Drew's Cannabis Information Site - Habermas and Cannabis

Click on the logo to return to the main menu.

by Drew

The following document describes a way of thinking about the cannabis legalisation question via the political theories of the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Already, legions of hardy potheads are reaching for their "back" buttons. I admit this doesn't sound very promising on the surface, but bear with me.... The most obvious question is, "why?" Well, the point I'm trying to make is that simply by pushing for legalisation, especially via the "medical marihuana" route, is not necessarily going to lead to the freedom to smoke what we want. This probably seems dreadfully paradoxical, but.... well, you'll just have to read it won't you?

I've tried to make the ideas as simply expressed, the text as short, and the language as easy as I can. I've also deliberately omitted footnotes. This isn't meant to be an academic work. At the end are some references for the interested. Even having said all that, this might be pretty heavy going for some people. If you'd like to cut to the chase - in other words, read my predictions regarding governmental and corporate control of legalised cannabis - then CLICK HERE. Reading that first should clear up the more difficult arguments that lead up to it, which you can read later. It does take us a little while to get to cannabis, but we do get there eventually - honestly. Hope you enjoy it, whether you agree with me or not.

One more thing. As I've said elsewhere on this website, I'm not a fan of copyright. What I do believe in is citation and acknowledgement. If you want to quote or use any of this stuff elsewhere, feel free - as long as you fully acknowledge the source. As far as I'm concerned, as long as this is done, there is no copyright on this. If it IS used unacknowledged, you'll be hearing from me. It's not much to ask.

Click here to return to the main menu.

Jurgen Habermas was born in 1929 in Germany. Having seen the horrors of Nazism in World War 2, he entered academia and became a "second-generation" member of the circle of political philosophers known as the Frankfurt School. Other members of this circle included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. The Frankfurt School originated in studies of Marxism, but this doesn't make them Communists by a long chalk. Rather, they were interested in why Communism, as practiced by the Soviet Union before WWII, had failed to bring about the freedom from capitalism, consumerism, alienation, environmental crisis and so on that it was supposed to. Indeed, Communism had merely replaced capitalism with something far more dominating, repressive and controlling.

The Frankfurt School, over several decades' work in Germany and the USA (to where they fled in the 1930s to escape Nazi persecution), developed the idea that, basically, Marx was being too simplistic when he described how the upper levels of society (the bourgeoisie) dominated the lower proletariat through their control of capital (factories, stocks, resources, and the whole business of wage labour). Marx believed that a worker-led revolution, and the establishment of a society in which this capital was communally owned (hence the term communism), would lead to the freedom of the proletariat. But of course, the Soviet Union, the first society that had engaged in such a revolution and that claimed to follow Marx's principles, was very far from a free society. Instead, the domination of capitalism had merely been replaced by the domination of the communist state. Why had this happened?

Horkheimer and Adorno believed that the answers lay in the way we think about the world around us. In their book, The Dialectic of the Enlightenment, they described how science and scientific principles superseded religion as our chief way of explaining what we saw around us. Science was based on the principles that arose from the science of Sir Isaac Newton; that the world, indeed, the whole universe was basically a giant machine, and that if we knew all the rules by which it worked, we would be able to change it and control it in order to do our bidding. As science acquired for itself all the trappings of a religion, in that people who questioned the findings of science were seen as dangerous heretics, our whole society became more and more based on principles of control - not just of the natural world, but of the social world. These principles were made real in the operations of the institutions of modern society; the state, and the economy and corporations. Communism hadn't changed this basic foundation of society - it was just as keen on control and manipulation of society as capitalism (indeed, more so). This principle - that the world can be manipulated and engineered in order to reach desired goals - was termed instrumental reason.

