MORE HABERMAS AND DERRIDA

The essay that Habermas and Derrida published last weekend in FAZ is a bit thin, and probably it's wise to read more of the full text of the essay before going too far with it. And I definitely could have done a better job with the translation that I give below -- it's a first draft with a few errors that have already been pointed out by a few kind friends. Josh: the German is better than it would seem from my English rendering. But I hope that the main arguments are still visible under my translation.

The essay is supposed to be a kind of broad statement of principle, I gather, rather than a detailed plan. And at that level I think it probably succeeds.

One reason why the article succeeds is because it does present an attractive vision of the guiding spirit of European politics. For my part, living in a small post-industrial town that clings to the edge of Lake Ontario, in a state that is losing its population and more quickly losing its remaining jobs, and getting more and more steamed about what seems to me to be the divisive class warfare being waged by the Bush administration, I have to admit that I find the arguments compelling in a general sort of way. Whatever the weaknesses of the European welfare state -- and Josh Cherniss is definitely right to point out that Habermas and Derrida are glossing over some serious fiscal problems here -- it does express an attractive understanding of basic principles of justice, and it is appropriate to describe these principles as having been won by a process of collective self-determination. Moreover, both Josh and I are attracted to the idea of "reflective distance," although he adds the comment that this seems not to be a general principle of European behavior (as in the German penchant for smug moral superiority? Maybe). I think that Habermas and Derrida are making a stronger point: experience in having used military power abroad, having lost colonies, and having to deal with the complexities of postcolonial politics does lead to a welcome caution with respect to European willingness to project force abroad. And the kicker is that this does not mean that Europeans are reluctant to provide troops and material for multilateral operations. But it would be hard to imagine the Europeans getting into the same kind of problems that we are in the very process of getting into with respect to both Afghanistan and Iraq, problems that occur at the intersection of overwhelming force, terrorism-related and media-induced anxieties, short attention spans, short electoral cycles, and deficit politics. In their broad statement of principle, it makes sense for Habermas and Derrida to call attention to such basic political and moral facts even if they seem relatively commonplace.

As for the question of the hidden parochialism of enlightenment cosmopolitanism: maybe. But it seems to me that there are currently two versions of enlightenment cosmopolitanism on offer today: the U.S. version and the (sketchy) European version. The U.S. version of enlightenment cosmopolitanism seeks to establish two things: universal markets and universal terror-free zones. Barring the second, the U.S. will now settle for a global military influence that can easily be converted into dominance in almost all relevant points on the globe. The European version as articulated by Habermas and Derrida, at least as hinted at here, is committed to building effective international political organizations (something not present in the U.S. version in its current iteration). And it also at least recognizes that eurocentrism is a problem -- also not present in the U.S. version, which under the current dispensation would probably dismiss such pleasantries as moral bankruptcy.

The point of the essay is clearly not primarily to make an argument. The point is to raise to collective European consciousness the possibility of a common approach to foreign policy and to paint as attractive a picture as possible of that policy. They're attempting to convince Europeans to claim a certain kind of policy as their own, as something that is already their own. As such the essay is rhetorically quite stunning, if nothing else.

To fill in the dots a bit on what kind of vision Habermas has, read this slightly meatier article in the Hindu. Habermas's English is a hell of a lot better than my version of his (and Derrida's) English. By way of critique of U.S. policy, Habermas offers the following lines:

In the technologically supreme and heavily armed superpower's fear of terrorism, one can sense a "Cartesian anxiety" — the fear of a subject trying to objectify both itself and the world around it; trying to bring everything under control.

Hard to argue with that, really. The rest of the essay is worth a read.

MORE: The Hindu article is linked at this interesting roundup of world news.

MORE: For a more complete version of the article, in French, go here. Link via The Agonist discussion board.