PUBLIC RATIONALITY AND PERFORMATIVE RELIGIOSITY Tara Marie Dankel Committee on the Study of Religion Harvard University [email protected]

At the heart of current debates over itself from these critiques by bringing religion in the public sphere lies the work of Habermas‟ work into conversation with a Jürgen Habermas, a political theorist famous community of religious believers for his attempts to delineate a sphere of representative of the ones with whom his public rationality, debate and eventual theory hopes to contend. Thus, the consensus that can serve as the basis of contribution of this essay will be to move legitimacy for the liberal democratic state, the discussion of public rationality, language despite the pressures of pluralism and and tolerance out of the theoretical realm competing belief systems. The vast and into the practical one. By bringing production surrounding this author, both Habermas face to face with a community of positive and negative, is more than can be Bible-believing Christians, represented by dealt with in this short essay. Instead, I Harding‟s ethnographic word, The Book of intend to bring the work of Susan Friend Jerry Falwell,3 this essay hopes to examine Harding on Bible-believing Christians, several key questions. Is language a commonly referred to as “fundamentalists,” transparent medium of communication, or a into conversation with two of Habermas‟ force in the formation of subjectivity? Can most recent essays, “Intolerance and the public sphere ever be totally free of discrimination” (2003) and “Religion in the coercion and power? What are the limits of Public Sphere” (2006),1 in an attempt to tolerance? In short, where do Bible- assess the impact of Habermas‟ thought on believing Christians fit into Habermas‟ the political participation of Bible-believing theory? Clearly all of these questions cannot Christians. be answered definitively in the space A number of thinkers have engaged allotted. As a preliminary entry into the with Habermas‟ thought in the years since the publication of “Religion in the Public 2 Habermas and the of Tolerance,” Political Sphere.” This essay intends to differentiate Theory (vol. 34, no. 4, August 2006), 439-462. In addition, there have been a number of parallel 1 Jürgen Habermas, “Intolerance and theoretical works, such as William Connolly, Why I Discrimination,” International Journal of Am Not a Secularist (Minneapolis: University of Constitutional Law (vol. 1, no. 1, January 2003), 2- Minnesota Press, 1999), which argues that the this 12 and “Religion in the Public Sphere,” European consensus of liberalism secularism does not attend Journal of Philosophy (vol. 14, no. 1, April 2006), to the density of political and ethical judgments in 1-25. the public sphere. Rather than shelve our deeply 2 See, for example, vol. 14, no. 2 of the journal held beliefs and values, he contends that Constellations, Maeve Cooke, “Salvaging and democracy will benefit from us bringing our actual Secularizing the Semantic Contents of Religion,” reasons to bear on political debate. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 Susan Friend Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell: (vol.6, no. 1-3, 2006), 187-207, and Lasse Fundamentalist Language and Politics (Princeton, Thomassen, “The Inclusion of the Other?: NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).

Symposia, 3, 1 (2011), pp. 1-13. © The Author 2009. Published by University of Toronto. All rights reserved.

Dankel | 2 topic, I hope to show that (1) it is unlikely contract of the constitutional state is based that Bible-believing Christians can be on natural reason and thus laws must be accommodated within the model of public derived from “public arguments to which all rationality as it stands, regardless of how persons have equal access.”5 As Seyla welcoming to religious lexicons Habermas Benhabib argues, rational debate is tries to render his theory, because (2) conceived of Habermas‟ theory of communicative rationality presumes a degree of as a conversation of justification taking place under the constraints of transparency and universality that does not 6 account for the ways in which language „an ideal speech situation.‟ The structures subjectivity and (3) the mutual procedural constraints of the ideal perspective taking and translation at the core speech situation are that each of Habermas‟ theory of consensus-building participant must have an equal chance in the public sphere does not recognize the to initiate and to continue incommensurability of visions of the human, communication; each must have an history, time, knowledge and truth between equal chance to make assertions, Bible-believing discourse and secular recommendations, and explanations; discourse, as characterized by Harding. all must have equal chances to express To set the stage for the inclusion of their wishes, desires, and feelings; and religion in “Religion in the Public Sphere,” finally, within dialogue, speakers must Habermas demarcates his basic be free to thematize those power understanding of the constitutional state that relations that in ordinary contexts allows it to function as a pluralist political would constrain the wholly free articulations of opinions and community of equal citizens. He states, 7 positions. From the practice of constitution- making, there emerge those basic In short, there is an assumption that the rights that free and equal citizens must political community is composed of persons accord one another if they wish to who respect and are civil to each other, owe regulate their coexistence reasonably each other good reasons for their political on their own and by means of positive convictions, are willing to phrase those law. The democratic procedure is able convictions in a vocabulary accessible to all, and will listen to and try to understand the to generate legitimation by virtue of 8 two components—first the equal convictions of others. political participation of all citizens, Habermas maintains throughout the which guarantees that the addresses essay that the institutions of government [sic] of the laws can also understand must remain secular, allowing for no themselves as the authors of these laws;--and second the epistemic 5 Ibid, 4. dimension of a deliberation that 6 Habermas has tried to distance himself from the grounds the presumption of rationally notion of “the ideal speech situation,” although, as 4 we will see, his theory depends on a number of acceptable outcomes. preconditions to function properly.

