Nuevo libro de Dick Tonsmann: "Guerra y paz"

Recomendados de La Coalición

Título: Guerra y paz. La última disputa de Habermas con el comunitarismo. Lima: Estudiantado de los Oblatos de San José, 2010.

Autor: Dick Tonsmann.

Anuncio: Nuevo libro de Dick Tonsmann

La Coalición anuncia en exclusiva la próxima entrada en circulación del libro del Dr. Dick Tonsmann "Guerra y paz. La última disputa de Habermas con el comunitarismo". Muy pronto más señas de este nuevo aporte a la filosofía política peruana.

Habermas y Benedicto XVI

Lal bases morales prepolíticas del Estado liberal
Jürgen Habermas y Joseph Ratzinger (actual Papa Benedictus XVI)

Comentarios sobre el libro conjunto Dialéctica de la secularización (2003)

Jimmy Hernández
Facultad de Teología Pontificia y Civil de Lima


I. Jürgen Habermas
Jürgen Habermas comienza su intervención con la interrogante planteada ¿fundamentos prepolíticos del estado democrático? Esto quiere decir que si el estado liberal secularizado necesita apoyarse en supuestos normativos prepolíticos, esto es, en supuestos que no son el fruto de una deliberación y decisión, y, la hacen posible. Sin embargo, para Habermas “esta pregunta pone en duda la capacidad del Estado constitucional democrático de recurrir a sus propias fuentes para generar su presupuestos normativos, así como la sospecha de que depende de tradiciones autóctonas, cosmovisivas o religiosas, y en cualquier caso de tradiciones éticas vinculantes para la colectividad también ajenas a él mismo” (Dialéctica de la Secularización). Esta respuesta no debe sorprendernos, porque en su sistema de pensamiento no puede ser de otro modo. Esto deriva de la influencia notoria de la versión del liberalismo kantiano por él desarrollada., y que algunos de esos aspectos principales los argumenta en esta exposición. En sus mismas palabras dice: “el liberalismo político (que defiendo en la figura especial de un republicanismo kantiano) se entiende como una justificación no religiosa y postmetafísica de los principios normativos del Estado constitucional democrático. Esta teoría se sitúa en la tradición de un derecho racional” (p.27).

Al juicio de Habermas, el propio proceso democrático es capaz de salir garante de sus presupuestos normativos, sin necesidad de recurrir para ellos a tradiciones religiosas o cosmovisivas. Y no sólo da esta afirmación sino que se atreve a decir que la vida democrática posee una dinámica propia que la capacita asimismo para suscitar virtudes políticas en los ciudadanos y los anima a la participación activa y comprometida en la gestión de la RES PUBLICA. Habermas también se muestra preocupado por los temas de siempre, la fundamentación no metafísica de los valores modernos y la racionalización de la cultura política, aunque no los desarrolle muy a fondo. Porque para él “la base de la constitución del Estado liberal tiene la suficiente capacidad para defender su necesidad de legitimación de forma autosuficiente, es decir recurriendo a existencias cognitivas de un conjunto de argumentos independientes de la tradición religiosa y metafísica” (pp. 30-31). El Estado democrático se fundamenta a partir de las fuentes de la razón práctica. No obstante, aunque estos fundamentos sean sólidos no quiere decir que son inmunes a todo peligro. Puesto que una mala inteligencia de la secularización puede provocar la indiferencia política por parte de aquellos ciudadanos que no se siente suficientemente reconocidos en la esfera pública (p. 28).


