Kneading Dough, Consensus, and a “Complete Brain”: Remembering Habermas and Revisiting Deliberative Democracy

By Geoffrey Chen

最近，在当代最重要的哲学家之一尤尔根·哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）逝世的消息后，我与多伦多大学的张军教授有一些交流。我们谈及了这位思想巨擎的政治哲学遗产，以及他的理论在当下这个充满撕裂与极化的时代中，究竟还有怎样的回音。

在讨论中，我向张教授分享了自己对哈贝马斯核心思想的一种个人化理解。这段话虽然带着浓厚的世俗烟火气，甚至略显悲观，但它确实反映了我对当下西方民主、尤其是美国政治现实的一些观察：

“我的观点非常简单，我基本上赞同哈贝马斯的核心思想。（当然我所赞同的他的核心思想只是我对他的思想的一种理解，不一定是他思想本来想表达的意思。）还是用蒸馒头这个比喻，川普政府就是一个面没有揉好没有充分和好、蒸出来的软硬不均酸甜不均的馒头。这个和面的揉面的过程就是一个各方对话讨论的过程。如果美国的民主只剩下的投票，那就失去了三权制衡的灵魂。纯粹的价值执念，与过分强调纯粹的理性构建，这两种倾向需要协商讨论并形成共识。不能只看谁的票数多，看谁占上风。虽然每人一票，但是不是每个人都有一个完整的脑袋。”

事后回味这段发言，我发现它在某种程度上，可以作为哈贝马斯“协商民主”（Deliberative Democracy）与“交往理性”（Communicative Rationality）的一种通俗化探讨，同时也折射出理论探讨与现实政治之间的张力。

“揉面”的启示：对话与讨论的不可替代性

我将各方政治力量与民众对话的过程比作“揉面”，这其实恰好契合了哈贝马斯交往行动理论在政治领域的核心关切。哈贝马斯强调，民主的合法性不应仅仅来源于单纯的权威，或者不同利益集团之间冷冰冰的博弈与清算，而是来源于公共领域中自由、平等的公民之间进行的理性探讨过程。

如果跳过充分的“揉面”——即缺乏广泛、深入、理性的公共辩论——直接把面团塞进名为“大选”的蒸笼里，那么蒸出来的社会形态必然是“软硬不均、酸甜不均”的。正如我们在近年来美国政治中看到的，社会的撕裂感、政策的极端化，很大程度上是因为失去了前置的协商，导致不同群体之间再难相互理解。

警惕“唯选票论”：民主灵魂的失落

我在交流中提到：“如果美国的民主只剩下的投票，那就失去了三权制衡的灵魂……不能只看谁的票数多，看谁占上风。”这一观点与哈贝马斯对单纯“票决民主”的批判有相通之处。

哈贝马斯反对将民主简化为单纯的“偏好聚合”（即将选民的意愿像算账一样加总，单纯以票数决胜）。他认为，如果没有理性的公共讨论作为前提，投票容易沦为一种盲目的数字游戏。真正的民主需要“先协商，后投票”。无论是基于极端保守主义的“纯粹价值执念”，还是基于精英主义的“纯粹理性构建”，都不能单方面强加于社会，而是必须进入公共领域，通过非强制的论证力量来寻求妥协与共识。

理想与现实的裂痕：“完整的脑袋”之问

然而，我的发言在最后一句走向了与哈贝马斯理论预设的微妙背离，这或许也是当代许多政治观察者共同的困惑：“虽然每人一票，但是不是每个人都有一个完整的脑袋。”

哈贝马斯的理论宏厦建立在一个极具理想主义色彩的基石之上——“理想的言谈情境”（Ideal Speech Situation）。他预设了公民原则上具备参与理性交往、克服个人偏见的能力。他更倾向于去批判和改善被资本、媒体和权力扭曲的沟通结构。

但在现实面前，尤其是在社交媒体算法盛行、情绪化表达泛滥的今天，作为个体的选民是否都能随时保持独立思考与理性审思的能力？我的那句略带悲观的断言，其实指向了协商民主在落地时遭遇的现实困境：当参与“揉面”的过程被非理性情绪裹挟时，基于理性的共识还能否达成？

哈贝马斯虽然离开了，但他留下的问题却比以往任何时候都更加紧迫。用“蒸馒头”来比喻复杂的政治运作过程，或许不够严谨，但它真切地反映了对良善治理的渴望。在这样一个选票往往容易被情绪左右的时代，重温哈贝马斯对“协商与共识”的执着，不仅是对这位思想家的缅怀，更是我们在政治极化的语境下，试图重新寻找公共理性的一次努力。

Recently, upon hearing the news of the passing of Jürgen Habermas, one of the most important contemporary philosophers, I had a conversation with a geography and history professor from the University of Toronto. We discussed this intellectual giant’s political philosophy legacy and how his theories resonate in our current era, which is fraught with division and polarization.

