Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism - Essay Example

What Does a Crisis Mean Today Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism " This conflict (within Capitalist Society) has the following form: on the one hand, the priorities set under the economic imperatives cannot be allowed to depend upon a discursive formation of the public will- therefore politics today assume the appearance of a technocracy. On the other hand the exclusion of consequential practical questions from discussion by the depoliticized public becomes extremely difficult as a result of the long term erosion of the cultural tradition which has regulated conduct and which, until now, could be presupposed as a tacit boundary condition of the political system, Because of this a chronic need for legitimation is developing today" (Habermas, 1976; pp.5). The term 'legitimation' is derived from Weberian sociological tradition, whereas the term 'crisis' is a derivative of and from the Marxist analysis of Capitalism (Ramussen.1976). Let us first attempt to discuss the key terms 'legitimation and crises and how these terms although derivatives of earlier thought have been given new meanings through Habermasian analysis. It needs to be understood that Habermas has drawn critical distinctions, blurred but distinct boundaries between sociological evolution on the partly historical and partly sociological continuum. His estimation of advanced Capitalism is different from what Karl Marx analyzed and prophesied about. Marx had analyzed the Capitalism of liberal capitalism variety which functioned without state intervention; an Adam Smithsonian Laiisez-Fare capitalism. It had its own crisis, which Marx analyzed and perhaps predicted. Whereas the object or rather subjective focus of Habermasian analysis is modern, advanced capitalism with its unique attributes of state intervention and its concomitant urge for a value structure of its own, it therefore has its own particular form of crisis relating to 'legitimation and eventually motivation' (ibid. pp.350). The term Legitimation has its roots in the Weberian tradition, 'in weberian usage the term occurs with its counterpart of domination' (Ramussen.1976), a legitimate stratification of order and for order in the society, expressed in the form of legal system, a codification of dominant values, whereas Habermasian Legitimation is devoid of its excess baggage of domination, and is based on 'communicative competence' (Habermas. 1975). Having discussed the key terms and their basis of occurring in the Habermasian analysis, let us now move on to attempting to trace the roots of this conceptualization. It may be argued that Habermas's point of departure about history of development of social theory is derived from Aristotle's distinction between episteme and phronesis, between science and prudence (Ramussen.1976). This distinction provides a useful preserve for politics from the stark and empiricist basis. Because ' the philosophy modeled on (pure episteme) would give priority to an elitist control, as natural science sought to control nature'(ibid). Therefore it may be understood that the precedence of phronesis over episteme forms the basis of core assumptions for Habermas. Moving further from these premises a brief reference can be made to Habermas's critique of Marx in interpretation of relationship of philosophy and science. The relationship between the two has been termed as ambiguous at best (ibid). However the Habermas does not seem to agree with Marx's assumption that science itself would provide the grounds for the salvation of modern society. In Habermas's own view 'it is necessary, in light of the adjudged failure of Marx's analysis, to continue the quest of a critical theory of society which will eventuate in human liberation' (Habermas. 1976). It is now pertinent to take recourse to what Habermas has conceptualized. At the outset the argument begins with the stated purpose of achieving " A Social scientific Concept of Crisis" inimical to " State-regulated capitalism" (Habermas.1976.pp.1). Initially a theoretical framework is defined based on 'an integration of two not necessarily reconcilable positions: system and life world' (Ramussen.1976). The attempt is to bridge the scientific and by implication empirical concept with that of non-scientific. System in essence is empirical entities whereas life world conceptualization is a value based normative construct. Habermas attempts to ' resolve the dilemma between system and life world results in the partial construction of a theory of social systems which, if anything grants more to the theory associated with life world than it does to system theory'(ibid. pp.354). It echoes our earlier assertion and reference to the precedence of phronesis over episteme. Habermas perceives three constituent components or universal properties of social systems. The first property is 'the exchange between social system and their environment, depends upon a distinction between outer and inner nature, the former related to production and the later related to socialization' (ibid). This means that systems as visualized as organism contain an inbuilt schizophrenia. This leads to the second universal property of systems that stems from the first, that change creates the possibility for a paradox or even contradiction due to the perpetual schizophrenic state of the system. The third property stemming from the earlier two forms the crucial link in the chain of Habermas's argument. It states that the learning processes of the society functions in relationship with social evaluation within the society (ibid). Thus Habermas establishes a link between the inner and outer segments of the society and attempts to cure the system of its schizophrenia in his theoretical framework. These properties as defined are now juxtaposed on the understanding of Capitalist system. According to him ' if change, transformation and development are essential components of