7 Seyla Benhabib, “Models of Public Space: Hannah The epistemic dimension of deliberation to Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen which he refers presupposes the fact that the Habermas,” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992), 89. 4 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 5. 8 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 5.

3 | Dankel religious reasoning whatsoever since the whatever the comprehensive doctrines constitutional state rests on the separation of are said to support.‟11 church and state.9 However, within the realm of the public sphere—an ambiguous This suggests that groups may argue for entity existing somewhere between civil policies based on religious reasons if they and the government10—Habermas then translate those reasons at some point entertains the possibility of allowing for into public rationality, in order to make them religious reasoning. He cites Rawl‟s most acceptable to all. recent formulation as follows, Habermas, however, feels that Rawl‟s concession does not go far enough, arguing „Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, (1) that some believers may not have the religious or non-religious, may be ability to translate their religious reasons introduced in public political into secular reasons, and, more importantly, discussion at any time, provided that (2) that they may have no desire to do so. in due course proper political Habermas takes seriously in his 2006 article reasons—and not reasons given solely the possibility that a religious individual by comprehensive doctrines—are might actually live her faith, in the sense presented that are sufficient to support that she believes that her political, economic, and social choices should be determined by her religious convictions, and

9 thus it would not be possible for her to argue Maeve Cooke and Lasse Thomassen both highlight 12 the fact that Habermas‟ theory of communicative for her preferences in another idiom. rationality exists on a continuum between Consequently, Habermas alters Rawls‟ “traditional” , in which mutually agreed formulation slightly to say that the religious upon ideas of the good restrict the possible terms of citizen should be allowed to present her debate, and “postconventional” societies, in which arguments in the public sphere in a religious debate is radically open, questioning even the conditions of possibility for truth claims. As Cooke idiom as long as someone can translate them notes, such postconventional societies come closest into a generally recognizable vocabulary. Of to the ideal speech situation, and Habermas course, he still considers it necessary for the imagines that all societies will move in that arguments to be transferred into a secular direction. See Thomassen, “The Inclusion of the idiom since that is the only way they can Other?: Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance,” and Cooke, Language and Reason: A Study of enter the (secular) legislative process. Habermas’ Pragmatics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Habermas believes that such a process will Press, 1994). guarantee that the religious believer 10 For a more fulsome definition of the public sphere, becomes an author of the laws of which she see Jürgen Habermas, The Structural is an addressee, which is what legitimizes Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, . Habermas goes on to MA: MIT Press, 1991). Seyla Benhabib also insist that while it is still necessary for the provides a definition of public spheres, noting that religious believer to accommodate herself to they come into existence “whenever and wherever the demands of the secular state, by being all affected by general social and political norms of reflexive about her beliefs and tolerant of action engage in a practical discourse, evaluating their validity.” Seyla Benhabib, “Models of Public others beliefs, this does not place an undue Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and burden on the believer, because the secular Jürgen Habermas,” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 73-98 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991). This would 11 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 5-6. suggest that a society might contain multiple public Italics are Rawl‟s. spheres, one for every issue under debate. 12 Ibid, 8.