Capitalism still controlled us, however, just in more subtle ways. This was the point made by Herbert Marcuse in his book One-Dimensional Man. Marcuse reckoned that the "consumer society" was just as totalitarian as the communist society, in that it is very, very difficult to be a "dissident", anti-consumer. From birth we are trained in the ways of consumerism, until by our maturity we are fully incorporated into it. No-one was going to revolt against it, because they are kept placid by their consumer durables; new hi-fi sets, kitchens, and so on.

Patience, we're getting there.

Believe me, I've been accused of it before. Anyway, if it's any consolation, we've reached Habermas now, at least.

The trouble with the ideas of Horkheimer and Adorno was that whilst they provided a very good criticism of the existing society, they weren't very good at letting anybody know what they could do about it. Their principles of control, and Marcuse's "totalitarian" consumer society, were so totalitarian that we might as well all give up now, basically. There is nothing to be done. They didn't have any decent way of explaining the uprisings that did occur; amongst which, of course, were the countercultures of the 1960s, many of which used drugs at least partly as a form of protest. Where had these countercultures come from? How come these people hadn't been completely brainwashed by the modern world?

Habermas suggested that Horkheimer and Adorno were too restrictive in their use of the principle of instrumental reason. He believed that another form of reason existed in the world - that of communicative reason. Communicative reason wasn't geared up towards reaching pre-conceived goals as quickly and efficiently as possible, unlike instrumental reason. Rather, communicative reason was geared up towards increasing understanding between people and spreading values, norms, and other non-instrumental considerations.

Sorry. OK, here's an example that might help. If you listen to your average economist, they would have us believe that all we think about, as human beings, is how we can maximise our income and do things as profitably and efficiently as possible. Well, I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Economics is classic instrumental reason in that it tries to reduce complex human behaviour to simple numerical calculations, i.e., monetary calculations. But however much this might make economists squirm, life is much more than that. For instance; you have a journey to make. Certainly, amongst the things you think about are how to get there as quickly as possible for as little money as possible. This is an instrumentally-rational, economic calculation. But that's not all you think about. It might be a beautiful day, well worth spending an extra half-hour making the journey on foot - that's an aesthetic consideration. The journey might lie along a road that you hate, or you feel guilty about taking the car half-a-mile even if it is quicker, so you walk. That's a personal value judgment. Finally, there might be other people who want to use the car and you come to an arrangement as to who gets it today. That's communication. None of these are expressible as economic calculations. (Note that economics is still quite keen on trying to express such things numerically. This is what Habermas calls "colonisation", which is part of the whole point of this little essay. See below.)

Now values and aesthetics, when applied to things in life generally, are personal decisions. We have to accept that what we like is not necessarily the same as what someone else likes. If our interests clash, there are basically two ways of proceeding. One is to force ourselves on our opponent, either by physical force, or by using money or power to defeat our opponent. Or, we could get together and talk about it and come to an agreement that both parties agree to. The first is instrumental action - the second, communicative action.

We've already seen how instrumental rationality is made real in the institutions of the government and the economy. These institutions use instrumental action - the use of money, force, power, legal coercion, etc. - to effectively reach their desired goals. Habermas calls the government and economy together the system. But there is a counterpart to the system (and this is what Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse didn't really see), which in theory is equally powerful - the lifeworld, which runs according to the principles of communicative action, not instrumental action. The lifeworld is our own personal spaces, our families, our relationships with each other, mutual self-help. Rather than stressing efficiency, legal regulations, control and so on, the lifeworld stresses agreement, communication, and consensus.

Not exactly, and nor was Habermas. Rather, the world is a balance between the system and lifeworld. The two should be mutually supporting, each rooted in the other, rather like the Yin and the Yang: you need both to make a whole. What Habermas saw as the key problem with modern society, however, was the "colonisation" of the lifeworld by the institutions and principles of the system. The yang has come to dominate the yin more than is good for the world as a whole. What was once dealt with by communication, family, common values and considerations of beauty is now dealt with by laws, money, and power.

