Product Description
In his recent writings on religion and secularization, Habermas has challenged reason to clarify its relation to religious experience and to engage religions in a constructive dialogue. Given the global challenges facing humanity, nothing is more dangerous than the refusal to communicate that we encounter today in different forms of religious and ideological fundamentalism.

Habermas argues that in order to engage in this dialogue, two conditions must be met: religion must accept the authority of secular reason as the fallible results of the sciences and the universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality; and conversely, secular reason must not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith. This argument was developed in part as a reaction to the conception of the relation between faith and reason formulated by Pope Benedict XVI in his 2006 Regensburg address.

In 2007 Habermas conducted a debate, under the title ‘An Awareness of What Is Missing', with philosophers from the Jesuit School for Philosophy in Munich. This volume includes Habermas's essay, the contributions of his interlocutors and Habermas's reply to them. It will be indispensable reading for anyone who wishes to understand one of the most urgent and intractable issues of our time.

Customer Reviews (1)

an intrepid dialogue that should be required reading
... for every head of state, every spiritual leader, and the entire Jesus belt of the United States. One might consider this a companion piece to his remarkable books, The Divided West and The Inclusion of the Other. For those confounded with an obstinacy peculiar to religious fundamentalism, these texts offer compelling arguments for disarming the knee jerk defensiveness that inspires religious as well as political intolerance.
I fear Jurgen is a voice calling out in the wilderness. May it not be so. ... Read more

Product Description
Jurgen Habermas is the most renowned living German philosopher. This book aims to give a clear and readable overview of his philosophical work. It analyzes both the theoretical underpinnings of Habermas's social theory, and its more concrete applications in the fields of ethics, politics, and law. Finally, it examines how Habermas's social and political theory informs his writing on real, current political and social problems. The author explores Habermas's influence on a wide variety of fields--including philosophy, political and social theory, cultural studies, sociology, and literary studies. He uses a problem-based approach to explain how Habermas's ideas can be applied to actual social and political situations. The book also includes a glossary of technical terms to further acquaint the reader with Habermas's philosophy. Unlike other writing on Habermas, this Introduction is accessibly written and explains his intellectual framework and technical vocabulary, rather than simply adopting it. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Thanks!
It's nice of these Oxford University Press dudes to introduce me to a guy like (whatever his first name is) Habermas, because I've never heard of him.

Best Introduction to Habermas
I have been reading Habermas and books about Habermas on and off since 2000. Habermas' writings are clearly difficult, and so do most introductions to Habermas. Most introductions to Habermas follow the chronology of Habermas' work, usually starting with the work on Public Sphere through to the tome on legal theory (Between Facts and Norms). Those introductions usually succeed in portraying Habermas as a dazzling thinker of enormous breadth, and does serve the purpose of encouraging their readers to pursue serious reading of Habermas' difficult works.

Not this Introduction - this one is much better. The format of Very Short Introductions does not allow the traditional approach, and the author does an outstanding job in putting Habermas' theory and its various pieces in context. As the other reviewer mentioned, the author describes Habermas' five "research programmes" which forms an integrated whole. In one sentence, Habermas uses the pragmatic theory of meaning to develop a theory of communicative actions which forms the basis of three aspects - ethical, social and political - of his "practical" (practical as in "Critique of Practical Reasons") theories which tries to describe both the realities and normative ideals for modern (Western) societies in the late 20th centures. After summarizing the research programmes which put Habermas' huge corpus in context, the author proceeds to describe each of the programme in its highlights - in this the author successfully condenses Habermas' work into simple themes and conceptual distinctions. Given the short length of the exposition, I was very positively surprised by the author's ability to include at the end of most chapters summaries of critical views regarding Habermas' theories (e.g. the Habermas vs. Rawls debate) - and the author clearly holds a sympathetic yet objective stand in describing both sides of the arguments.

So in summary, this book is superior to most other Introductions in that:
1. The language is simpler and clearer - not burdened by Habermas' difficult writings
2. Covers Habermas' programmes in logical rather than strict chronological order - which puts different aspects of Habermas' works in context (also coverage is up to Truth and Justification, which is nearly one decade beyond the time of Between Facts and Norms)
3. Describes Habermas' breadth but also identifies the unifying concerns of Habermas as a "practical theorist"
4. Presents both the structure and key critiques to Habermas' theories - thereby allowing readers to prioritize which of Habermas' works to read after this Introduction. (Realistically, who would have time to read everything Habermas wrote?)

Bravo to the author and Oxford in publishing this good work!

Excellent - andtantalizing
Curious about Habermas, I picked up this book and am well satisfied, given that the book does not purport to be more than an introduction, really just an orientation. Finlayson writes well (much more clearly than Habermas!) and seems very knowledgeable about his subject.Of course, in 156 pages he can't get very far into Habermas's philosophy. What he does present is interesting. For example, the standard picture of society in Anglo-American economics and political philosophy is "an aggregate oflone individual reasoners, each calculating the best way of pursuing their own ends." Habermas contests this view and the related view that "human beings are essentially self-interested ..." Habermas claims that "such approaches neglect the crucial role of communication and discourse in forming social bonds between agents, and consequently have an inadequate conception of human association." He apparently works out this approach in great depth, starting from fundamental principles. And this "programme," which seeks to supplant the whole worldview we inherit from Hobbes, Locke and Adam Smith, is only one of Habermas's five "research programmes." ... Read more

Product Description
Here for the first time are Habermas's most important writings on society, the state, and social theory collected in one volume.For more than three decades Habermas has consistently attempted to supply foundations for a reconstructed Marxist social theory that provides a critical analysis of modernity.He has defended the position that only if a general notion of reason can be invoked can we hope to sustain a democratic social order.This carefully edited volume includes selections from Habermas's earliest works through his most recent: essays on the aim of social science, the structure of a theory of action and society, the development of modern society, psychoanalysis, and the crisis of the welfare state. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Habermas from a Grad Student's Perspective
A naive but inventive work, Habermas extends positivism to reaffirm democracy and provide a utopian critique of society.His writing is not always easy to understand, but his ideas are something that every pessimist should be required to read.Habermas reminds us of the importance of communication and its ability to transform our understanding.
Definitely worth picking up, though at times it's definitely worth putting down again (at least for a little). ... Read more

Product Description
Two of the worlds great contemporary thinkers--theologian and churchman Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and Jurgen Habermas, philosopher and Neo-Marxist social critic--discuss and debate aspects of secularization, and the role of reason and religion in a free society. These insightful essays are the result of a remarkable dialogue between the two men, sponsored by the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, a little over a year before Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope.

Jurgen Habermas has surprised many observers with his call for "the secular society to acquire a new understanding of religious convictions", as Florian Schuller, director of the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, describes it his foreword. Habermas discusses whether secular reason provides sufficient grounds for a democratic constitutional state. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI argues for the necessity of certain moral principles for maintaining a free state, and for the importance of genuine reason and authentic religion, rather than what he calls "pathologies of reason and religion", in order to uphold the states moral foundations. Both men insist that proponents of secular reason and religious conviction should learn from each other, even as they differ over the particular ways that mutual learning should occur.

Customer Reviews (7)

good but not enough
The Dialectics of Secularization is a well written pamphlet that gives you the basic thought behind the tension that exists between revelation(religion) and reason(secularization).It argues for an interplay between the two as the best way to enjoy the benefits of both. If you are unfamiliar with the subject, it's a start!

Excellent Considerations from Two Very Different Starting Points
Very rarely do I believe that a human dialogue approaches its subject from two very different poles.However, in the case of Habermas and Ratzinger's dialogue, one could say that the subject of their talk (on secularization's dialectic with religion) is really the form of their interaction.These two authors come from two very different starting points with regard to the state, although no dialectic is undertaken without a uniting point, even if it is the midpoint between two very extreme poles.

Habermas' speech considers the possibility of there being a weight to those precursors to the constitution.Although he reaches out toward the possibility of such, one can tell that his thought is much more centered upon the self-referential rationality from which the ongoing nature of the state springs.However, his considerations also come upon the post-modern realization self-reflection of reason upon reason, admitting that there are proto-rational foundations to rationality, at least because such exist in the liberal society and hold weight.However, one can see his markedly post-Enlightenment mentality insofar as these questions hold much more weight for him with regard to addressing the rational situation in which society "derails" itself. He leaves the question open as to where these two are placed, which seems a bit overly self-referential but also appropriate for this short consideration.