Dankel | 4 citizen must also be critical of her own the good. On the other hand, as Thomassen position, and not deny the justification or indicates, to the fundamentalist it would constitutive content of religion, or rely seem to be Habermas who is violently solely on scientistic concepts of truth.13 imposing a rigid lifeworld by denying her a However, such attempts at inclusion are voice unless she agrees to acknowledge the still haunted by the shadow of the exclusions political/ethical divide. From Habermas‟ of Habermas‟ 2003 article, “Intolerance and perspective, she is excluding herself, but discrimination,” in which he lumps from her point of view the structure of the fundamentalists in with racists, misogynists public sphere denies her the right to and other types of bigots, who refuse to participation unless she compromises her grant equal citizenship to all, and thus do not belief system.18 Thus, fundamentalists are themselves deserve tolerance.14 Habermas categorically excluded based on their beliefs attempts to avoid the arbitrary exclusions of even though they are citizens of countries in constructing a regime of tolerance by which all members are intended to set the making its constitution dependent on rules for the practice of tolerance. This consensus reached through deliberation by would not necessarily be problematic if all persons to whom the norm will apply. Habermas would admit that the state makes However, as Lasse Thomassen notes, all certain decisions about what lies inside or demarcations of tolerance require some outside the bounds of tolerance, and intolerance. Habermas cannot allow those enforces it through state power. He wants to whom he designates as fundamentalists— insist, however, that such rules of tolerance defined as “persons who do not accept are not exclusionary or based on power pluralism and the burdens of reason”15—into because they are founded on publicly shared the debate concerning tolerance without reason and deliberation. risking the hijacking of that debate by the His argument becomes even more intolerant. Political inclusion in a pluralistic complicated when he simultaneously asserts society demands that political discourse be that religious freedom should be the model separated from ethical discourse, and that of cultural freedom, in the sense that “[l]ike the ethical give way to the political in the the free expression of religious belief, public sphere. Thus, greater inclusion at the cultural rights serve the goal of guaranteeing political level can only happen if all equal access to one‟s own community‟s participants accept the political/ethical forms of communications, traditions, and divide and the preeminence of the political practices that people require in order to in policy deliberation.16 Habermas justifies maintain their personal identity.”19 So on the this exclusion by arguing that one hand, he supports the right of a person fundamentalists do not accept “the cognitive to maintain the forms of communication and limits of life in modern, pluralist tradition that ground her sense of identity, societies,”17 the reality that as one ethical while at the same time insisting that “[t]he worldview among many, they must state expects that the religious consciousness recognize the relative nature of their claim of the faithful will became [sic] modernized to truth and equality with other concepts of by way of a cognitive adaptation to the individualistic and egalitarian nature of the laws of the secular community,”20 13 Ibid, 13-16. 14 Habermas, “Intolerance and Discrimination,” 3. 15 Thomassen, 443. 18 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 19 Habermas, “Intolerance and Discrimination,” 9. 17 Ibid, 444. 20 Ibid, 6.

5 | Dankel presumably altering the believer‟s traditional motivated politics. Surprisingly, in an article identity. While the later article does tone putatively intended to reconcile religious down the rhetoric of asymmetric and secular discourse in the post-secular assimilation, preferring the language of political arena, Habermas begins with a complementary learning processes, it still strong conflation of religious and political prioritizes secular rational language, values, assuming that the “religiously dismisses out of hand the participation of motivated” supporters of President Bush fundamentalists unless they can accept the also fall on the ultraconservative side of foundational tenets of constitutional issues including the death penalty, abortion, democracy, including the division between torture, same-sex marriage and prioritization the political and the ethical, and insists both of rights over collective goods.25 Like a man that religious language can be translated into surveying wreckage, Habermas states, publicly accessible rationality and that believers and non-believers will generously The European states appear to keep work together in order to learn to understand moving forward alone on that path 21 which, ever since the two and respect each other. th Susan Harding would certainly not be constitutional revolutions of the 18 surprised to find fundamentalists portrayed century, they had trodden side by side by Habermas as the unassimilable “other.” with the United States. The As she notes in her article, “Representing significance of religions used for Fundamentalism,”22 fundamentalists—she political ends has meanwhile grown prefers the term “Bible believers”—have the world over. Against this long been figured as the repugnant other of background, the split within the West modernity, “the opponents of modernity, is rather perceived as if Europe were progress, enlightenment, truth and reason,”23 isolating itself from the world. Seen in that define their opposite. Marginalized, but terms of world history, Max Weber‟s „Occidental Rationalism‟ now appears not politically valorized like other 26 subcultural ethnic or religious groups, they to be the actual deviation. create their own cultural idioms, while being He continues with another indiscriminate discursively created by those around them as analogy between persons who believe in the the disruptive fringe which seeks to Virgin Birth and persons who were easily undermine the liberal-secularist narrative of duped into believing Bush‟s framing of the progress from superstition into 24 Iraq war (neither of which, he argues, are enlightenment. Habermas demonstrates based on empirical facts), surmising that this this sense of liberal besiegement early in the may bode poorly for democracy.27 It is as 2006 essay on public religion, when he though we hear Harding speaking laments violent manifestations of mockingly through Habermas about Bible fundamentalism in the non-West, and then believing Christians, “You cannot reason connects them to the regrettable backsliding with them. They actually believe the Bible is of the United States into religiously literally true.”28