Luego nos dirá que solamente se realiza la solidaridad ciudadana dentro de la sociedad política liberal, por abstracta y jurídica que esta sea, cuando los principios de justicia han penetrado previamente el denso entramado de los diferentes conceptos culturales (pp. 34-35). Este punto nos parece de vital importancia. Puesto que Habermas ha dicho claramente que la sociedad liberal puede darse a sí misma sus bases morales, sin embargo admite unas fuentes espontáneas de las que se alimenta el ciudadano. “Así podría decirse que en cierto modo el estatus de ciudadano está insertado en una sociedad civil que se alimenta de fuentes espontáneas, si ustedes quieren, «prepolíticas»” (p. 32). Está, además, consciente del poder configurador de nuestra existencia, que en un mundo globalizado como éste, tienen los mercados, los cuales no están sujetos a un control democrático como podemos ver en la cotidianeidad. Ya que “los mercados, que no pueden evidentemente someterse a un proceso democrático como las administraciones estatales, asumen cada vez más funciones de orientación en ámbitos de la vida, que hasta ahora habían estado recogidos normativamente, esto es mediante formas políticas o prepolíticas de comunicación (p. 36). La consecuencia es que no sólo cada vez más aspectos privados se orientan por el propio beneficio y las presencias individuales, sino que también la misma cultura se estaría valorizando según criterios de mercado. La debilidad de los mecanismos reguladores del derecho internacional aumenta en los ciudadanos la sensación de estar sometidos a dinámicas incontrolables y fomenta la tendencia a la apatía política, por este motivo en la actualidad se ve un “creciente desanimo frente a la capacidad política de la comunidad internacional que contribuye a aumentar la despolitización ciudadana” (p. 36).


Teniendo en cuenta todo este contexto que preocupa seriamente a Habermas, él sostiene que la secularización ha de entenderse hoy como un proceso de aprendizaje recíproco entre el pensamiento laico heredero de la Ilustración y las tradiciones religiosas. “Ambas posturas, la religiosa y la laica, si conciben la secularización de la sociedad como un proceso de aprendizaje complementario, pueden tomar en serio mutuamente sus aportaciones en temas públicos controvertidos también entonces desde un punto de vista cognitivo” (pp. 43-44). Éstas pueden aportar un rico caudal de principios éticos que fortalezcan los lazos de solidaridad ciudadana sin los que el Estado secularizado no puede subsistir.

Desde la filosofía de Habermas, una variante del liberalismo político, el respaldo de las instituciones ya no puede ser religioso o metafísico: debe ser racional. La ley que regula al Estado se fundamenta en las mismas condiciones que hacen posible el diálogo entre ciudadanos, quienes están involucrados de una u otra forma en el procedimiento legislativo. Ambos están llamados a vivir más que en la tolerancia, en el entendimiento que se fundamenta no en lo que los distingue, sino en lo que los hace iguales: la razón. La sola tolerancia no basta, puesto que las consecuencias de esta tolerancia no están repartidas simétricamente entre creyentes y no creyentes, tal como se pone de manifiesto en la legislación más o menos liberal sobre el aborto. Por eso mismo la conciencia laica paga un precio por gozar de la libertad negativa que representa la libertad religiosa (p. 45).

Manifiesta, Habermas, que una visión del mundo laicista ya no es sostenibles en una sociedad democrática que el llamará postsecular, la cual pone en un mismo nivel a los creyentes y a los no creyentes sin excluir ni marginar a ninguno. “La neutralidad cosmovisiva del poder estatal, que garantiza las mismas libertades éticas para todos los ciudadanos, es incompatible con la generalización política de una visión del mundo laicista” (p. 46). Los creyentes y los no creyentes han de vivir en una sociedad democrática que valore sus conceptos religiosos y no los desestime como mera irracionalidad ni falta de verdad. Aunque su lenguaje siga siendo religioso “los ciudadanos secularizados, en cuanto que actúan en su papel de ciudadanos del Estado, no pueden negar por principio a los conceptos religiosos su potencial de verdad, ni pueden negar a los conciudadanos creyentes su derecho a realizar aportaciones en lenguaje religioso a las discusiones públicas” (pp. 46-47).
Finalmente Habermas explica que para que se dé una auténtica simetría a la hora del diálogo, tanto los creyentes como los no creyentes, han de hacerse entender, es decir, los creyentes deben saber expresarse de modo que los no creyentes entiendan, pero los no creyentes también deben expresarse en un lenguaje que los creyentes puedan entender claramente,“una cultural liberal política puede incluso esperar de los ciudadanos secularizados participen en los esfuerzos para traducir aportaciones importantes del lenguaje religioso a un lenguaje más asequible para el público general” (p. 47).


