Reason and Passion in the Public Sphere: Habermas and the Cultural Historians

Abstract

ion is not new to Habermas' work; he has not ventured into historical reconstruction since Structural Transformation. What is new is his analysis of law and law-making.23 In great measure, Between Facts and Norms is a work of postsocialist era, formulated during I98os as Habermas came to terms with collapse of state socialism. Like Harrington searching for grounds of true republic with killing of king, Habermas was exploring process of legitimate law-making in modern West, as communism was falling in East.24 In placing lawmaking on a level equal to that of civil society, Habermas disarms many of criticisms directed at contemporary theories about civil and public. In response to theorists who claim that public life in civil society-the practice of civility-is a positive end in itself, many critics argue that civil society must be equally balanced by strong and responsive government.25 Habermas provides a suggestive analysis of necessary relationship between civil society and state. Habermas' abstraction from history and his attention to law making form a paradox: On one hand, Habermas avoids historically specific; on other, he grounds his analysis on results of history-what he calls the development of constitutional democracy along celebrated 'North Atlantic' path (2). This same dichotomy is evident in his commitment to rationality and proceduralism. Even if cultural historians will be happy with Habermas' abandonment of eighteenth-century classical public sphere as a time-bound ideal, they will not be happy with his resolute defense of rationality. Rationality in communication has been crux of Habermas' lifelong argument about nature of modernity; his understanding revolves around concepts of an ideal speech community and an ideal speech event, which intimate