Motive and Goal in Hannah Arendt's Concept of Political Action

1980 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T Knauer

Hannah Arendt's work is of major importance primarily because of the categories of thought she originates, especially her concept of political action. But this concept has frequently been criticized for being irrelevant to, or incapable of comprehending, strategic concerns. This criticism however, is based on a misreading of Arendt on the relationship of specific motives and goals to political action. The critical interpretations of three commentators are considered here: Kirk Thompson, Jürgen Habermas, and Martin Jay. A detailed explication of the relevant texts from Arendt demonstrates the misreading of Arendt on which these criticisms are based and at the same time reveals the subtlety and power of Arendt's conception of the relationship between instrumentality and meaning in political action. Once this relationship is correctly understood, it becomes possible to appreciate the implications of Arendt's work for questions of political strategy.

2016 ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Ana Pamela García

ResumenSe discute aquí el carácter de la “opinión pública” como categoría conceptual en el marco de las perspectivas de Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann y Pierre Bourdieu. Sus lecturas sobre este fenómeno psico-socio-político y comunicativo, todavía polémico dentro del debate sobre las formas sociales de la democracia representativa, se abordan considerando: primero, la relación de continuidad de sus propuestas con las principales tradiciones de la teoría social contemporánea; segundo, su potencialidad crítica para un esclarecimiento sociológico de la relación entre opinión pública y “medios masivos de comunicación”; tercero, sus diferentes concepciones del “espacio público” como categoría central oresidual en la comprensión del sentido de la acción social.Palabras clave: opinión pública, medios masivos, espacio público, sociología política, democracia.The problem of public opinion in the sociological thought of Habermas, Luhmann and Bourdieu: political, communicational and ideologicaldisquisitions on a “democratic?” phenomenonAbstractThis paper discusses the character of “public opinion” as a conceptualcategory within the perspectives of Jürgen Habermas, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann. Their literature about this psycho-socio-political andcommunicative phenomenon, still controversial in the discussion on thesocial forms of representative democracy, are addressed considering: First,the relationship of continuity of their proposals with the main traditions ofcontemporary social theory; second, its critical potential for a sociologicalclarification of the relationship between public opinion and “mass media”;third, their different conceptions of “public space” as a central or residualcategory in understanding the meaning of social action.Keywords: public opinion, mass media, public space, political sociology,democracy.O problema da opinião pública no pensamento sociológico de Habermas, Luhmann e Bourdieu: discussões políticas, comunicacionais e ideológicos sobre um fenômeno ¿democrático?ResumoDiscute-se aqui o caráter da “opinião pública” como categoria conceitualno marco das perspectivas de Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann ePierre Bourdieu. Suas leituras sobre este fenômeno psico-sócio-político ecomunicativo, ainda polêmico dentro do debate sobre as formas sociais dademocracia representativa, abordam-se considerando: primeiro, a relação de continuidade de suas propostas com as principais tradições da teoria social contemporânea; segundo, sua potencialidade crítica para um esclarecimento sociológico da relação entre a opinião pública e “meios massivos de comunicação”; terceiro, suas diferentes concepções do “espaço público”como categoria central ou residual na compreensão do sentido da ação social.Palavras-chave: opinião pública, meios massivos de comunicação, espaçopúblico, sociologia política, democracia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-64
Author(s):  
Gilrandi A. Pramonojati

This article examines the relationship of the Church to politics in post-secularism popularized by Jurgen Habermas. The research method used in this research is literature study. This research finds that, Post-secularism offered by Habermas provides space for the Church to translate the wealth contained in religion into a public message. In the view of post-secularism the Church has an important role to fill in the empty spaces that cannot be achieved by rationality. Habermas's thoughts on post-secularism also serve as a bridge to harmonize faith and rationality, as well as to explain dual citizenship as an unrelated Christian political view.Artikel ini menelaah hubungan Gereja dengan politik dalam pos-sekulerisme yang dipopulerkan oleh Jurgen Habermas. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah studi pustaka. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa, Pos-sekulerisme yang ditawarkan oleh Habermas memberi ruang Gereja untuk menerjemahkan kekayaan yang terkandung dalam agama menjadi pesan publik. Dalam pandangan pos-sekulerisme Gereja mempunyai peran penting untuk mengisi ruang kosong yang tidak dapat dijangkau oleh rasionalitas. Pemikiran Habermas mengenai pos-sekulerisme juga menjadi jembatan untuk menyelaraskan iman dan rasional, sekaligus menerangkan kewarganegaraan ganda sebagai pandangan politik Kristen yang selama ini tidka dimengerti.