The speech given by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is perhaps a bit lighter and more open its presentation of questions for consideration.The theologian considers the relationship of the "poles" of reason and faith which forms each, making them intertwined in extra-referential dialogue which prevents pathologies in either.In addition, there is the unifying concept of "natural law" which has in many ways been rejected by the application of the scientific fact of evolution to philosophy in all forms (as well as the general development of Western relativism).Instead of offering a scholastic consideration of natural law, Ratzinger merely points toward the necessity of dialogue in which the participant parties will find those unifying points which are ultimately pre-political.In the end, his essay remains an open question regarding this mutual dialogue of faith and reason as well as general cross-cultural dialogue.

These two essays are an excellent set of "open paths" from which a variety of considerations and spring on the dialectics and dialogue in the secular world and how this process of dialogue relates to the foundational elements of the state.I highly recommend them as dense, important reflections.

Rational faith
Reading this book requires a concentrated level of attentive reading. It is a great argument for a rational approach to the adoption of any belief system. Faith without reason is blind and capricious.

Heavy Philosophy & A Call to Conscience
Undoubtedly, these authors are the gold standard in their respective arena. The first is a Kant-based neo Marxist and the latter a theologian steeped in Augustine and leader of the Catholic world.

If you are in search of a page-turner with a climatic ending, keep looking. Otherwise, this is a smartly presented text divided into a chapter for each speaker who makes their case with calculated passion. The reader without a basic foundation for philosophy may find this one a bit over the top. If not, the book is succinct and delves into man's reason and existence in contemporary times.

In the end, the book achieves its intention. If it was meant to leave the reader undecided-it failed. However, this is not the case as one cannot continue to remind ones self that one chapter reinforces a philosophy that has been tried and exhausted within a century and another that has been tested two millennia and beyond. Both make their cases on man, politics, religion and our state of the world; however, it is clear which rings with hope, love and idealism.

Debating the place of Religion in Society
Habermas and Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) are two of the greatest minds of their times. This short work is their take on the interctions of democratic culture, political liberalism, religion and God. These two separate essays are the summation of a discussion between these two men. They were written well after the conversation had taken place and so ovbiously they're a little less satisfying than if we were able to read a transcript of the conversation, or perhaps response papers written immediately thereafter. However these are still two excellent essays, written by two brilliant men, who give the reader much to ponder about the current state of modern life. ... Read more

Product Description
Two countervailing trends mark the intellectual tenor of our age the spread of naturalistic worldviews and religious orthodoxies. Advances in biogenetics, brain research, and robotics are clearing the way for the penetration of an objective scientific self-understanding of persons into everyday life. For philosophy, this trend is associated with the challenge of scientific naturalism. At the same time, we are witnessing an unexpected revitalization of religious traditions and the politicization of religious communities across the world. From a philosophical perspective, this revival of religious energies poses the challenge of a fundamentalist critique of the principles underlying the modern Wests postmetaphysical understanding of itself.
The tension between naturalism and religion is the central theme of this major new book by Jrgen Habermas. On the one hand he argues for an appropriate naturalistic understanding of cultural evolution that does justice to the normative character of the human mind. On the other hand, he calls for an appropriate interpretation of the secularizing effects of a process of social and cultural rationalization increasingly denounced by the champions of religious orthodoxies as a historical development peculiar to the West. These reflections on the enduring importance of religion and the limits of secularism under conditions of postmetaphysical reason set the scene for an extended treatment the political significance of religious tolerance and for a fresh contribution to current debates on cosmopolitanism and a constitution for international society. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Religious tolerance in a world community
I was looking particularly for Habermas' views on religious tolerance, and found a thorough analysis of Immanuel Kant's political constitution (Perpetual Peace, and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals (HPC Classics Series)). He compares it with the success of the United nations in weathering attempts to marginalise it and proceeding with substantial reforms. He maintains that "we can still take a cue from Kant's cosmopolitan condition provided that we construe it insufficiently abstract terms".
Then I discovered that Habermas enters into further discussions about the current trend of growing political influence of religious orthodoxies. He revisits his discussions with John Rawls' about his `veil of ignorance' in his formation of societies of peoples that had resulted in Rawls' Proviso (Political Liberalism (Columbia Classics in Philosophy)). Habermas could only respond to this after Rawl's death, and suggests in this book that secular citizens should accept the input of religious (and other) worldviews, provided they are translated from a religious language into generally accessible or even political language. This gives Rawls' proviso certain legitimacy.
The other aspect he discusses is the reappearance of naturalistic trends, that argue that human actions are predetermined by external causes. I thought this was left behind soon after Baruch de Spinoza's worldview had lost ground. This revival is due to some neurological experiments that are attempting to prove that a pre-determined cause exists for a limb to move, and where the subject's belief that this was done as a result of his own decision rests in self-deception. Habermas' demolition of this view is quite amusing, and enters into a wider discussion about reason verses nature.
I am an admirer of Habermas, and have read him in both English and his native German. This book is an enjoyable read with deep analyses of the aspect of religious tolerance in our age.

Habermas' best book ever
Habermas reveals some of his most lucid arguments in favour of a neo Kantian inspired formal pragmatics in this extremely well structured text, which follows on the heels of his magnificent indictment of neoconservative ideology in The Divided West.Habermas has found the right balance both politically, ideologically and philosophically between the rocky political, religious and ideological extremes in our present global society, which is currently undergoing an extremely painful financial transformation.

If we had listened to some of Habermas' earlier warnings concerning certain aspects of unfettered capitalism (and the manipulative forms of communication it can engender) we might not have found ourselves in such a dire financial circumstance.Years ago Habermas warned of the ideology which was gaining momentum in philosophical circles (neoconservatism).Luckily many of his themes are starting to become practically possible in the American political environment in terms of a focus on communication and building consenus through international law.But we will have to see how America will resolve this current crisis, but the American political public (and those about to take office) would do well to heed his advice. ... Read more

Product Description
Jürgen Habermas seeks to defend the Enlightenment and with it an "emphatical", "uncurtailed" conception of reason against the post-modern critique of reason on the one hand, and against so-called scientism (which would include critical rationalism and the greater part of analytical philosophy) on the other. His objection to the former is that it is self-contradictory and politically defeatist; his objection to the latter is that, thanks to a standard of rationality derived from the natural sciences or from Weber's concept of purposive rationality, it leaves normative questions to irrational decisions. Habermas wants to offer an alternative, trying to develop a theory of communicative action that can clarify the normative foundations of a critical theory of society as well as provide a fruitful theoretical framework for empirical social research.

This study is a comprehensive and detailed analysis and sustained critique of Habermas' philosophical system since his pragmatist turn in the seventies. It clearly and precisely depicts Habermas' long chain of arguments leading from an analysis of speech acts to a discourse theory of law and the democratic constitutional state. Along the way the study examines, among other things, Habermas' theory of communicative action, transcendental and universal pragmatics and the argument from "performative contradictions", discourse ethics, the consensus theory of truth, Habermas' ideas on developmental psychology, communicative pathologies and social evolution, his theory of social order, the analysis of the tensions between system and lifeworld, his theory of modernity, and his theory of deliberative democracy. For all Habermas students this study will prove indispensable. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (15)

Good book
And the only blathering on that I see in evidence is what commentary the book has spawned, both here and elsewhere.

Postmodern situations, postmodern ideas
As Borradori states in his introduction, 'Both [Habermas and Derrida] hold that terrorism is an elusive concept that exposes the global political arena to imminent dangers as well as future challenges.'I think that this sums up what many people feel about the war on terrorism - unlike conflicts such as World War I and World War II, or even the more vaguely defined Cold War or Vietnam war, this is a war where there the front-line can be anywhere and nowhere, where the enemies can be anyone and no one, and where the tactics, strategies, motives and hoped-for achievables are so far removed from what traditional political and military methodology deals with that it requires a paradigm shift in our thinking.'While the Cold War was characterized by the possibility of balance between two superpowers, it is impossible to build a balance with terrorism because the threat does not come from a state but from incalculable forces and incalculable responsibilities.'

As is typical of Derrida, he sees the relationship between terrorism and communication to be paramount.(I was first exposed to Derrida in theology classes, dealing with the postmodern predicament of looking for meaning in language and behind language in ways that make sense).It is perhaps ironic that the term that springs to mind most when contemplating Derrida is 'deconstruction', which is, in often a dramatically literal sense, what terrorism also hopes to achieve.'The intellectual grounding of Derrida's deconstruction owes much to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century lineage constituted by Nietzsche, Heidegger and Freud.For Derrida, many of the principles to which the Western tradition has attributed universal validity do not capture what we all share or even hope for.'This becomes all the more problematic when dealing with those outside the Western tradition, such as occurred in Vietnam, Korea, and now in the war on terror.

