Jurgen Habermas: A brief overview:
Before delving into the theories formulated by Jürgen Habermas, a brief overview of his contributions and achievements require the reader’s attention to understand the reasons that motivated Habermas to come up with such influential works that have been used worldwide. Habermas is considered a prominent figure when it comes to the field of social theory. He is also among one of the many notable German philosophers who has contributed towards the betterment of the society. His theories cover diverse topics such as communication, language, epistemology, and political thought, etc. Habermas’s concepts are directed towards the framework of society and cover all the aspects of it.
Due to the detail that he has put into his work, Habermas’s work is used in different fields such as in philosophy, science subjects, education, politics, psychology, sociology and many others. His work reflects an in-depth analysis of theories that are focused on society and knowledge and show a close association with the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt school is closely related to the theories presented by the Marxist school of thought. Habermas was devoted to examining the rule of law in politics specifically the one that is prevalent in Germany. His work is concerned with the concept of rationality while also focusing on the relation of rationality with communication. Habermas’s modified his ideas and has concentrated on the idea of morality is associated with the theory of rationalisation which had been initially formulated by Max Weber.
According to Habermas’s first publication which was titled Knowledge and Human
Interests (1968), mass social delusion and unthinkable conformity to rigid patterns of authority are social neuroses grounded in the societal repression of basic instincts that aim at individual and social fulfilment. As Habermas became more convinced of the importance of unlimited and undistorted communication in fulfilling emancipation from ideological delusions, he also became more committed to the idea of an open and democratic society. Forced to leave Frankfurt due to clashes with his former mentors, Habermas was invited by his two former students Hans-Georg
Gadamer and Karl Lowith to take up the Extraordinary Professorship of Philosophy at Heidelberg. That same year (1961) Habermas applied for a second doctorate in political science, and within the short span of just three years, in a stunning turn of events, he was appointed the chair of Philosophy and Sociology at the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt (1964). By 1970, Habermas’s belief that unlimited and undistorted communication was essential to both political action and knowledge led him to reconsider his previous knowledge centred conception of critical theory in favour of one founded on a theory of communicative action. From this point on,
Habermas increasingly focused his attention on linguistics, philosophy of language, and the relationship between moral development and the acquisition of intellectual communicative competence. In 1971, Habermas left Frankfurt to become co-director with Carl Stenberg, where he deepened this line of inquiry.
Historical Background of Critical Theory:
Critical Theorists have faced controversy by their political and theoretical merits. The group of intellectuals gained popularity during the political turmoil of the 1960’s and partly because they drew on traditions that had rarely been studied by the Anglo-American world (Ingram, 2010). The critical theorists drew attention to subjects such as mass culture and state and also the discourses that had recently been researching upon. They were critical towards capitalism and Soviet Socialism and turned their writings towards the possibility which is often sort after, to create an alternate path for social development (Held, 1980). It can be said that the founders of the critical theory preserved many of the concerns of German Idealist thought such as the nature of reason, truth and beauty but reformulated the way in which these had been previously understood (Held, 1980). They placed history at the centre of their approach to philosophy and society (Held, 1980).
The issues the critical theorists addressed went beyond a focus on the past and embraced future possibilities. Each of the critical theorists maintained that although all knowledge is historically conditioned, truth claims can be rationally adjudicated independently of immediate social interests. They defended the possibility of an independent moment of criticism. They also attempted to justify critical theory on non-objectivistic and materialistic foundations. The critical theorists worked further on the concepts that were present previously and developed on the notion of critique, from a concern with the condition and limits of reason (Held, 1980). Knowledge (Kant) to a reflection on the emergence of Spirit (Hegel) and then to focus on specific historical forms – capitalism, the exchange process (Marx) was furthered in the work of the Frankfurt theorists and Habermas (Held, 1980).
The theory took shape in Germany initially and was developed by intellectuals that belonged to the Marxist school of thought (Held, 1980). The work caught the attention of intellectuals and students everywhere, and copies of the work were sold for free anywhere. Critical theory was divided between the perspectives of Frankfurt School of thought and those of the views presented by Habermas (Held, 1980). Adorno and Horkheimer were in opposition of the opinions presented by Habermas as the latter one believed in paying more attention towards individuals of the society and on conducting rational debates in public sphere (Held, 1980).
Critical Theory:
From the amount of work done on critical theory, it can be said that the approach has been criticised by intellectuals all across the world (Held, 1980). The focus of the critical theorists was mainly on discourses that discussed mass culture and the State (Held, 1980). Society was an integral part of critical theory as the liberation of the individuals was the primary concern of the critical theorists (Held, 1980). However, it should be noted that the first generation of the Frankfurt school did not consider coming up with a solution for the problems faced by members of the society (Held, 1980). On the contrary, they only focused on describing different ideologies and presented a critique on the earliest notions of Marxist perspective (Held, 1980). Some of the followers of Marxism approach believed that Socialism had been a part of the traditional plan while the other half felt that social action would follow from the doctrine of the correct party line (Held, 1980). These two concepts raised a lot of questions as they were misleading. The followers of the determinism approach could not understand how men could make their history while the followers of the centrality group underestimated the way the making of history was affected by circumstances, “directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” (Held, 1980). Specific questions were raised regarding the theories that had been developed by different schools of thought; the problems are as follows:
1. How could the relationship between theory and practice now be conceived?
2. Could theory preserve hope for the future?
3. In changing historical circumstances, how could the revolutionary ideal be justified?
To understand the responses generated by the Frankfurt school and Habermas, the approaches of two men will be discussed; these men are Georg Lukacs and Karl Korsch (Held, 1980). Their attempts to address these issues led to the development of new concepts in Marxism. Lukacs and Korsch had raised questions about the dominant Marxist orthodoxies, such as the established doctrines of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties (Held, 1980). The two men by challenging belief and by rethinking Marxism about contemporary events created a basis for a reexamination of Marxist theory and Practice (Held, 1980). They both believed that Marx’s writings contain concepts, methods and principles which are violated by orthodox Marxism and both sought to elaborate and develop this dimension of Marx’s enterprise (Held, 1980). Lukacs and Korsch were of the view that the process of elaboration and development requires an examination of the Marxist origins and perspectives and the involvement of those thinkers who can aid the process of reconstruction (Bubner, 1982).
The purpose of the theory, therefore, is to analyse and expose the hiatus between the actual and the possible, between the existing order of contradictions and a potential future state (Bubner, 1982). Theory must be oriented, in short to the development of consciousness and the promotion of active political involvement (Held, 1980). Critical theorists retained many of Lukacs concerns: the interplay between history and theory, the importance of approach as a “promotive factor in the development of the masses.” (Held, 1980). The relation of production and culture, the effects of reification and the way each aspect of society contains within itself, ‘the possibility of the unravelling of the social whole or totality’ (Held, 1980).
