Habermas, the Last European: A Philosopher'sáMission to Save the EU

By Georg Diez

Part 2: A Vision of Europe at the Crossroads

Photo Gallery: Taking a Stand for Europe Photos
DPA

This also explains why he gazed happily at the audience on this mid-November evening in Paris. Habermas is a fairly tall, lanky man. As he stepped onto the stage, his relaxed gait gave him a slightly casual air. With his legs stretched out under the table, he seemed at home. Whether he's at a desk or not, this is his profession: communicating and exchanging ideas in public.

He was always there when it was a question of putting Germany back on course, in other words, on his course -- toward the West, on the path of reason: during the vitriolic debate among German historians in 1986 that focused on the country's approach to its World War II past; following German reunification in 1990; and during the Iraq War. It's the same story today as he sits here, at a table, in a closed room in the basement of the Goethe Institute, and speaks to an audience of 200 to 250 concerned, well-educated citizens. He says that he, the theorist of the public sphere, doesn't have a clue about Facebook and Twitter -- a statement which, of course, seems somewhat antiquated, almost even absurd. Habermas believes in the power of words and the rationality of discourse. This is philosophy unplugged.

While the activists of the Occupy movement refuse to formulate even a single clear demand, Habermas spells out precisely why he sees Europe as a project for civilization that must not be allowed to fail, and why the "global community" is not only feasible, but also necessary to reconcile democracy with capitalism. Otherwise, as he puts it, we run the risk of a kind of permanent state of emergency -- otherwise the countries will simply be driven by the markets. "Italy Races to Install Monti" was a headline in last week's Financial Times Europe.

On the other hand, they are not so far apart after all, the live-stream revolutionaries from Occupy and the book-writing philosopher. It's basically a division of labor -- between analog and digital, between debate and action. It's a playing field where everyone has his or her place, and it's not always clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. We are currently watching the rules being rewritten and the roles being redefined.

A Dismantling of Democracy

"Sometime after 2008," says Habermas over a glass of white wine after the debate, "I understood that the process of expansion, integration and democratization doesn't automatically move forward of its own accord, that it's reversible, that for the first time in the history of the EU, we are actually experiencing a dismantling of democracy. I didn't think this was possible. We've reached a crossroads."

It also has to be said: For being Germany's most important philosopher, he is a mind-bogglingly patient man. He is initially delighted that he has managed at last to find a journalist whom he can tell just how much he abhors the way certain media ingratiate themselves with Merkel -- how he detests this opportunist pact with power. But then he graciously praises the media for finally waking up last year and treating Europe in a manner that clearly demonstrates the extent of the problem.

"The political elite have actually no interest in explaining to the people that important decisions are made in Strasbourg; they are only afraid of losing their own power," he says, before being accosted by a woman who is not entirely in possession of her faculties. But that's how it is at such events -- that's how things go with coercion-free discourse. "I don't fully understand the normative consequences of the question," says Habermas. The response keeps the woman halfway at a distance.

He is, after all, a gentleman from an age when having an eloquent command of the language still meant something and men carried cloth handkerchiefs. He is a child of the war and perseveres, even when it seems like he's about to keel over. This is important to understanding why he takes the topic of Europe so personally. It has to do with the evil Germany of yesteryear and the good Europe of tomorrow, with the transformation of past to future, with a continent that was once torn apart by guilt -- and is now torn apart by debt.

Without Complaint

In the past, there were enemies; today, there are markets -- that's how the historical situation could be described that Habermas sees before him. He is standing in an overcrowded, overheated auditorium of the UniversitÚ Paris Descartes, two days before the evening at the Goethe Institute, and he is speaking to students who look like they would rather establish capitalism in Brussels or Beijing than spend the night in an Occupy movement tent.

After Habermas enters the hall, he immediately rearranges the seating on the stage and the nametags on the tables. Then the microphone won't work, which seems to be an element of communicative action in practice. Next, a professor gives a windy introduction, apparently part of the academic ritual in France.

Habermas accepts all this without complaint. He steps up to the lectern and explains the mistakes that were made in constructing the EU. He speaks of a lack of political union and of "embedded capitalism," a term he uses to describe a market economy controlled by politics. He makes the amorphous entity Brussels tangible in its contradictions, and points to the fact that the decisions of the European Council, which permeate our everyday life, basically have no legal, legitimate basis. He also speaks, though, of the opportunity that lies in the Lisbon Treaty of creating a union that is more democratic and politically effective. This can also emerge from the crisis, says Habermas. He is, after all, an optimist.

Then he's overwhelmed by the first wave of fatigue. He has to sit down. The air is stuffy, and it briefly seems as if he won't be able to continue with his presentation. After a glass of water, he stands up again.

He rails against "political defeatism" and begins the process of building a positive vision for Europe from the rubble of his analysis. He sketches the nation-state as a place in which the rights of the citizens are best protected, and how this notion could be implemented on a European level.

Reduced to Spectators

He says that states have no rights, "only people have rights," and then he takes the final step and brings the peoples of Europe and the citizens of Europe into position -- they are the actual historical actors in his eyes, not the states, not the governments. It is the citizens who, in the current manner that politics are done, have been reduced to spectators.

His vision is as follows: "The citizens of each individual country, who until now have had to accept how responsibilities have been reassigned across sovereign borders, could as European citizens bring their democratic influence to bear on the governments that are currently acting within a constitutional gray area."