For Derrida, communication is not simply political.'Derrida engaged the themes of terror as a psychological and metaphysical state as well as terrorism as a political category.'This draws upon philosophical ideas that can reinterpret the events in various ways, as plays out in various media outlets even to this day.But the events of 9/11 for Derrida are not surprising.'Was 9/11 truly unpredictable?Not for Derrida.... The kind of attack that the terrorists launched in 2001 had already been prefigured in detail by the technocinematic culture of our days.'

Habermas also sees communication as a critical element.One issue for Habermas is the speed of modern mass communication - it 'works in the interest of those who select and distribute the information rather than those who receive it.Habermas suggests that the pressure of thinking and evaluating data quickly has a political import, because it facilitates an experience of politics based on the persona of the actors rather than the ideas that each of them defends.' Habermas' theory of communicative action, including its idea of violence as distorted communication, shows the importance of perception, understanding, critical analysis and response.

'Habermas understands modernity to be a change in belief attitude rather than a coherent body of beliefs.A belief attitude indicates the way in which we believe rather than what we believe in.Thus, fundamentalism has less to do with any specific text or religious dogma and more to do with the modality of belief.'This fits in many ways when one commentator I read recently who discussed the overall state of Muslim theology, expressing the understanding that the Muslims have never gone through a period of Reformation as Christendom did, nor have Muslims come to embrace the idea of a society and nation-state separate from religious.Indeed, we can hear echoes of this latter idea in political speech in America, often from groups that can be described as (and often embrace the term) fundamentalist.This will continue to be an issue in the war on terror.

Another issue for Habermas will be the issue of nation-state vs. international organisation power.'Habermas is convinced that what separates the present moment from a full transition to cosmopolitanism is not only a theoretical matter but a practical one, too, for the decisions of the international community need to be respected. ... Unfortunately, the power differential between national and international authorities threatens to weaken the legitimacy of any military intervention and to retool police action as war.'This has been true not just in the twentieth century, but previously as well.The Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, and the United Nations have all failed to have power to counter the superpowers of their times; alliances such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact relied heavily on one particular partner.

For both Derrida and Habermas, the war on terror is not as simple as Arab vs. West, Muslim against Christian/post-Christian society, or particular nations against one another.Perhaps had this been written after the recent situation with the Dubai acquisition of American ports being stopped, they would have pointed out that once again, our definitions and communicative premises fail - how does one balance the idea that foreign ownership of ports is unwise with the fact that few are concerned when British, Canadian, Australian or Norwegian firms do the same?There is a lack of definition about it all, even when all the words we use, to bring about clarity.The war on terror might be the quintessential post-modern situation.

Great, thought-provoking
It's a privilege to hear what these two minds have to say about our times, especially because their styles of thinking and the way they articulate today's problems are so divergent.

A most noble endeavour
Although the section dedicated to Habermas is brief and Derrida is allowed to make a more dynamic impact, Borradori knows very well what she is doing, and ensures that the end relult is that they both complement each other. These two thinkers might occupy opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to a whole host of issues, but "Philosophy in a Time of Terror" is not about who is right and who is wrong or about the reader choosing his/her favourite.
Habermas lays much of the groundwork, reminding us of the relevance of the Enlightenment, championing notions of the public sphere and communicative action. Reason, rationality and discourse have been, and always will be, essential components of any society wishing to realise the Enlightenment ideal. Just as philosophy was vital at the time of the Enlightenment, so too is it needed today in helping us come to terms with terrorism and in conceptualising a future which re-addresses the notion of citizenship, bestowing upon it a global and cosmopolitan character.
Derrida gets to work on much of what Habermas proposes, questioning received wisdom and conceptual systems through his own deconstructive methods. Focusing on 9/11 as an "event" and putting his own spin on globalization, we are invited to temporarily suspend belief and look at things from a more unfamiliar angle. Yes, some of Derrida's points are questionable, overblown and occasionally ridiculous, but his concerns have much in common with those of Habermas: how to realise a world society where primacy is given to international law and the religious undercurrents of political rhetoric are abandoned once and for all,dangerous as they all too often are.

This book is a reminder to us all of the role played by philosophy in shaping our present and a call for a return to philosophical reflection in order to forge a sustainable future for everybody. It's a start, and credit is due to Habermas, Derrida and of course Borradori for their collaboration. The world may well be awash with pragmatism (much of it needed admittedly) but there has to be a degree of reflexivity if we are going to avoid a groundhog day scenario. I mean, we're all idealists at heart, aren't we?

A Philosophy left on the table....
The main issues I have with this book are:
1. the dialogue with Habermas is way too short. I don't know if he was on a time line, but, it is just as he is gathering a full head of steam that everything ends, and what he has to say and to subject to thoughtful consideration is profoundly worth mulling over deeply. I kept wishing Borradori would continue to probe further with Habermas. He is the foremost thinker in Germany since Heidegger and is as creatively determined to tackle this issue of terrorism as anyone could aspire to. He goes after the issues with a passion and a commitment. Perhaps there will be more from him in his own write in the future.
2. Derrida likes to hear himself talk and see himself write. The foremost exponent of Thesaurus Philosophy, Derrida does not so much hermeneutically deconstruct as blather on, much like a Michael Palin riff in Monty Python. Read the opening pages of the dialogue with Derrida, and then go watch Palin in THE CONCERT FOR GEORGE HARRISON, and I dare you to deconstruct the difference. I keep expecting Derrida to launch into the Lumberjack Song. He gets to the meat of the issue but then becomes obsessed with his own vocabulary, like the boring uncle at family gatherings. You would think there would be more drive from somone who experienced the sort of childhood and coming of age that he did, but, like so many other French thinkers, he seems to fall in love with the way words roll off.
3. Borradori comes up short with Habrmas and doesn't cut off or focus Derrida enough. Too much of her post dialogue analyses is reiiterative.
That's a pity on many fronts, because there is a significant trail to be traced from Kant through Hegel and into the Twentieth Century about the nature of peace, government and the fact that as Kant observed this is a bloody small planet and we need to figure out how we are all going to live on it without resorting to the criminality of these past centuries. Habermas is clearly focused on such questions. Derrida can clearly see the need to come to terms with them. A more disciplined interviewer might have made this the tome it could have been. God knows we need it. ... Read more

Product Description
This is Jürgen Habermas's most concrete historical-sociological book and one of the key contributions to political thought in the postwar period. It will be a revelation to those who have known Habermas only through his theoretical writing to find his later interests in problems of legitimation and communication foreshadowed in this lucid study of the origins, nature, and evolution of public opinion in democratic societies. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
JURGEN HABERMAS. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press.1991.Year.298 Pages.$26.10 .