Joseph Ratzinger (hoy Papa Benedictus XVI):

Ratzinger también habla sobre el contexto histórico actual y de las exigencias que de él se derivan. Presentándonos los dos síntomas de una evolución apresurada: el surgimiento de una sociedad de dimensiones mundiales, y, el crecimiento de las posibilidades que tiene el hombre de producir y de destruir (p. 51).
El encuentro de las culturas en un mundo globalizado, sumado al poder destructivo de la técnica humana, hace necesario encontrar una base ética común que regule la convivencia de los hombres y de los pueblos. No está claro que la democracia esté en condiciones de garantizar una base ética semejante. La democracia opera de acuerdo con el principio de las mayorías, pero la historia nos enseña que también las mayorías pueden ser ciegas e ignorar los derechos legítimos de las minorías. Y se pregunta “¿Se puede seguir hablando de justicia y de derecho cuando, por ejemplo, una mayoría, incluso grande, aplasta con leyes opresivas a una minoría religiosa o racial?”(p. 54). Sin embargo, a pesar de todo, la democracia sigue siendo una propuesta válida, porque “la garantía de la participación en la formación del derecho y en la justa administración del poder es la razón esencial a favor de la democracia como la más adecuada de las formas de ordenamiento político” (p. 54).
Ratzinger no dudad en afirmar que hay “algo que precede a cualquier decisión de la mayoría y que debe ser respetado por ella” (p. 55). Puesto que existen “valores permanentes que brotan de la naturaleza del hombre y que, por tanto, son intocables en todos los que participan de dicha naturaleza” (p. 55). Reconoce también que se dan patologías religiosas y pone como ejemplo el caso particular el terrorismo religioso de Osama Bin Laden: “Los mensajes de Bin Laden presentan el terror como la respuesta de los pueblos débiles y oprimidos a la arrogancia de los poderosos, como el justo castigo a su presunción, a su blasfema arrogancia y a su crueldad” (p. 57). Sostiene, además, que la religión ha de mantener un diálogo permanente con la razón, diálogo que la purifica y la resguarda de tales excesos. Así mismo se dan en nuestro tiempo algunas patologías de la razón: basta con pensar en la bomba atómica o en la fabricación de seres humanos en el laboratorio. La racionalidad también debería reflexionar sobre los desastres que producen sus sueños y comprender las reacciones contrarias que genera. Estas patologías de la razón son fruto de una arrogancia de la razón que no es menos peligrosa; más aún considerando su efecto potencial, es todavía más amenazadora demostradas con la bomba atómica y el ser humano entendido como producto. Por eso también a la razón se le debe exigir, a su vez, que reconozca sus límites y que aprenda a escuchar a las grandes tradiciones religiosas de la humanidad. Si se emancipa totalmente y renuncia a dicha disposición a aprender, si renuncia a la correlación, se vuelve destructiva (p. 67).


Existe una necesaria correlatividad entre razón y fe. En Europa ese diálogo tendrá como interlocutores a la razón occidental secularizada y a la religión cristiana. Esto se puede y se debe decir sin caer en un falso eurocentrismo. Ambas caracterizan la situación mundial como ninguna otra fuerza cultural. Pero ello no significa que nos podamos desentender de las demás culturas (p. 68). Es sumamente importante que las dos grandes componentes de la cultura occidental estén dispuestas a escuchar y desarrollen una auténtica correlación también con esas culturas (p. 68). Pero esto no quiere decir que deban ser excluidas las demás confesiones religiosas, sino por el contrario éstas deben prestar todo aquellos de bueno, bello y verdadero que tengan para cimentar una sociedad más humana. Hablando con propiedad sería una correlación necesaria de razón y fe, de razón y religión, que están llamadas a purificarse y regenerarse recíprocamente, que se necesitan mutuamente, y deben reconocerlo (pp. 67-68).

Finalmente, para Ratzinger es obvio que el laicicismo de la modernidad racionalista domina el actual panorama espiritual. Con todo, razón y fe son complementarias antes que enemigas. Además, queda claro que la razón tiene sus propias patologías, no menores ni menos mortíferas de las que la religión sufrió en el pasado. Atrocidades históricas aparte, y pese a que superficialmente no parezca así, desde un exclusivo plano doctrinal el ecumenismo de la fe católica manifiesta una mayor disposición a la relación con lo distinto que la cultura liberal


BALANCE GENERAL:

