“One Would at Least Like to Be Asked”

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.3167/gps.2023.410302
Peter J. Verovšek
{"title":"“One Would at Least Like to Be Asked”","authors":"Peter J. Verovšek","doi":"10.3167/gps.2023.410302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the leading public intellectual of postwar West Germany, Jürgen Habermas was a prominent opponent of the unification of the two Germanies after 1989. While his fears regarding the identity, collective memory, Western orientation, and economic power of a united Germany are important, in contrast to the existing literature, I argue that Habermas's objections are primarily procedural, focusing on the normative deficiencies in Chancellor Helmut Kohl's executive-led, administrative approach to reunification. In Habermas's eyes this procedure short-circuited the democratic processes of public opinion- and will-formation necessary to fulfill the normative presuppositions of popular self-determination. Methodologically, I make this point by reading Habermas's “short political writings” alongside his theoretical writings, especially his early postwar readings of the German constitutional theory. In addition to reframing the debate over his opposition to unification, I also oppose realist critiques of his work by showing that Habermas's theoretical writings have direct implications for contemporary politics.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2023.410302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the leading public intellectual of postwar West Germany, Jürgen Habermas was a prominent opponent of the unification of the two Germanies after 1989. While his fears regarding the identity, collective memory, Western orientation, and economic power of a united Germany are important, in contrast to the existing literature, I argue that Habermas's objections are primarily procedural, focusing on the normative deficiencies in Chancellor Helmut Kohl's executive-led, administrative approach to reunification. In Habermas's eyes this procedure short-circuited the democratic processes of public opinion- and will-formation necessary to fulfill the normative presuppositions of popular self-determination. Methodologically, I make this point by reading Habermas's “short political writings” alongside his theoretical writings, especially his early postwar readings of the German constitutional theory. In addition to reframing the debate over his opposition to unification, I also oppose realist critiques of his work by showing that Habermas's theoretical writings have direct implications for contemporary politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“一个人至少愿意被问到”
哈贝马斯是战后西德公共知识分子的领军人物,是1989年后反对两德统一的重要人物。虽然他对统一后德国的身份认同、集体记忆、西方取向和经济实力的担忧很重要,但与现有文献相比,我认为哈贝马斯的反对主要是程序性的,重点是总理赫尔穆特·科尔(Helmut Kohl)以行政为主导的统一行政方式的规范性缺陷。在哈贝马斯看来,这一程序缩短了公众舆论和意志形成的民主过程,这是实现人民自决的规范性前提所必需的。在方法论上,我通过阅读哈贝马斯的“简短政治著作”以及他的理论著作,特别是他战后早期对德国宪法理论的阅读,来阐述这一点。除了重新构建关于哈贝马斯反对统一的辩论之外,我还通过展示哈贝马斯的理论著作对当代政治有直接影响来反对现实主义对他作品的批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
In Government and Scientists We Trust Does the Immigration Issue Divide German Attitudes toward Social Welfare? Hitler's American Countermodel Questioned Nationalism Obituary: Peter Pulzer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1