Goethe University Frankfurt Emeritus Professor Jurgen Habermas is the representative and most thought-provoking intellectual of this era. Though at times his criticisms have evoked storms of controversy and brought him much plight, he has never strayed from the path of rational thinking and debate. He rarely discusses his personal experiences openly, but he was different during our talk. He poured out his thoughts and experiences but also expressed his concern that his theories may be reduced to simply his personal experiences. He even gave my wife, Young-Hee Shim (Professor of Sociology at Hanyang University) an earnest request: “Now that you have heard my story, please examine the article thoroughly so that my meaning will be conveyed precisely.” What I was most curious about was the reason behind his voluntary departure of Goethe University Frankfurt in 1971. Occasionally there are professors driven out due to animosity from school authorities or the power elite, but never has there been a case where one of the most promising contemporary intellectuals has voluntarily left his professorship and gone into self-exile. Surely this is where Professor Habermas’ thoughts on communicative democracy, intellectual criticism, and responsibility are intertwined with his peculiar experiences.

 

 

When the topic moved to the student movement, Professor Habermas recalled Rudi Dutschke immediately. “He was very intelligent and the discourse was excellent. His gestures were also rich.” In 1967 and 68 at the time, Dutschke, who had studied sociology in Berlin, was leading the Socialist German Student Union (Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund, or the SDS).

 

“The critical theory that I advocated was aimed at testing all authority and taboos through free and open debate,” he said. In fact, Habermas attempted to link the tradition of critical theory preoccupied with class domination and emancipation to liberalism and advocated social reform via a radically open critique and enlightenment. He argued that universities can represent an emancipatory interest in tandem with technological scientific concerns. His debate greatly influenced the German student movement in the late 1960s.

 

The influence of critical theory on student movement

However, the student movement became far more radicalized than Habermas had expected. Stimulated by Marcuse’s strategy of ‘Great Refusal’, students began to debate legitimate violence as a central topic.

“The radicalized movement circles defended the use of violence. Using violence as a means of attacking the system is exactly what they argued as an instigator of the violent nature of the system. I was certain that this was the wrong strategy.”

 

This is where Habermas and student movement comrades clashed. They asked to everybody to pick between the two sides - the side for system violence or the side for defensive violence. The silent majority were accused of secretly holding hands with the enemy. Enraged with this type of thinking, Habermas publicly decried that such ‘Leftist fascists’ were just as bad as the ‘Rightist fascists.’ 

 

When I asked how he felt that time, he told me that he only “criticized this incorrect strategy, but it didn’t mean I was against the movement itself.” Yet the disgruntled students took over the Social Research Institute of the Frankfurt School at Goethe University Frankfurt that cradled the values they were fighting for, namely critical theory. The head, Professor Theodor Adorno, hoping to maintain order, called on the police to help. Later, facing a barrage of personal attacks, he was deeply and terribly shocked, and passed away. 

 

“The students began to assault by disclosing in-house personal documents, and the school turned to complete chaos.” The research institute was in peril with little hope of a future. Its only guardian and savior was Habermas.

 

“However, why did you leave the school?” I asked.

 

“I argued consistently not to confuse academics and politics. Science calls for debate on facts but politics calls for responsibility on actions. At the time, the university was deeply politicized and I was standing at the center of this politicization. My colleagues saw me as such. More than anything else, I was devastated at the death of my personal savior, Professor Adorno, who had been a driving force for me.”

 

“What steps did you take next?”

 

“I wanted to announce that I would be stepping down from the podium. However, my wife begged me to mull over it for a couple of days. When I think back about it today, though, I still regret my inability to just quit while I was ahead.”

 

At the time, Dr. Karl Friedrich von Weizsacker, a renowned physics scholar who was 17 years his senior, proposed that Habermas co-manage the Max Planck Institute at Starnberg.

 

“Did this proposal come before or after you decided to leave the podium?”