2016 ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Ana Pamela García

ResumenSe discute aquí el carácter de la “opinión pública” como categoría conceptual en el marco de las perspectivas de Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann y Pierre Bourdieu. Sus lecturas sobre este fenómeno psico-socio-político y comunicativo, todavía polémico dentro del debate sobre las formas sociales de la democracia representativa, se abordan considerando: primero, la relación de continuidad de sus propuestas con las principales tradiciones de la teoría social contemporánea; segundo, su potencialidad crítica para un esclarecimiento sociológico de la relación entre opinión pública y “medios masivos de comunicación”; tercero, sus diferentes concepciones del “espacio público” como categoría central oresidual en la comprensión del sentido de la acción social.Palabras clave: opinión pública, medios masivos, espacio público, sociología política, democracia.The problem of public opinion in the sociological thought of Habermas, Luhmann and Bourdieu: political, communicational and ideologicaldisquisitions on a “democratic?” phenomenonAbstractThis paper discusses the character of “public opinion” as a conceptualcategory within the perspectives of Jürgen Habermas, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann. Their literature about this psycho-socio-political andcommunicative phenomenon, still controversial in the discussion on thesocial forms of representative democracy, are addressed considering: First,the relationship of continuity of their proposals with the main traditions ofcontemporary social theory; second, its critical potential for a sociologicalclarification of the relationship between public opinion and “mass media”;third, their different conceptions of “public space” as a central or residualcategory in understanding the meaning of social action.Keywords: public opinion, mass media, public space, political sociology,democracy.O problema da opinião pública no pensamento sociológico de Habermas, Luhmann e Bourdieu: discussões políticas, comunicacionais e ideológicos sobre um fenômeno ¿democrático?ResumoDiscute-se aqui o caráter da “opinião pública” como categoria conceitualno marco das perspectivas de Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann ePierre Bourdieu. Suas leituras sobre este fenômeno psico-sócio-político ecomunicativo, ainda polêmico dentro do debate sobre as formas sociais dademocracia representativa, abordam-se considerando: primeiro, a relação de continuidade de suas propostas com as principais tradições da teoria social contemporânea; segundo, sua potencialidade crítica para um esclarecimento sociológico da relação entre a opinião pública e “meios massivos de comunicação”; terceiro, suas diferentes concepções do “espaço público”como categoria central ou residual na compreensão do sentido da ação social.Palavras-chave: opinião pública, meios massivos de comunicação, espaçopúblico, sociologia política, democracia.


