The Nature of Political Theory

272 The Nature of Political Theory

is not the same as the older forms. It is definitely a new form that accommodates
itself to many of the central postmodern criticisms of foundationalist argument. It
also plays between universalism and conventionalism. In this sense, the views of
Habermas and Gadamer (particularly Gadamer) can appear, on another reading,
as anti-foundational. However, it is no surprise, at another level, that Habermas
and Gadamer are deeply critical of postmodern and poststructural ideas. Part of the
reason for the vigour of, particularly Habermas’s rebuttal of postmodernism, is that
they are also painfully aware of issues of historical contingency, questions of cultural
difference and problems within Enlightenment thought. Equally, both Gadamer and
Habermas resist a philosophy based on the subject and consciousness, one of the
targets for postmodern critics.
In short, there are some strong intellectual resonances between critical theory,
hermeneutics, and postmodernism. However, it is also important to emphasize that
neither Habermas nor Gadamer follow the postmodern or poststructural path. Yet
at the same time, it is this very intellectual nearness, which generates the negat-
ive passion against postmodernism. In fact, they both present viable alternatives to
postmodernism or poststructuralism. Another key reason for discussing these two
thinkers is that, not only are they profoundly perceptive concerning the dilemma
of late-twentieth century political and moral theory, presenting a clear and critical
alternative to postmodernism (whilst also absorbing many of the deep concerns of
postmodern theory), but they are also, interestingly, at loggerheads themselves over
certain crucial philosophical issues. The Habermas–Gadamer debate is in many ways
a very deep-rooted philosophical conflict that reveals many intellectual fissures, which
characterize the present problematic position of political theory at the beginning of
the new century.
This chapter will first provide a brief overview of the context underpinning the
work of Habermas and Gadamer. It will then review Habermas’s central ideas with
specific regard to political theory. The critique of Habermas will be delayed to the next
chapter, which initially examines Gadamer’s contribution and then the central themes
underpinning the Habermas–Gadamer debate. The linking element underpinning
these discussions is the focus on language and dialogue, as the central facets of political
theory. Although both thinkers, in my view, successfully utilize the notion of language
and dialogue to develop a new perspective on theory, it is Gadamer’s hermeneutic
theory, which with some reservations, engages with the problems facing theory in
this next century. In my reading, it is Gadamer’s development of the ‘hermeneutic
circle’, which embodies his solid achievement.

The Philosophical Context

The first point to note about the later manifestations of critical theory and
hermeneutics is that both doctrines are marked by a strong emphasis on language,
communication, and dialogue. In saying that language, communication, and dialogue
are central to the ideas of both Habermas and Gadamer, it should also be emphasized