21 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 11-19. 22 Susan Friend Harding, “Representing Fundamentalism: The Problem of the Repugnant Cultural Other,” Social Research (vol. 58, no. 2, 25 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 3. Summer 1991). 26 Ibid, 2. 23 Harding, “Representing Fundamentalism,” 375. 27 Ibid. 24 Ibid, 391-392. 28 Harding, “Representing Fundamentalism,” 373.

Dankel | 6

How much truth is there to the claim place in the realm of public debate. As that Bible believers summarily reject Lenore Langsdorf asserts, Habermas constitutional-democratic values? As prioritizes communicative language, Harding notes, the rise of the Religious language composed of propositional Right in America would seem to suggest utterances exchanged for the purposes of that Bible believers do not prima facie reject reaching understanding. What this suggests the tenets of constitutional democracy, as is that he conceives of “discourse (an Habermas claims all fundamentalists do. In argumentative form of language that fact, Jerry Falwell‟s community participates requires giving good reasons as justification in and reaps the benefits of liberal for claims) [as] the privileged form of democracy. Whether this contributes to its language use” and that continuing stability or serves to adulterate it is unclear. However, given the reality of the epistemic goal of discourse their participation, we are justified in (consensual understanding appropriate attempting to understand if and how Bible to a pragmatic conception of truth, believers might fit into the model of expanded to include correctness in religious reason-giving and translation regard to the moral and legal domains proposed by Habermas in his 2006 article. and sincerity in regard to the personal domain) is privileged as the telos of all To begin to answer such a question, this 31 essay intends to focus on one of the issues communication. that vastly separates Habermas from Bible- For Habermas, language exists to believing Christians, the nature of language. communicate ideas and information between Habermas makes a distinction in his early persons and to allow citizens to deliberate work between communicative and purposive and develop consensus around convincing language. Purposive language is the reasons. language of religion and other metaphysical Does this formulation require the systems. It does not attempt to achieve transparency and universality of dialogic understanding, according to Garth communicative rationality? Maeve Cook Gillan, but specifies and reproduces the 29 argues that communicative action “expresses content of the religious faith. It is unclear the potential for rationality that is given Habermas‟ later rapprochement with supposedly implicit in the everyday religious reasoning whether he finds this linguistic practice of modern societies,”32 a type of non-communicative language to be 30 rationality more procedural than substantive. pathological; however, it clearly has no As Habermas states,

29 Garth Gillan, “Communicative Action Theory and When we use the expression „rational‟ the Possibility of Theology,” In Perspectives on we suppose that there is a close Habermas, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: relation between rationality and Open Court, 2000), 119-120. knowledge. Our knowledge has a 30 However, as noted by Lenore Langsdorf, Habermas‟ relationship to the field of psychoanalysis, which he conceives of as Conditions for the Possibility of Communicative attempting to recuperate language that has been Action,” In Perspectives on Habermas, edited by excommunicated from the social environment for Lewis Edwin Hahn (Chicago: Open Court, 2000), having failed to follow the „rules of public 25. communication,‟ would seem to suggest that 31 Langsdorf, 31-32. language that fails to adhere to basic pragmatic 32 Maeve Cooke, Language and Reason: A Study of rules of communication would be rendered Habermas’ Pragmatics (Cambridge, MA: MIT unintelligible. Lenore Langsdorf, “The Real Press, 1994), 131.

