LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Susen, Simon (2009)
Publisher: Globic Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HM, polsoc
The philosophical programme associated with the discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas has been widely discussed in the literature. The fact that Habermas has devoted a considerable part of his work to the elaboration of this philosophical programme indicates that discourse ethics can be regarded as a cornerstone of his communication-theoretic approach to society. In essence, Habermas conceives of discourse ethics as a philosophical framework which derives the coordinative power of social normativity from the discursive power of communicative rationality. Although there is an extensive literature on Habermas’s communication-theoretic account of society, almost no attention has been paid to the fact that the theoretical framework which undergirds his discourse ethics is based on a number of binary conceptual divisions. It is the purpose of this paper to shed light on the philosophical significance of these binary categories in Habermas’s discourse ethics and thereby demonstrate that their complexity is indicative of the subject’s tension-laden immersion in social reality.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abbas, Andrea and Monica McLean. 2003. “Communicative Competence and the Improvement of University Teaching: Insights from the Field,” British Journal of Sociology of Education 24, 1: 69-81.
    • Alexy, Robert. 1998. “Jürgen Habermas's Theory of Legal Discourse.” Pp. 226-233 in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato (eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    • Apel, Karl-Otto. 1990 [1985]. “Is the Ethics of the Ideal Communication Community a Utopia? On the Relationship between Ethics, Utopia, and the Critique of Utopia.” Pp. 23- 59 in Seyla Benhabib and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • _____. 1996. “'Discourse Ethics' before the Challenge of 'Liberation Philosophy,'” Philosophy & Social Criticism 22, 2: 1-25.
    • Benhabib, Seyla. 1990a. “Afterword: Communicative Ethics and Contemporary Controversies in Practical Philosophy.” Pp. 330-369 in Seyla Benhabib and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • _____. 1990b. “In the Shadow of Aristotle and Hegel: Communicative Ethics and Current Controversies in Practical Philosophy.” Pp. 1-31 in Michael Kelly (ed.), Hermeneutics and Critical Theory in Ethics and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • _____., and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.). 1990. The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Bernstein, Richard J. M. 1995. Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London: Routledge.
    • Blanke, Thomas. 1991. “Versprachlichung: Aspekte zum zeitdiagnostischen Gehalt von Jürgen Habermas' Diskurs der Moderne.“ Pp. 175-195 in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.), Jenseits der Utopie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    • Böhler, Dietrich. 1990 [1982]. “Transcendental Pragmatics and Critical Morality: On the Possibility and Moral Significance of a Self-Enlightenment of Reason.” Pp. 111-150 in Seyla Benhabib and Fred R. Dallmayr (eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Bohman, James. 1986. “Formal Pragmatics and Social Criticism: The Philosophy of Language and the Critique of Ideology in Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 12, 4: 331-352.
    • _____. 2000. “Distorted Communication: Formal Pragmatics as a Critical Theory.” Pp. 3-20 in Lewis Edwin Hahn (ed.), Perspectives on Habermas. Chicago & La Salle, IL: Open Court.
    • Borradori, Giovanna. 2003. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
    • Calhoun, Craig. 1992. “Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere.” Pp. 1-48 in Craig Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Cooke, Maeve. 1993. “Habermas and Consensus,” European Journal of Philosophy 1, 3: 247- 267.
    • _____. 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • _____. 1997. “Are Ethical Conflicts Irreconcilable?” Philosophy & Social Criticism 23, 2: 1-19.
    • _____. 2004 “Redeeming Redemption: The Utopian Dimension of Critical Social Theory,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 30, 4: 413-429.
    • _____. 2005. “Avoiding Authoritarianism: On the Problem of Justification in Contemporary Critical Social Theory,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13, 3: 379-404.
    • Crossley, Nick. 2004. “On Systematically Distorted Communication: Bourdieu and the SocioAnalysis of Publics.” Pp. 88-112 in Nick Crossley and John Michael Roberts (eds.), After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review.
    • _____., and John Michael Roberts (eds.). 2004. After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review.
    • Davey, Nicholas. 1985. “Habermas's Contribution to Hermeneutic Theory,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 16, 2: 109-131.
    • Delruelle, Édouard. 1993. Le consensus impossible: le différend entre éthique et politique chez H. Arendt et J. Habermas. Bruxelles: Ousia.
    • Edgar, Andrew. 2005. The Philosophy of Habermas. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
    • Factor, Regis A., and Stephen P. Turner. 1977. “The Critique of Positivist Social Science in Leo Strauss and Jürgen Habermas,” Sociological Analysis & Theory 7, 3: 185-206.
    • Ferrara, Alessandro. 1987. “A Critique of Habermas's Consensus Theory of Truth,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 13: 39-67.
    • Finlayson, James Gordon. 2000. “Modernity and Morality in Habermas's Discourse Ethics,” Inquiry 43: 319-340.
    • Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in Craig Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press pp. 109-142.
    • Fultner, Barbara. 2001. “Translator's Introduction.” Pp. vii-xxiv in Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Funiok, Rüdiger. (ed.). 1996. Grundfragen der Kommunikationsethik. Konstanz: Ölschläger/UVK.
    • Gamwell, Franklin I. 1997. “Habermas and Apel on Communicative Ethics: Their Difference and the Difference it Makes,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 23, 2: 21-45.
    • Garvey, T. Gregory. 2000. “The Value of Opacity: A Bakhtinian Analysis of Habermas's Discourse Ethics,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 33, 4: 370-390.
    • Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • _____. 2001. Public Goods, Private Goods. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
    • Gilabert, Pablo. 2005. “A Substantivist Construal of Discourse Ethics,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13, 3: 405-437.
    • Goodnight, Thomas G. 1992. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Controversy,” International Journal of Public Opinion 4, 3: 243-255.
    • Grant, Colin B. 2003. “Rethinking Communicative Interaction: An Interdisciplinary Programme.” Pp. 1-26 in Colin B. Grant (ed.), Rethinking Communicative Interaction: New Interdisciplinary Horizons. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
    • Greig, Mary. 2004. “Habermas and the Holy Grail of Reason: The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity between Theatre and Theory,” Social Semiotics 14, 2: 215-232.
    • Günther, Klaus. 1998. “Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis.” Pp. 234-254 in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato (eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    • Haber, Stéphane. 2003. “Éthique de la discussion et réconciliation avec la nature. ” Pp. 219- 233 in Emmanuel Renault & Yves Sintomer (eds.), Où en est la théorie critique?. Paris: La Découverte.
    • Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. “Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence,” Inquiry 13, 4: 360-375.
    • _____. 1971 [1968]. “Technology and Science as 'Ideology'”. Pp. 81-122 in Jürgen Habermas, Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science, and Politics, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. London: Heinemann Educational.
    • _____. 1976. “Zwei Bemerkungen zum praktischen Diskurs.“ Pp. 338-346 in Jürgen Habermas, Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    • _____. 1986 [1981]. “The Dialectics of Rationalization.“ Pp. 95-130 in Jürgen Habermas, Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas, edited and introduced by Peter Dews. London: Verso.
    • _____. 1990 [1986]. “Discourse Ethics, Law and Sittlichkeit.” Pp. 245-271 in Jürgen Habermas, Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas, edited and introduced by Peter Dews. London: Verso.
