Literature review – Kristian Walther

Borradori, Giovanna: Philosophy in a Time of Terror – Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida

“[A]nd this is why I’m asking you to forget September 11. It certainly seems to me to be a better idea than forgetting ourselves in the name of the memory of the dead”
Maja Zehfuss – After 911

This book, or rather interviews, brings for the first time two of the most important European philosophers in the 20th century together. The theme, as the title of the book indicates is the question of philosophy in the wake of the ”event” 9.11.

Habermas and Derrida come from two different philosophical traditions. Habermas is usually described as the clearest inheritor of critical theory tradition/Frankfurter School – originally initiated around Institut für Sozialforschung in Frankfurt and which counted among its most prominent members Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin.

Derrida on the other hand belong to “French” tradition, but looking at the ancestors of this “school” the distinction becomes somewhat blurred (at least if we understand ancestors as someone who is located in a particular space – in terra). Derrida’s general philosophical project (Deconstruction) owes a great debt to German philosophers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger. What distinguishes Derrida and Habermas is among other things, as Borradori highlights in her introduction, their style. The interview with Habermas comprises 20 pages and is one tempts to say, unusually clear. Derrida’s on the other hand is 52 pages and rather difficult. Derrida’s first major works is centered on philosophy of language. In this vein it makes sense when Borradori says, [H]is extreme sensitivity for subtle facts of language makes Derrida’s thought virtually inseparable from the words in which it is expressed (xll).

In the introduction Giovanna Borradori locates both Habermas and Derrida in the legacy of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, although a rather heterogeneous tradition, shares the common theme, that reason is the light that leads human out of their “self-incured immaturity”. Clearly Habermas and Derrida shares this tradition but in different ways. In his major political “Theorie des Kommunikativen Handlens (the Theory of Communicative Action) Habermas is clearly building on the idea the reason and rationality is a necessary component, if we want to realize the universals that is inherent in the Enlightenment tradition. Modernity as an overall term for the contemporary historical epoch is to Habermas still an “Unfulfilled Project” Therefore, and this is where his connection to the critical theory becomes most clear, it is the task of the philosopher to criticize the different forms of pathologies, that characterizes the Modern. This task of the philosopher is closely connected the idea of communicative action. Building on the “Anglo-Saxon” trend in philosophy of language Habermas argues that communicative rationality (not instrumental!) is the means to which we will be able to fulfill this project. Language is in its very nature oriented to reciprocal understanding but this requires that people, when using the public space for discussion, meets the basic requirements (validity claims) of language such as telling the truth and further, that language as such always is oriented to different kinds of perspective always in the search for “the forceless force of the better argument”.

Derrida, on the other hand is usually located as a post-modern philosopher implying an anti-Enlightenment stance. But as Borradori points out this not the case. Although deconstruction in its very nature leads our attention to the unconscious blind spots, that has been handed down and reproduced through generations, this does not imply that the Enlightenment as such should be refused. Rather the emphasis in deconstruction is on deconstruction. Nietzsche famously said that “We can only destroy as creators” and this is pretty much what Derrida does.

In his conversation with Borradori, Habermas tries to locate the “event” that we call 9.11 within his overall philosophical scheme. Pointing to the fact the September 11 was the first “historical world event” in the sense that the live coverage was unfiltered and broadcasted throughout the world, Habermas turns to the question of techno-media structure and how it affect our possibilities for fulfilling the demand for communicative rationality. The development of media technology has on the one hand improved the possibility for participation in the public sphere, but on the other hand increased the amount of “bad” information. The classic distinction between information and knowledge becomes obvious and this is central to Habermas. As pointed out earlier the use of language requires that we take precaution and further that always reflect upon using it. But the discourse on “war on terror” is problematic because it simplifies the actual “event” and because it unintended gives legitimacy to the terrorist. As such “the war on terror” leads to a distortion in communication. This is due to the lack of “semantic sensibility” regarding the distinction between the concepts of war, state and terror. Traditionally war is something that states wage against each other, but by declaring war is against a network that does fulfill the criteria of a state, the Bush administration has given legitimacy to terror as a mean to achieve political goal – although it is difficult to see the political content of the specific act. As such terror or violence can have political legitimacy if it used to overthrow a suppressing political regime, but this is clearly what “al-Qaeda” is lacking. The only clearly stated goal is to destabilize the US/The West. Second, Habermas points to the fact that by dividing world into a Manichean “good-evil” dichotomy (with its clear religious connotations) we fail to see through the veil of immediacy. The globalization and the spread of western values lead to a disintegration of traditional ways of life in many non-western societies, something that causes disturbance and reaction. Further, the idea that globalization is only beneficial is an idea that western societies impose on others, but the fact is that there is huge economic inequality, lack of respect for basic human rights and democracy.