7 | Dankel

propositional structure; beliefs can be the possibility for full inclusion in the represented in the form of statements. legislative process. When Habermas I shall presuppose this concept of recognizes that religious believers strive to knowledge without further shape their lives based around their clarification, for rationality has less to convictions, that they do not see their do with the possession of knowledge political and social lives as separate from than with how speaking and acting their faith,36 he cannot imagine that this subjects acquire and use knowledge.33 might entail different grammars surrounding human agency, time and history, and In other words, rational actors gain understandings of knowledge and truth that knowledge through propositional debate and are radically incommensurate with secular use it to achieve consensus around superior discursive structures. This is not to say that validity claims. The purportedly procedural all persons of faith use such discourses nature of communicative rationality allows exclusively—Harding herself notes the Cooke and Gillan to argue that the public different lexicons used by the persons she sphere should be open to all propositional interviews in Lynchburg, some Bible- claims, regardless of their substance, and believing, some secular, some a mixture of even that such radical openness could lead the two. However, the possibility of such to the questioning and possible reform of incommensurability, as portrayed by standards of validity for particular 34 Harding in The Book of Jerry Falwell, calls contexts. However, Cooke also into question the feasibility of Habermas‟ acknowledges that the functioning of model. Habermas‟ system of consensus relies on In contrast to Habermas‟ conception of some basic assumptions, which she calls the communicative function of language, “strong idealizations,” the most essential of Harding‟s work focuses on the ways in which is the requirement that “participants which language structures the worldviews of in the communicative exchange are using the persons living and acting within its web. the same linguistic structures and 35 She begins her journey into the world of expressions in the same way.” This Jerry Falwell by spending time in precondition, which necessitates a certain Lynchburg attending services at Thomas amount of transparency and universality, is Road Baptist Church and interviewing at the heart of Habermas‟ belief that reasons leaders and members of the community, given in public debate can be accessible to including students and professors at Liberty all citizens and that religious reasons can be University. She describes the way in which translated into secular reasons, and vice the language of Bible-believing Christians versa. creates a number of categories, amongst Essentially, without a belief in them “the saved” and “the lost,” which transparency and universality, Habermas structure believers‟ thought. Based on her could not speak of a generally own experience, the experience of others in understandable or acceptable language, the the community and analysis of statistical language of public rationality, which creates data on converts, Harding argues that born- again conversion occurs through religious 33 Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative language which divides the mind and begins Action, vol. 1, translated by Thomas McCarthy to reorient the way the listener perceives (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989), 8. 34 Gillan, 20-22 and Cooke, Language and Reason, 35-37. 35 Cooke, Language and Reason, 30. 36 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 8.

Dankel | 8 herself, the world and God.37 By uses this theory of language to show that internalizing the dialect of the Bible- Democrats in America have been losing the believer, the convert begins to appropriate political battle for hearts and minds because her ways of thinking as well. they rely too heavily on the notion of Harding‟s ethnographic conclusions individuals as rational subjects and language find theoretical support in the work of as a transparent means of communication. George Lakoff, whose 2008 book, The They believe that the truth, if presented Political Mind,38 explores the connections clearly and bolstered by facts, will win between neuroscience, language use and people to its side. This seems also to be the political policy preferences. He argues that assumption behind the notion of metaphors structure language and are, in communicative rationality. In the ideal fact, hard wired in the brain, the synaptic speech situation a general consensus should connections becoming stronger and thus develop surrounding policies. More simply, metaphors more dominant—and more because of transparency, the conditions of seemingly natural—the more frequently they public rationality will create a consensus are used. According to his theory, most around truth. However, Lakoff concludes in basic metaphors are based on fundamental his book that this does not describe how physical experiences.39 Lakoff believes that brains actually function. Rather than “truth,” metaphors develop like muscles, when political debates are won and lost by certain metaphors are activated in the brain, compelling metaphors. the synapses fired by them strengthen, Following the same logic, Harding regardless of whether the statement spends a large part of her book explaining concerning the metaphor is positive or the types of metaphors at play in the Bible- negative.40 Hence, giving good reasons in believing community in Lynchburg and the political debate is not sufficient if you are ways in which they instantiate a worldview using the wrong kinds of language. To quite different from that of their secular change people‟s minds, you have to change neighbors and fellow citizens. A significant metaphors altogether, saying, for example, part of this worldview revolves around the “the prosecution of terror,” rather than “the notion of figuration. Quoting Erich ,” i.e. characterizing terror as a Auerbach, Harding defines figural crime rather than an act of war.41 Lakoff interpretation as one in which

