Between Facticity & Grace

On Habermas, Modernity, & Public Theology

Jürgen Habermas

Introduction

Matt McManus, a past guest on my podcast, recently published a timely and insightful review of the first two volumes of Jürgen Habermas's extensive three-volume history of postmetaphysical philosophy and religion, which are now available in English. McManus's work provides both a clear and comprehensive overview of the central argument of these volumes and a concise summary of Habermas's intellectual project and work.

Initially, my interest in McManus's work stemmed from his collaborations with Michael Brooks, particularly their joint efforts to expose and critique the burgeoning influence of postmodern conservatism, often referred to as the "woke right" these days. Their combined efforts offered a compelling counter-narrative to the distorted and revisionist ideologies propagated by this new conservative movement.

However, it was McManus's 2018 article, "Post-Postmodernism on the Left," that truly piqued my intellectual curiosity and marked a significant increase of interest and engagement with his work. In that piece, McManus delves into the complex and nuanced landscape of contemporary leftist thought, exploring the possibilities and limitations of a post-postmodern paradigm. His engagement with Jürgen Habermas's ideas was particularly noteworthy, as he skillfully navigated the intricacies of Habermas's body of work and applied them to the challenges and opportunities facing the left today.

McManus's ability to synthesize diverse intellectual traditions and critically engage with seminal thinkers like Habermas demonstrated a depth of scholarship and analytical rigor that resonated deeply with my own intellectual interests and pursuits. His work challenged me to rethink many of my assumptions and expand my intellectual horizons, ultimately leading to a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the complexities of contemporary political and social theory beyond my own disciplinary background and training in the field of psychology of religion and comparative religion.

That said, the purpose of this essay is to elaborate on my previous post "integral facticity and enactive fallibilism," and provide additional details about my introduction to Habermas' work. I will also offer some reflections on Don S. Browning and Francis Schussler Fiorenza's anthology "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology," which includes contributions from Fred Dallmayr and Charles Davis, whom I have previously introduced and written about in this space.

From “No Boundary” to “A Sociable God”

As readers of this space and listeners of my podcast are quite aware, my interests in the field of psychology of religion, comparative religion and theology was in various ways nurtured and developed through an initial contact with the work of Ken Wilber.

The first book I ever read by Ken Wilber was "No Boundary" in the late 1990s, and I was immediately captivated. In "No Boundary," Wilber delves into the concept of the "spectrum of consciousness," which seeks to integrate the best of both Eastern and Western approaches to human growth and development. The book provides a comprehensive view of human consciousness, building on the work and research from his first book, "The Spectrum of Consciousness," published in 1977 when he was just 23 years old. Wilber posits that human beings possess a remarkable range of developmental capabilities and self-awareness, progressing from subconscious to self-conscious to superconscious, or from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal. He underscores the importance of merging psychology with religious experiences and spirituality, offering practical exercises to help readers experience altered states of consciousness or religious experiences. The book's unique approach lies in its ability to map a complete spectrum of human development and capabilities, illustrating that individuals can evolve through various levels, ultimately leading to experiences of enlightenment or divine revelation.

While Wilber does mention and discuss Habermas in some of his earlier works, such as "Up From Eden," I didn't truly grasp the substantial overlap and shared themes in their work until I read Wilber's "A Sociable God" much later. In fact, the true depth and richness of their individual projects didn't fully crystallize for me until I began my studies with Marc Lalonde and Michel Despland at Concordia University in the early 2000s. It was during this period that I also discovered the work of Charles Davis, particularly his book "Religion and the Making of Society," which further illuminated these connections.

More recently, my understanding has been deepened by reading Don S. Browning and Francis Schussler Fiorenza's excellent anthology "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology," which I discovered through reading Sarah Shortall's "Soldiers of God in a Secular World: Catholic Theology and Twentieth-Century French Politics". This collection offers an extensive examination of the connection between Habermas's ideas and religious discourse, emphasizing the significance of his work for current theological discussions, which I will expand upon further below.

Wilber’s Religious Liberation vs Habermas Social Emancipation

In "Up From Eden," Ken Wilber presents a transpersonal view of human evolution, tracing the development of human consciousness from primitive states to higher levels of awareness. Wilber's work emphasizes the dialectic of progress, where each stage of evolution solves previous problems but introduces new ones. He discusses the concept of differentiation versus dissociation, where healthy differentiation leads to integration, while dissociation leads to pathology. Wilber also explores the idea of transcendence versus repression, where true transcendence involves integrating lower stages, and repression leads to denial and distortion.

In "A Sociable God," Wilber presents a spectrum of consciousness theory that spans individual and cultural development as an evolutionary continuum, integrating sociology with various strands of psychology and religion. He evaluates cultural and religious movements from an individual egocentric level to a planetary scale, differentiating between dangerous cults and authentic forms of spiritual paths and development, paralleling the work of Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor on various levels. Wilber's integral approach emphasizes methodological pluralism and radical inclusiveness, integrating all factors of modern and postmodern religious thought.

In contrast, Habermas's theory of communicative action focuses on the role of language and interaction in mediating autonomy and responsibility. Habermas critiques older forms of critical theory for being somewhat limited and emphasizes the need for a more developmental and transformative approach based on learning and praxis. His theory of communicative action posits that interaction mediated through language leads to the development of greater cognitive, interactive, and moral abilities, fostering individual freedom and universal solidarity.

Habermas's engagement with religion is also nuanced, as he acknowledges the role of religion in providing a social bond and normative consensus, while also critiquing the rationalization and modernization processes that lead to the dissolution of sacred authority. Habermas's position is that communicative reason can coexist with religion, promoting a tolerant coexistence without suppressing historical negativity.

While Wilber's work focuses on integrating psychology and religious experiences through a spectrum of consciousness, Habermas's approach emphasizes the importance of communicative action and language in promoting autonomy, responsibility, and universal solidarity. Both thinkers provide valuable perspectives on the relationship between human development, religion, and social theory, offering complementary insights into the challenges and opportunities facing contemporary society.

Reflections on "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology"

The anthology "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology," edited by Don S. Browning and Francis Schussler Fiorenza, provides a comprehensive exploration of the intersection between Habermas's critical theory and public theology. The collection of essays delves into the relevance of Habermas's thought for contemporary theological debates, emphasizing the importance of dialogue between theology and critical social theory.

Key essays in the anthology include David Tracy's examination of the public realm and rationality, Helmut Peukert's discussion on the unfinished projects of critical theory and theology, and Francis Schussler Fiorenza's exploration of political theology and discourse ethics. Other notable contributions include Matthew Lamb's analysis of communicative praxis, Fred Dallmayr's focus on reconciliation, and Charles Davis's reflections on pluralism and the interior self.

Fred Dallmayr critiques Habermas for being overly procedural and formalistic, neglecting the substantive ethical and cultural dimensions crucial for genuine dialogue and understanding. He also highlights the performative contradictions in Habermas's critique of enlightenment and modernity, arguing that Habermas's approach often stirs up contradictions without providing a theoretical resolution. Dallmayr's critique emphasizes the need for a more integrative approach that accounts for the ethical and cultural dimensions of human life.

Charles Davis, on the other hand, critiques Habermas for contributing to the secularization of theology and viewing faith as a human construct rather than something based on divine revelation. Davis argues that Habermas's approach overlooks the spiritual and transcendent dimensions of human existence, which are essential for a comprehensive understanding of faith and society. He also discusses the concept of the interior self and its relationship with God in inward solitude, critiquing Habermas's distinction between the public and private spheres.

Overall, "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology" provides a deep and complex analysis of how Habermas's critical theory and public theology interact, offering valuable contributions to current theological and philosophical discussions. I was particularly drawn to the text because of Fred Dallmayr and Charles Davis's contributions and debates with Habermas, as my own theories on integral facticity, enactive fallibilism, and integral humanism are inspired by many aspects of their work and thought.

