In this paper, I intend to appropriate the explanatory power of some of Habermas' recent ideas (such as complementary learning processes, modernization of faith, tolerance, and non-violence) for the purpose of examining the current political situation in Iran. I would like to argue that the recent history of Iran has offered an occasion for a development away from a dogmatic religious consciousness and toward a more tolerant one. I submit that these opposing modes of thought are, respectively, represented by the (...) hardliners in power and the reformists in opposition. The current impasse, I argue, is the result of an asymmetrical learning process, where the conservative camp has not evolved along with the reformers. I submit that the way out of the impasse is a fully fledged non-violent movement of civil disobedience by the opposition. The politics of non-violence engagement can be realized by fostering a culture of tolerance as the acceptance of reasonable disagreements and the rejection of violent means in politics. I argue that such a movement has begun to emerge after the June 12 2009 presidential election in the form of the Green Hope Movement. (shrink)

The article shows that Habermas’s modernism and Lyotard’s postmodernism are not as antithetical as they are often taken to be. First, we argue that Habermas is not a strong foundationalist concerned with identifying universal rules for language, as postmodern critiques have often interpreted him. Instead, he develops a social pragmatics in which the communicative use of language is the fundamental presupposition of any meaningful interaction. Second, we argue that Lyotard is not a relativist who denies any universal linguistic structure. Instead, (...) he claims that language involves a universal element of dissensus that cannot be subordinated to consensus. Third, we show that neither does Habermas defend a new version of the kind of philosophy of history characteristic of the Enlightenment, nor is Lyotard a historical relativist, but instead they both seek alternatives to these positions. The conclusion calls for more nuance in the interpretation of both perspectives. (shrink)

The start of the 21st century has seen the very concept of the political become devalued, and the body-politic has become a casualty of the nihilism and neurosis afflicting western cultures. Kristeva’s call for the rehabilitation of public life, of the political, and for the rethinking of freedom, it seems, comes at the right time. Her proposed politics of revolt and Rancière’s radically democratic politics of the no-part are valuable attempts to effect such a rehabilitation. By turning to these two (...) figures and placing them in dialogue we can gain a renewed appreciation for what democracy ought to be and begin to conceptualize and re-envision what a healthy, optimally-functioning democratic body-politic looks like. Kristeva’s proposed rehabilitation of public life, particularly when viewed alongside Rancière’s, lands her squarely in the company of other theorists who propose a politics of radical democracy to solve the current political problematic. Her conception of a ‘democracy of the multiple’ challenges the current pluralistic democracies in place today. (shrink)