Philosophy, Terror and Democracy
Topic: Philosophy
Shortly after 9/11 both Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas were scheduled to lecture in New York. Despite the catastrophe and the uncertainty in the aftermath of the attack, both philosophers thought it important to appear and defend democracy.
Derrida and Habermas were the subjects of an intense and hardspoken debate during the 80's. Accusations of "German tank rhetoric" and "French irrationalism" naturally led to the placement of these philosophers at different ends of the philosophical spectrum.
The New York based philosopher Giovanna Borradori seized the moment and approached the two thinkers to a discussion about Philosophy in the age of Terror (later published under the same title). It was considered to be something of a sensation to get the two together. Since the 80's debate the philosophical world were left with Derrida's deconstruction concept and critique of logocentrism versus Habermas' rationality and passionate defence of "the modern project". At stake, some commentators said, was nothing less than the heritage of the Enlightenment.
Giovanna Borradori, however, considered those critics to be in error. Derrida's constant and indefatigable deconstruction of the key concepts of the Enlightenment aimed, not to obliterate them, but to rejuvenate them in a critical manner. His thinking has never excluded criterias such as truth and validity, according to Borradori.
What then do these two philosophers have to say after 9/11?
Borradori poses a more general question first: How does the philosophical endeavour deal with the question of politics?
She makes the distinction between philosophers who are political activists, i.e. their body of work is more or less separate from their political work, and philosophers active in social criticism. Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky are examples of the former and Hannah Arendt, Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida of the latter. Arendt argued that the task of philosophy was to reflect on human laws and institutions, i.e. the governing principles that humans use to be able to coexist with one another, and how these change during the course of history. According to Borradori, this view has influenced Derrida and Habermas both and there is ample evidence to that effect.
In the case of Habermas it is evident that, in book after book, he has investigated and seached for the foundations of law and democracy. How do we make institutions that will be considered legitimate by the citizens. The essence of his point is that the better argument will endure in a free and open communication between citizens. Therefore the institutions must accomodate this and ensure that this communication takes place.
In the book "Philosophy in a time of Terror" it's evident that Derrida urges us all to a constant reconsideration of common notions about friendship, hospitality, justice, cosmopolitanism, tolerance, forgiveness all central themes to our political and social consciousness and to self-evaluation aimed at identifying our ethics and beliefsystems. If Habermas urges us to seek sustainable, democratic and legitimate co-operation procedures on a political level, Derrida reminds us of the radical mode in which ethical demands that appear before us in the meeting of two individuals. These are two perspectives that do not exclude the other but rather compliment and emphasizes their inevitable connection.
What is quite remarkable with Giovanna Borradori's book is how close the both philosophers are in their analysis of 9/11. Both obviously condemn the attack and extend their sympathy to the victims and their families but also warns of the potential demonization of the islamic world. Furthermore, they speak about the contraproductivity of military retribution, and demolish the demagogy of expressions such as "war on terrorism". They emphasize the importance of not succumbing to simplistic analysis and empty rhetoric.
"A philosopher", says Derrida, "is someone who seeks new criteria to differentiate between the concept of "understanding" and "justification", because he believes that it's possible to understand and explain the background and causes that leads to war or terrorism without justifying them.
Habermas and Derrida, in the spirit of the best political traditions of the United States, criticize the Empire and seeks dialogue with the Republic. Habermas warns us of the dangers of unilateralism evident already before 9/11. "Not long ago", Habermas explains, " a generation of young Germans, liberated by the Americans, developed an admiration of the political ideals of the nation that were instrumental in the formation of the United Nations and the tribunals of Nurenberg and Tokyo. Furthermore, the United States that once revolutionized the International Laws, now break and ignore them and the advancements made after the Second World War are now swiftly being sidelined by the Bush administration.
Democracy must become postnational and new procedures and forms of this must be developed argues Habermas.
I don't agree with Habemas when he vaguely answers the question of the magnitude of the 9/11 attack. He basically tries to place it in perspective to other human tragedies and deny its impact on world history. The important thing is the American sentiments and reactions and their subsequent response to it. It has already changed history and will continue to do so for a long time, it's useless to deny that fact.
In Kant's "Eternal Peace" from 1795, he writes "The people of the Earth have now become so closely connected to one another that any violation (of human rights) are felt and experienced by all".
The truly interesting thing about "Philosophy in a Time of Terror" are not the analysis or political proposals that are formulated within it, but the view on the role of philosophy and politics that it propagates. Enlightenment and democracy are not fixed entities that lies behind us, but rather challenges ahead of us in the future. The reflections of both Derrida and Habermas after 9/11 are examples of enlightenment that are contemplative and aware of its own limitations.
Thomas Ek