Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 81 items for :

  • "Jürgen Habermas" x
  • Refine by Access: All content x
  • Refine by Content Type: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Communication, Context, and Narrative

Habermas and Contemporary Realist Thought

Navid Hassanzadeh

Alongside John Rawls, realists have frequently called attention to Jürgen Habermas's work as illustrative of much of what is wrong with political theory today: the promotion of moralism, rationalism, and general abstraction over and against

Restricted access

Crisis? How Is That a Crisis!?

Reflections on an Overburdened Word

Michael Freeden

, “the incapacity of the political system or state to function normally and/or inspire sufficient belief or loyalty.” 23 Crises of legitimation have in recent decades been closely associated with the work of Jurgen Habermas, but they precede it. Prior to

Restricted access

On Mouffe's Agonism

Why It Is Not a Refutation of Consensus

George Vasilev

Chantal Mouffe's conceptualization of a deliberatively forged consensus as a hegemony and her assertion that adversarial politics best nurtures the conditions of freedom have had a profound influence on contemporary democratic thought. This article takes a critical view of this trend, arguing that a norm of consensus is a very precondition, rather than impediment, for the kind of pluralistic democracy Mouffe and other agonists wish to promote. It is asserted that Mouffe's dehistoricized refutation of consensus lacks causal or explanatory relevance to how concrete actors embedded in empirical situations relate to one another and that the very preparedness to find something acceptable about another is at the heart of what it means to treat others justly.

Restricted access

Plural Modernity

Changing Modern Institutional Forms—Disciplines and Nation-States

Filipe Carreira da Silva and Mónica Brito Vieira

The article begins with the assumption that modernity is undergoing a profound change. The focus is on the structural transformation of two typical modern institutional regimes: the academic discipline and the territorial nation-state. Their demise as the predominant institutional forms in the realms of science and politics signals the end of the modern project—or at least the need for its profound redefinition. It is suggested that such a redefinition entails a radical conceptual shift in the social sciences and that the meta-theoretical expression of this shift can be designated as 'dialogical pluralism'. At a theoretical level, both modernization theories and the recent program of 'multiple modernities' are rejected. A plural modernity, with several distinct varieties, seems a more promising perspective.

Restricted access

Stephen Elstub and Jean-Paul Gagnon

Editors' introduction to the interview: Stephen Elstub articulates that deliberative democracy, as a theory, can be seen as having gone through various distinct generations. The first generation was a period where the normative values and the justifications for deliberative democracy were set out. This prompted criticism from difference democrats who saw the exclusion of other forms of communication by the reification of reason in deliberation as a serious shortcoming of the theory. This in part prompted the growth of the second generation of deliberative democracy, which began to focus more on the theory's operability. These theorizations, from the mostly 1990s and early 2000s, have led to the third generation of the theory—one embodied by the empirical turn. Elstub uses this genealogy as a foundation from which to argue that the current focus of deliberative democracy is on implementing deliberative systems rather than only deliberative institutions and this could potentially represent a fourth generation of deliberative democracy.

Restricted access

Roger Deacon, Ben Parker, Herman C. Waetjen, and Lasse Thomassen

Humanity, Terrorism, Terrorist War: Palestine, 9-11, Iraq, 7-7..., by Ted Honderich Roger Deacon

The Struggle for Meaning: Reflections on Philosophy, Culture and Democracy in Africa, by Paulin J. Hountondji Ben Parker

The Rationalists: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz by Pauline Phemister Herman C. Waetjen

The Divided West by Jürgen Habermas Lasse Thomassen

Restricted access

Into the Light?

Critical Theory and Social Change in South Africa

Ben Parker

Beyond Hegel and Nietzsche: Philosophy, Culture and Agency, by Elliot L. Jurist. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000.

The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, by Jürgen Habermas. Translated, edited and with an introduction by Max Pensky. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001.

Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory. Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarthy, edited by William Rehg and James Bohman. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001.

Free access

Neo-liberalism

Dominant but dead

Neil Smith

Some years ago Jürgen Habermas (1991) diagnosed modernism as dominant but dead. Neo- liberalism may still be in its youth, having come to fruition only after the 1970s, but it seems reasonable to conclude that neo-liberalism too is “dominant but dead.” The ferment of new ideas, however much they were simultaneously recycled axia from the earlier liberal tradition, reached its peak in the 1980s.

Restricted access

Family Squabbles

Beyond the Conflict-Consensus Divide

Henrik P. Bang

This article examines the consensus-conflict divide within contemporary democratic theory as manifested in the works of Jürgen Habermas, Chantal Mouffe, Jacques Rancière, and John Rawls. It relates the democratic crisis diagnosis to the presence of this conceptual divide and suggests overcoming it by focusing on the work of Michel Foucault, especially his concept of the “rectangle of the good parrhesia.” Foucault's analysis goes beyond conflict-consensus through its positive and creative reconceptualization of political authority featuring a transformative capacity linked to the idea of telling the truth.

Restricted access

Werner Reutter

According to Jürgen Habermas, the federal election in 1998 finally

“sealed” the democratic foundation of Germany and confirmed that

this country belonged to the “west.”1 Until then, the day of judgment

had left the “judges” in Germany—that is, the voters—with only limited

influence in coalition building and the formation of each government.

2 Between 1949 and 1998 no federal government has totally

been unsettled by elections. Changes in government were due to

changes in coalitions, thus based on decisions by the parties rather

than on the electorate. Insofar as the landslide victory of the Social

Democratic Party and the Alliance ‘90/Greens in the 1998 election

not only reflected important changes in the party system, but it also

could mean that the German electorate is going to play a more influential

role in the future.