Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: January 25, 2002
Latest Update: January 25, 2002
Faculty:
jeannecurran@habermas.org
Olivier at tapcourse@yahoo.com
takata@uwp.edu

Consensus and Compromise

Journal entry by jeanne

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individaul Authors, January 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

This essay is based on Evgeni Pavlov's post to the Hab list on Habermas' consensus and compromise. Evgeni asks a question that has often bothered me, too. There are suggestions in recent theory that consensus is unlikely and not in fact a reasonable goal. I have been intrigued by that suggestion, especially because at times my own frustration and anger are not adequately expressed and dealt with for me to accept forgiving the Other. That doesn't mean that I won't forgive, but that sometimes it is harder while the harm is still recent.

We experienced that with the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Our shock, our anger, our feelings of retribution and revenge were predominant in the first months following the attack. That didn't mean that we wanted war and the killing of innocents; it meant that we needed to express those overpowering emotions. As Hal Pepinsky suggests, those emotional responses must be dealt with before we can begin to approach rational argument to work out our validity claims.

Within this context, I see Evgeni's comment as echoing many that trouble us in our discussions of consensus and compromise. Which consensus? Consensus on which aspects? And how compromise? why compromise? Please refer to the Discussion Topics for further material.

On Sunday, January 27, 2002, Evgeni Pavlov posted on Hab list:

Subject: HAB: consensus vs. compromise

Good afternoon,

My question might appear simple to those of you who have been reading Habermas for a while, but I will ask it anyway, and will explain why. As I am pondering the Habermas's notion of "communicative action" I come across the pair of terms "consensus" and "compromise". In "The Structural Transformation" while discussing the degradation of the bourgeois public sphere, Habermas, for example, describes the activity of the political parties as changing from "representing the public" (and not having any political agenda in a sense, not knowing what to argue for before the actual debate) to "representing certain interests" (and here having a specific agenda, interests) - I might simplify the actual Habermas's argument, but this transformation is "bad" since now the parties negotiate a compromise in the public debate, not form a consensus, try to reach an understanding. I realize that ST is an early work and Habermas, of course, addressed many of the issues in other writings, but I find the same idea that reaching an understanding is "good" (consensus - communicative action), but negotiating a compromise is "bad" (compromise - stragetic action - participants in the debate as client, not partners). Now as I look at Russian politics through this scheme, I see no effort to reach an understanding, but only to negotiate a compromise - because reaching understaning proves to be difficult, even impossible while negotiating a compromise as least keeps things moving, i.e. the issues of polity, not political theories are addressed and decisions are made. Well, I guess this is not so much a question but a comment - I'd appreciate any reaction to it...

Evgeni
--- from list habermas@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

---

---

Discussion Topics
On the social issue of decision-making.

1. Who gets to take part in decision-making? How do the validity claims get presented?
   jeanne's comments

   Isn't this what social justice is all about? Who get to make the decisions, and are they responsive to me and my validity claims. Habermas suggests that the source of legitimacy is the guarantee to each citizen of a good faith hearing to his/her validity claims, and in the modern world, as many of us as there are, that may have to be done through representatitives. A global town meeting could present insurmountable problems.

2. How does this discussion of consensus and compromise fit into our discussions of dominant discourse?
   jeanne's comments

   I brought this discussion back to dominant discourse because most of our concerns have revolved around the issue of how we can transform the dominant discourse when it latches on to simplistic explanations that ignore the complexity of real world problems. For example, the response of revenge and retribution following the September 11attack could lead to an escalation of Middle Eastern anger and frustration, and an escalation of the terrorism represented by the bin Laden group.

   Where do "representating the public" and "representing special interests" fit into this mix? It seems to me that "representing special interests" through the control of the media that portray the dominant discourse as being what those special interests deem it to be would play a part in the resulting public sphere discussions. And certainly those who participate in these communicative action discussions are affected by the dominant discourse as it envelops their lived reality. All this would seem to indicated that we are dealing with inerdependent perspectives and there ability to command a forum.

   More soon. . . . jeanne. January 27, 2002.

---

---