The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society was written by Jurgen Habermas in 1962 and later translated from German to English in 1989 by Thomas Burger. Habermas who is part of the Frankfurt School of thought, seeks to explain the rise of capitalism through the synthesis of the bourgeois with government and industry. His concept includes defining the notion of "public spheres" and "private spheres" of influence and charts these spheres from feudal times until now.
Spheres can be seen as influences leading towards political action.At first in feudal times, public spheres did not exist at all.The entire role of politics was a private matter between nobles, kings, and the rest of the landed gentry.[14] The base point for examination is the expansion of the bourgeois public sphere into Northern and Western Europe. Later, as Habermas describes, there emerged extensive influence from the bourgeois public sphere through cultivation movements in salons (France), coffee houses(England), and tischgisellschaften (German table societies).As the capitalist bourgeois class who had achieved their status as monopolists in manufacturing began entering these salons with the nobles, they asserted their control."A new stratum of bourgeois people arose occupying a central position within the public" They were the ones with key economic positions and by that nature had the greatest influence, and no longer was that the case of the gentry who were losing their political significance.The "burghers", who were the old occupational order of craftsmen and shopkeepers suffered the greatest downward mobility in the new dynamic, and their interests virtually ceased to be addressed. [23] The "noble" cause of the original founders of the bourgeois public sphere which were in line with the spirit of humanism were abandoned in the end in favor of the new "political task of the bourgeois public sphere [which] was the regulation of civil society."[52]
Habermas centers his studies and draws analogies between England, Germany, and France in many cases throughout this book. He goes to a time in the pre-modern era where there was no perception of "public", and the word had not yet even been invented. After setting the pre-modern stage, he goes through the timeline to modern times showing the transformation of public and private spheres and how they are manipulated to attain power by the bourgeoisie. He does a good job of explaining the transformation of the bourgeois class in each of these respective models.
The bourgeois, who for all practical purpose, was excluded for leadership in State or Church, "in time completely took over all key positions in the economy." [33] A new synthesis emerged which was a combination of both nobles and the elite merchants, a marriage of old money to new. The structural changes that came about were a result of the new influx.It is here that the ideas of separation of church and state are set forth, and freemasonry takes hold.Although Habermas notes that in Lessing's famous statement he questions "if indeed bourgeois society in not merely an offspring of freemasonry." [35]
Habermas charts the transformation of the public sphere in Britain circa 1700 and explains why the changes took place there first compared to continental Europe. The parliamentary system is then contrasted with the Constitutional one.Ultimately it is the elimination of the literary sphere which fuels the change. [57] The sphere is taken away from the public domain and best embodied through the rise of the press as an institution complimenting the state's well being over the individual. The state had a structural need to side with the new capitalist and the vast company empires they wielded over any notion of the public's well being at large.
"The function of the bourgeois public sphere crystallized into the idea of "public opinion"."The very nature and definition of "opinion" which is only a possible truth, and one not verified necessarily factually is suspect. [89] Through manipulation of public opinion, the new bourgeois public sphere merged into the overall structure and dominated it.Publicity became a key role in generating a perception that the needs of the public were in fact being met.The bourgeois public sphere evolved through these processes where no other group could. "...in the tension charged field between state and society" they were always able to "remain part of the private sphere." [141]
Hebermas charts the rise of book clubs in Anglo-Saxon countries that ultimately assisted in the tendency "towards the collapse of the literary public sphere"][168] This leads to a shift in the public sphere which gives way to its new pre-eminent institution, the press. [180] Advertising rose to create an new conflict, and influx of private capitalistic ideals into the public sphere. "the interests of commodities owners invaded the public sphere."[192] And more than just business, "advertising had a political element in its public presentation of private interest." The role of publicity became to "strengthen the prestige of one's own position." [200] The structural transformation compete, the new class is no longer bourgeois since they are "now confronted with the job of integrating" the masses. [203] Manufactured publicity allows citizens to relate to the state "by adopting a general attitude of demand." They assume their interests will be dealt with, and go along with the consensus they are presented through media. [211]
The Habermas' study is greatly in depth, even including contemporaries of his time such as C. Wright Mills and Hannah Arendt as he extrapolates his theory from past events to present.His work seems highly valuable for anyone interested in the nature of power and how it had been derived throughout all Western nations. [249]In the end this is a very readable book, though highly detailed.It makes for an excellent reference for historians and sociologists alike. The book is written so well, that each chapter can be taken in its own context or melded with his overall investigation.The theory Habermas sets forth in this book takes the Frankfurt school to a new level of thought its founding father Max Weber would have never conceived possible.Using structuralism and conflict theory, much like Marx, the Habermas opus addresses modern power like no one before in his school of thought.
Tod F. Sarguis

Important thinking in political philosophy of democracy
During the Renaissance a wonderful phenomenon happened which was caused, in part, by merchants and traders needing accurate information about distant markets as well as by the growth of democracy and individual liberty and popular sovereignty. This phenomenon is the "public sphere" -- a place between private individuals and government authorities in which people could meet and have rational-critical debates about public matters. It served as a counterweight to political authority. So people could discuss politics, criticize government decisions, inform each other about what was going on. It took place physically in coffee houses and cafes and public squares as well as happened in the media in letters, books, art. It was a positive force which helped keep authorities within bounds, lest their rulings be ridiculed in print or criticized in coffee salons.

Today, in contrast, there is little public debate, no public forums. We have the illusion of a public sphere. It's been transformed. Habermas tries to show how this happened. I think his work is stronger in showing the before and after effects of the transformation. But when he tries to show how this happened, his writing is often confusing, with sentences you can reread several times and still shake your head. Make no mistake: this is a difficult book to read. It's slow going, but worth it.

I think Habermas is right in the overall conclusion about the transformation of the public sphere. For example, real news (ie news we need as free people to stay informed and which helps keep us free) is being elbowed out by advice, entertainment, soft-porn, catchy garbage and celebrity antics. News is being transformed from rational-critical information to a commodity forced to compete in a giant entertainment market. It's a consumer good. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong, important or irrelevant. Rather, news must be entertaining. And, we're no longer real citizens but rather consumers, investors, members in a society who participate very little in government.

I highly recommend this book. It's difficult to read, at times. But his conclusions are on target, particularly the before and after comparison. It's a must read for serious students seeking to understand democracy, politics, political philosophy. It's oriented towards scholars.

Thomas W. Sulcer
author of Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism (Amazon/Kindle)
free pdf if requested by email

Indispensable for Understanding Contemporary Culture
Okay, perhaps I've got the social-theory-geek gene, but when I first read this book some fourteen years ago (during grad school), I was able finally to put together a lot of things that had been swimming around in my brain. I'd already read a good bit of Adorno before a professor (with whom I was doing an independent study on Adorno) recommended that I read this.Habermas's historical analysis was so compelling that I simply couldn't put the book down.Moreover (all this may seem hard to believe), the lucidity of his presentation also helped me put a lot of what was going on in Adorno's writings in a clearer light.

While I don't agree with the directions in which Habermas later went--I strongly resist the notion of recuperating the modern project--this book provides a compelling analysis of how Western society and culture got to where it is now.

Habermas: The Public in History
In this monograph, Habermas tracks the origination, the evolution, and the dispersal of an informed "public sphere" among democratic Western nations.He defines public sphere as "private people com[ing] together as a public" (27).Once these individuals, gathered as reading groups or as aficionados of theatre, the arts, and politics, the individuals melded into a public capable of debating the government.Habermas locates these fledgling "publics" primarily in eighteenth-century France, England and to a lesser extent in the areas of Europe designated as German.Tellingly, Habermas strongly links the formation of the public sphere with the rise of capitalism and a continuing bourgeois revolution.Comprised of literate individuals governed by the principals of the Enlightenment, these "publics" eventually challenged the validity and legitimacy of governments, most notably in France during the French Revolution and England during the English Civil War.

Habermas builds a compelling argument based upon his interpretation of Rousseau, Kant, Locke, Hegel, and Marx.He links the works of these philosophers and sociologists in a credible chain stretching back to the eighteenth century.However, he only deals thoroughly with the educated, propertied elite of society.Habermas views the "unpropertied" and illiterate as a separate from and incapable of participating in a true public sphere.To do this he must dismiss a plethora of lower class uprisings found throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.Even when the various governments quickly quashed these rebellions, the Ludites in England and the various rebellions of 1848 come to mind, it is difficult to dispute the effect these rebels and rebellions had upon the public discourse.As an early work on the subject, it is almost certain that Habermas had to amend his arguments following E.P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class, published in 1963 a scant year after this work.His exclusion of the great press of society from a functioning public sphere seems arrogant at best and naïve at worst.

One of the most influential studies on the subject
Habermas' work, though written more than four decades ago, still retains most of its original relevance for the study of the public sphere. If you are interested in this subject, and if you are into critical thinking, then this book is certainly worth reading. Why? Well, if you take in consideration the fact that no other book has been written so far on the subject that has been able to surpass Habermas' account both in depth and originality, then you begin to get my point. As to a critical reading of the argument put forth by Habermas, one should read "Habermas and the Public Sphere", edited by Craig Calhoun. This book includes an appendix by Habermas where he revises some of his original positions. ... Read more

Product Description
"One of the broadest, most comprehensive, elaborate and intensely theoretical works in social theory.Social theory and philosophy may never be the same again."(Philosophy and Social Criticism) ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

same review as volume I; it's really one book.
This is a difficult book to rate, since it's obviously very important/influential. And the horrific style could bias anyone against it. But I finally settled on two stars. Why?

