“‘Communicative Politics’ can manifest when ‘Violence, Aggression and Censure’ disappear”

Dong-Ah Ilbo | Opinions | May 2, 2006

On his recent visit to Germany, Sang-Jin Han, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Seoul National University and current Distinguished Visiting Professor at Peking University, sat down for an interview with Goethe University Frankfurt Professor Emeritus Jurgen Habermas. The two engaged in a lengthy three hour discussion on subjects ranging from global issues to concern about Korea’s knowledge society, among others.

Interest in Korea

Professor Habermas visited Korea in 1996 and promised to visit again in October 2007 per Professor Han’s invitation. Of the mere six overseas lectures mentioned on the esteemed professor’s prolific academic resume, one includes the lecture he gave at Seoul National University in 1996, which was an indicator of his personal interest in the country. The following is an abridgement highlighting the important details of the transcript of their conversation.

Professor Han: How do you assess the challenges of advanced technology on rationalism that you have defended? Are rational solutions for bioethics problems possible?

Professor Habermas: Technological advancements are   always significant but dichotomous in nature, like birth and death, or hatred and love. For instance, television transmits information and educates us, and it can even create “rational intentions” as a communication tool. However, if television is overused to instigate propaganda, people will no doubt end up either misguided or apathetic about politics. It is important to keep in mind how technological advances should be structured, and it is in the context of that structure where bioethical problems can find a rational solution. For example, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence should only be used within a framework that has been clearly defined by ethical agreements we have managed to achieve. They have to be used for remedies, not for eugenics.

Professor Han: What are your thoughts on the meaning of political progressivism these days?

Professor Habermas: In democratic and constitutional states, it refers to the institutionalization of popular sovereignty and human rights, the creation of an active civil society and a well-functioning public discourse, and liberal politics. Aspects of value orientation, such as an ethos of self-determination and self-realization, universal respect of human beings, religious freedom, gender equality, and freedom of scholarship and research, have been continuously observed since the 18^th century in Europe. Even today, these principles serve as standards that lead to criticism of corrupt social relations and political cronyism, social ills, war crimes, genocide, and the like.

Professor Han: However, progressives must confront a conundrum when they face the task of creating a new system going beyond mere criticism.

Professor Habermas: Your question refers to our inability which stems from the complications of a society that lacks transparency. Well, there are still things we must do. First, on a global scale, lack of fresh water, global warming, flooding, air pollution, and the like are ecologically imbalanced. There are also problems of regional inequalities that often lead to ruin, and of the exploitation of natural resources such as petroleum. Despite these global risks, however, countries cannot simply neglect the problems they are facing in their own backyards. In the case of South Korea, the North Korean problem, national reconciliation, and the responsibility of promoting democracy still remain, and the task of building a sense of responsibility and extending global norms of transparency to the entire society is also important.

Professor Han: Your seminal work “The Theory of Communicative Action,” published 25 years ago, recently became a big hit in the country after it was translated into Korean. What is the main point that you wanted to convey in your book?

Professor Habermas: In it I argued that  modernity is more than the dynamism of political power and the economy. As time passes, we see more signs of modernity as communication frees itself from traditional restraints. I said that communicative rationality does not act only on law, morality, science and philosophy, or cultures like art and literary critique. It’s also important that citizens form a deeper democratic volition. 

Professor Han: It may be so, but don’t you think that in reality, conflict of opinion is widespread in all parts of the world?
 

Professor Habermas: It is essential for a democracy to allow an unrestrained political culture where political opposition is not confused as an “enemy” and tolerance of religious minorities and foreigners is important. Patriotism that leads to disregard of other ethnicities is unacceptable. It is also important to have a civil society that shares a common civility. What is most important is to avoid myopically pursing one’s own political aims or self-benefit. Of course, political battles are driven for benefit by nature. Yet, the greatest result of a constitutional democracy is that the battles are filtered out in the political public sphere. All political parties and standpoints go through the open-ended processes of justification.

Professor Han: In Korea, there is some criticism that “communicative politics” has not yet been fully realized. What do you think about this issue?

Professor Habermas: In the [communicative] political sphere, what’s important is whether there’s an appropriate agenda and discursive testing to carry out, or if there’s unconstrained assault, deceptive propaganda, mutual accusations, and de-politicizing entertainment industries. In the messy public sphere, mass media can easily use its destructive power to turn a good thing bad. We emphasize deliberative politics because political power struggles should be controlled and tamed through debate. I have always maintained that democratic legitimacy can be made effective only through debate.

Professor Han: You heavily criticized the US invasion of Iraq. What do you think was the advisable role that the US should take?

Professor Habermas: The role I am hoping for the US to take was that which was set by President Wilson and President Roosevelt after the First and Second World Wars. 

America should concentrate efforts in establishing the global political order at the pinnacle of the UN’s reform. There should be no double standards when it comes to international peace and human rights.

Professor Han: Do you see any escape from America’s military hegemony and neo-liberal world domination?

Professor Habermas: The modern society is managed by capital and market, political power and organization, and values, norms, and solidarity based on communication. However, the balance of these three powers has been lost today due to a politically-targeted market globalization. As a result, nations’ public services and welfare demands lack the necessary resources. To find an appropriate balance between these three factors, democratic politics reconnected with citizen’s values must develop to catch up the market. We must create a global organization going beyond the governance by national states. A world inner-governance is necessary to deal adequately with the earth and global economic problems.

May 2, 2006
Translated by: Sae-Seul Park