2016 ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Ana Pamela García

ResumenSe discute aquí el carácter de la “opinión pública” como categoría conceptual en el marco de las perspectivas de Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann y Pierre Bourdieu. Sus lecturas sobre este fenómeno psico-socio-político y comunicativo, todavía polémico dentro del debate sobre las formas sociales de la democracia representativa, se abordan considerando: primero, la relación de continuidad de sus propuestas con las principales tradiciones de la teoría social contemporánea; segundo, su potencialidad crítica para un esclarecimiento sociológico de la relación entre opinión pública y “medios masivos de comunicación”; tercero, sus diferentes concepciones del “espacio público” como categoría central oresidual en la comprensión del sentido de la acción social.Palabras clave: opinión pública, medios masivos, espacio público, sociología política, democracia.The problem of public opinion in the sociological thought of Habermas, Luhmann and Bourdieu: political, communicational and ideologicaldisquisitions on a “democratic?” phenomenonAbstractThis paper discusses the character of “public opinion” as a conceptualcategory within the perspectives of Jürgen Habermas, Pierre Bourdieu and Niklas Luhmann. Their literature about this psycho-socio-political andcommunicative phenomenon, still controversial in the discussion on thesocial forms of representative democracy, are addressed considering: First,the relationship of continuity of their proposals with the main traditions ofcontemporary social theory; second, its critical potential for a sociologicalclarification of the relationship between public opinion and “mass media”;third, their different conceptions of “public space” as a central or residualcategory in understanding the meaning of social action.Keywords: public opinion, mass media, public space, political sociology,democracy.O problema da opinião pública no pensamento sociológico de Habermas, Luhmann e Bourdieu: discussões políticas, comunicacionais e ideológicos sobre um fenômeno ¿democrático?ResumoDiscute-se aqui o caráter da “opinião pública” como categoria conceitualno marco das perspectivas de Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann ePierre Bourdieu. Suas leituras sobre este fenômeno psico-sócio-político ecomunicativo, ainda polêmico dentro do debate sobre as formas sociais dademocracia representativa, abordam-se considerando: primeiro, a relação de continuidade de suas propostas com as principais tradições da teoria social contemporânea; segundo, sua potencialidade crítica para um esclarecimento sociológico da relação entre a opinião pública e “meios massivos de comunicação”; terceiro, suas diferentes concepções do “espaço público”como categoria central ou residual na compreensão do sentido da ação social.Palavras-chave: opinião pública, meios massivos de comunicação, espaçopúblico, sociologia política, democracia.


Author(s):  
Stefan Rummens

Discussions of the relationship between justice and democracy are generally premised on the assumption that they are two different things, only contingently and externally related. As a result, genuine conflicts seem possible whereby we are forced to decide whether democracy should trump justice or whether justice has priority over democracy. By focusing on the work of Jürgen Habermas and Rainer Forst, this chapter aims to show that deliberative democracy can provide a constructivist conception of justice which challenges this premise by explaining the internal relationship between justice and democracy. There is no justice without democracy in the sense that only citizens can democratically determine the specific content of justice. At the same time, there is also no democracy without justice in the sense that democratic outcomes are legitimate only to the extent that they can be understood as proper elaborations of the substantive but abstract ideal of justice-as-impartiality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Davies

The rise of populist political rhetoric and mobilisation, together with a conflict-riven digital public sphere, has generated growing interest in anger as a central emotion in politics. Anger has long been recognised as a powerful driver of political action and resistance, by feminist scholars among others, while political philosophers have reflected on the relationship of anger to ethical judgement since Aristotle. This article seeks to differentiate between two different ideal types of anger, in order to illuminate the status of anger in contemporary populist politics and rhetoric. First, there is anger that arises in an automatic, pre-conscious fashion, as a somatic, reactive and performative way, to an extent that potentially spirals into violence. Second, there is anger that builds up over time in response to perceived injustice, potentially generating melancholia and ressentiment. Borrowing Kahneman’s dualism, the article refers to these as ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ anger, and deploys the distinction to understand how the two interact. In the hands of the demagogue or troll, ‘fast anger’ can be deployed to focus all energies on the present, so as to briefly annihilate the past and the ‘slow anger’ that has been deposited there. And yet only by combining the conscious reflection of memory with the embodied response of action can anger ever be meaningfully sated in politics.