* Habermas' theory is meant to be an advance beyond previous critical theories. He argues that their focus on consciousness philosophy (broadly speaking, an individualist approach to social theory, which assumes that individuals are the primary bearers of meaning) leads them into all sorts of problems. But his interpretations of those previous critical theories are, not to put too fine a point on it, appalling. He misreads Hegel; he misreads Marx to such a great extent that one might almost believe he'd never even read *Capital*; and his take on earlier critical theorists is more or less limited to Horkheimer's 'Eclipse of Reason.' Habermas' main criticism of Adorno is that Adorno seeks a solution to the problems of modern societies in a kind of irrationalist mysticism. It is no surprise that almost all of his evidence for this is taken from books *about*, rather than *by* Adorno. (Good rebuttals of Habermas' readings of Hegel and Marx can be found in Pippin's 'Idealism as Modernism,' and Postone's 'Time, Labor and Social Domination' respectively.)
* For Habermas, the main problem with previous critical theories is that they don't seem to be grounded. Habermas sees a strict dichotomy here. Either you ground your theory by taking on a universalist perspective, or you lapse into relativism. Because critical theory has tended to avoid universalism, it must be relativistic. This is tied to his failure to understand Hegel's work. Hegel shows that the dichotomy between universalism and relativism is flawed; that something can be grounding without being universal. On this approach, critical theory is right to find its foundation only in an immanent critique of the present, without a universalist standpoint.
* Habermas claims to find his universalist standpoint in language. He argues that any any speech act assumes the possibility of rational agreement, and that this can be a basis of a critical theory. Language becomes the inalienable repository of freedom and reconciliation. This is where Habermas' rejection of 'consciousness philosophy' hurts him most. Why is it that language can remain more or less pure? He has no answer for this question. 'Consciousness philosophy,' of course, would argue that since language is bound up with consciousness; and since consciousness somewhat obviously cannot remain 'pure' in an impure world; then language itself cannot remain pure, and cannot be the universal standpoint Habermas seeks.
* Finally, Habermas tries to combine two sociological approaches: systems theory and action theory. He never asks, however, if these theories themselves might be reflections of actual social problems which cannot be merely 'combined' at the theoretical level. A critical theory will show the problems with these theories, and explain how to move past them. Habermas does not do this, because he accepts Daniel Bell's thesis of 'end of ideology.' Theories are now just different standpoints from which we view the same content, not reflections of that content itself. Again, a bit more 'consciousness philosophy' would have led Habermas to see that this separation of form and content - which he sees as a key moment of modernism - is theoretically untenable.
* On a somewhat more obvious level, this was a theory designed for a welfare-state world. This world collapsed just as these volumes were being published in German. Habermas himself said, in an interview around the time they were being published, that this work assumed such a welfare state world ("The Dialectics of Rationalization," in 'Telos'). The disappearance of that world made it clear that 'power' was no more than a handmaiden to 'money.' The best recent work of critical theory, Postone's book mentioned above, makes this argument very well.

That's all substantive stuff. On a less high-falutin' level, this book is horrifically written, spends far too much time summarizing previous sociological theories, and shows a frankly bizarre addiction to unnecessary, quasi-scholastic hair-splitting. For those interested in critical theory, I recommend reading the 'intermediate reflections' and 'concluding reflections.' Otherwise, it's like reading a freshman-comp paper written by a staggering genius.

The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2
This is the second volume of the two that constitute "The Theory of Communicative Action" (the first volume subtitle is "Reason and the Rationalization of Society"). The first volume was published in English in 1984, while the second volume appeared in 1987.The two volumes are not independent books and should be read as a single book. See review of the two volumes in"The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society" (v. 1).
See review for the two volumes: The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol1) ... Read more

Product Description
"[A] fascinating synthesis of Continental and Anglo-American legaltheory. . . full of interesting insights, acute criticisms, and strikingpassages." -- Richard A. Posner, The New Republic

In Between Facts and Norms Jürgen Habermas works out thelegal and political implications of his Theory of CommunicativeAction (1981), bringing to fruition the project announced with hispublication of The Structural Transformation of the Public Spherein 1962.

This new work is a major contribution to recent debates on the rule oflaw and the possibilities of democracy in postindustrial societies. Itoffers a sweeping, sociologically informed conceptualization of law andbasic rights, a normative account of the rule of law and theconstitutional state, an attempt to bridge normative and empiricalapproaches to democracy, and an account of the social context requiredfor democracy. The work concludes with a bold proposal for a newparadigm of law that goes beyond the dichotomies that have afflictedmodern political theory from its inception and that still underliecurrent controversies between so-called liberals and civic republicans.Amazon.com Review
Jurgen Habermas, an esteemed political philosopher who lived inGermany during the Nazi reign, has produced a thought-provoking work on whathe calls "deliberative politics." To summarize his view, truedemocracy isn't just the compilation of opinions or a blanket treatment ofmajority rules, but a social process in which people meet, discuss, modifyand, ultimately, agree. He draws connections between how such a process couldshape the making of laws and direct the course of nations. His writings hererepresent a lifetime of political thought on the nature of democracy and law,and deserve an audience and a place in the foundations of democratic theory. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

The Latest Major Work by Habermas
Habermas's central concern is implied by this book's title.We can't really see a law as a law unless it's backed up with enforcement.That's law as a "fact."But we also want law to reflect values that we can rationalize and validate.That's law as a "norm."This difficult study is worth the effort for anyone who wonders about law's nature and about how ideas like "justice" claim our attention.Habermas wants to define an idea of law that lies "between" law as a fact (what law is and says) and law as a value or norm (what law ought to be, or what we feel law ought to be).The most immediate test case is a circumstance like Nazi Germany, where policies of Jewish extermination were "in fact" legitimated within the state power structure.Doesn't law as a "fact," in that case, seem illegitimate, an indefensible "norm"? If you are interested in an argument that respects the importance of state might but also resists the notion that might makes right, then this book should be on your list.

Put Your Hope in the Law
A big book on the big topic of 'how do we all get along' by one of the biggest of living philosophers.

I'll not address the details of the argument or Habermas's place in left-wing politics. Instead, I'll address the intellectual and cultural context.

What Habermas says he is doing is looking for a way to hold societies together that are no longer composed only of one ethnic group; that are no longer made up of adherents of one religion; and are no longer made up of people who accept one myth of their nation or one philosophy of life. We wouldn't need his contribution here, he is saying, if we were not in "postmetaphysical" times--by which he means two things. First, he means that we're in a scientific, secular era when the educated classes, anyway, of major Western countries can no longer be convinced of much of anything by *religious* arguments. Religion doesn't command much belief among social elites, and many others, let alone the kind of universal belief it once inspired. And theology has long since been driven from the position of being 'queen of the sciences' by physics. The second thing he means by "postmetaphysical" (which he uses instead of "postmodern") is that we live in a time when it's hard for any of us to believe that only what we believe is true, and that what we believe is totally true...because our world is so interconnected and we are aware of so many different religions and worldviews people have. That is, religious and worldview pluralism relativizes the authority any one religion or worldview could have now.

Mostly Habermas thinks our "enlightened" state of cosmopolitan equality is really good. But he acknowledges that we've lost something in losing the certainties and meaning and ethics of religions. Among other things we've lost is the social glue that holds citizens of countries together. Since Habermas is a social philosopher of hope, who wants to prevent a Nazi regime and a Holocaust from ever happening again, this is really important to him.

So after saying why socialist welfare states, with their paternalistic governments, and unregulated capitalism, with its discrimination against those who are such losers as to not be affluent, can't be the way forward, he then surveys and rejects other options. Of course, the way forward is his theory, which in his lingo is a constitutional deliberative democracy with a free public sphere and a vibrant lifeworld. Never mind all that, unless you want to get into his theory. The force of it here is that, in a way most people afraid of getting speeding tickets would not expect, he, as a leftie, sees The Law as the best means for keeping all of us together. Even if we don't respect each other so much, basically, if we respect the law we can get along. Even if we don't care about each other so much, if we do as much for each other as the law demands, society will be livable. So the right kind of law makes possible a peaceful society of people who radically disagree on really basic stuff that would often make people violent.

The book is designed to sort out the right kind of law. It is the kind that you can obey not just because you'll get in trouble if you don't, but also because you can agree in principle with how the law was made (even if you don't like the law itself). And the right way to make laws is for people to talk long enough and openly enough with each other in political publics and fora to come up with basic rules of the game we can all live with.

Highly technical, highly abstract, assumes you know basic stuff about Aristotle and Kant without him explaining it, amazingly comprehensive. Underrated in the US because it's not done in the usual Anglo-American way, but not only great for legal theory types, but also for people doing Rawls or Rorty or Derrida or MacIntyre. And for systematic thinker people, think of Between Facts and Norms as Habermas's equivalent of Aristotle's Politics or Hegel's Philosophy of Right. If you like the Olympic pool these guys swim in, this is gold medal contender material.

