Habermas went on to describe the German experiences. In 1949, while overcoming the Nazi legacy, the newly established Western Germany set out on a road towards democratization. Yet the political atmosphere would be dichotomized between enemies and comrades for many years to come. “They didn’t see each other as partners. Reciprocity disappeared under the influence of self-centered presumption, ‘I am correct, you are wrong.’ It took a tremendous amount of time for even Germany to get over this Cold-War-black-and-white way of thinking.” Then he added, still clearly deep in thought, “But isn’t Korean citizenry dynamic? The influence of new media is strong, and Korea’s politics seems to have reached an interesting intersection of sorts.”

Habermas delved into what he sees as “communicative justice,” while insisting that communication not be confused for power. Communicative justice is as meaningful as distributive justice and juridical justice, with its own message requiring close attention. To have distributive justice, we must have capable politicians as well as government administrators who place value on enacting legislation to reduce socioeconomic gaps. Juridical justice, in the spirit of law, requires faithful judges and lawyers who set out to correct unfair implementation of laws discriminating against the poor and powerless.   

Along with these aspects of justice Habermas has paid particular attention to the communicative justice that regards free and equal citizens as the main actors. He asserts that the key actor for communicative justice is neither the politicians nor bureaucrats nor judges but rather citizens.

Habermas emphasized three major principles. First, anyone, without exception, must be allowed to participate equally in communication. Second, regardless of the topic, everyone must be allowed to freely express their opinions. Third, efforts must be made to secure fair reciprocity by interpreting the counterpart not by one’s own familiar standpoints, but from their own vantage points.  Genuine reciprocity is the essence of communicative justice.

However, the power elites are inclined to speak rather than listen to others and they shape agenda by their preferences. Because of this, Professor Habermas has criticized their discourse as distorted communication. He defended instead an inclusive model of communication in which no one remains disregarded or discriminated against. He identified his position in post-war Germany as “Liberal Left.”

Ironically, Habermas was born with a split upper palate, also known as a cleft lip or a so-called ‘harelip’. Though corrective science can now cure the effects of this deformity, during his time, such modern-day miracles were not yet in the making. The Nazis classified the wolf-like howling the disease caused for each breath as an indication of a genetic defect and the young Habermas was consequently subjected to numerous surgeries and tests. He first disclosed this in 2004 when he received an award for his accomplishments in Kyoto.

His difficult life roused my curiosities. What were the effects of his language impediment on his communicative theories? Weren’t his academic achievements evidence of a kind of human victory over nature? However, he found the idea only remotely related, and replied with modesty.

“There’s really nothing amazing here. I had many good friends throughout childhood and lived a pretty normal life.” However, he did not deny the role of his experiences for his theory. “The psychodynamic link of my childhood experience to an inclusive theory of communication of mine has, in fact, been suggested by my son Tilmann, who is a psychologist in Italy.”

This conversation was eye-opening. His theory was vastly different from the hegemonic globalism touted by powerful leaders.  Rather, he insisted that the weak, namely minorities, the handicapped, and the like, must be equally safeguarded. We must aim for radically open communication in which those excluded from mainstream communication can express themselves. In academics, it is absolutely essential that it is not simply respect for the weak or understanding of the oppressed. I felt that his intellectual agony and attraction lies in his desperate efforts to graft a universal theory, rather than regarding consideration for the weak from their particularistic standpoint.

Habermas went on to explain his adolescent years. A person with a language impediment could not join the Hitler-Jugend (a Nazi youth organization) even though it was open to the general public. Consequently, he worked as a petty officer in the first aid unit.

“Every weekend, the kids would go as a group to the inner city singing and gallivanting. I really hated it. I thought I’d been fortunate to have been weeded from joining the formal services.”

At 14 years old, he was responsible for educating several young children, one of whom was two-years his junior, Hans Ulrich Wehler. However, Wehler seldom showed up. Habermas, in accord with procedures, sent a copy of the formal reprimand to him in 1943. Surprisingly, Wehler had kept this documents inserted into his diary for several decades.

Wehler grew up to be a world-renowned historian, and in 1970 he spent a day with Habermas recollecting their war experiences. Wehler mentioned the existence of such a document in passing, and later sent it to Habermas. The next year, when Wehler asked Ute about the document and she responded with, “Oh, who knows? Jurgen

probably ate it,” everyone broke into laughter. It was a witty joke, to say the least.

However, the fun was short-lived, for an evil rumor had surfaced afterwards. Habermas, who had openly criticized Nazi regime, was accused of having secretly led the organization with the conviction of the eventual success of Nazi regime.

After two decades, the rumor had mutated and become larger than life, as is usual of rumors. The German newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Die Zeit both reported the rumor as fact. Joachim Fest, a German historian with a background in journalism, wrote of this ongoing rumor in his autobiography as if he was exposing a major social scandal. Ute’s joke had moved from a mild joke to “destruction of evidence.”

Wehler publicly denounced any claims of such a scathing rumor, and Habermas later filed a lawsuit in court and won a final judgment to have the baseless rumor removed from Fest’s autobiography. Finally, the incident and the messy politics it had caused were put to rest.

This episode reveals political motives working behind overcoming the past. Overcoming the past is important everywhere for a better future. Yet justice is not something that one simply gets on a piece of paper, nor can one-sided interpretation determine justice. Justice manifests itself in the process of reciprocal communication. Even in the case of wrongdoers or criminals, it is necessary to give them the opportunity to speak to establish justice. The principle of reciprocity, namely the methodological consideration of the counterpart’s standpoints, is required for justice to proceed. Communicative justice doesn’t end with punishment by laws.


July 11, 2012
Translated by: Sae-Seul Park&am