For Habermas then the philosopher in a time of terror needs to reconstruct the foundation from which we are to proceed. The dysfunction in language and understanding needs be cured if we want to approach a more just and cosmopolitan order

Whereas Habermas through the entire interview – and in continuation of his general philosophical project maintains that rationality is a universal concept, Derrida on the other hand – through the use of deconstruction, points to the fact that rationality and other seemingly neutral concepts (e.g. tolerance) has a specific genealogy which is closely tied to a Christian tradition and nomenclature. This fact leads Derrida to embrace an ethic, where we become more sensible to the view of the other.

Starting out with some critical reflection on 9.11 as a “major event” Derrida points out that a truly new “event” forces us to develop a new language, new word that can express the significant in its own particularity. But using an old vocabulary we fail to see the “perhaps” true significance of 9.11. This is not to say that Derrida refuses that the killing in the attack on World Trade Center and Pentagon was a new thing, but he point to the fact that terror has a long history and as such is not something entirely new. The media and their uncritical use of language lead to a linguistic vulnerability by not reflecting what language does. Unlike Habermas, Derrida sees language as performative. Language is not just something that we can use without critical reflection. Language as such participates in the construction of the very world we are living in.

The collective trauma caused by the 9.11 attack is reproduced media and the entertainment industry. By using the same linguistic vocabulary as the Bush administration, the media gives us the sense of “metaphysical comfort” – that we can fight the terrorist and win if we take necessary precautionary measures. This is where Derrida introduces the concept of autoimmunity, which he describes as: [T]hat strange behavior where a living being, in quasi-suicidal fashion, “itself” works to destroy its own protection, to immunize itself against its “own” immunity (p. 94). Autoimmunity relates first to the fact that “the Bin-Ladens” initially was trained and “sponsored” by the US. When the different Muslim groups fought against the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, they had the status of “freedom-fighter”. The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is then not as clear-cut as it seems. As an attempt to cure the system from the “communist decease” the US created the very means that could destabilize its own system. Further, Derrida distinguish between symbolic and real suicide. The symbolic castration by the collapse of the Twin Towers is clearly very real in its manifestation, but the real suicide is the denial of law as mean to solve the conflict. The refusal to acknowledge that the terrorist falls under the Geneva Convention provides the clearest example. Further, and again in relation to our need for “metaphysical comfort” the extraordinary means that has been taken – increased surveillance is not what is needed. Rather, and this is where Derrida and Habermas agree, the solution is not to decrease our civic liberties in the name of a “was against terror”, but to look at the roots of the “conflict”. Returning to the “event” of 9.11 Derrida says that one of the problems is, that we are constantly reminded of the “event”. The media is reproducing the images, but if we are to proceed, we have to cope with the collective trauma in “traditional” psychological manner.. We have to accept that we cannot raise the dead and then move on – not being haunted by the specters of yesterday.

One further argument in the interview is Derrida’s reflection on 9.11 as the perhaps last large scale terrorist attack, that is tied to a specific territory (terror – territory = terrortory). Our dependency on the techno-info system makes it likely that future terrorist attack will take place in cyberspace where the first hand casualty will be minimal, but the long term effect enormous. This of course is a central point. Just a small disturbance into the techno-highway can lead to significant consequences. As an example Michael Chertoff said last week that: “We take threats to the cyber world as seriously as we take threats to the material world” , thereby underscoring the significant consequences that a destabilizing of the cyper-system can have.

Returning to the possible solution to the solution to the problem of terrorism both Habermas and Derrida agree that we should avoid being terrorized by our own means. Further, both consider the possibility of cosmopolitanism as the long-term solution, and this is where Kant unites. In his plea of a “democracy to come” what Derrida urge us to consider is more or less an echo Walter Benjamin’s statement in his “Theses on the Philosophy of History” “[T]here is a secret agreement between past generations and the present one. Our coming was expected on earth. Like every generation that preceded us, we have been endowed with a weak messianic power, a power to which the past has a claim”. The consideration of cosmopolitanism leads Derrida to claim that what is needed is a cosmopolitan world government that transcend the nation-state. But when and how this is going to take place, is not something that Derrida tells us. One could say that this is a weakness in his argument, but the impression that I get is, that Derrida is trying to avoid the classic “logic-of-necessity” that has haunted much of the Marxist and critical theory.

Philosophy in a Time of Terror is a tour de force into two different philosophical universes. Although much is still to be said, this book shows the relevance of philosophy and critical thinking, when “major event” takes place. The introductory chapter locates nicely Habermas and Derrida within a larger context and the commentary that follows each conversation provides a good reflection of the major themes touched upon. In overall this book is a “must read” for everyone interested in critical reflection not only in relation to the “event” of 9.11 but also more general in the human conditions in late-/post-modernity.

Thomassen, Lasse (2004): De/Reconstructing Terrorism, in: Theory & Event, Vol.7, # 4 - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v007/7.4thomassen.html

Michael Chertoff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7335930.stm