Abstract

How should we read Jürgen Habermas, and is it possible to defend a nonfoundationalist conception of communicative reason? In “‘No-Saying’ in Habermas,” Stephen K. White and Evan Robert Farr read Habermas’s writings on civil disobedience through the idea of no-saying, which they believe to be “just as primordial” as consensus or yes-saying in Habermas’s theory of communicative reason. By underlining this otherwise underdeveloped aspect of no-saying in Habermas’s work, White and Farr believe that it is possible to avoid an unwarranted emphasis on consensus and to salvage a non-foundationalist conception of communicative reason. In developing their argument, White and Farr use my deconstructive reading of Habermas’s writings on civil disobedience as a point of contrast, and this gives me the opportunity to clarify the strategy of the deconstructive reading and the differences over foundationalism that divide my deconstructive approach from White and Farr’s reconstruction of Habermas’s communicative paradigm. I argue (1) that they misconceive the relationship between the deconstruction and the deconstructed text and (2) that they end up defending a view of communicative voice too uncritical of what it means to have a voice