Critique of Instrumental reason: Critical theory and Philosophy of History
The initial controversy surrounding Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere can be best perceived in the context of the work that was done in collaboration with the Institute for Social Research. By being under the wing of his two seniors, Horkheimer and Adorno, Habermas learned a great deal about how things were carried out. The guidance of both Adorno and Horkheimer gave Habermas the confidence to believe in his work and to do in whatever manner seems reasonable. Habermas was inspired enough to start his research, and he began with the investigation of how the new public sphere functioned especially during the Enlightenment period and the different revolutions that were going on across the European borders. He also examined how the public area was used for discussion and public debates.
Habermas formulated this study based on the Institute analysis of the transformation from the liberal capitalist approach of the ninetieth century to the stage that involved state and other institutes of the twentieth century. One of Habermas’s first article provided a critical point of views on the society that had turned the masses into consumers. In his article titled, Theory and Practice Habermas highlights the link between the unity of both theory and practice which was central to Marxist approach and also the critical theory of society which had moral and political dimensions. And in Theory and Practice, Habermas maintained the unity of theory and practice central to classical Marxism and the critical theory of society, while fleshing out the moral and political dimensions of critical theory. Initially, when Habermas had started working with the Institute of Social Research, his primary focus was on centred on the political opinions and the capabilities of students. While working on the behaviour of students and politics, Habermas stood by the principles of forma law, sovereignty, guaranteed rights and civil liberties as part of the legacy of the bourgeois society.
Habermas’s tactic for the use of an earlier model of bourgeois democracy to criticise the later instances where the bourgeois class were to suffer a decline and degeneration. Therefore, Habermas sought to come up with a normative ideology based on democracy that could be applied which could be used as a standard for critically analysing the welfare societies. He was of the view that both the Frankfurt school and Marx had underestimated the significance of the principles of laws, rights and the sovereignty. He also claims that both the Frankfurt school and Marx had been negligent of the re-democratisation of the radical social theory, which was a significant task. Around the year 1961, students had shown an interest in participating in the democratic conceptions which had caused Habermas deep concern. He set himself on the task to develop theories of democratisation and also about the political participation. From the very beginning to till this day, Habermas’s work has been labelled as extraordinary as it paid attention towards issues of utmost importance like the emphasis on radical democracy. Most often intellectuals overlook the political foundations of Habermas’s work and jump directly towards presenting a critique of his work.
It is evident from the ongoing advancements in different fields such as science, medicine, and technology which has added towards the increased the number of possibilities for human beings. With these advancements, the world has become hell according to Adorno because of all the opportunities that have been showered upon humans. Horkheimer and Adorno published an article Dialectic of Enlightenment in which they discussed the issues related to society and the way everyone was abandoning rationality and turning towards barbarism. Their purpose for the article was to understand rationality and social actuality while also looking at the nature and the mastery of nature. Both Adorno and Horkheimer asserted that it was human nature to possess everything possible. According to Adorno and Horkheimer, the trait of domination lies at the base of how the social and natural worlds are set apart and apprehended. The Dialectic of
Enlightenment played a crucial role in establishing the basis of the Frankfurt school. In the article, some of the most critical issues have been discussed such as “the rise and domination of instrumental reason”. Adorno and Horkheimer tried to explain the concept of domination in their article. However, little was done on this subject. They defined domination as “an attribute that takes place when an individual has his or her goals and purposes defined for which he or she strives to work hard and succeed. Domination can happen by anything be it nature or people or things, and then there is the second type which is internal in which individuals try to exercise controls over themselves.” From this definition, capitalism can be termed as a historical example of domination as it tried to dominate members of society by imposing rules on them. The purpose of Adorno and Horkheimer was not to recreate a philosophical system instead create concepts that worked towards the philosophy of history. They asserted that the theories were imposing themselves upon history and by doing so distorting it.
Apart from distorting history, these philosophies tend to impose “acts of severe brutality”. The authors gave examples of different views such as Christianity, idealism and materialism that initially worked on imparting truth to the individuals of a society, however, they were to be held responsible for victimising people. These ideologies acted as organising forces, but all they did was play a bloody role as is evident from history. The purpose of the Dialectic was not to prove what was right or what was beneficial for any society. Instead, the theory worked towards assessing any impending threats of domination. Herbert Marcuse maintains that a rational society is essential due to the circumstances such as the irrationality of the community, the limitation on productivity, the aggressive attitude regarding expansion, the impending threat of war and the exploitation of members of the community. The critical theory works towards creating a movement that pieces together everything.
Habermas’s Critical theory:
Habermas aimed at developing a critical approach by engaging himself with different discourses such as modern philosophy, modern social theory and also by contrasting his work with the work presented by the first generation of the critical theorists that belonged to the Frankfurt school (Bernstein, 2014). As has been discussed previously, Habermas was against the views of both Adorno and Horkheimer and believed that critical theory should be developed that focused more on the issues of the people than only explaining why the ideologies had been oppressive (Bernstein, 2014). He believed that his project strived towards making a theory that was focused on society with a practical intention which is to liberate the people from domination (Bubner, 1982). The theory formulated by Habermas aims to work towards understanding the social groups that are capable of changing the society. In regards to defending the theory of society, will and conscious Habermas has been concerned systematically to create its philosophical underpinnings (Bubner, 1982). To do carry on such a work, Habermas had to recreate some of the classical Greek philosophical works which specifically focused on the concepts of truth and virtue, facts and values and theory and practice (Bubner, 1982).
Habermas defined his project as a way to find the critical soul of science while also working towards understanding the essence of criticism (Braaten, 1991). The aim of redefining critical theory lies in the course of history (Braaten, 1991). Habermas’s critical theory does not intend to find a way out of the issues that have troubled people but rather to confront them by explaining and by also providing a critique of ideology (Braaten, 1991). Therefore, it is safe to say that the critical theory presented by Habermas then provides a diagnostic explanation, unlike the therapeutic explanation whose purpose is to provide a treatment for any ailment (Braaten, 1991). Unlike the Marxist theory and Freudian theory of psychoanalysis, that offer a therapeutic explanation, Habermas’s critical theory provides a diagnostic explanation to the problems that have been ailing everyone (Braaten, 1991). The diagnostic explanation works towards finding the causes of any crisis that has surfaced and then working through it to find a solution (Braaten, 1991). The diagnostic explanation then is associated with the critical theory of society offered by Habermas (Braaten, 1991).
The event of 1960’s had a profound impact on Habermas’s ways of thinking. The movement had been initially led by Habermas and was based on getting followers who sought radical democratisation of the society (Kellner, 2014). However, near the end of 1960’s, Habermas decided to part ways with the movement (Kellner, 2014). According to Habermas, the party had moved away from their initial purpose that was to seek primitive democratic society (Kellner, 2014). Habermas asserted that the members of the movement had been working towards implementing new laws and rules on the society instead of liberating people from the laws of the society (Kellner, 2014). The followers of the movement were critical of Habermas for not taking part in the actual struggles and instead shifting to the theoretical works. However. Habermas defended his position on using theoretical approach instead of working on doing anything practical (Kellner, 2014).
Jay M. Bernstein has written a book titled Recovering Ethical Life: Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical theory which is based on the theories presented by Habermas (2014). Bernstein regards Habermas as a spokesperson for a version of Kantian moral thought with his notion of the ideal speech situation or the unlimited communication community (Bernstein, 2014). He believes that Habermas’s perspective is Kantian and formal and it also goes through a series of procedures which gives the form of a thoroughly examined work (Bernstein, 2014). Another aspect that gives depth to Habermas’s work is his motive of locating communicative rationality about creating a critical theory that is entirely focused on society (Bernstein, 2014). The critical theory presented by Habermas should, therefore, be thought of as a synthesis for the Marxist perspective. It also acts the part of radical thought that centres on liberating the individuals from the restraints of different institutes and working towards implementing laws that provide justice to everyone (Bernstein, 2014).
It should also be noted that Habermas attempts to distinguish moral reasoning as pointed out by communicative reason from ethical identity (Bernstein, 2014). Habermas goes beyond the concepts of morality presented by Durkheim in which Durkheim states that deduction of morality is not possible as the moral rules submitted by any pure theory are logically binding and therefore are not ethical rules at all (Bernstein, 2014).
Structural transformation in the Public Sphere:
Habermas centred all his attention on the democratisation which was linked with an emphasis on the political participation as the core of a democratic society and also as an essential aspect that was part of the individual’s self-development (Jürgen Habermas, 1989). Habermas’s article Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere was set apart by diverse kinds of active, participatory bourgeois public sphere (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). Habermas discusses two main aspects in this book; one aspect includes the historical analysis of the bourgeois area that is followed up by the reports on the structural change in the public sphere (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). During the contemporary era and involved the rise of capitalism, industries, and the increase in distribution of influential positions of economic corporations to people belonging to the elite class. Habermas’s theory of public sphere explores the popular class of the eighteenth century especially in Great Britain, France and Germany (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). The central theme of the article centres on the changes in the public sphere over the years in the mentioned countries.
The article focuses on the shift of the public sphere from the elite class to the working class allowing the private sector to take control of the public domain (Habermas, 1991). This process has been termed as refeudalization of the public sphere by Habermas in his article Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962). Habermas claims in his report that the shift in economy and power structures had allowed the working class to gain access to the public sphere once again (Habermas, 1991). It also provided the consumers of that period to use people for their purposes such as turning the masses into unthinking consumers on one hand while the political groups and the state tried to turn the citizens into unthinking masses on the other side. For Habermas, the public sphere is a domain that allows people to view things critically and rationally and debate over the public policy (Habermas, 1991). The public sphere does not necessarily have to involve face to face interactions as it can be done through different mediums as well such as newspapers. Habermas states that public sphere in its ideal form is a domain that allows private people to come together in the shape of the public expressing the issues of the society with the state (Habermas, 1991).
According to Habermas, the public sphere is a part of the lifeworld as it provides an immediate setting for the individuals to involve themselves in interactive discussions (Keane, 1995). Therefore, Habermas, states that the public sphere should not be separated from lifeworld. Habermas focuses on the oral biases and emphasises the importance of communication between people of the private sector (Keane, 1995). He believes that the public sphere can be maintained through dialogue and debates between the members of society. The public sphere can be made better by allowing the communities to come up with different activities be it religious or recreational (Calhoun, 1992). Involving various institutes in the public sphere can give people the opportunity to come together and share their views and debate over matters that include social and economic issues (Calhoun, 1992). The public sphere was first institutionalised in Britain that allowed newspapers to present the views of the people on matters that involved the treatment of the Queen towards the people (Calhoun, 1992). A law had been passed known as the Licensing Act (1695) that let the newspapers talk about the Queen without following any censorship (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). However, despite the changes in the laws, there were still some strict laws that were kept to remind the people of the Queen’s position. Despite the laws, the public sphere has acted as an essential enabler of rational debate among the citizens (Jürgen Habermas, 1991).
The article Structural Transformation in Public Sphere is based on the historical and sociological account of the rise of the bourgeois public sphere and its disintegration (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). The article includes diverse subject matters such as law and politics, cultural history, social and economic factors to understand the structures and functions that lie at the centre of the modern society (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). Habermas writes in his article that the word public and public opinion have varying meanings. However, Habermas defines a public sphere as the private domain that is occupied by the members of a society, in which they come together forming a public sphere. According to Habermas, public opinion matters and therefore, should not be restricted when it comes to public discussions. Habermas also notes that the role of the press and media has been shifted from sharing the public’s opinion and move towards the promotion of consumer culture (Jürgen Habermas, 1991).
In his study on “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,” Habermas presented different aspects of participatory and active bourgeois public sphere through the view of bureaucratic industrialised society which was being controlled by the elites and the media (Alway, 1995). The book covers two critical themes that include an in-depth analysis of the historical genesis based on the bourgeois public sphere. This is inclusive of the era when the rising elements of cultural industries, capitalism, and the gradually increasing and influential positions that were owned by industrial businesses and corporations. This, in turn, caused the big economic companies and corporations to take full dominance over public sphere while the public opted to become the consumers of political administration, goods, and spectacle (Habermas et al., 1974).
Habermas begins the article by addressing the history of the public sphere and gives an account of the representative publicity that existed in the Middle Ages before the bourgeois public sphere rose to power (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). He traces the difference between both private and public by looking at different fields such as language and philosophy. The representative publicity consisted of Lords and nobles in which the King represented power while everyone else was a spectator (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). During the Middle Ages, there was no division between the private and the public sphere as the power rested in the hands of a King. Habermas further adds that for the public sphere to evolve, economic developments were of utmost importance (Jürgen Habermas, 1991).
In addition to this, Habermas highlighted the role of capitalist methods in terms of production, trade and commodities that were part of the evolution process (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). Furthermore, Habermas points out a significant attribute of the public sphere which was the use of rationality in critical debate. By allowing the public critical discussion to take place, the public sphere could keep a check on everything to make sure that power was not being used illegitimately used (Jürgen Habermas, 1991). According to Habermas, the sphere that was to be used as a place for discussion between the society and the state was replaced by the bourgeoisie (Duelund, 2010). The public sphere that was meant to show the ruler’s power to the people was replaced by the state’s authority which was monitored by the people (Duelund, 2010).
To study the emergence of the elite class, Habermas looked through different contexts such as the changes in the literary canon and the development in political journalism to the rising reading societies and the development of the coffee houses (Duelund, 2010). The public sphere, in this instance, encouraged rational debate within the sphere occupied by the bourgeois. Habermas highlights that during the eighteenth century, the rise in the political public sphere first took place in Britain (Duelund, 2010). The institutionalisation of the public sphere was carried out by the European bourgeois democratic states around the nineteenth century (Duelund, 2010).
Habermas remarks that the public sphere’s institutionalisation was done to keep a check on the use of power. Acquiring the status of a fully developed public sphere, it became wholly dependent on the social conditions that shifted over the passage of time (Duelund, 2010). The bourgeoisie took over the public sphere, it was seen as a literary public sphere where people belonging to the elite class came together to discuss topics related to literature and art. The bourgeoisie had replaced the rights of the liberal public sphere by continually having the state interfere in the matters of the society (Duelund, 2010). Habermas criticises the bourgeois for restricting people from entering the public sphere as a rule had been set that people with proper education and ownership of property could only enter (Duelund, 2010). With the emergence of the elite class, most of the bourgeois public sphere was closely linked to the aristocratic society. The public sphere that included museums, theatres and concerts still showed links to the original bourgeois class (Duelund, 2010).