Cuando Habermas toca el tema de la religión, lo hace integrando en ella su teoría de los tipos de racionalidad, en la de la acción comunicativa, y en las reflexiones de una época postmetafísica. El fenómeno religión es analizado desde la perspectiva de la epistemología, de la antropología y de la sociología, e integradas en su teoría de la comunicación posteriormente. Ya que en un primer momento Habermas desestima la religión, puesto que dentro de las condiciones de simetría, cuando habla de la ausencia de coacción, establecía que en el diálogo los presupuestos religiosos, que el creyente llevaría consigo a la hora del acto comunicativo, lo deshabilitarían para una búsqueda desinteresa (no teleológica) del consenso. Sin embargo, en un segundo momento tomaría en mayor consideración a la religión por sus contenidos morales que la ética racional no podría dar, como es el caso del sacrifico, que desde la pura razón contradice la virtud de la justicia “de dar a cada uno lo que le corresponde”. En este momento Habermas daría un paso adelante en su propio sistema ya que la coherencia y la fidelidad a las condiciones de simetría de la teoría de la acción comunicativa lo obligarían a realizarlo.


Para Ratzinger la religión, al unísono con Habermas, será una auténtica fuente normativa para las democracias abúlicas siempre que se admita que los principios del orden moral y civil fluyen de la naturaleza divina. Porque detrás de ese reconocimiento vendrán los necesarios valores para el mundo moderno cuyo ateísmo amenaza, incluso, la dignidad de la persona misma. Ratzinger explota a fondo los gestos concesivos de Habermas y extrae de ellos la exigencia de restaurar la centralidad de la fe en un mundo que ya no cree en nada. Para Ratzinger es obvio que el laicicismo de la modernidad racionalista domina el actual panorama espiritual. Con todo, razón y fe son complementarias antes que enemigas. Además, queda claro que la razón tiene sus propias patologías, no menores ni menos mortíferas de las que la religión sufrió en el pasado. Sin embargo, sigue siendo una cura para la sola razón que también tiene patologías aún peores que las ocasionadas por la fe.
Ratzinger cree en una verdad objetiva que el diálogo está llamado a identificar. Habermas está persuadido de que la verdad es fruto del diálogo y no existe con independencia de éste. En este último punto es en el que podemos ver claramente la diferencia esencial entre el realismo de Ratzinger y la ética del consenso de Habermas. Como ya hemos desarrollado, Habermas cree que la acción comunicativa no tiene como finalidad la obtención de la verdad, sino el consenso. Y fruto de éste se obtendrá la verdad, pero ésta no es anterior, sino consecuencia del consenso.
En cambio Ratzinger cree firmemente que si las personas pueden llegar a un consenso es precisamente porque antes que el acto comunicativo existe la verdad, que es anterior y en virtud de la cual es posible entenderse y llegar a un acuerdo.
A pesar de estas diferencias ambos se muestran de acuerdo en que el diálogo como tal es imprescindible para lograr el entendimiento. Además, no hay discrepancia en la afirmación: “en el diálogo (entre fe y razón) han de participar todas las mentalidades y todas las culturas”. Por lo tanto, concuerdan ambos en la conclusión, pero los medios para llegar a él es lo que los hace discrepar en sus posturas políticas.

Acción comunicativa y justicia global

Especiales de La Coalición

Communicative Action, Autonomy and Global Justice

Raffaela Giovagnoli
Università di Roma Tor Vergata

1. The Public Use of Reason. Autonomy is the core of the Habermasian political discussion on naturalism and religion. These topics generated a lively international discussion in different fields. Habermas analysis of the concept of autonomy is based on a reformulation of the Kantian principle of categorical imperative and entails important implications for his political theory.

The first assumption that makes plausible the priority of autonomy of citizens over institutional political power is the Habermasian study on the “pre-political” fundaments of the democratic State of law. Habermas presents a form of political liberalism as non-religious and post-metaphysical justification of the normative fundaments of the Constitutional democratic State. His argumentation is based on two fundamental points:

1. The democratic process in virtue of the satisfaction of conditions of an inclusive and discursive formation of opinion and will justifies the presumption of rational acceptability of the results;

2. The juridical institutionalization of this procedure of democratic jurisdiction in parallel requires the concession of fundamental rights (i.e. liberal or political).

