Michelle Peterson: On Flyvbjerg

Power is the main difference between the theories of Foucault and Habermas. For Habermas, constitutionalism is the way to go. He calls forth new constitutions to be written, but who would make the new constitutions? Inevitably it would be those who are in power. Habermas’s five requirements are flawed because he calls for “power neutrality” where power does not affect the discourse. He also calls on participants to practice “empathy” and equality (213). It is no wonder why Flyvbjerg calls these ideas “utopian” (215). It’s a nice idea that participants would turn into empathetic and understanding individuals and that those in power would be willing to put their power aside for the duration of the discourse, but unfortunately it sounds too good to be true. Flyvbjerg says it all when he says, “The vocabulary of Enlightenment rationalism has become an impediment to the preservation and progress of democratic societies” (219). He even tells the reader that Habermas admits that “his analysis does not include ‘gender, ethnicity, class, popular culture’” (225). Clearly Habermas is stuck in the past.

For Foucault, power is necessary in order to cause conflict and conflict is necessary for freedom. After all, if individuals weren’t given the chance to fight for their beliefs then that society would be deemed as oppressed and clearly an oppressed society cannot have a truthful public sphere. Foucault is an “opponent of ideals” (219) because he know that if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. Foucault is not a constitutionalist but asks individuals to utilize their existing constitutions more “democratically” (223). For Foucault, freedom relies on power, so power must be in existence. Freedom is won by “resistance and struggle” and conflict unites society.