With the emergence of the bourgeois public sphere came the increase in the publications of literary texts written by the elite class and for the elite class. An example of such a literary book is Pamela that became the best seller of the century (Duelund, 2010). The changes were not only seen in the field of literature but architectural structures as well. The popular architectural style had disappeared to the extent that newly built houses did not have separate dining and drawing rooms (Duelund, 2010). Apart from these changes, a shift was seen in the way people interacted with one another. A change was seen in the way the authors perceived their society and then projected it in their writings (Duelund, 2010). An intimate mutual relationship was observed between the privatised individuals who showed a keen interest in the human psyche and empathy (Duelund, 2010).
To this, Habermas adds, that the actual role of the public sphere was to express the interests of the civil society. Habermas claims that if one looks at the meaning of public sphere, it can be seen that public sphere was created for the public to come together and share their opinion. Habermas considers the concept of the public opinion in light of the ideas presented by intellectuals like Hegel, Mill, Marx, Kant and Tocqueville. Hence, the term ‘public sphere’ as it was a domain in which matters of privacy concerns that were affecting the members of a society were to be shared so that solutions could be discussed. It is noticeable that with the passage of time, the bourgeois public sphere disintegrated due to economic and structural shifts. However, a significant aspect to be noted is that the public sphere was ruled by the social welfare democracies in which there was an ongoing competition between organisations that had conflict over interests and the public had been excluded from it.
The significance of Critical Theory:
Critical theory offers the members to conduct a reflection on the constructs of their society and the contributions towards knowledge (Held, 1980). It also promotes them to consider the proposed claims for the concepts of neutrality and its ability to hide the role knowledge takes on towards creating an environment of social arrangements that are unsatisfactory. The perceptual idea of Critical theory exhibits an opposition towards the evident claims, directed at the social world (Held, 1980). These claims represent the idea that the prevalent structures show signs of being immutable. Furthermore, the theory looks into the possibilities of different view which offer the chances of groups or individuals are capable of aspiring for a high level towards their freedom and can truly attain it (Held, 1980).
In a detailed investigation towards the concept of freedom leads the observer to believe that the inherent factors of social relations are possible to acquire. The theory, however, forwards the idea that it is in denial to the concept of power and class being the obvious and most general determinants of this social exclusion. This also relates to production, since it is not the only other factor other than power and class, on which history or society will solely rely on (Held, 1980). In support to the points viewed by Critical theory, an important aspect is that Critical theory can provide judgments based on social arrangements, and their ability in defining the limit to accept any form of open dialogue with others. This view analyses the factors that can break the unjustified exclusion for political communities (Held, 1980). From an essential point of the theory, it envisages a model that abolishes the concept of object distinction and subjects, whereas applying emphasis on the available human needs and the sole purpose that determines the key elements that decide which knowledge is valuable and which is not (Held, 1980).
Habermasian Approach:
The Habermasian approach provided to be useful in promoting elements that were able to identify three essential interest areas distinctively. These three interest areas directed towards technical interest, emancipatory interest, and practical interest. Further analysis of each of these respective interests revealed that,
- Professional interest is related towards the notion of establishing a base that conceptualises the power to extend control over elements such as society and nature.
- Emancipatory interest conveys the idea of locating and identifying social constraints and confinements and eradicating them over time.
- Practical interest promotes the notion for an individual to create an understanding based on the practice of establishing and maintaining communities.
By the critical theory and implementing the concepts on to the interests, it becomes understandable as to what role these interests play and their ability to contribute knowledge, provide a frame to evaluate the subject’s method of analysis better and bring forth the difficulties of value-free knowledge. All points considered, the critical theory adds further to the argument that society will remain to be incomplete if it is found to be lacking the fundamental purpose of emancipatory needs.
Habermas’s contribution in the field of Philosophy:
Intellectuals all over the world believe that Habermas’s most influential contribution in the field of philosophy has been through the formulation of the rationality theory. Habermas thinks that the best way to utilise human rationality is not merely by achieving one’s own goals but to come up with a way to build a community that is devoted to using the communicative methods (Jürgen Habermas, 1984). Habermas believes in creating a community that lives in harmony and where people are open to public debate. By putting effort into making such a community, Habermas asserts that the members of a society will be exhibiting an excellent example of rational beings (Jürgen Habermas, 1984). Therefore, Habermas focused on securing an ‘ideal speech scenario’ to let the masses speak up and voice their concerns to obtain some solution for the issues that can be solved through rational debate (Jürgen Habermas, 1984).
In the realm of communicative rationality, a theory which stresses upon human rationality as an essential outcome that has been achieved through the procedure of affluent communication, Habermas asserts that humans are competent of gaining some speech that has undergone agreement (Jürgen Habermas, 1984). He also emphasises on the fact that we as members of a society should work towards making a change in our surroundings by interacting with others openly and utilising our knowledge on different subjects instead of following the norms that the community has set out for the members (Jürgen Habermas, 1984).
Habermas admits that the formulation of communicative rationality has been a significant achievement (Jürgen Habermas, 1984). Furthermore, Habermas asserts that his theory of rationality differs from the viewpoints presented by other rationalists as Habermas believes that rationality can only be located when used in spoken communication (Dallmayr, 1988). His theory is significant as it helps in liberating humans from the constraints of the society that have been imposed on them through the implementation of different ideologies (Dallmayr, 1988). It is also believed that aside from socially liberating people from the shackles of the society, the theory also presents an adequate framework based on morality (Dallmayr, 1988). In addition to this, the social structure offered by the theory of rationality highlights the assertion that all forms of speech acts lead up to an end which shows that the goal of shared understanding has been achieved (Dallmayr, 1988). It should be noted that the theory of rationality was formulated by using different theories such as the social theory and moral theory that had been presented by influential philosophers such as Jean Piaget, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl-Otto Apel and many more (Dallmayr, 1988).
Habermas’s contribution in the field of Law and Politics:
Habermas has been a devoted mentor to many and has taught at various institutes. Over the years, there has been a never-ending debate based on the link between law and religion (Modak-Truran, 1997). Intellectuals are of the view that the world is not an integrated whole anymore, it has been divided by the differences based on metaphysical and religious viewpoints. They also believe that law stands as a meaningless institute as it can keep the people together (Modak-Truran, 1997). Looking at the theories that have made a difference in the field of science subjects, it can be seen that the theory of communicative action has contributed significantly in the field of law and politics (Modak-Truran, 1997). Habermas claimed a form of democracy in which the constitution and laws are readily accessible to the public opinion. He was of the view that by utilising this form of democracy, the member of a society will be made aware of their interests in self-governance (Modak-Truran, 1997). By doing so, people will take responsibility for their actions will cling to rational and logical debates. By allowing rational discussions to take place in the public sphere, the society will become more humane and will be rid of class-related issues. Habermas claims that in order for the law to be functional in the present times, it needs to have a post-metaphysical justification as the Western world continues to become disenchanted with the passage of time (Modak-Truran, 1997). In such a society, the capabilities of human beings will be accepted and will also be put to good use. Furthermore, Habermas argues that by eliminating the religious concepts and the notions regarding existence and life, the law can be implemented in a society (Modak-Truran, 1997).
In an article Towards Reconstructing Historical Materialism, Habermas voices his concerns regarding Marxist perspectives. He asserts that the Marxist analysis of human evolution has been limited to the economic development only and human liberty has been entirely left out. Furthermore, Habermas argues that the Marxist school of thought had seen the advancement of human communities as occurring in a linear form while Habermas says that human progress cannot be confirmed to go in a linear pattern as humans can show dynamism. Therefore, the progress of human societies should be thought of as multi-dimensional and randomly occurring phenomenon.
Habermas’s contribution in the field of Education:
The impact of Habermas’s immediate surroundings during his childhood has been reflected in his theories of rationality and communicative action. Being born in Germany during an ear of National Socialism, Habermas was not allowed to leave his home land like his predecessors had been (Terry, 1997). The first generation of the Frankfurt school had been allowed to leave Germany (Terry, 1997). However, the time during which Habermas had been a part of the Frankfurt school, the movement based on National Socialism became an obstacle in Habermas’s way. Habermas’s work reflects the history of Germany and also Habermas’s attempts to save whatever he could from the German Enlightenment project (Terry, 1997).
The time during which Habermas was growing up, the German government had been suppressing the rights of its people, making them devoid of any free will and imposing their own rules on the citizens. Germany was enveloped in propaganda that was spreading lies, and distorted ideologies which were restricting people from living their life the way they wanted (Terry, 1997). The treatment of the Nazi leadership has left its impact on many Germans, and Habermas’s works are an example of the impact. He refers to the notions of freedom, truth and rationality through and through his concepts which highlights the impact of Nazi rule in Germany during the time he was growing up.
The oppression and propaganda of 1933-1945 have turned Habermas into the man he is now, willing to fight for the rights of fellow human beings and urging people to raise their voice and express their concerns in matters of public interest (Terry, 1997). Apart from the oppressive rule of the German government on its people, Habermas has also provided evidence of the policies concerned with the field of education. During the Nazi rule, works of many influential writers had been banned in Germany such as Marx and Freud. Around the middle of 1950’s, Habermas took on the field of journalism which provided him with the opportunity to pose questions and initiate debates about important matters that required immediate attention (Terry, 1997). His participation in debates continues to the present day, and he has been voicing the concerns of people on various matters that have so often been neglected by the Government.
Habermas has contributed significantly to the German newspapers, magazines and periodicals (Terry, 1997). His work has mostly been recognised outside German-speaking countries since he has always been criticising the way the Nazi rule and the German government had suppressed the rights of the people and brainwashed them in believing the distorted ideologies (Terry, 1997). If one goes through Habermas’s earlier works, it can be seen that he examined different concepts of knowledge and in which he specified three areas which are analytical knowledge, hermeneutic knowledge and critical knowledge. These three areas formulate a model and reflect the concepts of Kantian perspectives that were based on science, aesthetics and morality (Terry, 1997). These three areas of knowledge serve different types of human interests such as the empirical interests of people can be served through the notions of science which then comes under the field of analytical knowledge (Terry, 1997).
Furthermore, the interests in different contexts such as historical and cultural context are catered by hermeneutically driven knowledge. Lastly, the interest in the concept of freedom is similar to the core elements of knowledge (Terry, 1997). In addition to the above mentioned examples, it becomes evident that the three areas of knowledge fall into the category of different discourses such as social sciences, natural sciences and psychology (Terry, 1997). While examining the types of expertise, Habermas has provided the key to analyze the education structures in which each type is said to be based on one of the aspects of knowledge. For instance, analytical knowledge includes material related to education such as curriculum; hermeneutics comprises of educational methodologies such as praxis.
Lastly, critical modes include concepts that are responsible for raising questions regarding policies (Terry, 1997). If Habermas’s perspectives regarding knowledge are to be considered, then it is evident from the theories that he treats knowledge as a cumulative phenomenon that involves data being assimilated at every level which forms the basis for the next one. For instance, when analysing factual knowledge, the understanding of the concept is revealed which then becomes a topic that is to be critically examined (Terry, 1997). The critical analysis of factual knowledge can be related to what the students are lead through in educational institutes. Also, if the methodology of teaching is to be examined, then it can be seen that analytic element is prevalent in the way teachers share knowledge with students (Terry, 1997). The teaching methodologies, are then categorised as the traditional approach that is used in knowledge. Moving on to the last area of knowledge, which is a hermeneutic method, it can be seen that this method is part of the progressive philosophy (Terry, 1997).
Viewing teaching methods regarding psychological development that are achieved by every student, it can be seen that the process links back to Habermas’s critical theory of society and also to the concepts presented by the first generation of critical theorists from Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (Terry, 1997). The process of acquiring knowledge, be it analytical or hermeneutic or critical based, reflects a learning process, and it is in this cognitive process that a link is seen between Habermas’s concepts of knowledge and the change in his perspectives that happened at a later stage due to his remodeling of the idea into communicative action and interaction (Terry, 1997). A difference in the views of the earlier critical theorists and those of Habermas is evident from the way Habermas focused less on the psychological development of humans and more on the theories that had been implemented on the individuals of a society.
The impact of the German government on its citizens is prevalent in the works of Habermas (Terry, 1997). He could not forget the barbaric attitude of Nazi leadership towards the German citizens and his views regarding such an oppressive rule can be observed in his writings (Terry, 1997). Habermas was unable to understand why such a large population would find way to justify the actions of the tyrant rulers and accept the atrocities that had been brought down on them (Terry, 1997). Habermas’s notion of freedom and rationality seem to have risen out of the sufferings that he had seen during his childhood and left a profound impact on his psyche. Habermas asserts in his concept of rationality that the learning process of any society relies on the people who make up that society, therefore, these processes should be considered to be of utmost importance so that any regression can be avoided from taking place in a society or a community (Terry, 1997).
Aside from the cognitive processes that play a crucial role in the development of a society, Habermas points his reader’s attention towards the regeneration of the social sphere in light of the struggles that are present between the social systems and the life-world in which people live out their days. Habermas asserts that the function of the system is to colonise the life-world (Terry, 1997). He views language as a means to gaining a rational consensus which he considers to be the fundamental mode of social interaction. In addition to this, Habermas also points that by aiming for social interaction, members of a society can avoid putting an end to any colonization from taking place within any system (Terry, 1997).
It is crucial to note that Habermas has drawn his communicative action theories from the works of Austin and Searle, both of them had been influenced by Wittgenstein, Habermas has been facing problems as the intellectuals are unable to differentiate between his theories of communicative action and the ideas based on sphere along with those that are focused on the notions of language (Terry, 1997).
