Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Is the fact that the subtitle of TNR’s endorsement of Obama is a less-than-super-well-known Pulp Fiction reference mean that Chris Orr wrote it?

Also, this would be a good time to talk about Habermas. What he said wasn’t really that interesting, and really, no one was there for the content of his lecture. He talked about what seemingly all political theorists have talked about since Political Liberalism - namely, how we can include people with comprehensive religious worldviews in the public sphere (with a little of Charles Taylor-esque talk about Secularization and Secularism thrown in). Habermas’ main point, as much as I could understand it through his heavily accented English, was that it’s incumbent on secular folks to communicate with religious and to figure out some sort of discourse or method-of-translation that allows us to do that.  That’s because, despite the public sphere and culture becoming thoroughly secularized, there has been a resurgence of religious – and fundamentalist – participation in the public sphere (Islamists, fundamentalist Christians in America, Hindus in India etc). Therefore, we secular types are going to have to cope, instead of simply fulminating about the irrationality of secular worldviews.

Of course, there’s nothing that revolutionary about what he said. This is pretty stock political theory stuff, and it’s the kind of thing that’s going to be hashed out in a repetitive way until someone like Rawls comes along and redefines the terms of the debate.

The interesting part of the lecture was the reception to Habermas himself. Habermas has been a “permanent visiting professor” at NU for about six years or so, which basically means that he would teach for one quarter a year and then NU could claim him as a faculty member. Due to his visibly declining health, he was giving up the teaching, and was going to give what is likely his last lecture in Evanston. “I just wanted to see him before he dies” was a common refrain among the attendees.

Not surprisingly, the original room they scheduled for the talk was absolutely packed with grad students and faculty members who wanted to catch a last glimpse of the man – that and be able to brag to their friends that they had seen Habermas lecture. So they moved to a bigger room, and after an incredibly kind introduction, he began to speak.

I’ll be indulging in pointless cliché if I were to point out just how unimpressive most academics – even the celebrity ones – appear in person. As opposed to becoming any other type of celebrity, academics can attain the status without having the personal magnetism or drive for self-promotion that is a prerequisite for most other types of sustained fame. Sure, there are some academics who strive to become popular celebrities (Richard Dawkins is a good example), but Habermas certainly isn’t that. Outside of the academic and highly-educated world, hardly anyone knows who this unassuming, elderly German is. And unassuming and German is exactly what he is. He moved slowly with difficulty, managed to make a perfectly respectable coat and tie look schlumpy, and of course, spoke with an accent.

The hypothetical alien visiting earth – or a student who walked into the wrong classroom – would probably wonder why so many people were held in such rapt attention, hanging on this old man’s every movement, let alone word. And the visitor would have reason to be confused. Not only is English not his first tongue, but his old age was clearly taking a toll on his ability to communicate. He was just hard to understand. I’d say for the first ten minutes, all but the most committed grad students who could speak German were at a loss for what was going on. Sure, you could hear “secular” “modernity” “transformation” “religion” “sociology” “rationality” “dialectic,” but actually following a real argument was difficult. But still, everyone was doing their best to hang on to every word he uttered.

But once he started talking and got into the flow of his lecture, even the ignorant observer could realize exactly why so many were there to see him. His extreme intelligence was able to break through his accented speech and halting enunciation. This is a man who’s forgotten more social theory and philosophy than most could ever hope to learn; who has made substantial, paradigm shifting contributions to several fields and has been doing so since the early 1960s – and it showed. The best moments were those when he diverged from his prepared text and stepped away from the lectern slightly. He would then start excitedly using his hands to further his point. He would inevitably toss off insightful points and anticipate all the major objections to what he just said.  The performative aspect of his talk- as opposed to the content – is probably what most of us will remember. Did I learn anything substantial about what he was talking about? No. But will I be able to tell my friends and, one day, kids, that I saw Habermas talk? Yes.