The Problem of Nature in Habermas

Abstract

The way Habermas has elaborated the tradition of Critical Theory makes his contribution difficult to evaluate. While he has undoubtedly rectified some of the most glaring theoretical defects of his predecessors, he has also markedly altered the spirit of their project. He has gained the theoretical advantages of his own position at the price of breaking with Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse on fundamental issues. This does not mean that these theoretical advances could have been achieved in a different manner, nor that the spirit of the early Frankfurt School ought to be preserved. It means that Habermas' theory so differs from his predecessors' as to seriously raise the question of continuity.' Two standard criticisms are usually raised against the early Frankfurt School: (1) their pessimism could only lead to resignation; and (2) the foundations of Critical Theory were never clarified so that the resulting critique of society was itself never justified. With respect to both these problems, Habermas' theory represents an advance. As for the first point, Habermas argues that the pessimism of the early Frankfurt School was not simply the result of a sober examination of historical forces, but, insofar as it resulted from tacit (and incorrect) theoretical presuppositions, was assumed at the outset. Concerning the second point, Habermas develops a transcendental argument to provide the epistemological and normative foundations for Critical Theory. It is here that his theoretical advances often result in blunting the thrust of the early Critical Theorists' vision. Given their analysis, a solution to the historical impasse of our time -however unlikely -requires reconciliation with nature. While providing a superior theoretical grounding for Critical Theory, Habermas' transcendentalism necessarily precludes any reconciliation with nature. Theoretical rigor is obtained at the expense of the original Utopian ideal.During its exile, the Frankfurt School sought to comprehend the new and deeply disturbing world situation. They located the cause of disparate phenomena such as European fascism and the American culture industry in the same over-riding historical tendency: i.e., the Enlightenment. While the Enlightenment's goal of improving "man's estate" through the progressive replacement of myth by reason and the conquest of nature may be laudable, its strategy is flawed: the domination of outer nature necessitates the domination of inner nature, i.e., the recasting of man's instinctual organization so that he becomes capable of exercising the type of renunciation necessary for the transformation of external nature: "The 1. See Axel Honneth, "Communication and Reconciliation," in Telos 39 (Spring, 1979), pp. 45-61. 2. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (New York, 1972), p. 57. 3. According to Horkheimer and Adorno, however, myth already contains the dialectic of enlightenment in nuce and the enlightenment notion of rationality is not without mythical elements. 4. William Leis...

Habermas in Environmental Thought

“…A significant difference between the first‐generation's critical theory and Habermas' program is the absence of a critique of the human domination of nature in the latter . This difference resulted from Habermas' chief revision of early critical theory and prepared the foundation for the rest of his project (Hohendahl ; Honneth ; Whitebook ; Whitworth ). Examining Habermas' criticisms of the first‐generation also serves as an overview of the place of nature in Habermas' social theory, which is necessary for understanding the application of Habermas' ideas in environmental thought.…”

“…Another early scholar to problematize the place of nature in Habermas' system of thought was Joel Whitebook (). For Whitebook, Habermas' theorization of human–nature relations is firmly rooted in Kant, though “[t]he surrender of nature to the domain of instrumental reason is even more thoroughgoing in Habermas than in Kant” (Whitebook :56).…”

“…Another early scholar to problematize the place of nature in Habermas' system of thought was Joel Whitebook (). For Whitebook, Habermas' theorization of human–nature relations is firmly rooted in Kant, though “[t]he surrender of nature to the domain of instrumental reason is even more thoroughgoing in Habermas than in Kant” (Whitebook :56). Although Whitebook's position foretold more positive assessments of Habermas, he provided a fundamental critique that cannot be addressed in Habermas' system of thought: “it is difficult to imagine how the conflict between society and nature is going to be resolved without a major transformation in our social consciousness of the natural world—e.g., a renewed reverence for life” (Whitebook :64).…”

Habermas and green political thought

“…As Whitebook summarizes it: "the proper norms for regulating the relations between society and nature would somehow follow from the communicatively conceived idea of the human good life without reference to nature as an end-in-itself. '' 74 Habermas has endorsed these comments as an accurate extrapolation of his theory. 75 Indeed, Habermas readily concedes the anthropocentric framework of his discourse ethic but argues that the "ecological problematic" can be dealt with satisfactorily within this framework.…”

Moving Toward Ecosystem Management: Examining a Change in Philosophy for Resource Management

“…Whitebrook 1979). In fact, one of his primary concerns is not to discard instrumental rationality as he believed the early critical theorists did; his interest is to reduce its prevalence in the social world and confine it to its proper realm.…”