Flyvjerg's main claim is that the difference between Foucault and Habermas is a "tension in modernity." He believes that Habermas believed in consensus while Foucault believed in conflict and power when it comes to democracy.
Flyvjerg explains that Habermas believed in the idea of communicative rationality. Habermas thought that while communicative rationality is being threatened in modern society, that can be fixed through "consensus bringing force of argumentative speech." He thought that through rational argument, people are able to come to the same beliefs. Flyvjerg says that the biggest problem in Habermas' beliefs is that he describes a "utopia," but does not give us any directions on how to get there. Flyvjerg concludes that in fact, Habermas lacked the understanding of power that would be needed to change it.
Flyvjerg believes that Foucault has tried to understand what Habermas did not, the realities of power. While Habermas had a good understanding of political ideals, but not of the process, Foucault is the opposite. Over all, Flyvjerg says that both Habermas and Foucault believed that rationality in power were a very important subject. However, they do not agree on the best way to understand and react to the problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment