Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:08:08.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Equalization of Effective Communicative Freedom: Democratic Justice in the Constitutional State and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

Shane O’Neill
Get access

Extract

The fundamental political concern of liberalism has been to secure equal liberties for all citizens. There has, however, been no agreement among liberals on the extent to which this project depends, both normatively and practically, on the democratization of society. Socialism, on the other hand, has been fundamentally concerned with the realization of emancipated forms of life. But socialists too have disagreed with one another on the extent to which political structures of democratic self-government are central to the revolutionary task of emancipation. Social democracy, as a tradition, has involved the attempt to show how these core political projects of the modern era, liberalism and socialism, are mutually interdependent. The most appropriate emancipatory project for late modern, increasingly complex societies, from a social-democratic perspective is to create and maintain a social structure that can deliver equal and effective liberties for all citizens. This achievement is to be best understood in republican terms, as the realization of a democratic form of life in which free and equal citizens engage one another in the collective task of autonomous self-governance. Jürgen Habermas has been one of the most significant intellectual contributors to the development of the idea of social democracy as an emancipatory project. Over several decades from the early 1960s to the present, Habermas has set about recasting critical social theory in terms of a theory of communicative action. The main legal and political implications of this critical perspective are outlined in his discourse theory of democracy Habermas considers the realization of rights through the democratic self-organization of legal communities to be the normative core of emancipatory politics in the modern era.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 83 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Darwall, Stephen, ed., Equal Freedom (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. See Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. McCarthy, Thomas (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1984)Google Scholar and The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: The Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. McCarthy, Thomas (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

3. See Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. Rehg, William (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

4. Ibid. at xli.

5. See Held, David & McGrew, Anthony, eds., The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

6. See Rosenfeld, Michael & Arato, Andrew, eds., Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998)Google Scholar and Von Schomberg, Rene & Baynes, Kenneth, eds., Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas’s ‘Between Facts and Norms’ (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

7. Habermas, supra note 3 at 84, 99-104, 118-31, 409-27.

8. Ibid. at 103.

9. Ibid. at 104.

10. Ibid. at 119.

11. Ibid. at 118-22, 454-57.

12. Ibid. at 27.

13. Ibid. at 83, 114-18.

14. Ibid at 118.

15. Ibid at 81, 448-49.

16. Ibid at 56. See also Habermas, supra note 2.

17. Ibid at 359. See also Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Burger, Thomas (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

18. Supra note 3 at 356, 371-72, 440.

19. Ibid. at 307-08. See Fraser, Nancy, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’ in Calhoun, Craig, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere (London: The MIT Press, 1992) 109 Google Scholar.

20. Supra note 3 at 307.

21. Habermas, Jürgen, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, Cronin, Ciaran & de Greiff, Pablo, eds., (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1998) at 215–20 Google Scholar.

22. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971) at 7 Google Scholar.

23. See Alejandro, Roberto, The Limits of Rawlsian Justice (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

24. See Marion Young, Iris, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

25. See O’Neill, Shane, Impartiality in Context: Grounding Justice in a Pluralist World (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

26. See Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974)Google Scholar and Steiner, Hillel, An Essay on Rights (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994)Google Scholar.

27. See Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983)Google Scholar and MacIntrye, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (London: Duckworth, 1988)Google Scholar.

28. Marion Young, Iris, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press) at 92–99 Google Scholar.

29. Phillips, Anne, Which Equalities Matter? (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1999) at 38–39 Google Scholar. See also Moller Okin, Susan et al., Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

30. Habermas, , supra note 3 at 122–23 Google Scholar.

31. Kymlicka, Will, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

32. Sen, Amartya, Inequality Reexamined (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar and Development as Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google ScholarPubMed; Nussbaum, Martha, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. See also Knight, Jack & Johnson, James, ‘What Sort of Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require?’ in Bohman, James & Rehg, William, eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (London: The MIT Press, 1997) 279 at 298–99 Google Scholar. See also in the same volume Bohman, James, ‘Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources and Opportunities’ 321 Google Scholar.

34. Ibid. at 302-04.

35. Young, supra note 24.

36. Fraser, Nancy, Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Post-Socialist’ Condition (London: Routledge, 1997) at 189–205 Google Scholar.

37. Fraser, Nancy, ‘Social Justice in an Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition and Participation’, Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998)Google Scholar; ‘Recognition without Ethics?’ (2001) 18 Theory, Culture & Soc. 21.

38. Marion Young, Iris, ‘Unruly Categories: A Critique of Nancy Fraser’s Dual Systems Theory’ (1997) 222 New Left Rev. 147 Google Scholar.

39. Young, supra note 28 at 82.

40. Fraser, Nancy & Honneth, Axel, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange, trans. Golb, Joel & Wilke, Christian (London: Verso, 2003)Google ScholarPubMed.

41. See Caney, Simon, ‘International Distributive Justice’ (2001) 49 Pol. Stud. 974 Google Scholar.

42. Habermas, Jürgen, ‘The Postnational Constellation and the Future of Democracy’ in The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, trans. Pensky, Max (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2001) 58 Google Scholar. See also de Greiff, Pablo & Cronin, Ciaran, eds., Global Justice and Transnational Politics: Essays on the Moral and Political Challenges of Globalization (London: The MIT Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

43. See Archibugi, Daniele, Held, David & Kohler, Martin, eds., Reimagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Linklater, Andrew, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Formulations of Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Kaldor, Mary, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

44. Chandler, David, ‘New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of State Sovereignty’ (2003) 51 Pol. Stud. 332 Google Scholar.

45. Ibid. at 344-47. See also Baker, Gideon, ‘Problems in the Theorisation of Global Civil Society’ (2002) 50 Pol. Stud. 928 at 934–37 Google Scholar.

46. Habermas, Jürgen & Derrida, Jacques, ‘Plädoyer zu einer Wiedergeburt Europas’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (31 May 2003)Google Scholar.