Democracy: well-known, little understood
Some commentators of Habermas' work have argued that he changed his position from "The Theory of Communicative Action" (see review in here at Amazon.com) to "Between Facts and Norms" (BF&N). In the preface of the English edition of BF&N the author himself replies to this issue: Habermas hopes that the book will clear the impression that "the theory of communicative action is blind to institutional reality -or that it could even have anarchist consequences (p. xi)".Thus, the purpose of BF&N is to apply discourse theory to the analysis of democracy in modern societies and not to change the route of his critical theory, as some have argued.Having said this, the reader may be interested to know whether it is possible to understand this book without reading TCA first. I would reply to this question with a cautious "yes".But, of course, something of the understanding will be missed without the theoretical background of Habermas' magnum opus.For someone who would like to read BF&N but is not willing to digest TCA's two volumes, I recommend reading his essay "Three Normative Models of Democracy" (in "The Inclusion of the Other", ed. by Ciaran Cronin and Pablo de Greiff, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998).This essay presents an outline of the arguments that Habermas will fully develop in BF&N.In this book, he proposes a normative model of democracy as a middle point alternative to the republican and the liberal models.While the republican model relies on Rousseau's idea of collective opinion and will-formation, which demands communication and consensus, the liberal model attributes supremacy to the institutional protection of individual freedom.Habermas affirms that his proposal is normatively "stronger" than the liberal model, but "weaker" than the republican model.In other words, in his deliberative model of democracy, institutions should do more than just protecting the individual from state oppression and act also as carriers of communicative rationality.Institutions are crucial to democracy because they act as legitimacy 'gatekeepers', transforming public opinion into communicative power."According to discourse theory, the success of deliberative politics depends not on a collectively acting citizenry but on the institutionalization of the corresponding procedures and conditions of communication, as well as on the interplay of institutionalized deliberative processes with informally developed public opinions" (BF&N, p. 298).In a deliberative democracy, opinion formation in the public sphere is to be transferred to the legal and political systems in order to legitimize binding decisions that apply to a political community.
Habermas model is not, therefore, a radical departure from what we know nowadays as a "democratic system".However,most existing democracies lack the conditions for an unconstrained opinion formation in the public sphere due to ideological manipulation,as Habermas points out.Thus, democratic institutions do not guarantee an authentic democracy.As much as Habermas see institutions to be fundamental to democracy, the improvement of the democratic system cannot come from within the institutionalized system.Institutions can stabilize democracy, but are not meant to change society.According to Habermas, only communication action is able to lead us out of our current political predicament.

intervention into the globe and democracy
Although Habermas may come across as a post-metaphysical thinker somewhat austere and reserved, his voice has always been there in dialogue with topical controversial political issues. Over the past thirty years he has written essays of a profound nature,as the xenophobia of race after the break up of the Soviet satellites, bio-genetic engineering(quite literally the future of race),and the strengths and weaknesses within Western institutions.He has to date 9 Volumes(in German only) of incredible "Political Writings".
Here,fellow Amazonians all these dribble reviews really masterbations of detritus are less than useless,Habermas deserves better than this;but a sign of democracy I suppose.
Habermas with this very comprehensive work is trying to intervene into the current paradigm of law democracy and globalization; how financial institutions(asan extension of the law, the distribution of wealth) really cannot provide the necessary stability as they once did for the dispossessed within liberal democracies.
It is fairly certain now with the arrogant drum beatings of Washington that there is a real threat of loss of power if some Western power does move quickly to manipulate what Engels referred to as the co-relation of forces today,like who controls oil(and natural resources);Technology hence (Time)nuclear power,or space militarization (in the Virilio-ian sense) or for instance who will help the new cheap labour factory, China industrialize.
Habermas sees democracy-in-development only in Europe with the formation of the European Union as an activist agent a proxy of intervention from the vagaries and many times anarchy of globalization for the globes working classes.This within the context where Washington sees no equivalent agenda to nurture and desires to jettison all the post-WW2 Atlanticist structures, as the United Nations and their derivatives. These organizations for other reasons have become corrupt,but they still service some parts of the globe who depend upon them for food and medicinal deliveries. The fact that Habermas focuses on the relative strengths of bourgeois laws is indeed his own self-created cul-de-sac as paradigm that there is no alternative to this reality at least not in the forseeable future.I suspect Habermas has been purging himself for quite some time from his early days as Adorno's student from the negative/critical,more classical sides of Marxism that appraises power wherever it exists as an "odometer", a measure for the dispossessed of the globe, do they eat?,or die?,something that embarasses him I suspect.Laws should monitor where the food chains exist, Laws should monitor atrocities,genocides,corrupt leaders.These very laws (within the West)historically have always been frought with reservations contingencies,and are constructed to preserve the staus quo,and can be easily changed and amended when their agency or proxy comes to an end; yes a classical Marxist view still alive although to some detestable. At least for those below the subsistence levels it is somewhat comforting to know that there is a "conscious" within the West someplace, although it is seldom exhibited as for example within the continent of Africa.

I didn't want to review this.... but.....
The reviews for this book are really poor, so I'm going to take a shot at this book....

Habermas in this book is very German. The book isstraightforward: it deals with the dual nature of laws.... i.e. that theideals we establish in laws are conditioned by a sociological process andthen interpreted through the same process. It's not a book that one wouldread for pleasure... it's not a book that one would want to have around toplease girls. It's dry at times, but CAN BE very rewarding. Please, dearGod, do not let this be an introduction to philosophy. But-- as the reviewsabove hint at-- it is an important work by an important author if taken inthe right light and for the right reasons.

I do not intend here to writea review of Habermas: that's way beyond what needs to be done in thissituation. He's not a whole lot of fun though.... ;)... but a brilliantman, nonetheless.... ... Read more

Product Description
A collection of essays byJurgen Habermas, the "foremost social and political thinker in Germany today." (Times Literary Supplement)Included are essays on his theories on communication, socialization, social evolution, and the development of law and morality. ... Read more

Product Description
This volume examines the historical and intellectual contexts out of which Habermas' work emerged, and offers an overview of his main ideas, including those in his most recent publication. Among the topics discussed are: his relationship to Marx and the Frankfurt School of critical theory, his unique contributions to the philosophy of social sciences, the concept of "communicative ethics," and the critique of postmodernism. Particular attention is paid to Habermas' recent work on democratic theory and the constitutional state. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Introduction without Bowdlerization
The previous reviewer, Mr. Craig Chalquist, complains that despite having read "a lot of philosophy," he found this book tough going.One can certainly sympathize with him; Habermas is not easy to read, and people writing on Habermas tend not to be easy to read.I believe that Mr. Chalquist is right in saying that Habermasian prose tends to drive students away from philosophy and critical theory.But the denseness and opacity of Teutonic philosophical language is an old story; Marx had already shuddered at the "mostrous melodies" of Hegel.Mr. Chalquist does not proceed to ask if students who are turned off by dense prose do not deserve to be driven out of philosophy.Must philosophy be clothed in the language of the marketplace?Hegel could already speak of the old prejudice that, whereas everyone realizes it takes training and a certain native talent to be a great craftsman or a great mathematician, everyone thinks she is ready to philosophize.

Let us take the pasage cited by Mr. Chalquist.From his review, I had the impression that the author simply dropped that sentence out of the blue.But when I discovered the relevant passage on page 274, I found it situated within a discussion that begins on the previous page regarding the "tension between the comprehensible and the incomprehensible," a tension that the authors claim is embodied most clearly in Kant's Critique of Judgment.Anybody with a passing familiarity with Kant will recognize immediately how apropos this claim is.And those who are unfamiliar with Kant--well, is it not the duty of a good introduction to lead readers to the great works that have set the agenda for later philosophers and thinkers?I know some readers do not believe so.They believe that the task of a good introduction is to present profound insights in easily digestible form so that they can be spared hard thinking: fortune cookie wisdom, wisdom for dummies.I wonder if these readers know what the word "bowdlerize" means.As far as I am concerned, Stanley Rosen has articulated what ought to be the guiding principle for anyone who undertakes the daunting and noble task of writing an introductory work of philosophy: An oversimplified account is no account at all.

