that it is articulated around the process of creation. According to the new approach, the process of creation should be the main focus of our social practice. It also discusses some general principles of the new social practice. Further research along the lines outlined in this article will be essential for creating and developing new institutional forms that would embody this new social practice.
References
Maffesoli M., Felski R., Megill A. and Gaddis Rose M. “The Return of the Tragic in Postmodern Societies.” New Literary History vol. 35, № 1 (April 13, 2004): 133–49.
Burawoy M. “The Roots of Domination: Beyond Bourdieu and Gramsci.” Sociology, vol. 46, № 2 (April 1, 2012), p. 187–206.
Foucault M. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (New York: Vintage Books, 1988).
Kahn R. “The Problem of Power in Habermas.” Human Studies 11, № 4 (November 1988): 361–87.
Kellner D. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy: A Critical Intervention.” Perspectives on Habermas, 2000 http://knowledgepublic.pbworks.com/f/Habermas_Public_Sphere_Democracy.pdf (accessed May 9, 2015).
Allen A. “The Unforced Force of the Better Argument: Reason and Power in Habermas’ Political Theory.” Constellations, vol. 19, № 3 (September 1, 2012), p. 353–68.
Plot M. “Communicative Action’s Democratic Deficit: A Critique of Habermas’s Contribution to Democratic Theory.” International Journal of Communication, vol. 3 (2009), p. 825–852.
Bogdan C. “Intersubjectivity and Techno- Science: Jürgen Habermas,” Journal for Communication and Culture, vol. 3, № 1 (n. d.), p. 29–47.
Piaget J. The Origin of Intelligence in Children (International Universities Press: Madison, 1998).
Shkliarevsky G. “Of Cats and Quanta: Paradoxes of Knowing and Knowability of Reality,” p. 20–22 http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1012.0289&qid=1372596301818mix_nCnN_- 392512110&qs=Gennady+Shkliarevsky (accessed December 1, 2010).
Shkliarevsky G. “The Paradox of Observing, Autopoiesis, and the Future of Social Sciences.” Systems Research and BehavioralScience 24, № 3 (2007): 323–32.
Piaget J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: The Free Press, 1965.
Pajnik M. “Feminist Reflections on Habermas’s Communicative Action: The Need for an Inclusive Political Theory.” European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 9, № 3 (August 1, 2006), p. 385–404.
Cohen J. “Critical Social Theory and Feminist Critiques: The Debate with Jürgen Habermas,” in Johanna Meehan, ed., Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Flyvbjerg B. “Ideal Theory, Real Rationality: Habermas Versus Foucault and Nietzsche.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, April 1, 2000.
Calhoun C. Ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992.
Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
Honneth A. and Joas H. Eds. Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.
Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987.
Kahneman D. and Tversky A. Eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Shkliarevsky G. “The Paradox of Observing, Autopoiesis, and the Future of Social Sciences.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24, № 3 (2007): 323–32.
Morriss P. “What Is Freedom If It Is Not Power?” Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory, vol. 59, № 132 (September 11, 2012), p. 1–25.
Pansardi P. “Power and Freedom: Oppos24ite or Equivalent Concepts?” Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory, vol. 59, № 132 (September 11, 2012), p. 26–44.
Marcus D. “The Horizontalists.” Dissent, Fall 2012.
Shkliarevsky G. “Rethinking Democracy: A Systems Perspective on the Global Unrest.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 33, № 3 (May 11, 2016), p. 452–70.
Churchman C. W. The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books, Inc.: New York, 1971.