Considering Habermas’s concepts of language, it becomes evident that Habermas paid less attention to the structure of language and more on the practical use of speech regarding social interaction (Terry, 1997). Habermas’s avoidance of linguistic competence shows that his work contradicts that of Noam Chomsky’s which is focused on generative grammar. It is crucial to note that Habermas does not differentiate between practical issues or the questions of morality (Terry, 1997). The stance that Habermas takes on this notion leads groups like cultural relativists to raise awareness about the concept of universalism.
Habermas believes that if topics based on the notions of universalism are to be brought forward, then they should be supported by arguments, facts and figures that can make their existence understandable (Terry, 1997). By providing arguments to support such assumptions, Habermas believes that by critically analysing such concept the authenticity can be evaluated. It should be kept in mind that the apprehension of any subject matter is a fundamental component of language (Terry, 1997). The truth aspect, Habermas asserts, can be judged by analysing the linguistic expressions of the speaker. Also, the way people utilise linguistic patterns for commencing communicative action can show the truthfulness in their arguments (Terry, 1997).
Furthermore, it should be noted that when initiating a communicative interaction, the participants should make sure that they all refer to the same level of language. By doing so, they can all refer to facts and figures to argue on any subject so that every individual is familiar with the topic of discussion and is prepared to comment on it with true intentions and sufficient knowledge (Terry, 1997). Habermas asserts that people should not use illogical statements to prove themselves right. Nor should people try to force people or persuade them into accepting the comments uttered during any debate (Terry, 1997). Habermas prefers being rational over everything and urges people to be logical when asked to take part in any debate so that the debate reaches a conclusion and in doing so presents a solution to important matters (Terry, 1997). Habermas believes that if everyone used fair means when taking part in any argument and provided sufficient proof for every case only then can an ideal speech situation be achieved which is the whole point behind his theory (Terry, 1997).
Moving onto Habermas’s concept of a public sphere, it should be noted that Habermas does not consider the state to be independent. He regards the state to be a nonresponsive agent as it does not deal with the interests of its people (Terry, 1997). Habermas voices his concerns and suggests that the state and the citizens need to have a channel of communication to share their interests and concerns regarding essential matters. The channel of communication created by the state and the citizens are referred to as the public sphere. The public sphere includes a range of informal associations and also receives coverage by the mass media. In the public sphere, members of a society are allowed to bring up any social concern which is then formally considered in the political system (Terry, 1997). Gordon Graham has structured his philosophical reflections on the concepts of Habermas, saying that there does exist a never-ending tension between the public opinion as it is made practical by the inclusion of pressure groups as they only join the public sphere for the sake of gaining publicity to get their interests approved (Emden & Midgley, 2013). Graham questions the function of public opinion and its rational authority since people use it for personal reasons instead of sharing their views regarding matters that concern the whole public (Emden & Midgley, 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Habermas’s works have not been limited to one discourse only but to different fields of sciences ranging from philosophy to social sciences, natural sciences, law and politics, education, psychology and many others. Habermas has influenced many generations of intellectual thinkers across the world. Old and young alike have been impacted by his concept of rationality and lifeworld when it comes to creating a unified public sphere. Habermas’s experiences while living in Germany changed his perception of the way the power structures worked and motivated him to strive for creating a better society that would not oppress its members. Liberating people from social restraints have been Habermas’s goal throughout his professional career. He continues to inspire people with his works based on rationality and hopes to achieve a society that will allow people to come together and interact so that the social issues can be brought to an end. Habermas has a firm belief in the human capabilities to change the society and take control of what is rightfully theirs.
Theory of Communicative Action
Coming to the theory of Communicative Action, Habermas’s works have contributed to the development of different fields (Jurgen Habermas & Habermas, 1984). Not only has Habermas presented a new perspective but he also worked towards the betterment of the society. Due to his efforts, the field of social psychology of communication is indebted to Habermas (Jurgen Habermas & Habermas, 1984). Another noticeable feature is the core tenets, theories and critiques of the twentieth century concerned with the social psychology phenomenon attendant to the communication have been rooted out from Habermas’s work (Jurgen Habermas & Habermas, 1984).
Habermas’s concept of social psychology has been the centre of criticism as the critics continue to debate over communicative tension that is central to his theory. However, other fields of study have benefited significantly from the concepts presented by Habermas (Bolton, 2005). Habermas faced a lot of critique due to his work that was based on the importance of language and communicative action (Bolton, 2005). The critics were of the view that the concept of communicative action could not be trusted as an approach that could call for rational discussions among people to resolve significant issues and international conflicts (Bolton, 2005).
Habermas’s agent of rationality and communicative rationality:
Some intellectuals are of the view that Habermas’s concepts easily invite misrepresentation. The themes utilised by Habermas can be abstruse to an extent, allowing people to be highly critical of his works (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). Criticism of Habermas’s concepts has permitted him to reformulate his perspectives, strengthening the theoretical and conceptual articulation. Habermas’s theory of communicative action had attracted a considerable amount of critique, especially during the time that followed after the book’s publication and the translation into English language (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). It is noticeable that most critics have failed to criticise Habermas’s works in the manner that it should have been criticised. While analysing Habermas’s theory of critical theory and theory of communicative action, it can be seen that Habermas has mentioned some aspects of idealisation in his theories (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). However, communicative rationality is an essential assumption ensures communicative action (Rienstra & Hook, 2006).
Habermas’s Communicative Rationality:
According to McCarthy, the primary purpose of the theory is to highlight the importance of language especially regarding communication as it allows people from different communities to come together in the domains of public and to discuss important matters. By allowing people to gather for public arguments, a change can be brought about in the way things are perceived in the society (McCarthy, 1984). The individuals of the community will not be restricted by the democratic ideologies but will have liberation in thought and actions. The theory of Communicative action is primarily based on the difference between two concepts of rationality which model knowledge to pave the way for action (Bolton, 2005). The first idea of rationality is the cognitive-instrumental rationality which performs actions that helps in the successful acceptance of privately set goals. This kind of actions can be either instrumental or strategic. The second concept of rationality is based on communicative rationality which strives for attaining mutual understanding which can be acquired through the process of agreement between communicative subjects (Bolton, 2005).
Habermas states an affirmation to the agents of rationality, and their transition from the state of being unassuming at first, towards the state of becoming more unlikely (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). However, his opinions and expectations towards the notion of communicative rationality are inflationary. Inflationary directing towards the conceptualization of communicative rationality bringing connotation with it, basing it on the emphasized experience of unconstrained, an ability to unify, with the addition of a mutually acceptable argumentative or debatable speech elements for a group of individuals that participate in an activity to overcome the prevailing subjective concepts (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). It also implies that these participants present an agreeable factor of conviction that turns into motivation based on rationality. This notion prompts the individuals to idealise a state where unification of an objective world with the intersubjectivity of the world they live in (Rienstra & Hook, 2006).
All points for communicative rationality considered, Habermas promotes and asserts an opinion that responsible people can exhibit behaviours of being rational (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). Applying this towards the context of communicative action, he stated that people that are considered to be individuals with the traits of being responsible can play out their roles of creating a community based on effective communication (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). It also indicates the talent they have towards owning the ability to instantiate intersubjectively on the grounds of being valid claims (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). However, there is a condition based on two agents owning up to conviction, claiming to identify them as being sources for rational motivation, but is opposed to being reconciled subjectively or being proven objectively. Based on these factors, it poses the question of whether these agents are capable of becoming unified on the criteria of communication (Rienstra & Hook, 2006).