By that standard, this Companion does a decent, and at times even a good, job.The authors generally display a great deal of familiarity with Habermas and do a nice job of presenting his position concisely and without too much distortion, though obviously some glossing over of subtleties is inescapable in the format of the short essay.The Strong and Sposito chapter, from which Mr. Chalquist lifted his example of bad writing, is actually one of the best chapters in the book.I describe it briefly to show up the virtues of this collection.The chapter points out that according to Habermas, rationality is a "moral social concept" (263), that rationality is tied to the fact that we speak to one another (in neo-Kantian terms, that human beings are situated in the space of reasons), and that this speaking to one another implies a "we."But the act of speaking, precisely as an act, is an embodied act--which is to say, when we speak, we do not speak to everyone all at once, if only because we do not all share the same language.This means that the "we" is at least immediately circumscribed by the "others" to whom we are not speaking.Given the link between reason and the "we," the "other" to the "we" is thus at the same time the "other" of reason.And from here the authors build their critique of Habermas.

I should perhaps add that I rate this book solely on the basis of its worth as an initial guide to Habermas.I do not rate it on the basis of its intrinsic philosophical worth.I am not a sympathizer of Habermas' philosophical project.I believe that what is right about it has almost all been said, and said better, by others, especially by Kant and Hegel, and that what is new about it is almost all wrong.The contributors to this volume, in contrast, are all sympathetic critics, to varying degrees.They disagree with Habermas at the margins, but not at the core.I could put this simply by saying that they are all moderns for whom their modernity is not a problem.

turgid
The back of the book says this series is "a reference work for students and non-specialists." Don't you believe it.

I've read a lot of philosophy, but even I had a hard time getting through this book, and I didn't learn much about Habermas. I do not accept the justification that complex philosophical matters require bad writing. Prose loaded with twenty-cent words and pompous jargon is not only a poor start for the struggling student, but an unwitting comment on the writer's capacity for the kind of pompous intellectualizing that drives students and seekers OUT of philosophy.

With the exception of essayists Nancy Love and Simone Chambers, most of the contributors to this troublesome tome need to go back to Strunk and White, William Zinsser, and basic English composition to learn how NOT to write sentences like this one:

"The insight of the metacritique of pure reason is that the comprehensiveness of a system of reason cannot be predicated on comprehensiveness itself, and that a certain amount of incomprehensibility is necessary to make 'systematic' or 'complete comprehension' possible."

Setting aside the question of how many times can we work "compre-" into an incomprehensible phrasing, in plain English it means--I think--that a thought system's clarity doesn't guarantee the scope of its applicability. Why the hell not say so, and in a way that doesn't unconsciously make an irony of itself?

One expects this sort of thing in a journal, but for beginners it's useless and discouraging. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

brings current relevance to well-trodden subject
This academic book not only provides a concise history of the development of Habermas's concept of the public sphere and offers some critiques of it, but moves well beyond this frequently covered ground to show how the concept fits into some of Habermas's later writings on the theory of communicative action, discourse ethics, and social theory and politics. Goode looks at the criticisms of the notion of the public sphere, and while acknowledging its shortcomings (such as Habermas giving short shrift to the role of mediation in the public sphere), does an excellent job of showing its continued relevance for social theory today, such as discussing the public sphere in relation to Beck and Giddens's notions of the risk society and reflexive modernity. Goode provides insights on the public sphere and the Internet without ever falling into the tired argument on whether the Internet can be considered a public sphere or not. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

ok, not great
The first thing you'll notice reading this book is a rather large number of typos -- very frustrating when trying to parse a difficult sentence by Habermas or Derrida is coming across a "who" that should be a "when". Hopefully a new edition will smooth those issues out.

The main problem with the reader as far as I see is twofold. First of all, the direct "engagement" between Derrida and Habermas was for a long time rather shallow in the sense that the two of them really did not engage with each other in a profound sense. Secondly, the "secondary" reading -- the chapters are about fifty-fifty primary and secondary material -- is rather irritating at times.

Quite often the secondary readings propose "fusions" of Derrida and Habermas that elide their differences or, better, pick and choose the bits that are compatable, and end up being rather idiosyncratic -- i.e., the secondary readings are really more about the theories those authors wish to promote. On a different track, many of the secondary readings -- being drawn from different sources -- repeat the "basics" of Habermas and Derrida (as if there were such a thing!) over and over, so it gets tiresome to read yet another essay that spends 75% of the time painting with a rather broad brush.

So it is not as awesome a book as one might hope. For me (someone much more familiar with Derrida than Habermas) it's been a nice introduction to Habermas from an unusual angle. ... Read more

Product Description
"The THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION represents a major contribution tocontemporary social theory.Not only does it provide a compelling critique of some of the main perspectives in 20th century philosophy and social science, but it also presents a systematic synthesis of the many themse which have preoccupied Habermas for thirty years." (Times Literary Supplement) ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Why Habermas?
This review is in response to the negative review posted here by Justin Evans. This is also more of a defense and appreciation of Habermas' work in general.

I've read a lot of Hegel, and I do not think Habermas misreads Hegel. It is a profoundly insightful critique of Hegel to say that while he recognized the dialectical construction of History he wrongly insisted on making its comprehension the possession of a monological absolute subject. I don't think there is any better way to explain the persistent conflict that irrupts in a room of Hegelians (I've seen it many times) than that there is a fundamentally problematic monomania in Hegelian philosophy (reflective of most previous Western philosophy as well).

Don't misunderstand what Habermas means by "universal". It would be a mistake to take his critique of relativism vis-a-vis universalism as a search for some kind of Platonic purity apart from the situated individual. Habermas only uses the term "universal" in conjunction with "pragmatics", referring to the easily reasonable claim that any use of language (thus meaning) in any time or place, implies communicative action between language users.

A better comprehension of Habermas' approach here is aided by a critical reading of Heidegger's phenomenological analysis of Dasein. Despite Heidegger's own clearly frustrated desire for a monological meaning of being, his committed phenomenology reveals Dasein's essential being-with-an-other. When Heidegger discloses the inauthenticity-of-understanding-as-they-understand as the very condition for first developing one's own authenticity, it is better understood in Habermas' less morally pejorative terms of moving from being a conventional language user to becoming a post-conventional language user.

Habermas' theory of communicative action brings great clarity to critical thinking if you've been frustratingly spellbound by the parade of egocentric failures in theory from Cartesian foundationalism to Hegelian absolute subjectivity to Heideggerian ontology.

In the end it just seems difficult for people with strong intellects (like those attracted to theory) to accept that our own meanings are contingent upon interaction with an other in an open-ended way. Thus most of the great philosophers and theorists tend to fantasize about an ultimate closure which can be grasped within themselves by themselves.

More like two stars, but it's been over-rated so far...
This is a difficult book to rate, since it's obviously very important/influential. And the horrific style could bias anyone against it. But I finally settled on two stars. Why? [I actually gave it one star, since the other reviewers were so effusive in their star-giving. I do this in the spirit of Verstandigung, nothing more.]

* Habermas' theory is meant to be an advance beyond previous critical theories. He argues that their focus on consciousness philosophy (broadly speaking, an individualist approach to social theory, which assumes that individuals are the primary bearers of meaning) leads them into all sorts of problems. But his interpretations of those previous critical theories are, not to put too fine a point on it, appalling. He misreads Hegel; he misreads Marx to such a great extent that one might almost believe he'd never even read *Capital*; and his take on earlier critical theorists is more or less limited to Horkheimer's 'Eclipse of Reason.' Habermas' main criticism of Adorno is that Adorno seeks a solution to the problems of modern societies in a kind of irrationalist mysticism. It is no surprise that almost all of his evidence for this is taken from books *about*, rather than *by* Adorno. (Good rebuttals of Habermas' readings of Hegel and Marx can be found in Pippin's 'Idealism as Modernism,' and Postone's 'Time, Labor and Social Domination' respectively.)
* For Habermas, the main problem with previous critical theories is that they don't seem to be grounded. Habermas sees a strict dichotomy here. Either you ground your theory by taking on a universalist perspective, or you lapse into relativism. Because critical theory has tended to avoid universalism, it must be relativistic. This is tied to his failure to understand Hegel's work. Hegel shows that the dichotomy between universalism and relativism is flawed; that something can be grounding without being universal. On this approach, critical theory is right to find its foundation only in an immanent critique of the present, without a universalist standpoint.
* Habermas claims to find his universalist standpoint in language. He argues that any any speech act assumes the possibility of rational agreement, and that this can be a basis of a critical theory. Language becomes the inalienable repository of freedom and reconciliation. This is where Habermas' rejection of 'consciousness philosophy' hurts him most. Why is it that language can remain more or less pure? He has no answer for this question. 'Consciousness philosophy,' of course, would argue that since language is bound up with consciousness; and since consciousness somewhat obviously cannot remain 'pure' in an impure world; then language itself cannot remain pure, and cannot be the universal standpoint Habermas seeks.
* Finally, Habermas tries to combine two sociological approaches: systems theory and action theory. He never asks, however, if these theories themselves might be reflections of actual social problems which cannot be merely 'combined' at the theoretical level. A critical theory will show the problems with these theories, and explain how to move past them. Habermas does not do this, because he accepts Daniel Bell's thesis of 'end of ideology.' Theories are now just different standpoints from which we view the same content, not reflections of that content itself. Again, a bit more 'consciousness philosophy' would have led Habermas to see that this separation of form and content - which he sees as a key moment of modernism - is theoretically untenable.
* On a somewhat more obvious level, this was a theory designed for a welfare-state world. This world collapsed just as these volumes were being published in German. Habermas himself said, in an interview around the time they were being published, that this work assumed such a welfare state world ("The Dialectics of Rationalization," in 'Telos'). The disappearance of that world made it clear that 'power' was no more than a handmaiden to 'money.' The best recent work of critical theory, Postone's book mentioned above, makes this argument very well.