„an event on earth signifies not only 37 Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell, 35-36. itself but at the same time another, 38 George Lakoff, The Political Mind: Why You Can’t which it predicts or confirms…The st th Understand 21 -Century Politics with an 18 - connection between occurrences is not Century Brain (New York: Viking, 2008). 39 For example, the metaphor of a loving person regarded as primarily a chronological being “warm” might derive from the warmth of a or causal development but as a parent‟s embrace. Similarly, the notion that we oneness with the divine plan, of which move forward through time may be due to forward all occurrences are parts and motion through space denoting duration. reflections.‟ There is no distinction 40 For instance, when one argues against the concept of “the war on terror,” one strengthens “the war on between biblical and historical stories terror” metaphor in the brains of one‟s listeners, here. Both are „events on earth‟ related despite not believing it to be a useful way of by figuration, enabling Christians to conceiving of foreign policy. 41 As an aside, it is quite difficult to imagine a different and equally compelling metaphor to terrorism, which proves how ingrained the notion describe US action to react to or prevent acts of of “a war on terror” has become.

9 | Dankel

envision „the real world as formed by uncanny, and his people produce faith the sequence told by the biblical by harmonizing his discrepancies.43 stories.‟42 So, to return to Habermas, where does One of the most obvious manifestations of this picture of cognitive formation through this type of figuration is the persistent linguistic metaphor and the creation of a attempt amongst Bible believers to work out unique type of self-understanding and whether events in the world today herald the worldview through Biblical language leave coming apocalypse. Nor does this figural the possibilities of public rationality, thinking remain divorced from political communicative action and consensual action in the world. Everything from politics in a pluralist society? abortion clinic bombings to evangelical Clearly the issue of the transparency of support for the nation of Israel derive from language plays a crucial role in the viability figural interpretations surrounding the Book of Habermas‟ theory. If a shared rationality of Revelations. does not exist and cannot be cultivated Similarly, Harding notes that figural within the strictures of pluralism, then his identification between religious leaders and attempts to derive rational policy outcomes Biblical figures allows for semantic leaps of from the deliberative legislative process can faith that baffle non-Bible believers, but act never be as free of power as he hopes them as a proof of salvation for the community. to be. Indeed, he himself insists that a Evidence of scandal in the lives of religious Foucauldian notion of the power-laden leaders of Bible-believing communities nature of discursive formations, including abounds. Within the biography of Jerry those inspiring Enlightenment ideals, Falwell alone there have been issues of contradicts the normative self-understanding money mismanagement, support for of the constitutional state.44 However, even segregation, extortion of Thomas Road though Habermas does not want to employees in the form of forced tithing, and acknowledge the power of discourse to form a dark past filled with childhood bullying persons and instead insists on language‟s and the snatching of Falwell‟s wife from transparent and universal ability to convey under the nose of his seminary roommate, information, he becomes mired in the issue her then fiancé. However, Harding argues of cognitive dissonance at the end of his that where non-Bible believers see article on religion in the public sphere. In his hypocrisy that delegitimizes, Bible-believers often produce their faith in the leap it takes 43 Ibid, 90. She notes a similar production of faith to harmonize the discrepancy between through overcoming uncertainty in the act of Biblical teachings and worldly misdeeds. As sacrificial giving, the main way that Bible- believing ministries raise money. Although pleas Harding writes, for money may seem ludicrous to the uninitiated,

as when Oral Roberts insisted that God threatened Falwell becomes „a course on to “bring him home” if he failed to raise eight miracles.‟ The narrative interactions million dollars in one week (a dog racing mogul that bind Falwell and his faithful, came through at the last minute) or when money though not marked as miracles, continues to be donated to ministries with blatantly partake of the same structure. He illegal business practices, Harding argues that Bible believers give because “God does miracles produces the gaps, the anomalies, the because people give sacrificially, because they excesses, the apertures for the obey God and act on faith, because they step out on a limb for God, and the shakier the limb, the firmer the faith, the greater the blessing” (p. 124). 42 Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell, 55. 44 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 14.