For the sake of my argumentation is relevant to underscore the fact that the point of reference of this strategy of foundation resulting in a form of post-Kantian republicanism is the constitution that citizens commonly give to themselves and not the domestication of an already existing state power, because this ought to be previously created through the democratic constituent process. My analysis on the relationship of autonomy and justice in the context of the Habermasian discussion on naturalism and religion concerns three points: (1) The public use of Reason, (2) The intersubjective concept of autonomy and (3) the relationship between pluralism of cultures and global justice.

It is a fact that in our multicultural societies religious values continue to have a great relevance for citizens in their private as well as in their public spheres. Most of the numerous conflicts in which our western culture is involved are fought in the name of religious credo. According to Habermas, the classical distinction between State and Church must be revisited because the neutrality of the Liberal State is not more sustainable.

John Rawls proposes a vision of the public use of reason that plausibly takes into account the fact of the pluralism of religious points of view. Naturally, Habermas does not follow the idea of liberalism proposed in the Rawlsian theory of justice, because the laic character of the State is a necessary but not sufficient condition for guaranteeing religious freedom.

In Habermas terms:«The scope cannot be reached with the compliant benevolence of a laicized authority that tolerates until now discriminated minorities. About the precarious distinctions between the positive right of practicing a religion and the negative freedom to be protected from the religious practice of the others the very parties must find an agreement. If the principle of tolerance must escape from the suspect of a repressive interpretation of the limits of tolerance the definition of what can be or cannot be tolerate needs evident reasons, that could be accepted by all the parts. Equal rules can be formulated only if the participants learn to undertake each time the perspectives of the others. A democratic formation of will deliberatively constituted, is proposed as procedure to reach the scope» (Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion trad. it. p. 25).

Habermas maintains the principle of neutrality of the laic State but the democratic Constitution must represent the source of legitimation with respect to the ideological neutralization of the State authority. It is the constituent praxis that grounds fundamental rights citizens ought to reciprocally attribute. The attribution of rights founds the democratic procedure by virtue of two components: first the equal political participation of citizens that guarantees that the addressees of laws can consider themselves as authors of them and second, the epistemic dimension of the forms of a discursively governed debate that motivate the presumption of the rational acceptability of the results.

The point I find shareable of the Rawlsian conception of the public use of reason is that the exercise of political power that could not be impartially justified is not legitimated as it favors the dominance of a part on the other. In order to avoid this wrong result citizens of a democratic community ought to give reciprocally reasons because this is the only way they have to discover the repressive character of political power. If we formulate this assumption in Habermasian terms it emerges a normative constraint to be given to the liberal State. Namely, they cannot be forced to neutralize the substantive content of their religious reasons when they participate in discussions in the “informal” public sphere. At the same time, it must be clear that in the “formal” public sphere only laic reasons count. It is a fruitful dialog among citizens that favors a cooperative form of “translation” of the content of the different reasons; this translation is fundamental because citizens are all together authors of laws to which they are subject as addresses.

The fundamental question, raising under the condition of a pluralistic world, was rightly posed by Rawls.

This is a crucial question, according to Habermas, cannot be solved by binding political questions to a sort of ideological naturalism that takes for granted only assertions of empirical sciences. Rather:« If the liberal response to the religious pluralism could be accepted by all citizens as the right response depends on the availability of religious and laic citizens to commit themselves from their peculiar point of view to an interpretation of the relationship between science and faith, which only makes possible a reciprocal self- reflectively illuminated relation in the politic public sphere» (p. 50).

2.The “Intersubjective” Concept of Autonomy. The Habermasian account of “communicative action” represents a good model to relate autonomy to a linguistic normative competence that applies to the question of global justice. According to Habermas, autonomy is bound to the acknowledgment of presuppositions or linguistic rules as conditions of universal validity of theoretical and practical claims. He plausibly introduced the issue of interpersonal recognition related to formal linguistic conditions of a rational and egalitarian dialog (The Inclusion of the Other, Truth and Justification). In my opinion Habermas account of the relationship between autonomy and socialization is convincing because it shows plausible arguments against the contemporary reductionist strategies. The problem of reductionism in our society is worthy of serious considerations as it is the source of an increasing scientistic perspective that threatens every possibility of mutual respect among religious and laic citizens.

For the sake of my discussion I would refer to the essay Freedom and Determinism in which Habermas shows how the classical metaphysic debate on free will is obsolete. The criticism of Habermas is directed against those reductionist strategies, which consider individual freedom as an appearance because what is taken as “mental causality” would be a net of neuron conditions under the laws of nature. This idea is incompatible with the fact that normally we consider the others and ourselves as imputable because we are able to take responsibility for actions. It is also important to define a plausible concept of action. According to Habermas:«A Design that concentrates planning, decision and execution of a body movement in a restrict lapse of time by detaching it from each context of long term goals and motivate alternatives can grasp only artifact, which do not possess the intimate connection with what can transform actions into free actions: the intimate conception with reasons. It is a misunderstanding to see the freedom to act some way or other as embodied in the Buridan donkey. In the “nude” decision to stretch out the left or the right arm does not manifest itself freedom of action, as there is not contact with reasons as for instance the ones that motivate a cyclist to turn right or left» (p. 57)

The concept of action involves the idea of a rationally motivated choice: the decision to act forms according to rules. The fact that reasons motivate actions entails the fundamental consequence that the process of judgment gives the agent the title to be considered as the author of a certain decision. In this sense, the constraint of the best argument that guides our choices is different from the causal constraint that forces us to act contrary to our will. Nevertheless, freedom ought to be thought as requiring constraints otherwise it is unthinkable. According to Habermas, the rational motivation by reasons can be explained only from the point of view of the participant to the game of giving and asking for reasons. This is an important observation because this game is not based on the primacy of rational consent. In this sense it lives open the possibility of an account of the agent autonomous point of view in the linguistic situation.

Following some Habermasian suggestions, we can argue for a concept of autonomy as an essential component of the self-realization of a subject living in a society that develops in communication, in intersubjective acknowledgement of commitments or validity claims. Language that we share gives us the possibility of being autonomous. The condition for being autonomous is to be intentionally bound by conceptual-linguistic rules that are not individual desires and preferences. An analysis of the concept of “liberty” needs investigations on individual motivations like desires and preferences. In this sense, we are free to act according to our mean-end reasoning without the necessity to assume a detached, responsible perspective over personal desires and preferences. Naturally, we are free to act when external or internal constraints do not exist. Autonomy can be considered as that capacity human beings normally have of decentralizing their own point of view, thus of distinguishing subjective and objective reasons. Autonomy comes into play also when an agent has conflicting subjective reasons for acting.

The public sphere is a place of validity in virtue of which we can confront our opinions. Again I would refer to Habermas concept of communicative lifeworld as the most clear and plausible proposal of the process of communication with its constructive and creative aspects. I argued for the primacy of a dialogical rationality and this option entails the primacy of shared linguistic rules. But, the lesson we learn from Kant and his interpreters is to underscore the primacy of the public use of Reason namely the public use of human capacity for autonomy. In my opinion, the capacity for autonomy that allows phenomena of resistance must be investigated at the level of a normative linguistic competence. The importance to participate in the game of giving and asking for reasons emerges in case of marginalization. Even if we are not so sure about the validity of our commitments, if we participate to public discussions we have the possibility to come to know and to inherit them. Moreover, if we have the chance to participate to fruitful and open dialogs, i.e. we are exposed to different reasons, we can reach an autonomous point of view namely that point from which we can accept or refuse validity claims.

My theoretical proposal is to adopt the scorekeeping model (Brandom, Making It Explcit, Cambridge University Press, 1994), based on the primacy of the performative attitude of the speaker so that we can grasp the know-how implied by the “social role” of the autonomous agent as “scorekeeper”, who participates in the game of giving and asking for reasons (I develop this possibility in my book Autonomy: a Matter of Content, Firenze University Press, 2007). This social role is defined by the use of language bound to certain social attitudes (attributing and undertaking commitments and entitlements) through which the recognition of deontic statuses (commitments and entitlements) seems possible. Even if we accept the inferential structure (based on material incompatibility) of this space proposed by Wilfrid Sellars, we must also give an explanation of the social perspectives from which we can undertake and attribute commitments. I’ll propose the thesis that the autonomous agent occupies the social role of scorekeeper, thus she is able to justify and to take responsibility for her assertions (or the assertions of others). The normative competence of the autonomous agent is bound to the social structure of the space of reasons. In this context, we have two possibilities: (a) to rely to the recognitional model presented by Brandom in his paper on the desire for recognition (on line forthcoming) or (b) to rely to a kind of linguistic normative competence described in scorekeeping terms. In my opinion, this latter possibility is worthy of consideration as it addresses to a wide concept of justification of reasons for acting that does not require too strong conditions for autonomous agency.

