No-Saying in Habermas

Habermas's paradigm of communicative action is usually taken to be pretty much dominated by consensus, Yes-saying. What if this were a radically one-sided perception? We take up this unorthodox position by arguing that no-saying in this paradigm is typically overlooked and underemphasized. To demonstrate this, we consider how negativity is figured at the most basic onto-ethical level in communicative action, as well as expressed in civil disobedience, a phenomenon to which Habermas assigns the remarkable role of touchstone (Prufstein) of constitutional democracy. Once the importance of no-saying is drawn out, the paradigm looks distinctly less hostile to dissensus and agonism in democratic life.