Dankel | 10 earlier essay on tolerance, he feels decide what part of the religious doctrines comfortable conflating fundamentalists and [sic] is rational and what part irrational.”51 racists because their beliefs do not persist This would also seem to suggest that it for good reasons and thus are not worthy of would be more difficult to make a tolerance.45 He suggests that inherently distinction between which parts of a dogmatic belief systems like Christianity comprehensive doctrine persist without good and Islam cannot treat citizens equally reason and are thus unworthy of tolerance. because they feel compelled to save souls In addition, Habermas recognizes that above all other goods, thus leading to religious reasoning and secular reasoning attempts to compel others to join the may produce different types of cognition. religion. However, he argues that, ideally, However, it seems that when he employs the when each group in a state does recognize adjective “cognitive,” he means it to relate and respect other groups‟ rights to different to processes of judgment and reasoning, systems of belief, contradictions on the rather than linguistic processes within the cognitive level46 can be neutralized on the brain, thus continuing to evade the social level by adherence to constitutional importance of the transparency or non- principles.47 In this essay, he continues to transparency of language. maintain that religious groups will go Even with this more accommodating through a cognitive shift and become perspective, the attempt to reintegrate modernized based on exposure to the religious communities into the public sphere “individualistic and egalitarian nature of the creates a number of problems for Habermas. laws of the secular community.”48 He First, the Bible believer, if she considers continues, “[a] religion that has become just herself a citizen of the nation-state, must be one among many confessions must abandon facilitated in becoming the author of the this claim to comprehensively shape life.”49 laws to which she is an addressee through However, by 2006, he has come to the deliberative legislative process. doubt the ethicality of this pronouncement. However, given that the liberal democratic Intrigued by John Rawl‟s question; „How is state rests on a foundation of the separation it possible for those of faith, as well as the of church and state, the actual institutions of non-religious, to endorse a secular regime government cannot employ religious even when their comprehensive doctrines reasoning. As we have seen, Habermas may not prosper under it, and indeed may solves this problem by proposing the decline?‟50 Habermas attempts to understand translation of religious reasoning into what is at stake for believers who also secular reasoning in the course of public consider themselves citizens of the sphere debate, stating, constitutional state. He acknowledges, contrary to his indictment of Given that [religious persons and fundamentalists, that post-secularist thought communities] may only express should remain agnostic and avoid the themselves in a religious idiom under “rationalist presumption that it can itself the condition that they recognize the institutional translation proviso, they

45 Habermas, “Intolerance and Discrimination,” 3. can, trusting that their fellow citizens 46 Of course only those contradictions that persist for will cooperate for accomplishing a good reasons. translation, grasp themselves as 47 Habermas, “Intolerance and Discrimination,” 4. participants in the legislative process, 48 Ibid, 6. 49 Ibid. 50 Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” 19. 51 Ibid, 17.

11 | Dankel

although only secular reasons count ethics of democratic citizenship is correct therein.52 and we have the right understanding of it leads us into a terrain where the normative However, he soon acknowledges that arguments no longer suffice.”56 mutual perspective taking and deliberative Harding would likely argue that while civility, the bases of rational debate, cannot Bible believers want to participate in the happen unless both sides (in reality probably political process, they would not be able to more that two) are willingly to be self- do so outside of their faith. Such believers reflexive about their own truth claims, feel strongly that their religion forms a something that seems as unlikely on the side comprehensive system that influences all of the faithful as amongst secularists. parts of their lives. Although there may be Habermas counters that the precedent of more hybridity and internal negotiation of previous religious accommodation to linguistic structures and worldviews secularism renders future negotiation between religious perspectives and secular plausible. However, he himself concedes perspectives than any of these authors fully that such hybridity may not represent true 53 acknowledge, Harding‟s theory would seem faith in the eyes of religious persons. to suggest that Bible believers could not Habermas also addresses the problems remain faithful to their figurally-oriented inherent in convincing secular citizens to methods of interpretation if they attempted have appreciation for religious reasons. As to reason through a secular idiom, or even we have seen above, without a mutual adopt a secular perspective for the purposes willingness to imaginatively occupy others‟ of debate or complementary learning. As perspectives and listen civilly to their noted above, secular notions of history reasons, public rationality cannot function in orient events causally or chronologically, a non-coercive way. Habermas finally whereas figural interpretation orients events admits this fact, based on their place in the cosmic plan.

Every „ought‟ presupposes a „can‟. Secular rationality sees Jerry Falwell‟s The normative expectations of an ethic failings as proof that he is not a man of God, of citizenship have absolutely no whereas his community views his impact unless a required change in discrepancies as an opportunity to generate mentality has been forthcoming first; and demonstrate faith. Without an indeed, they then serve only to kindle acceptable hybridity, Bible believers will resentment on the part of those who continue to feel left out of and besieged by feel misunderstood and their capacities liberal society, and should their religious over-taxed.54 viewpoints enter the deliberative legislative process in the form of translated secular Thus, Habermas holds out hope that reasoning, it may result that such “complementary learning processes,” which “inclusion” would not, in their minds, render allow all groups to accommodate themselves them the authors of the laws to which they to a post-secular society,55 can occur, but are addressees. acknowledges that to assume that his Of course, for many scholars the most “discourse on a liberal constitution and an problematic part of Habermas‟ theory is his assertion that power can be removed from the public sphere of deliberative rationality 52 Ibid, 10. 53 Ibid, 19. at all. According to Chantal Mouffe, 54 Ibid, 13. 55 Ibid, 18. 56 Ibid, 19.