(a) Let’s begin with the first possibility. Brandom maintains that recognition is fundamental to clarify the structure of the social space of reasons in which agents can freely express their points of view. Actually, the notion of recognition Brandom introduces focuses on identification of reasons one ought to recognize in communication. This fact means that the agents ought to understand that (1) they are responsible and entitled to commitments implied by assertions and actions, (2) also the others move from the same deontic structure and (3) without reciprocal recognition it is not possibile to have a representation of oneself i.e. self-consciousness. Once we are conscious to have a self who expresses his/her voice in the reciprocal exchange of reasons we acquire a “robust” self-consciousness. The limit of this account is that autonomy is possible only by virtue of a shared background of objects and norms. We acquire autonomy only through self-consciousness as recognition of inferentially structured commitments that constitute the natural and the social worlds. Consequently, we fall into a form of dangerous relativism because we have only the possibility to recognize commitments of our own communities. In my opinion autonomy requires an explanation of critical reflection bound to an intersubjective discursive practice that favors a process of reciprocal comprehension among different forms of life.

(b) In this sense (second possibility), for an agent to be autonomous she ought to internalize the normative structure of a “dialogical” rationality. Here we are moving at the normative level of communication i.e. the level we consider as sufficient for autonomous agency. A self-transparent process of identification of shared commitments is not required for autonomy. The entitlement to a claim can be justified (1) by giving reasons for it, or (2) by referring to the authority of another agent, or (3) by demonstrating the capacity of the agent reliably to respond to environmental stimuli

Because of the participation in the game of giving and asking for reason, we can master the communicative structure of justification by “default” and “challenge”. Autonomy is relational in two senses: (1) the “semantic” sense that shows the inferential commitments (governed by material incompatibility) the agents must acknowledge and (2) the “pragmatic” sense that reveals the normative structure of that acknowledgment as a social net of deontic attitudes.

Which is the competence an agent must possess to be able to constitute an autonomous and critical voice in the public space? Let us consider a question of global justice: the case of a politician who is committed to the following action:«If the dissidents attack, I’ll respond to». From the point of view of the justification by default, P could refer to his/her own knowledge of the norms that regulate war conflicts, or to the authority of others who are reliable. Naturally, this knowledge depends on the content of norms authorizing certain practical commitments. The fundamental trait of the scorekeeping model is that it represents a dynamic model, in which social practices are always exposed to the risk of dissent. In this context, social practices entail the dimension of “challenge”, i.e. the case in which the scorekeeper challenges the interlocutor to justify and eventually to repudiate his/her commitment. The speech acts implied by this critical role are: disavowals, queries and challenges. Even in the case in which an agent acquires the entitlement to act by deferral, i.e. by indicating a testimonial path whereby entitlement to act can be inherited, the query and the challenge assume the function of fostering P’s reflection. But if P can refer to the authority of a set of legal norms, it becomes difficult for the scorekeeper to alter the score of conversation. The disavowal is successful if the scorekeeper shows to P that his/her inference implies incompatible commitments from the subjective incompatibility perspective: for example that the response to the attack entails catastrophic consequences. In this case, P can be forced to perform a different inference such as:«If the dissidents attack, I’ll find a diplomatic solution».

In the present context, I would say that this analysis is compatible with Habermas account of autonomy in terms of theory of communicative action (Rorty). Recognition of validity is not bound to identity recognition (Honneth) but on attributions of validity to speech acts. Thus the:«self of the practical relation-to-self reassures itself about itself through the recognition that its claims receive from an alter ego. But these identity claims aiming at intersubjective recognition must not be confused with the validity claims that the actor raises with his speech-acts. For the “no” with which the addressee rejects a speech-act offer concerns the validity of a particular utterance, not the identity of the speaker. The speaker certainly not count on the acceptance of his speech acts if he did not already presuppose that the addressee took him seriously as someone who could orient his action with validity claims. The one must have recognized the other as an accountable actor whenever he expects him to take a position with “yes” or “no” to his speech-acts offers. In communicative action everyone thus recognizes the other in his own autonomy».