This is Habermas's main point and what has been missing from the vision of Europe: a formula for what is wrong with the current construction. He doesn't see the EU as a commonwealth of states or as a federation but, rather, as something new. It is a legal construct that the peoples of Europe have agreed upon in concert with the citizens of Europe -- we with ourselves, in other words -- in a dual form and omitting each respective government. This naturally removes Merkel and Sarkozy's power base, but that's what he's aiming for anyway.

Then he's overwhelmed by a second wave of fatigue. He has to sit down again, and a professor brings him some orange juice. Habermas pulls out his handkerchief. Then he stands up and continues to speak about saving the "biotope of old Europe."

There is an alternative, he says, there is another way aside from the creeping shift in power that we are currently witnessing. The media "must" help citizens understand the enormous extent to which the EU influences their lives. The politicians "would" certainly understand the enormous pressure that would fall upon them if Europe failed. The EU "should" be democratized.

His presentation is like his book. It is not an indictment, although it certainly does at times have an aggressive tone; it is an analysis of the failure of European politics. Habermas offers no way out, no concrete answer to the question of which road democracy and capitalism should take.

A Vague Future and a Warning from the Past

All he offers is the kind of vision that a constitutional theorist is capable of formulating: The "global community" will have to sort it out. In the midst of the crisis, he still sees "the example of the European Union's elaborated concept of a constitutional cooperation between citizens and states" as the best way to build the "global community of citizens."

Habermas is, after all, a pragmatic optimist. He does not say what steps will take us from worse off to better off.

What he ultimately lacks is a convincing narrative. This also ties Habermas once again to the Occupy movement. But without a narrative there is no concept of change.

He receives a standing ovation at the end of his presentation.

"If the European project fails," he says, "then there is the question of how long it will take to reach the status quo again. Remember the German Revolution of 1848: When it failed, it took us 100 years to regain the same level of democracy as before."

A vague future and a warning from the past -- that's what Habermas offers us. The present is, at least for the time being, unattainable.

Translated from the German by Paul Cohen

Article...
  • For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.
  • Post to other social networks

Comments
Discuss this issue with other readers!
3 total posts
Show all comments
    Page 1    
1. Muddled thinking
pmoseley 11/27/2011
Well, if this is the most prominant philosopher in Germany today, then German philosophy must be in steep decline. He, or at least the reporter, took so much hot wind to declare what we all know, that there is not enough democracy and accountability in Europe and that the European ideal would be more acceptable to Europeans if there was more. He, like so many European 'idealists', have totally missed the point that the European ideal is not something that people can love, it is just something that they can use. People love their country, their people, their culture and traditions and occasionally their national leaders. The EU is just a political and economic overlay that may be useful but as soon as it is not useful, then it is generally dismissed. That is what is happening now. Mercozy are sidelining the EU structures, the markets have lost confidence in it and Barroso is having fits in the wings.
2. Habermas
nettisa 11/30/2011
Zitat von pmoseleyWell, if this is the most prominant philosopher in Germany today, then German philosophy must be in steep decline. He, or at least the reporter, took so much hot wind to declare what we all know, that there is not enough democracy and accountability in Europe and that the European ideal would be more acceptable to Europeans if there was more. He, like so many European 'idealists', have totally missed the point that the European ideal is not something that people can love, it is just something that they can use. People love their country, their people, their culture and traditions and occasionally their national leaders. The EU is just a political and economic overlay that may be useful but as soon as it is not useful, then it is generally dismissed. That is what is happening now. Mercozy are sidelining the EU structures, the markets have lost confidence in it and Barroso is having fits in the wings.
PMoseley is much too dismissive of Habermas in his comment. He needs to realize that ideals have to be advanced for people to reach for them. Ours is a globalized world. For Europe to pull its weight, and advance its values, it must offer a transcending identity, tho not doing away with more local ones: a European identity. (I believe that polls have shown that 51% of the population of the countries involved do affirm such an identity.) Moseley might be interested in the notion of "dynamic nominalism" advanced by the Canadian philosopher Ian Hacking, whereby once a category is created people can than come to fill it. After all, national identities did not always exist. Moseley is raising the right questions, but must go further in his search for answers. Bruce Mazlish
3. optional
ksos 12/03/2013
What is so brilliant about the coup that Habermas describes is that while those who recognize it do their best to convince those who don't that it is happening, the dismantling continues unopposed. The shift in power to the technocrats has roots that keep going deeper and taking a stronger hold, getting harder and harder to dislodge. At least with a military coup, there is no disagreement about whether it really happened or not, and what each side stands for. The fact of it is undeniable. But with what has happened in the U.S. and in Europe, the fact of the overthrow is still being argued. People feel the effects, but can't assign a cause with certainty. We have been, as Habermas says, "reduced to spectators" and don't yet realize what has happened. It's unfortunate that Diez faults Habermas for not providing a concrete answer to this problem, and so, dismisses what he is doing in the face of what he hasn't done. Ultimately, of course, describing the problem will not be enough, and a convincing narrative is necessary to drive change. But far more people have to recognize the current situation as intolerable for anything to change. Habermas is successfully calling attention to this reality, working to wake people up. It might not be enough, but it is more than nothing, and should be recognized as such.
Show all comments
    Page 1    
Keep track of the news

Stay informed with our free news services:

All news from SPIEGEL International
Twitter | RSS
All news from Europe section
RSS

ę SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH



From DER SPIEGEL

Zoom
DER SPIEGEL

Graphic: How the EU works. Zoom
AFP

Graphic: How the EU works.



European Partners
Presseurop

Politiken

Corriere della Sera

Temporary Teachers to Get Permanent Jobs

Renzi Ups the Pace


Facebook
Twitter