Symposium ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-117
Author(s):  
Michael Bennett ◽  

Bioethicists criticize Jürgen Habermas’s argument against “liberal eugenics” for many reasons. This essay examines one particular critique, according to which Habermas misunderstands the implications of human evolution. In adopting Hannah Arendt’s concept of “natality,” Habermas seems to fear that genetically modified children will lose the contingency of their births, which would impair their capacity for political action; but according to evolutionary theory, bioethicists argue, this fear is unfounded. I explore this objection by entertaining the hypothesis that Habermas’s argument assumes Arendt’s interpretation of Darwinian evolution in addition to her conception of natality, and then I answer it by contrasting the conceptions of evolution held by Habermas, by Arendt, and by Habermas’s critics. Les bioéthiciens critiquent l’argument de Jürgen Habermas contre « l’eugénisme libéral » pour de nombreuses raisons. Cet essai examine une critique en particulier, selon laquelle Habermas comprend mal les implications de l’évolution humaine : en adoptant le concept de la « natalité » de Hannah Arendt, Habermas semble craindre que les enfants soumis à une modification génétique ne perdent la contingence propre à leur naissance, une perte qui diminuerait leur capacité pour l’action politique, mais selon la théorie de l’évolution, les bioéthiciens soutiennent que cette peur est sans fondement. J’explore cette objection à Habermas en considérant l’hypothèse que, en plus du concept de la natalité, Habermas suppose aussi l’interprétation arendtienne de l’évolution biologique de Darwin, et j’y répond en confrontant cette conception de l’évolution avec la conception propre à Habermas et avec celle des bioéthiciens qui lui ont répondu.


Author(s):  
Bente Rosenbeck

The article deals with the revival of Jürgen Habermas and critical theory in the debate of feminist theory and method. At the conceptual level the relationship between discourse and identity and the question of a non-discoursive concept of experience are discussed. Several feminist researchers who have been attracted by poststructuralist thinking now aim at a combination of Habermas and Foucault. (e.g. Lois McNay). Also Seyla Benhabib and her critical  questions about postmodernism and emancipation enjoy great prominence. Can feminist theory be postmodernist and still retain an interest in emancipation? The article encourages to consider the possible combination of Foucalt's critique of institutions and of power/knowledge with the utopian thinking of Habermas.


Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm

This chapter examines the question of who is sovereign in the relationship between the European Union and its Member States. It first considers the relevance of the debate over sovereignty in the EU and the development of the concept of sovereignty, paying attention to public powers form the substance of sovereignty, Jürgen Habermas’ theory of dual sovereignty, and the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It then explores the problem of whether one should maintain the concept of sovereignty or recognize that the era of post-sovereignty has begun. It argues that it makes sense to address the question of who is sovereign in the EU, suggesting that the answer will determine the future course of European integration. It also analyses which concept of sovereignty is best suited to understand and explain the EU.


Author(s):  
المختار الأحمر

تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى مقاربة موضوع أهل الحل والعقد بالوقوف على سياقه التاريخي من حيث النشأة والمفهوم، وكشف أسسه المعرفية والتعاقدية، وكيف ظلَّت الأمةُ بتمثُّلها قاعدة الشورى المنظَّمة مصدرَ بناء المفهوم. وهو مفهوم  يُبرِز -من منظور التجربة التاريخية الإسلامية- أنَّ فكرة التمثيل والنيابة قد ظهرت مبكراً في الفعل الاجتماعي والسياسي الإسلامي. تهدف الدراسة أيضاً إلى البحث في علاقة مفهوم أهل الحل والعقد بما تطرحه نظرية النظم السياسية الحديثة، وإمكانية الإفادة منها في تجنُّب بعض عيوب نظام التمثيل الديمقراطي الحديث أو إصلاحها، باقتراح أنموذج مؤسسي يُعبِّر عن مضمون هذا المفهوم. This study aims to approach the traditional Islamic concept called  "Ahlu al-Hall wa al-A’qd" that may be considered today as members of the parliament by investigating the historical context in terms of origination, revealing its conceptual and contractual foundations and how the nation (Ummah) has been the source of building the concept through the systematic practice of consultancy (Shura). Besides, in the Islamic historical experience, this concept shows that the idea of representation and deputation have appeared early in the Islamic social and political action. Furthermore, the study examines the relationship of the concept of "Ahlu al-Hall wa al-A’qd" with the theory of modern political systems and explore the possibility of using it to avoid or reform some of the defects of the modern democratic representation system by proposing an organizational model that reflects the essence of this concept.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document