Continental Philosophy Review

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 35–50 | Cite as

Unconscious reasons: Habermas, Foucault, and psychoanalysis

  • A. Özgür GürsoyEmail author


The Habermas–Foucault debate, despite the excellent commentary it has generated, has the standing of an ‘unfinished project’ precisely because it occasions the interrogation of the fundamental categories of modernity, and because the lingering sense of anxiety, which continues to remain after arguments and counter-arguments, demands new interpretations. Here, I advance the claim that what gives Habermas’s criticisms of Foucault’s histories and theoretical formulations their bite is the categorial distinction he maintains between facts and rights, and by extension, between causes and reasons. The Kantian distinction between de jure (in principle) validity and de facto (factual) effectivity underwrites the categorial distinction between both ‘norms/facts’ and ‘reasons/causes’ conceptual pairs, which distinction, in turn, is reinforced by a picture of the natural world as matter in motion and human agency as self-determination. I want to claim that Foucault’s work enacts a critique of Habermas not by evading the problem of justification but by undermining the very distinctions Habermas needs to maintain the universal and necessary status of communicative rationality. Drawing on Jonathan Lear’s discussion of reasons and causes in relation to the unconscious, I claim that psychoanalytic discourse helps us make intelligible a type of reflection—such as one finds in Foucault’s historiography—that is at once “critical and empirical.” Moreover, the realization that the distinction between causes and reasons may not be categorial and exhaustive shows how Habermas’s insistence on the contrary leads to one particular kind of misrecognition of our practices.


Habermas Foucault Psychoanalysis Communicative rationality Genealogy 


  1. Allen, Amy. 2007. The politics of our selves: Power, autonomy, and gender in contemporary critical theory, 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, Amy. 2012. The unforced force of the better argument: Reason and power in Habermas’ Political theory. Constellations 19(3): 353–368. Scholar
  3. Butler, Judith. 1997. The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection, 1st ed. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Finlayson, James Gordon. 2000. Modernity and morality in Habermas’s discourse ethics. Inquiry 43(3): 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flynn, Thomas R. 2016. Foucault on experiences and the historical a priori: With Husserl in the rearview mirror of history. Continental Philosophy Review 49(1): 55–65. Scholar
  6. Foucault, Michel. 1984. The foucault reader. Pantheon: Reprint.Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, Michel. 2001. Order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences, 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, Michel. 2009. History of madness, 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, Jürgen. 1985a. The theory of communicative action, volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, Jürgen. 1985b. The theory of communicative action, volume 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, Jürgen. 2001. Moral consciousness and communicative action: Moral conciousness and communicative action. Translated by Christian Lenhardt. Reprint edition. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, Jürgen. 1972. Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Han, Béatrice. 2002. Foucault’s critical project: Between the transcendental and the historical. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Huffer, Lynne. 2009. Mad for foucault: Rethinking the foundations of queer theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lear, Jonathan. 2005. Freud. Boston: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oksala, Johanna. 2005. Foucault on Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pippin, Robert B. 1989. Hegel's idealism. The satisfactions of self-consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rockhill, Gabriel. 2016. Interventions in contemporary thought: History, politics, aesthetics, 1st ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tully, James. 1999. To think and act differently: Foucault’s four reciprocal objections to Habermas’ theory. In Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the dialogue between genealogy and critical theory, ed. Samantha Ashenden and David Owen. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Whitebook, Joel. 1996. Perversion and utopia: A study in psychoanalysis and critical theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Izmir University of EconomicsIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations