Megan Aragon: Flyvbjerg

I had to think long and hard about the weekend's reading assignment. Amazingly, I did that at work. What helped me understand better of the reading, is comparing the ideas of Habermas's and Foucault's, to everyday's lifestyle. Doing so helped me come up with my opinion of the two ideas. I hate to admit, but I am still not quite sure if I still understand what Flyvbjerg is saying. I would get what he is saying but as soon as a new paragraph comes, I am lost all over again. It was frustrating but this is what I did get out of reading his work, and that is: Habermass is a constitutionalist, he believes a new constitution should be written. But the flaw in that theory is that the ones who are in power would write the new constitution and I don't think that is actually what Habermas wants. Habermas desires of something more of power neutrality and more participation towards equality. Most of his ideas are connect to Kant's ideas. As much as I like the idea and would very much like to see it happening to our society, but just like Flyvbjerg says, I cannot see it happening. Even Habermas might see his own flaw when he says his idea does not apply to any specific groups such as gender, class, ethnicity, etc. Unfortunately, we have to face what is really happening in our society. That is where Foucault comes in the picture when he says the idea is unrealistic for our modern society. He is right... Foucault believes just the opposite, that it is good to have power. Foucault thinks that power causes conflicts and that we need conflicts in order to have what we want which is freedom and equality. I have to admit, I did not understand what Foucault meant by what he said about power at first, but as I thought about it more, thinking of our previous historical conflicts and the presidential debates Freddie mentioned, I can see what he means. We would not have things in a certain way accordingly to our beliefs if we did not stand up to what we believe is best for us. This makes Foucault not a constitutionalist. I agree with both in certain ways, probably more with Habermas, but that would be just me dreaming. Realistically, I agree with Foucault. It was an experience to agree with two opposing ideas, but at two different point of views - a personal one and a professional one.