That's all substantive stuff. On a less high-falutin' level, this book is horrifically written, spends far too much time summarizing previous sociological theories, and shows a frankly bizarre addiction to unnecessary, quasi-scholastic hair-splitting. For those interested in critical theory, I recommend reading the 'intermediate reflections' and 'concluding reflections.' Otherwise, it's like reading a freshman-comp paper written by a staggering genius.

Tough read, but well worth it
A slow, difficult read for me; but introduced me to Habermas work, which has been invaluable.

"monster work"
it took me 1.5 years to read this book and to make an attempt to understand it in its whole power and beauty.
Real contribution to social theory, a great synthesis...
But for ordinary readers there are two ways to approach this book:
1.to undertand the main idea, but even it in only 20-30%
2. to penetrate into the magical world of social philosophy and sociological theory..
you choose...
Thanks to Habermas for such an epical book...

Do not emancipate yourself without it!
I would like remind readers that this book is the first volume of the two that constitute "The Theory of Communicative Action" (the second volume has as subtitle "Lifeworld and System - A Critique of Functionalist Reason").The first volume was published in English in 1984, while the second volume appeared in 1987.The two volumes are not independent books and should be read as a single book.

Habermas can be linked to the group of German philosophers and social theorists associated with the Institute of Social Research, founded in 1924 at the University of Frankfurt.Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, the two most distinguished members of the "Frankfurt School" (as the Institute was nicknamed), developed a social analysis that departed from orthodox Marxism and was known as "critical theory".According to critical theory, the ailments of modern capitalist society were due to its encompassing rationalization, resulting in a complete alienation of the working class.Following Weber's pessimistic diagnostic, Horkheimer and Adorno considered that Enlightenment's dream of a society guided by reason had degenerated into an "iron cage": human beings were condemned to live without freedom, following rules devoid of meaning."Instrumental reason", that is, the manipulative, self-interested, technical use of reason in administration, economics, and science, had become so encompassing that there was no hope for escaping from it.

Habermas, who arrived at the Institute of Social Research in the early 1950's, concluded that Horkheimer's and Adorno's analysis of contemporary society hit a dead end.Critical theory, which was supposed to guide individuals in their struggle for emancipation, turned contemplative, pessimistic.The problem with the "old" critical theory, Habermas believed, was that it remained attached to the philosophy of consciousness.In order to put critical theory back to its original track, Habermas switched to the philosophy of language and expanded the concept of reason to include "communicative rationality". With these theoretical moves, Habermas reestablished the centrality of reason as the guiding principle for attaining emancipation. Because language presupposes unrestricted communication and mutual understanding, coordinated action is an always present possibility to speaking subjects.Parting from this philosophical outlook, Habermas developed the concept of "communicative action", defined as "the type of interaction in which all participants harmonize their individual plans of action with one another and thus pursue their illocutionary aims without reservation" (TCA, v.1, p. 294).According to this perspective, the predicaments of modern society are the consequence - as Horkheimer and Adorno had argued - of an excessive reliance in instrumental reason (or purposive rationality, as Habermas prefers to call it).However, Habermas argued that there is a way out of this situation: In order to overcome social crises, it is necessary to counterbalance purposive rationality by bringing communicative rationality back into play.

Habermas' communicative action argument was already present in his writings of the early 1960's.In TCA Habermas presents a detailed justification of his theoretical approach and expands it into a social theory aimed at explaining the occurrence of social pathologies.In support of his argumentation, Habermas introduces a new concept of society that intertwine the lifeworld concept (the common pool of knowledge that individuals use in order to attach meaning to the world) and the social system concept.According to this "dual" approach, society evolves by differentiating itself both as system and as lifeworld."Systemic evolution is measured by the increase in society's steering capacity, whereas the state of development of a symbolically structured lifeworld is indicated by the separation of culture, society, and personality" (TCA, v. 2, p. 152).

The argumentation Habermas conducts in TCA is highly abstract at times.This has lead to misunderstandings of his key arguments, particularly of the communicative action concept.According to this distorted interpretation, Habermas had advocated for the establishment of an ideal, utopian society in which all human beings would reach consensus about everything.Taken out of the context of the full argumentation, the communicative action concept acquires a naïve twist that Habermas' detractors - as well as some of his supporters - have contributed to establish. Nevertheless, the reader that endures the abstract aspects of TCA will be recompensed by a bright and clear interpretation of contemporary society. Habermas argument on the limitations of socialist states is particularly enlightening.Leftists will finally understand why democracy should not be seen just as a bourgeois invention and right-wingers will find reasons for not rejoicing at the downfall ofsocialism.

Prospective readers of TCA should be warned that they are at risk of establishing Habermas as a benchmark to every other social theorist. This risk, however, is worth taking. ... Read more

Product Description
The future of Europe and the role it will play in the 21st century are among the most important political questions of our time. The optimism of a decade ago has now faded but the stakes are higher than ever. The way these questions are answered will have enormous implications not only for all Europeans but also for the citizens of Europe's closest and oldest ally - the USA.

In this new book, one of Europe's leading intellectuals examines the political alternatives facing Europe today and outlines a course of action for the future. Habermas advocates a policy of gradual integration of Europe in which key decisions about Europe's future are put in the hands of its peoples, and a “bipolar commonality” of the West in which a more unified Europe is able to work closely with the United States to build a more stable and equitable international order.

This book includes Habermas's portraits of three long-time philosophical companions, Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida and Ronald Dworkin. It also includes several important new texts by Habermas on the impact of the media on the public sphere, on the enduring importance religion in "post-secular" societies, and on the design of a democratic constitutional order for the emergent world society.

  ... Read more

Product Description

Habermas and Rawls are two heavyweights of social and political philosophy, and they are undoubtedly the two most written about (and widely read) authors in this field. However, there has not been much informed and interesting work on the points of intersection between their projects, partly because their work comes from different traditions—roughly the European tradition of social and political theory and the Anglo-American analytic tradition of political philosophy. In this volume, contributors re-examine the Habermas-Rawls dispute with an eye toward the ways in which the dispute can cast light on current controversies about political philosophy more broadly. Moreover, the volume will cover a number of other salient issues on which Habermas and Rawls have interesting and divergent views, such as the political role of religion and international justice.

Product Description
Jurgen Habermas is one of the most important contemporary philosophers and theorists of society. The author of over forty works, including the seminal Theory of Communicative Action, his work has ranged across critical theory, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, the philosophy of science, citizenship and democracy, religion and psychoanalysis, forging new paradigms and engaging with other key thinkers. All students and teachers of contemporary Continental thought need to understand Habermas's major contributions to philosophy and critical theory. Habermas: A Guide for the Perplexed is the ideal starting point for anyone studying Habermas, and an invaluable companion text to any course of study that includes his work.It follows Habermas's critical and philosophical project through all four stages of its development - the philosophical anthropological; the historical materialist; the linguistic turn; deliberative democracy and the rule of law - building up a complete overview of his work, and offering close and incisive analysis throughout. All Habermas's major publications, including The Theory of Communicative Action, are covered in detail.The book concludes with an assessment of Habermas's contribution to philosophy and critical theory. ... Read more