3. Pluralism of Cultures and Global Justice. Autonomy based on accountability of agent in intersubjective praxis is the moral idea that ground political procedures. This idea differs from the classical liberal conception of individual autonomy as the classical liberalism runs the risk to reduce the sense of the equal ethical liberties to a coercive individualistic notion of subjective rights to be intended in an instrumental manner. This perspective misunderstands the normative dimension of solidarity which put in relationship family, friends, and neighbours in the private sphere and moreover the citizens of the State as members of a political community beyond pure juridical relations. Contrary to the classical liberal point of view, the republican tradition that moves from the thought of Rousseau proposes a different and intersubjective notion of freedom bound to the role of citizen in the democratic State. In this context, the equal rights of communication and participation make possible a practice that citizens of the State commonly develop and evaluate as end in itself. Democratic self-legislation grounds a form of “abstract” i.e. juridically mediated solidarity, and makes citizen ranged for another (even by recoursing to arms). The kind of solidarity generated by Republicanism is due to equal rights that guarantee ethical freedom not in the sense as subjective freedom of the citizen in civil society, but as freedom intended as sovereignty of jointly liable citizens in the State. According to Habermas, ethical republicanism accept the element of solidarity (for the concept of solidarity in Habermas I would refer to an insightful paper of Larry Wilde) among citizens in the State by paying the price of a limitation of egalitarian universalism:«Each citizen possesses equal rights only in the ambit of his own particular ethos, presumably shared by all the members of a political community. The fusion of citizenship of the State and national culture entails as its consequence an interpretation of the rights of citizenship that is “monochrome” and not sensitive to cultural differences. The political primacy of a common good ethically based on an effective guarantee of equal ethical liberties cannot but bring to discrimination of deviant ways of life in the pluralistic societies and, on the international level, to impotence respecting to a “conflict of cultures».

According to Habermas, a cultural politic is liberal as it favours symmetric relationships of reciprocal recognition, - also among members of different identity groups. We can observe that cultural rights and politics of recognition can reinforce the capacities for self-determination of marginalized minorities, at the same time, the threat of sanctions cannot alter the register of social values. Following Nancy Fraser and Seila Benhabib, we observe that the end of multiculturalism, i.e. the reciprocal recognition of equal dignities, requires mutate interpersonal relationships, which are established by communicative action and discourse, and takes place into the public space where agents discuss on politics of identity. Moreover, one must take into account the difference proposed by Fraser between inequality due to marginalization namely in the sphere of membership and inequality due to vertical status relationship that is a question of social justice. Indeed inequality raises in the dimension of distributive justice rather than in the inclusion of new members. To the distinction of dimensions corresponds a distinction between politics of redistribution and politics of recognition. If we want to refer to a enlarged notion of social State cultural rights can be justified only by taking into account the possibility of an equal inclusion of all citizens. According to Habermas, it remains questionable whether the revision of the classical notion of juridical person bound to the double role of citizen of economy and member of a community, distributes ambivalent group’s rights, that could in some cases conflict with individual rights.

The problem of a strong form of multiculturalism is a misunderstanding of the ontological constitution of the symbolic objects. It is indeed difficult to assign the culture the role of juridical subject because it cannot fulfil the conditions of its own reproduction but it must refer to the agency of citizens who accept or refuse values. Collective rights cannot guarantee the survival of identity groups or the persistence of their cultural background. According to Habermas, young people ought to grow up in a certain tradition and ought to be convinced to live in a cultural horizon a life that is neither empty nor failed. A cultural tradition is vital if it offers resources to solve actual problems and what is fundamental, in my opinion, is the test the tradition are required to pass by a confrontation with different alternatives. The presence of different reasons is fundamental for autonomy. In Habermas terms, the more inclusion we realize the more we have the possibility of reaching a genuine universal and right perspective. Collective rights can reinforce the self-affirmation of a group only if they contemporary guarantee to the members the space they really need to reflexively decide among appropriation, revision or refusal. In this sense:«For the survival of cultural groups it is decisive the guarantee of the internal space that is indispensable to appropriate of a tradition under conditions that admit dissent. A dogmatically protected culture, especially in a social, rich of alternatives environment, cannot reproduce itself» (p 204).