A Critique of Habermas' Theory of Practical Rationality

260

DISCUSSION

even if every citizen earned a Ph.D. in social science, the fact remains that different social theories and models propose different descriptions of facts and envision different forms of consequences for political alternatives. (2) Even if we assume that intellectuals, in an ideal speech situation, would present alternative policies, and their related facts, to the public in order to create an enlightened citizenry, there is no reason to think that those citizens will reach political consensus. First of all, intellec- tuals themselves hold contradictory ideas and assumptions, and their conflict of attitude will probably increase as the complexity of society increases. Second, Habermas overlooks the question of interests in political choice. Certainly conflicts of interest create differential voting and preferences even when there is consensus on factual statements. Habermasian rational subjects are purely transcendental subjects who vote not on the basis of their concrete conflicts and interests but solely for aesthetical-altruistic reasons. Third, Habermas overlooks the specific interests of intellectuals in maintaining their distance from laymen. Intellectuals may be institutionally interested in free speech and debate within the scientific community, but they are also interested in keeping their complex, and sometimes esoteric, form of discourse and vocabulary beyond the comprehension of the public. Such an institu- tional interest implies that intellectuals may not adequately fulfill their task of mediating between the public and sociological knowledgeY Fourth, there is no doubt that intellectuals who believe in different theoretical paradigms are rarely involved in debate and commtmication with each other. Actually there are not many radical or conservative theorists who do not find discourse on politics with opposing groups futile. This distorted communication is partly due to conflicting under- lying assumptions and partly due to non-rational influences. In concrete reality the question of political discourse has much to do with rhetoric and persuasion. To assume a public that is armed against rhetoric is again another projection of naive idealism onto the arena of social reality. Finally, Habermas' theory of practical rationality may be claimed to suffer from internal inconsistency. If voting in the context of free communication is the sole defining criterion of the rationality of ends, interest in maintaining free communication should also be an inherently