social system then a systematic approach is required to differentiate the variously and distinctly evolved systems on the continuum, therefore differentiation needs to be made between evolved forms of Capitalism; The liberal form of capitalism and the Advanced form of capitalism as distinct forms of organization'(Habermas.1976). It is a case of surpassing of one form of organization by another not necessarily better form of organization. Habermas has also defined that primitive form of capitalism was based on kinship with an 'extremely induced identity crisis' (ibid), thereby meaning that the network and dominance of kinship values subsumed any identity. The traditional social organization is coalesced around organizing principle of domination and its legitimation. " In contrast ( to kinship based),a traditional society organized under political class rule, namely state power and socio-economic classes, produces a functional differentiation between social and system integration with a resultant internally determined identity crisis"(ibid). Whereas the Liberal capitalist society is organized under 'unpolitical' class rule, i.e. wage labour and capital, ' which produces a system integrative economic structure that takes over socially integrative tasks, producing its own distinctive forms of crisis, that means that in liberal capitalism the class relationship is institutionalized in the labour market. The class relationship is not determined by tradition but is at the mercy of economic determinism. The steering mechanism of the society is further changed with the advent of state as the regulator and its assumption of the role of redistributors; this is the stage of Advanced Capitalism with its own distinct legitimation deficit; the crisis. This crisis of legitimation is central to modern/advanced capitalist state. 'It is not primarily economic but rather political or even cultural, caused due to the assumption of the new role of the state to steer the economy. The problem posed by legitimation crisis is how the growing intervention of the state in the economic activity can be rendered legitimate to those who are affected by the authority of the state, what normative resources are available to the state for drawing upon to justify intervention for correction to the redistributive dysfunctionalism caused by market' (Plant.1982. pp.342). "Recoup- ling the economic to political .creates an increased need for legitimation. The state apparatus no longer as in liberal capitalism, merely secures the general conditions of production but is now actively engaged in it. It must therefore-like the precapitalist state- be legitimated" (Habermas.1976.pp.36). It is argued that if the 'spontaneous human organization'; market is left alone without any form of state intervention, the 'gradual equalization through time through economic growth, demand and supply avoids the difficulty of redistribution by the state, market functionality of reward takes care of redistribution, then the problem of legitimation becomes irrelevant. The mechanism of echelon growth bypasses the problem of legitimation' (Hayek.1960. pp.44). Habermas however argues that 'the operation of capitalism in its initial stage relied upon a value structure derived from traditional moral edifice. The operation of markets rested on a range of internalized restrains upon demand and consumption which the very success of capitalism has destroyed. He argues that capitalism depended on a cultural tradition which formed a regulatory framework of conduct and acted as a 'tacit boundary condition of the system. The crucial coordinates of this restraint framework were the borrowed and accepted constraining values like; civil privatism, familial and vocational privatism, the religious based achievement ethics of the middle classes, the protestant ethic and renunciation of immediate gratification. This helped individual defined their attitudes and gave them the sense of identity. Paradoxically the success of capitalism is unable to reproduce these value anchors rather destroys them (Habermas, 1974, 1976). Without these value anchors the system becomes unstable causing the crisis. "Bourgeoisie culture as a whole has never been able to reproduce itself. It was always dependent upon motivationally effective supplementation by traditional world views" (Habermas. 1976.77). The Capitalist economy rested upon certain moral underpinnings like; trust, truth, honesty, fair dealing, based on protestant ethics and religious values. Similarly Restraint on consumption, sense of achievement and fatalism, the work ethic and civil privatization have been the pillars of the value structure (Plant.1982). In the advanced Capitalist stage these underpinnings have been eroded by the Capitalism itself by creation of a form of 'moral individualism'. This moral individualism has brought in moral subjectivism, which means it is up to the interpretation of the individual to which value he/she adopts and which discards, the universality necessary for a stable market system has been stripped away by capitalism. The liberal political society does not possess its own Sittlichkeit (Wolff.1968), whatever it had it has destroyed; this is the legitimation crisis of advanced Capitalism in Habermasian terms. References and Bibliography: 1. Habermas. J. (1970), ' Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence'; Inquiry 13. 2. Habermas. J. (1974), Theory and Practice. London; Heinemann 3. Habermas. J. (1976), Legitimation Crisis , London ; Heinemann 4. Wolff, R.P. (1968), The Poverty of Liberalism; Boston; Beacon Press 5. Hayek F. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty. London; Routledge and Kegan Paul. 6. Raymond P. (1982). Jurgen Habermas and the idea of Legitimation Crisis; European Journal of Political Research 10 (1982) 341-352. 7. Rasmussen M.D. (1976), Advanced Capitalism and Social Theory: Habermas on the Problem of Legitimation; Philosophy & Social Criticism 1976;3;349-366. Read More