A second questionable situation may arise based on the basis that if an individual merely continues to maintain the practice of community-oriented delusions because of it being a norm to follow, then how will they be able to seek out motivation towards identifying verification for these delusions? (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). Habermas presents a thorough and understandable approach towards the certain issues for communication in his essay called “A Reply,” included in the edition by Honeth and Joa called “Communicative Action.” In his investigations, Habermas pinpoints the facts for communicative rationality being much more than a mere factor contributing to idealisation. He presented communication rationality to be an entity that is accurate, giving concrete facts and being relative to understanding for society (Rienstra & Hook, 2006).
Realizing the debt he had towards Humboldt, he elaborates the fact based on Humboldt was already owning a concept of “normative twist” towards the view of formal pragmatics, therefore displaying his supportive role for “rational period of speech” Most of the critics of Habermasian explain the problems associated with communicative actions via the means of leaning on the support of ‘idealizing suppositions.’ (Rienstra & Hook, 2006). However, there are fewer critics that oppose the concept of non-idealized assumptions created by communicative rationality (Luckin, 1989). Being based on these precise conditions, Habermas required a simple precondition to the acting agent in considering the communicative action for the normative actions (Luckin, 1989).
He relates it to his previous explanation that is based on the fact that it also implies that these participants present an agreeable factor of conviction that turns into motivation based on rationality (Luckin, 1989). This notion prompts the individuals to idealise a state where unification of an objective world with the intersubjectivity of the world they live in (Luckin, 1989). All points for communicative rationality considered, Habermas promotes and asserts an opinion that responsible people can exhibit behaviours of being (Luckin, 1989). These declare communicative actions to be forming the foundations for a society to express and communicate while granting freedom to an individual to question the norms around them and prosper (Luckin, 1989). Another fact that is noticeable is that most critics have failed to criticise Habermas’s works in the manner that it should have been criticised (Luckin, 1989). While analysing Habermas’s theory of critical theory and theory of communicative action, it can be seen that Habermas has mentioned certain elements of idealisation in his theories and described this process to be vital for a society to build and grow on (Luckin, 1989). This became a dominating factor to present against his critics. This theory proved a good factor for him to promote his ideas to individuals (Luckin, 1989). Habermas’s simplest expectations for communicative agent can be witnessed from the following lines, in which Habermas states,
“If we assume that the human species maintains itself through the socially coordinated activities of its members and that this coordination has to be established through communication – and in certain central spheres through communication aimed at reaching agreement – then the reproduction of the species also requires satisfying the conditions of rationality that is inherent in communicative action.” (Habermas, 1984)
Habermas goes on to assert that for life to carry out the process of self-preservation, it has to comply with the rationality conditions of communicative action (Habermas, 1984). The reason for this assertion is that individuals are in the habit of harmonising their accomplishments and efforts through actions that are followed out by criticizable validity claims (Habermas, 1984). Habermas makes strong declarations in his theory of communicative action, and his claims should be acted upon by intellectuals who wish to apply the idealised defence to Habermas’s concepts based solely on rationality (Habermas, 1984). Habermas states that if one is to assume that the human activity is kept through communication between individuals, then the fact that human beings prevail, goes beyond rationality assumptions that are prevalent in human interactions. McCarthy writers that, Habermas wanted to show that the capacity to perform the communicative action and to act rationally and contemplate about any disputed validity claims is part of the developmental logically advanced stage among the wide circle of competent species (Habermas, 1984). Habermas states that his perspective of communicative rationality is necessary both about developmental and logical terms (Habermas, 1984). Habermas asserts that for communicative rationality to be foundational, rational agents are needed. He states in his theory that, “Communicative action always requires an interpretation that is rational in approach.” (Habermas, 1984)
The term rational refers to a guideline that contemplates the conditions of rationality for both the subjects be it the speaker or the acting one. While analysing Habermas’s theory of Communicative action, it can be seen that Habermas did not depart fundamental essence from the intuitive meaning of individual rationality (Habermas, 1984). The close link between the concept of knowledge and rationality shows that the rationality of a concept is dependent on the accuracy of knowledge manifested in it (Habermas, 1984). In addition to this, Habermas adumbrates rationality which relies on the subjective interpretations, but at the same time, his rejection of relativist theory commits him to subjects and objects that give in to the factuality of strongest sense of faith (Habermas, 1984). Aside from this, Habermas asserts that any expression’s rationality is evaluated in light of three things which are, the internal links between the semantic count of such expressions, their conditions of validity and the reasons that are provided for the authenticity of statements (Habermas, 1984).
In the theory of communicative action, Habermas examines the terms of rational argumentation in communicative action to differentiate between validity claims that overtly or covertly seeded in the acts of speech (Bolton, 2005). Habermas distinguishes between the following claims, comprehensible and well-organised speech acts can cause an objective claim towards being authentic, a standardising claim to righteousness, and a strong claim towards honesty (Bolton, 2005). In addition to this, Habermas states that there are different discourse whose purpose it is to address the above mentioned claims. These discourses are various and include, a theoretical discussion that focuses on truth, a moral-practical discourse that assesses standardising righteousness and aesthetic critique on the sincerity. By stating the core concepts of this theory, Habermas formulates two-stage approach of lifeworld and system. Habermas highlights that the claims presented in communicative action are most often left unquestioned or are not criticised because they have taken place in the spheres of a shared lifeworld that remains undisputed. Furthermore, Habermas asserts that the lifeworld gives the public a commonly agreed upon background knowledge in which the communicative action can take place (Baxter, 1987).
In light of the assertion, Habermas claims that a characteristic of the occidental society’s rationalisation is that the lifeworld has distinct lines of validity claims of speech acts. Therefore, a line has been drawn between three performative attitudes of communicative action. These are, an objectifying attitude towards the outer world that is based on events and circumstances, a standardising approach towards the social world that involves a community and lastly an expressive attitude towards the inner world that is based on the subjectivity of members of society. It is evident so far that Habermas’s concept of the lifeworld does not limit itself to the traditions of the culture of a specific group or community. Not only does the lifeworld provide a set of cultural values, but it also keeps the social actors in check so that they abide by the standards set by the society. It also enables the social actors to act as capable personalities by their environment (Baxter, 1987).
According to Habermas, lifeworld has a double meaning, such that on the one hand, there are contexts of culture, society, and personality within communicative actions (Bolton, 2005). On the other hand, by participating in communicative acts, people can transfer their knowledge to others and by doing so recreate the cultural experience while also developing a social identity (Wren et al., 1990). Moving on to Habermas’s concept of social evolution, it is seen that the process takes a vital turn when the sociologist argues about the action-oriented approach of the lifeworld which cannot account for all the issues of the modern world. In Habermas’s views, the process of rationalisation should be looked at not only as a distinction of the lifeworld as a communicative order that has been developed through symbols. Instead, it should be understood in regards to the material foundations of society as well. The double meaning then shows that organizations have to maintain transmission of traditional values, norms, and processes of socialisation. Also, they should be in control of their surroundings to achieve interventions (Jovchelovitch, 2001).