The Future of Integral Facticity, Enactive Fallibilism, & Integral Humanism

Reflecting on the insights from "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology" and my own work on integral facticity and enactive fallibilism, I am reminded of the importance of ongoing dialogue and engagement with diverse intellectual traditions. The convergence of ideas from thinkers like Habermas, Wilber, Maritain, Nussbaum, Dallmayr, and Bernstein has profoundly shaped my understanding of human knowledge and action.

Integral facticity emerged as a response to the limitations of both objectivism and relativism. Drawing on Bernstein’s critique of the Cartesian legacy, Wilber’s integral framework, and Maritain’s integral humanism, integral facticity posits that human knowledge and action are always situated within a complex web of interrelated factors. This concept emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the contextual and contingent nature of our understanding, while also recognizing the possibility of objective insights.

Enactive fallibilism builds on the insights of integral facticity to propose a more dynamic and process-oriented understanding of human knowledge. Inspired by Bernstein’s engagement with the hermeneutic tradition, Habermas’s emphasis on the enactive and action nature of human experience, and Maritain’s integral humanism, enactive fallibilism posits that our understanding is always provisional and subject to revision. This concept emphasizes the active and participatory nature of human knowledge, highlighting the ways in which our understanding is shaped by our interactions with the world and with others.

In addition to what has already been stated, my current perspective on integral humanism not only seeks to find a balance between the religious and contemplative elements of human existence but also actively integrates insights from a wider range of disciplines and traditions than Maritain initially envisioned. While Maritain's work was groundbreaking, I believe that the ever-evolving nature of human knowledge and understanding necessitates a more expansive approach. By drawing from diverse fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and new developments in cognitive science, we can develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of what it means to be human.

Building upon Maritain's foundation and incorporating Wilber, Dallmayr, Davis, and Habermas’s valuable insights, my approach emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all aspects of life and knowledge. It recognizes that the human experience is multifaceted and cannot be fully understood through a single lens or perspective. Furthermore, it acknowledges the importance of continuous dialogue and engagement across disciplines and traditions, fostering a spirit of open inquiry and collaboration. It recognizes that knowledge is not static or fixed, but rather a dynamic and evolving process that is shaped by our experiences, interactions, and reflections. Through ongoing dialogue and engagement with diverse perspectives and ideas, we can continue to grow and develop both individually and collectively, expanding our understanding of ourselves, and our place in the cosmos through divine revelation and contemplative dimensions offered by all the great religious traditions of the world.

Conclusion

My reflections on Habermas and public theology are driven by a desire to reconcile the seemingly disparate poles of objectivism and relativism. The insights gleaned from "Habermas, Modernity & Public Theology," complemented by the critical perspectives of scholars like Fred Dallmayr and Charles Davis, underscore the necessity of a more comprehensive approach—one that seamlessly integrates the ethical, cultural, and theological facets of human existence.

As I delve deeper into these interconnected themes, my commitment to fostering a more integrative and dynamic approach to theology and social theory continues to be strengthened. This approach recognizes the inherent interconnectedness of the various dimensions of life and knowledge, resisting the fragmentation and compartmentalization that often plague intellectual discourse.

Through sustained dialogue and engagement with diverse perspectives, I hope to contribute to a richer and more nuanced understanding of human development and social progress. This entails moving beyond reductionist models that isolate particular aspects of human experience and embracing a more comprehensive framework that acknowledges the complex interplay of individual and collective, material and spiritual, rational and affective dimensions.

In essence, my aim is to promote an inclusive and integral vision of human flourishing that honors both the universal and the particular, the objective and the subjective, the transcendent and the immanent. This vision recognizes that human beings are not merely rational actors seeking to maximize their self-interest, but also spiritual beings yearning for meaning, connection, and transcendence.

By integrating insights from diverse fields of inquiry, including theology, philosophy, social theory, and the human sciences, I believe that we can develop a more robust and life-affirming vision of human society—a society that upholds the dignity of every person, fosters genuine solidarity, and promotes the common good.