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 posted to Hab list on January 27, 2002:

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:39:51 +0300
Sender: owner-habermas@lists.village.virginia.edu

Matt,

Thanks for picking up this thread, it does look quite simplistic as you correctly noted, but I feel that if the dichotomy does exist, then it was not setup by me - rather I thought that I picked it up while reading Habermas. You wrote:

> How then would you explain Habermas's emphasis upon the the > process of seeking to reach an understanding? This would alter the > dichotomy you are setting up (and I note your qualification of it > being a simplistic analysis) between *consensus* (good) > *compromise* (bad).

As I read Habermas (and here again, I am being general and somewhat simplistic, perhaps relying on intuition), the communicative action as action directed toward reaching understanding is put against strategic action which is directed toward reaching certain goals. If I understand H., strategic action is not *bad* - I think I tried to put quotation marks in the previous post - but in communication one needs to try to reach an understanding rather than manipulate and thus reach a goal. Again H's analysis of the press in ST comes to mind (in BFN he comes back to the issue, I think, discussing Publizisten) - the newspaper as a platform of opinions becomes an advertizing space with editorial being a way to sell, not to present an opinion. Would you say that I perceive this difference between "compromise/deal" and "consensus/understanding" incorrectly? I'd appreciate any guidance in this, as you mentioned, complicated matter.

> The issue you are picking out shows up the complexity of > Habermas's representation of communicative processes.

Twisting your words a bit, I think that I have picked up this issue some time ago and now I am desperately trying to figure out what it is exactly that I picked up and whether I should have picked it up in the first place:-)

> Whilst *compromise* appears to be contra-communicative action; > at least in _BFN_ Habermas acknowledges the split between his > idealization of the conversion of communicative power into > the law-making processes of the political sphere and the > *actuality* of political bargaining and negotiation.

I think that if we are talking about communicative action vs. strategic action (*bargaining*, *negotiation*), then H writes in BFN that, for example, that the political public sphere can be manupulated by various interests (power and money), but it cannot be established (created?) by these interests, it is there to be manipulated, but it is constituted through communicative action. Again I might be of the track here...

> One last and equally doubtful response, Evgeni...what happens in > the *making* of a political compromise? Especially when this > compromise is free of the threat of physical coercion. The query I > have is whether or not even in a compromise situation aren't > validity claims also raised to some degree or another?

I guess at this point I have to say that when I use the word *compromise* - at least that is the meaning *I* put when I use the word and it might be a wrong use - I mean that political compromise/deal necessarily involves some coercion - I don't think I understand what you mean by *physical* - if there are no means to coerce, then negotiation is not possible, since there are no means of pressure on the political opponent. Take any parlamentary issue - if the political parties have clear agendas, they have means (votes in Duma) to pressure their opponents in order to come up with a good deal, the deal that *helps* them with their agenda... With the young Russian political system this agenda might be quite simple - to represent the interests of those who had helped the party during the election (Russians in overall are quite cynical about the parties representing the people). As I am trying to use some of the H's categories I see the pair *consensus* - *compromise*, but I am not sure if I hold the relation between the two as the dichotomy. Thanks for some good insights, I'll keep on pondering...

Evgeni

--- from list habermas@lists.village.virginia.edu --- This essay is based on Evgeni Pavlov's post to the Hab list on Habermas' consensus and compromise.