Janet Payne: Flyvbjerg

Flyvbjerg made several key points in his comparison of Habermas and Foucault, and concludes with their main differences. He begins by emphasising that an empowered civil society is crucial for a strong democracy. By drawing a comparison between Habermas' philosophy of morality based on consensus and Foucaults' philosophy based on historical conflict and power, he exposed the flaws in each school of thought by comparative analysis. Although Habermas' ideals seem noble in his concept of a universally inherent social life based upon establishing reciprocal understanding through communication with mutual respect and without biases, in reality it is unrealistic because he doesn't take into account the influences of the power base that is needed for political change. He is criticised as an idealist by taking a leap of faith that men in power are morally and ethically not hypocrites in their actions and are inherently looking out for the welfare of the disenfranchised. He also doesn't take into account the problems associated with cultural division of gender and minority groups. His discourse offers a Utopian society and all that's needed is consensus on constitutional values which is morally agreed upon and practiced by all in the public sphere. Foucault, on the other hand, is suspicious of the power impetus. He believes in the diversity of the individual in society, indeed, relishes it. "The search for a form of morality acceptable by everyone in the sense that everyone would have to submit to it, seems catastrophic to me." Foucault believes that this type of morality is a danger to society. Historically, resistance and struggle is the most solid basis for the practice of freedom. He is sensitive to diversity of gender and race in political identity and applauds the power struggles that are characteristic of activism and social change. Flyvbjerg concludes that Habermas' approach to the political sphere is through constitution writing and institutional development while Foucault focuses on strategies and tactics as a basis for an analysis of the dynamics of the power struggle. Foucault believes that suppressing conflict is suppressing freedom, in direct contrast to Habermas ideal of communicative rationality. The debate in the two philosophy's is stimulating and thought provoking, both having the redeeming quality of communication at it's core, though the approach may different.