 

“Before, of course,” he replied candidly. “Even if that wasn’t the case, I would have clearly been worried about how to raise a family.”

 

Habermas left the prestigious position of a full professorship with many benefits, and began instead a momentary reclusion in the countryside. In 1971, he busied himself with building the house that he currently resides in. He reminisced on how difficult it was for him to find a carpenter due to heavy constructions underway in preparation for the Munich Olympics. He continued his work as a co-director of the research institute until 1983.

 

“Savior” Adorno passes away amidst chaos

This experience reveals the difficulties of communication as well as the wisdom of coexistence. Habermas had defended free discourse open to all critiques and thus attacked the use of violence for making choices impossible. But the radical students violently took over the college rather than responding by way of reciprocal critique. He thus became entangled in troubles. No matter how much he publicly criticized the use of violence, he felt he was responsible for the outcome of the student movement. This was an exemplar of a public intellectual. At the time, Dr. von Weizsacker saw Habermas as the only Leftist intellectual in Germany who committed to constitutional liberal democracy, and thus he opened the way of coexistence by inviting Habermas to the Institute. This showed a sign of the benefits of a liberal political regime.

 

German reunification

 

When Germany reunified in 1989, Habermas wrote an essay criticizing the way in which it took place and the “normative flaws” involved. He suffered from misunderstandings and emotional attacks. People would remark sarcastically, “Is he really German?” Why did Habermas turn his back on public opinion and write in opposition of the unification of which many Germans were enthusiastic?

 

“At the time, I was unable to read national emotion. It was very strong beyond my imagination. And I was honestly worried about the side effects of what I was witnessing.” In short, the extremely rapid move toward unification and the West’s occupation of the East would inevitably result in many side effects. The serious problem was that a victor’s justice prevailed at the cost of communicative justice.

 

Here his wife, Ute added, “One of the hot issues these days concerns inter-generational justice. In the end, the East German youth blame their parents by asking what they did under a wrong regime.” If the past is completely denied, even the conversation between parents and children is difficult to pursue. Though crimes of the Stasi (the secret police) were notorious, the East German economy was the best among East European countries. Habermas made the hopeful observation that if the West German government took wise steps towards reunification, it might be possible to pursue a different pathway based on mutual respect and self-esteem on both sides instead of maintaining the conqueror’s sense of justice.

 

“If we were wiser, when opportunity came, we could have acted gradually rather than rushing rapidly like a flash of lightning. It would have been better if East Germany had first joined the EU for economic development, and then worked towards political reform to experience a slow process of a unified coexistence,” he said.

 

The pattern of reunification gave great influence on transitional justice of overcoming the past. “When apologizing for its Nazi past, Germany interpreted things through the eyes of the victims that it agonized, and through the eyes of the countries it invaded. Germany made a great deal of effort to start anew as a trustful member of European community.”

 

However, when Germany reunited, West Germany barely saw East Germany as a partner. They regarded the East German human resources and their experience as no more than a lost cause. This is where Habermas’ criticism begins. “East Germans had no opportunities to speak, and the West had no intentions of listening. The unified community was believed to emerge through rapid currency reform and administrative integration, but it was shortsighted.”

 

The EU crisis must learn from the past

 

Habermas pointed out that Germany had adopted similar approaches to the current crisis of the European Union relying on fiscal, legal, and administrative measures. “But a genuine solution lies in creating a political community in which European citizens are entitled to enjoy equal rights.” Looking from the perspective of European citizens, he continues to investigate the conditions for coexistence within the framework of communicative justice and democracy.

 

When we were about to leave, Ute gave us good information. “Jurgen is writing with his heart and soul about great world religions, including Confucianism and Buddhism.” Habermas expressed desires to visit Korea again after he finishes this writing. When I suggested that he visit Korea before he finishes up his writing to take a break and also give his thoughts a ‘nice touch of flavor’, he responded with a laugh: “As always, you’re an expert on personal relationships!”