Even though you haven't asked for it yet, here's another example to make things clearer. Imagine a court for the settling of civil (not criminal) disputes. Here's what generally happens. The two disputants get together and present their cases to someone who represents the system (the judge) through third parties who also do so (lawyers). The more money and power you have, the better lawyer you can afford, and this distorts the fair process of communication. Once both parties have presented their cases to the judge, he or she decides upon a winner and loser - compromises are very infrequent. The loser just has to lump it, and if they do not follow the ruling, the legal sanctions on them will be increased (this is legal coercion or control). But you can imagine a more communicative approach to settling a dispute. You might still go to a courtroom, but there is no judge. There might be a panel of facilitators to make sure that either one of the disputants doesn't distort the fair process of reaching a consensus. The talks would continue until the disputants have reached an agreement suitable for both parties, and as they have agreed to it, you wouldn't need further legal sanctions afterwards. Such dispute settlement courts have operated successfully in several fields.

Well, for one thing, the colonisation of the lifeworld, according to Habermas, leads to what he calls pathologies, meaning problems or difficulties. These include alienation, a loss of freedom and a loss of meaning, and people respond to these in various ways. Amongst these are xenophobia, nationalism, withdrawal into alternative communities, and drug use.

I didn't say that's what I think. I agree with you. But the way Habermas views the world has some interesting consequences for the cannabis legalisation debate: and this is the chase to which you could have cut at the beginning.

The key point for cannabis legalisation is the idea of colonisation - and for those who haven't been through the rest of this, colonisation means the increasing control of our personal lives by government and economic institutions through money and power. Colonisation is a tricky concept because it can often seem very useful on the surface. Think about things like abortion. (Incidentally, nothing I've written below is meant to be a statement for or against abortion per se. My own views on it are not relevant to this discussion.) There are some very good things about abortion - it gives the woman freedom and choice, it means that unwanted babies aren't born, and so on. But it also gives the state a level of control over birth matters that it didn't have before. It can be used as a tool to control and manipulate populations (i.e., poorer single mothers can be controlled, through the benefits regime, and encouraged to have abortions). It also gives the economy access to the woman's body. Once you accept abortion, you also accept the principle of medical procedures taking place on babies in the womb. It's only a small step then to fertility treatments and/or the genetic engineering of babies in order that the rich parents who can afford it can have babies in the first place and give them a genetic head start in life to boot. I also believe it won't be long before laws are passed preventing a woman from freely choosing to have a baby at home, or even to have a natural birth. Power and money have entered the personal space of the mother. That's colonisation.

Now it's clear how the system currently controls our use of cannabis. Quite simply, it's illegal, and there are legal penalties to try and stop us from using it. It's an arbitrary decision. There is very little reason, at least in my opinion, why alcohol should be legal, and cannabis not. Either they both should be illegal, or they both should be legal. There are also definite medical uses for cannabis, and its continued illegality is preventing many ill people from gaining the benefits of its use.

But even though alcohol is legal, the system - state and corporation, money and power - still control and legislate its use. You need a license to sell it, and the penalties for selling it without one are strict. It is heavily taxed, allowing the government to attempt to manipulate consumption levels through the tax regime. Alcohol is also big business. The small producer can gain a foothold, but will always be in danger of being swamped by corporate activity.

Governments are coming under increasing pressure, from doctors and patients alike, to legalise the use of cannabis for medical purposes. But - and this is my key point - I believe that even if such a legalisation takes place, Habermas's idea of colonisation helps show that this WILL NOT lead inevitably to full legalisation somewhere further down the line.. The system's use of money and power and its desire for control will prevent this. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, cannabis is simply not efficient enough in its raw state. By that I do not mean that it is not good at its job (and I mean here things like nausea prevention in cancer patients, not getting you monged off your face). But instrumental reason likes things to be easily categorisable, measurable, quantifiable (just like economics). Cannabis leaves or resin simply have too much going on inside them, chemically. This is what irritates the scientists about cannabis. They would rather isolate the useful bits - the bits that they know and can measure the usefulness of - and leave out the "dirty" bits, the bits that get you high, and the bits that they don't quite know what they do. The drug becomes streamlined. This is what has given us the cannabinoid; the tablet form of cannabis, such as ondansetron, the anti-nausea drug.