During our discussion, I shared my personal interpretation of Habermas’s core ideas. While my remarks carried a strong sense of everyday realism and even a touch of pessimism, they genuinely reflected my observations on contemporary Western democracy, particularly the political reality in the United States:

“My point is quite simple: I fundamentally agree with Habermas’s core ideas. (Of course, the core ideas I agree with are merely my understanding of his philosophy, which might not be exactly what his philosophy itself intended to express.) Using the metaphor of steaming buns (mantou), the Trump administration is like a bun made from dough that wasn’t kneaded well or thoroughly mixed—resulting in a bun that is unevenly hard and soft, unevenly sour and sweet when steamed. This process of mixing and kneading the dough is akin to the process of dialogue and discussion among all parties. If American democracy is reduced solely to voting, it loses the soul of its checks and balances. The pure obsession with values and the overemphasis on pure rational construction—these two tendencies require deliberative discussion to form a consensus. We cannot simply look at who has more votes or who gains the upper hand. Although it is one person, one vote, not everyone has a ‘complete brain’.”

Reflecting on these remarks afterward, I realized that, to some extent, they serve as an accessible exploration of Habermas’s concepts of “Deliberative Democracy” and “Communicative Rationality,” while also reflecting the tension between theoretical exploration and real-world politics.

The Revelation of “Kneading Dough”: The Irreplaceability of Dialogue and Discussion

Comparing the process of dialogue among various political forces and the public to “kneading dough” actually aligns perfectly with the core concern of Habermas’s theory of communicative action in the political sphere. Habermas emphasized that the legitimacy of democracy should not stem merely from sheer authority, or from the cold calculations and zero-sum games between different interest groups, but rather from the process of rational deliberation among free and equal citizens in the public sphere.

If we skip the thorough “kneading”—that is, if we lack broad, in-depth, and rational public debate—and directly stuff the dough into the steamer called a “general election,” the resulting social form is bound to be “uneven in texture and taste.” As we have seen in American politics in recent years, the sense of social tearing and policy polarization are largely due to the loss of this prerequisite deliberation, making it increasingly difficult for different groups to understand each other.

Beware of “Vote-Centrism”: The Lost Soul of Democracy

In our exchange, I mentioned: “If American democracy is reduced solely to voting, it loses the soul of its checks and balances… We cannot simply look at who has more votes or who gains the upper hand.” This perspective shares common ground with Habermas’s critique of purely “aggregative democracy.”

Habermas opposed reducing democracy to mere “preference aggregation” (tallying voters’ desires like an accounting exercise, where sheer numbers dictate the winner). He argued that without rational public discussion as a prerequisite, voting easily degenerates into a blind numbers game. True democracy requires “deliberation before voting.” Neither the “pure obsession with values” based on extreme conservatism nor the “pure rational construction” based on elitism can be unilaterally imposed upon society; they must enter the public sphere to seek compromise and consensus through the unforced force of the better argument.

The Rift Between Ideal and Reality: The Question of a “Complete Brain”

However, the final sentence of my remarks veered into a subtle departure from Habermas’s theoretical premises—a perplexity perhaps shared by many contemporary political observers: “Although it is one person, one vote, not everyone has a ‘complete brain’.”

The grand edifice of Habermas’s theory is built upon a highly idealistic cornerstone: the “Ideal Speech Situation.” He presupposed that citizens inherently possess the capacity to participate in rational communication and overcome personal biases. He was more inclined to critique and improve the communication structures distorted by capital, media, and power.

Yet, faced with reality—especially today, when social media algorithms prevail and emotional expressions run rampant—can individual voters truly maintain the ability for independent thought and rational deliberation at all times? My somewhat pessimistic assertion actually points to the practical dilemma deliberative democracy faces upon implementation: when the process of “kneading the dough” is hijacked by irrational emotions, can consensus based on rationality still be achieved?

Conclusion

Although Habermas has passed away, the questions he left behind are more pressing than ever. Using “steamed buns” as a metaphor for complex political operations might lack strict academic rigor, but it genuinely reflects a yearning for good governance. In an era where votes are so easily swayed by emotion, revisiting Habermas’s steadfast commitment to “deliberation and consensus” is not merely a memorial to this great thinker; it is our endeavor to rediscover public rationality amidst the context of political polarization.