A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance
Kurdishaspect.com - By Karim Hasan
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Law Carleton University Ottawa, Canada Karim Hasan 2002
This manuscript:
This manuscript is the text of my Master’s Degree Thesis in Legal Studies that defended at Carleton University in September 2002.
Since the completion of my first M.A., my view of Jϋrgen Habermas’ philosophy of communicative action, his modernity as an unfinished project has transformed. This transformation has occurred in my academic carrier in the last six years during obtaining my M.A. in Sociology, my Ph.D. course work and my doctoral comprehensive examination. While I still see Michel Foucault’s work important contribution to western intellectual capital, Jϋrgen Habermas’ project must continue to reform agonistic practices through the ethos of Enlightenment. More specially, I have different a view of ‘practices of care of the self and agonism’.
Abstract
This thesis seeks to argue that governance is the primary concern of human individuals and the collective societies in the Western liberal democracies. From the perspectives of governance, this project illustrates the subjective existence of peoples and their relations with one another, which include: the way we care of ourselves, relate to the other individuals, relate to the other societies and cultures, relate to the ‘other’; and the exercises of political power, economic power, institutional power, expert power, technical power, cognitive power to govern the self and others. This venture is an engagement that deploys Foucault and Habermas’s intellectual practices with the assistance of Hunt and Wickham, and Rose’s perspectives on governance to construct A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance by deploying concepts such as: genealogy, agonism, the care of the self, critical ethos of the Enlightenment and communicative action.
Acknowledgment
I am very thankful to my thesis supervisor professor Alan Hunt of Department of Law and Sociology & Anthropology for his encouragements and trust in me. Without a doubt his guidance made this project possible. I thank professor Trevor Purvis of Department of Law. I would like to thank my external examiner professor William Walters of Department of Political Science.
Introduction
Our present condition, that of liberal democratic culture, is a period of complex social, political and moral diversity. Different perspectives on the ways in which we should live, take care of ourselves, relate to other individuals, relate to other societies and cultures, relate to the ‘other sex’ are intermeshed and diverse more than ever before. The underlying philosophical theme in this complex period raises two major questions. First, what are the ways in which we govern ourselves? Second, how can we govern ourselves better, more effectively, justifiably, freely, inclusively and in a prosperous fashion? Governance in this context is about people's relations with one another and the subjective existence of peoples, which include: the exercises of political power, economic power, institutional power, expert power, technical power, cognitive power to regulate the self and the others.
This thesis seeks to argue that governance is the primary concern of human individuals and collective societies of the Western liberal democracies. In the light of some primary literature on governance (Hunt and Wickham, 1994, Rose 1996, 1999), the terrain that this thesis project traverses is a thematic rereading of Jϋrgen Habermas’s critical theory and Michel Foucault’s genealogy from the perspective of the theories of governance . Second, this rereading journey will attempt to offer a comprehensive and a fresh perspective of the ways in which a ‘governance’ reading of critical theory and genealogy can produce a fruitful intellectual scenario to advance theoretical approaches:
communicative rational and agonistic care-oriented models of governance. Third, and most importantly, I offer a reading of these two intellectual trends in the light of governance theory in order to advance A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance.
I do not wish this project to be read as an engagement against Foucault and Habermas, or, to be seen as undermining the governance literature as incomplete. My purpose is to use, or even to exploit Foucault’s genealogical reflections on the concepts of power, technologies of the self, care of the self; and Habermas’s critical transcendental emancipatory thesis in communicative action, lifeworld, system and discourse ethics. I employ them to assist me construct A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance. This thesis is divided into four chapters.
In Chapter One, I provide a genealogical overview of the concept of governance and situate the ways in which governance as a practice can be related to practices of critical theory and genealogy. In a general overview, I will criticize the current usages of governance, which are related to loose cases of the deployment of the concept ‘governance’ in academic disciplines such as: Law, Sociology, Political Science, Political Economy, Public and Business Administration. Furthermore, I will identify a visible, an invisible and a liberal model of governance. In the light of governance theory, I analyze these three models of governance. Finally, in Chapter One, I open up a brief discussion of the ways in which I will reread Habermas and Foucault’s intellectual projects from the perspective of governance.