Dankel | 12 democracy requires inclusions and interpretations of the meaning of that exclusions, for example who should be community, they can work within the counted as a citizen and who should not, as structures of a system based on liberty and well as structures of power, such as how equality—values which in her mind must be much influence corporations should have on inculcated—to achieve their goals. the political system. When Habermas It seems that even as an ideal theorizes a political arena denuded of power Habermas‟ theory cannot stand without a based on a system of deliberative massive reconceptualization taking into negotiation and consensus, she believes that account the non-transparency of language, all he is actually doing is masking the power the linguistic structuring of the brain, and relationships that form its normative the problems of untranslatabilty between infrastructure. Unlike Habermas, she does worldviews. Obviously, he would bristle at not believe that the persistent and necessary the proposition that political negotiation presence of power contradicts the might mean the continual attempt to convert constitutional state; rather it is intrinsic to it. others to one‟s way of thinking, rather than a Nor does she believe that the modus vivendi civil discussion in which citizens give each consensus so anathema to Habermas proves other good reasons for their policy inherently problematic to political systems. preferences. On the other hand, it might be Instead, she maintains that the real danger to time to acknowledge the gulf between the democracy is the erasure of real distinctions theoretical and the practical. Habermas and between political positions, a persistent Mouffe concur that the US political system move towards the middle. “When political is becoming an election-driven modus frontiers become blurred,” she argues, vivendi, demonstrating massive citizen disaffection, a focus on scandals and the dynamics of politics is obstructed partisan bickering rather than governing, and and the constitution of distinctive a deeply divided citizenry, not only between political identities is hindered. political parties (despite their similarities to Disaffection towards political parties one another), but amongst ethnic, religious, sets in and it discourages participation and other groups as well. With the in the political process…the result is continuing influence of money, public not a more mature, reconciled society relations and the media in the political without sharp divisions but the growth process,58 it does seem that an emphasis on of other types of collective identities the importance of linguistic metaphor may around religious, nationalist, or ethnic 57 worsen rather than ameliorate the forms of identification. commodity approach to political policy and

Conversely, Mouffe calls for a move from electioneering. However, to stick one‟s head antagonism to agonism, from enemy to in the sand and dream of an ideal world of adversary. When persons and groups, like unconditional equality and civil deliberation Bible-believing Christians, are excluded as the real political world is crumbling from the system, they only have the option around one is even less productive than of attacking or undermining it. However, simply accepting the reality of the current when recognized as valid members of the political community, despite their differing 58 All issues that Habermas has been concerned with since the beginning of his career, without seeming, until recently, to conceive of them as potentiality 57 Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox (New intrinsic to the system of liberal democracy, rather York: Verso, 2000), 114. than pathologies of it.

13 | Dankel system. If any positive change is to occur, the role of language in the realm of politics we must have our eyes clear. Facing up to is a start.

Bibliography

Benhabib, Seyla. “Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and Jürgen Habermas.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 73-98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991. Cooke, Maeve. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994. Gillan, Garth. “Communicative Action Theory and the Possibility of Theology.” In Perspectives on Habermas, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, 113-122. Chicago: Open Court, 2000. Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. ______. “Intolerance and discrimination”. International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 1, No. 1. January 2003, 2-12. ______. “Religion in the Public Sphere”. European Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 14, No. 1. April 2006, 1-25. Harding, Susan Friend. “Representing Fundamentalism: The Problem of the Repugnant Cultural Other”. Social Research. Vol. 58, No. 2. Summer 1991, 373-393. ______. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Lakoff, George. The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century Politics with an 18th-Century Brain. New York: Viking, 2008. Langsdorf, Lenore. “The Real Conditions for the Possibility of Communicative Action.” In Perspectives on Habermas, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, 21-50. Chicago: Open Court, 2000. Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso, 2000. Thomassen, Lasse. “The Inclusion of the Other?: Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance.” Political Theory. Vol. 34, No. 4. August 2006, 439-462.