Meeting Principles and Lifeworlds Halfway: Jürgen Habermas on the Future of Europe

Abstract

Although Jürgen Habermas is widely recognized as a philosopher and social theorist, his political philosophy is often accused of excessive formalism. Habermas has not only responded to these critiques in his theoretical writings, but also by showing how his critical theory can be applied to concrete situations in his Short Political Writings (Kleine politische Schriften). Using his political commentaries on the future of Europe and the European Union (EU), I explore Habermas' melding of abstract principles with concrete political developments. The case of Europe reveals an ongoing process of adjustment, where Habermas' theoretical insights and the place of the EU in his political thought have to respond to political developments. I argue that this process of ‘meeting halfway’ (Entgegenkommen), a concept I borrow from Habermas' social theory, demonstrates how the formalism of his theoretical commitments may be applied to politics. This approach also allows me to critique Habermas when he does not go far enough in adjusting his theory to account for concrete developments in European politics.

Integration after totalitarianism: Arendt and Habermas on the postwar imperatives of memory

“…This is not to say that either of them would wholeheartedly support what the EU has in fact become at the start of the third millennium. Habermas has written extensively on the EU in recent years, arguing that the peoples of Europe must take a greater role in the organization’s functions to combat the organizations growing democratic deficit (see Verovšek, 2012). He (Habermas, 2012) has even proposed outlines for a new, bicameral legislature, in which one house of a revised European Parliament would represent the peoples of Europe directly, whereas the other would represent the member-states.…”

“…Even though the concentration camp symbolizes the danger of the loss of memory, Arendt does not focus exclusively on its application by the Nazis in the west but also on its deployment by the communist regimes of the east. In part two, I then show why Habermas thinks that the memories of World War II—contained in the paradigmatic example of Auschwitz—should form the basis for a federated, supranational community that exists both above and alongside existing European states (see also Verovšek, 2012).…”

Jürgen Habermas and the democratization of world politics

“…One of the main challenges is the fact that European economic integration has not been matched by the creation of democratic political institutions capable of regulating the common market. The EU's continued reliance on economic interdependence driven by business interests as the main integrative and pacifying force on the continent is 'no longer acceptable' without a concomitant effort to match the logic of market efficiency with the democratization of European political institutions (Habermas, 2012, Verovšek, 2012. Decision-making processes at the level of the EU thus continue to be predominantly shaped by relations of power between states that escape the influence of national public spheres, while producing decisions that have a profound effect on the conditions of existence of the populations of each state.…”

Historical criticism without progress: Memory as an emancipatory resource for critical theory

“…Habermas (, p. 12) has sought to use the negativistic memories of a “bellicose past [that] entangled all European nations in bloody conflicts” to justify the development of the EU as a post‐national political community. He argues that instead of building on national differences, a common European identity can be formed by learning the importance of respecting human rights, abiding by the rule of law and refraining from violence and from the past atrocities that were made on the continent (see Verovšek, ).…”