In Chapter Two, I provide a governance reading of Habermas’s critical theory. However, before I undertake that task, I will sketch the ways in which Habermas’s critical theory emerged. I will describe and analyze the ways in which the notions of Enlightenment and maturity reflected in the works of Kant, Hegel, influenced Habermas’s critical theory. Furthermore, I will analyze the ways in which Max Weber’s notion of the dualism of ‘rationality and culture’ motivated Habermas to develop a theoretical perspective on the tension between ‘system’ and ‘lifeworld’.
In addition, in Chapter Two I will focus on reinterpretation of four main themes of critical theory: the theory of knowledge constitutive interests, communicative action, moral consciousness and discourse from the perspective of governance. Thus, Chapter Two will be concerned with rereading Habermas’s critical theory from the perspective of governance that argues critical theory can be read as a communicative rational model of governance.
Chapter Three will be concerned with governance via a reading of Foucault’s intellectual projects in which I will construct agonistic care-oriented model of governance. I discuss and analyze Foucault’s advocacy of the Enlightenment’s critical ethos in relation to Kant’s What is Enlightenment? And Nietzsche’s impact on Foucault’s views of the genealogical critique of the universal transcendental assumptions of Enlightenment thought. As I note that Foucault and Wittgenstein share some views on the discussion of discourse and language games. The underlining argument in Chapter Three will be an attempt to establish Foucault’s critical attitude and The Care of the Self as agonistic care-oriented model of governance.
In Chapter Four, I undertake the construction of A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance. This Chapter will attempt to merge both traditions of thought. However, I will criticize Habermas’s ‘submission to the force of the better argument’ and argue that the absence of interest theory in Habermas’s communicative action is a major concern. Third, I will use the relevant arguments made in Chapters One, Two and Three to make the case for A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance.
Why this project? This project emerged as the result of a gap in the literature on Foucault/Habermas debate. It is an attempt to recognize important elements of each of the two intellectual projects and using governance perspectives to develop A Communicative Agonistic Theory of Governance.
This theory of governance should not be read as an attempt that provides a reconstructive positivist approach that believes it is possible to get the techniques and the theories of governance ‘right’ in general and, more specifically, in advanced liberal democracies. Rather, it is an attempt to call attention to a different focus by undertaking a rereading and a reinterpretation of Habermas’s and Foucault’s intellectual work to pave the way for a new theory of governance.
The framework that I will adopt, in carrying out this project, enables me to provide a constructive insight into the techniques of social (public) and self (private) forms of governance in relations to Habermas’s and Foucault’s intellectual—theoretical work. Moreover, the work of each will be examined with reference to themes of Enlightenment, maturity, modernity, universalism, transcendentalism, agonism, the care the self, discontinuity of history and a short discussion of action theory. Other themes such as communicative action, discourse ethics, genealogy power/knowledge, discourse and discursive formations will be examined. The relationship between these themes and the theme of this Thesis, governance, is not direct; rather, it is the task of this project to map these links.
The limitation of this project should be taken into account. This project represents only a minor engagement between the two traditions of thought. While I understand these limitations, I would like to propose more research in this area since it represents a source of fruitful engagement for governance scholars and the others who work within Habermasian and Foucaultian traditions.
___________________________________
1- ‘Governance’ is not a single and unified theory, however, an array of conceptual and academic attempts are available trying to define governance, the way it operates and analyze the epistemological presuppositions that create the conditions for governance of the ‘self’ and of the ‘others’.
To read the thesis, in its entirety click on:
___________________
 | ||||
MENU
May 15, 2008
NEWS
| ||||
| ||||
Sponsors
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