Now, this streamlining is something that only qualified or at least proficient pharamcologists are able to do (instrumental reason is very big on qualifications - that way, you can exclude the riff-raff). It also takes money to pay for the research and the equipment and the chemists. It's obviously strongly biased against the casual user or grower, who is far less able to process his home-grown weed into the medically-acceptable version. And also, once you bring in the pharmaceutical companies into the picture, you bring in the spectre of the patent. If the genes of human beings can be patented - and they have been - why not the genes of the cannabis plant? Once the legality of cannabis for medical use only is accepted, then I believe certain derivations of it will be patented. These patents will become tools of control.

We've all heard stories of how corporations have already copyrighted certain brand names - Acapulco Gold, Marley and so on - preparing for the time if full legalisation occurs and they can mass-produce cannabis cigarettes for the open market. It might seem like a joke. It isn't. This is colonisation par excellence. The same restrictions will be clamped upon cannabis as on alcohol, except I believe that they will be even more strong, and heavily loaded against the home-grower. Licenses will be rigorously checked, almost impossible to acquire (unless you can afford a good lawyer - in other words, unless you are a big commercial concern) and woe betide the person who grows and sells, on however small a scale, without one. By licensing, the government can tax and therefore control. Through patenting, the cannabis plant becomes just another resource to be exploited by the pharmaceutical companies to increase their profits, at the expense of less damaging, more natural remedies (such as the unadulterated cannabis leaf itself!).

I hope none of this comes across as paranoid. I think, if you look at the whole history of drugs policy in the 20th century, it's prefigured in what has gone before. States want to control. They don't like the idea that we are more qualified than their "experts" to determine what is best for ourselves. This is often dressed up as being "for our own good", but states aren't altruistic. Altruism is not a part of instrumental rationality, it's communicative. The communicative approach to the issue of drugs is to accept that different people have different needs. Drugs aren't good for everybody but they can be good for certain people at certain times. But that's not clear-cut, black-and-white enough for states. Like in the example of the courtroom given above, compromise on a case-by-case basis is not the way states work - it's either legal or illegal. And if it's legal, states still want to control it and business wants a part of it.

The medical world is very tightly instrumental. It's based on money, legal controls over the personal space of the patient, rigourous and systematic tests, copyright and patent, and so on. A medically free cannabis is very far from a truly free cannabis. I am not suggesting that we stop campaigning for the medical use of cannabis. But it is wrong to believe that a free cannabis will follow inevitably from a medically free cannabis. That will only come about by campaigning on human rights - the right for us to choose what we put within our bodies.

That's all I have to say. I hope I've managed to give the reader some idea of how thinking about the issue of cannabis legalisation in a certain way throws some light on the reasons why things sometimes happen the way they do. In a way I hope some of my predictions are wrong..... but I do wonder.

Nothing that Habermas has written is particularly easy to read. The basic system/lifeworld and instrumental/communicative rationality framework comes from The Theory of Communicative Action, a two-volume work published (in English) in 1984 and 1987. But this is a huge and difficult work. You could try Douglas Kellner's book, Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity for a slightly easier-to-read review of the whole of Frankfurt School philosophy, including some Habermas. Or try Jurgen Haberams: Critic in the Public Sphere by Robert C. Holub.

Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment is also very obscure. Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man is, however, a much better read, and very useful.

Fritjof Capra's The Turning Point is very good for understanding how instrumental rationality in the modern world leads to control and manipulation. He has a lot to say about the negative side to current medical and pharmaceutical science.

Click here to return to the top and read the whole of this page if you haven't already done so.

Click here to return to the main menu.