Emergence of the Public Sphere and the Public Opinion
While discussing the theory of communicative rationality, it is important to discuss the emergence of public sphere and also the concept behind public opinion that Habermas has so thoroughly discussed in his theories. In chapter 2 of the book Beyond Habermas: Democracy, Knowledge and the Public Sphere a brief history of Europe has been given regarding the emergence of the public sphere that highlights the class divide and the social complexities that followed because of such a gap (Emden & Midgley, 2013). When looking at the history of European societies, it can be observed that there was a general divide among the people based on the social strata they occupied. The class was divided into two, the ruling class and the one that was ruled (Emden & Midgley, 2013). It should also be noted that besides the standard division, another class existed which was referred to as the middle class and constituted of tax collectors, administers and bureaucrats. However, the middle class was soon enough pushed into the category of the class that was ruled (Emden & Midgley, 2013).
Different notable events in the history of humanity have been said to have influenced the class divide, resulting in the power shift between the ruling and the ruled. In spite of this, the ruled gave the authority to a magistrate so that there would be a single, unitary management that would have power under its control (Emden & Midgley, 2013). By doing so, people could safeguard their lives and their rights while leaving the essential matters for the magistrate. However, the magistrate was at the mercy of the people and could be removed if the people suspected any misuse of power or corruption (Emden & Midgley, 2013). A historical conception took place in which an idealized contract was brought forward that allowed the people to select a ruler and could at any time have the ruler removed by giving a combined consensus.
In addition to this the shift in power led to the emergence of a different type of middle class that was in control of evaluating essential matters. The middle class acted as a medium that conveyed the issues of the people to the state through the realm of the public sphere. The act of sharing matters that had some political or social context led to the creation of the public opinion (Emden & Midgley, 2013). The middle class differed from the ruling class in that they did not occupy the same positions as the ruling class did. Instead, they held diverse fields of study such as journalism, researchers, writers, and campaigners, etc. (Emden & Midgley, 2013). The middle class worked actively in safeguarding the rights of its people and forwarding the concerns of the public to the state. However, Habermas highlights that the middle class lost its activeness and was only referred to in the public opinion as a name only with no practicality. Everything was handled by the state, and the rights of the people mattered not to the ruling class (Emden & Midgley, 2013).
It is also important to note that Government had most of the power, but despite that, it had the option to concern itself with social matters while the middle class was focused on personal interests and not living in harmony. The public sphere, therefore, bridges the gap between the two to end the social complexities that are prevalent in any society (Emden & Midgley, 2013). Habermas, in an essay The Public Sphere portrays his concern for the survival of the public sphere in a place that was entirely democratic. The public sphere carries out two functions, the first one being the role of a mediator between the ruler and the ruled. The process is carried out in the form of a tribunal of public opinion in which the rulers are involved so that they can guide the people in making better choices (Emden & Midgley, 2013). The second function which the public sphere carries is to the formation of the public opinion. Public sphere allows people to communicate freely, and share ideas on different subjects. It also keeps the social institutions safe such as the political groups, the educational institutes and the media, etc. (Emden & Midgley, 2013). All these institutes do not only take part in creating the public opinion but also provide for its critical scrutiny.
Also, it should be added that Habermas’s believes in the public sphere as a place for a public opinion where rational debates can be carried out stands right to an extent. However, in the present times with the social problems being at their height, and racism being an urgent matter, can the people come together and be rational about these issues? (Keane, 1995). The old power structures that held the public life together have eroded in the present world, and the concept of a unified public sphere is to be seen nowhere (Keane, 1995). Habermas’s concerns about the society not utilizing speech acts to bridge the gap is valid but when looking at the current condition of the society, it seems hardly possible to use rationality as people do not put any effort in learning about different social causes and neither do they put any effort in coming up with a solution to which everyone can agree on (Emden & Midgley, 2013).
Conclusion:
Habermas’s contribution in different fields is evident as his concepts have changed the thinking of the intellectuals and granted access to thought of new ways for people to utilize communicative actions. His focus on speech acts is seen to be crucial as it allows people to come together and share their viewpoints on essential matters. However, in the present times where the social issues are at a rise and people refuse to use rational thinking when it comes to debate, it is safe to say that Habermas’s theory of communicative action and rationality are most often put aside. Furthermore, the public sphere is used less for the sake of rational debates and more for attaining personal interests. Politicians care about the troubles of their people on the front but do they are most often seen to be worrying about their own goals. The present world has become a social hub where people use technology to share their opinions. However, the negative aspect of it is that the internet does not provide people with authentic information. Despite the invalidity of the facts, the present generation continues to rely on it. Habermas worked for the betterment of the society so that humans were liberated from the shackles of the institutes that were taking away their rights and oppressing them in every which way. Being a victim of the Nazi rule, Habermas was willing to change the societal structures and urged people to voice their opinions. Public sphere according to Habermas holds an important place in any society as it lets people bring out various issues. Also, it is evident from Habermas’s continuous assertion on language that language plays an important role in bringing communities together and solving issues that have been ailing people. While his focus has not been on the linguistic patterns, he does explain the role of language in engaging participants and how the facts and figures can bring about a solution to various problems
References
Alway, J. (1995). Critical theory and political possibilities: Conceptions of emancipatory politics in the works of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Habermas. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bernstein, J. M. (2014). Recovering ethical life: Jurgen Habermas and the future of critical theory. Routledge.
Bolton, R. (2005). Habermas’s theory of communicative action and the theory of social capital. Association of American Geographers, Denver, Colorado, April, 2.
Braaten, J. (1991). Habermas’s critical theory of society. Suny Press.
Bubner, R. (1982). Habermas’s concept of critical theory. In Habermas (pp. 42–56). Springer.
Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. MIT press.
Dallmayr, F. (1988). I. Habermas and Rationality. Political Theory, 16(4), 553–579.
Emden, C., & Midgley, D. R. (2013). Beyond Habermas: democracy, knowledge, and the public sphere. Berghahn Books.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalisation of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. T. Burger and F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere. An Inquiry.
Habermas, J., & Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Beacon Press.
Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas (Vol. 261). Univ of California Press.
Ingram, D. (2010). Habermas: Introduction and analysis. Cornell University Press.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2001). Social representations, public life, and social construction.
Keane, J. (1995). Structural transformations of the public sphere. Communication Review (The), 1(1), 1–22.
Kellner, D. (2014). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy. In Re-imagining public space (pp. 19–43). Springer.
Luckin, P. (1989). The concept rationality in the work of Jurgen Habermas (PhD Thesis). The University of Cape Town.
Modak-Truran, M. (1997). Habermas’s Discourse Theory of Law and the Relationship Between Law and Religion. Cap. UL Rev., 26, 461.
Terry, P. R. (1997). Habermas and Education: knowledge, communication, discourse. Curriculum Studies, 5(3), 269–279.