    • _____. 1987 [1968a]. “Peirce's Logic of Inquiry: The Dilemma of a Scholastic Realism Restored by the Logic of Language.” Pp. 91-112 in Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1968b]. “Reason and Interest: Retrospect on Kant and Fichte.” Pp. 191-213 in Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro, Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1981a]. “'Rationality'-A Preliminary Specification.” Pp. 8-42 in Jürgen Haber - mas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1981b]. “The Problem of Understanding Meaning in the Social Sciences.” Pp. 102-141 in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1981c]. “Intermediate Reflections: Social Action, Purposive Activity, and Communication.” Pp. 263-337 in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1981d]. “The Concept of the Lifeworld and the Hermeneutic Idealism of Interpretive Sociology.” Pp. 119-152 in Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1985a]. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1987 [1985b]. “An Alternative Way out of the Philosophy of the Subject: Communicative versus Subject-Centered Reason.” Pp. 294-326 in Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1988 [1963]. “Dogmatism, Reason, and Decision: On Theory and Praxis in Our Scientific Civilization.” Pp. 253-282 in Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1988 [1968]. “Labor and Interaction: Remarks on Hegel's Jena Philosophy of Mind.” Pp. 142-169 in Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1988 [1971]. “Introduction: Some Difficulties in the Attempt to Link Theory and Praxis.” Pp. 1-40 in Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans. John Viertel. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1989 [1962]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1990 [1983]. “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification.” Pp. 43-115 in Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    • _____. 1992a. “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere.” Pp. 421-461 in Craig Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • _____. 1992b. “Transcendence from Within, Transcendence in this World.” Pp. 226-250 in Don S. Browning and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (eds.), Habermas, Modernity and Public Theology. New York: Crossroad.
    • _____. 1992 [1988]. “Individuation through Socialization: On George Herbert Mead's Theory of Subjectivity.” Pp. 149-204 in Jürgen Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays, trans. William Mark Hohengarten. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • _____. 1993 [1990]. “Morality, Society, and Ethics: An Interview with Torben Hviid Nielsen.” Pp. 147-176 in Jürgen Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1993 [1991a]. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1993 [1991b]. “Remarks on Discourse Ethics.” Pp. 19-111 in Jürgen Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1994. “Postscript to Faktizität und Geltung,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 20, 4: 135- 150.
    • _____. 1995. “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism,” Journal of Philosophy 92, 3: 109-131.
    • _____. 1996 [1992a]. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 1996 [1992b]. “The Sociological Translation of the Concept of Deliberative Politics.” Pp. 315-328 in Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 2000a. “Nach dreißig Jahren: Bemerkungen zu Erkenntnis und Interesse.“ Pp. 12-20 in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.), Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse“. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    • _____. 2000b. “From Kant to Hegel: On Robert Brandom's Pragmatic Philosophy of Language,” European Journal of Philosophy 8, 3: 322-355.
    • _____. 2001a. Kommunikatives Handeln und detranszendentalisierte Vernunft. Stuttgart: Reclam, Ditzingen.
    • _____. 2001b. “Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?,” Political Theory 29, 6: 766-781.
    • _____. 2001 [1984a]. “Truth and Society: The Discursive Redemption of Factual Claims to Validity.” Pp. 85-103 in Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 2001 [1984b]. “Intentions, Conventions, and Linguistic Interactions.” Pp. 105-127 in Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 2001 [1984c]. “Reflections on Communicative Pathology.” Pp. 129-170 in Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Barbara Fultner. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 2001 [1990]. “AMaster Builder with Hermeneutic Tact: The Path of the Philosopher KarlOtto Apel.” Pp. 66-77 in Jürgen Habermas, The Liberating Power of Symbols: Philosophical Essays, trans. Peter Dews. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • _____. 2004a. “Freiheit und Determinismus,“ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 52, 6: 871- 890.
    • _____. 2004b. “Die Grenze zwischen Glauben und Wissen. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte and aktuellen Bedeutung von Kants Religionsphilosophie,“ Revue de métaphysique et de morale 4: 460-484.
    • Hesse, Mary. 1980. “Habermas's Consensus Theory of Truth.” Pp. 206-231 in Mary Hesse, Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.
    • Holub, Robert C. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.
    • Honneth, Axel. 1991 (1986). “From the Analysis of Discourse to the Theory of Power: Struggle as the Paradigm of the Social.” Pp. 149-175 in Axel Honneth, The Critique of Power. Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    • Hudson, Wayne. 1993. “Habermas's The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity.” Pp. 107-131 in Dieter Freundlieb and Wayne Hudson (eds.), Reason and Its Other: Rationality in Modern German Philosophy and Culture. Providence and Oxford: Berg.
    • Hutchings, Kimberly. 2005. “Speaking and Hearing: Habermasian Discourse Ethics, Feminism and IR,” Review of International Studies 31, 1: 155-165.
    • Jay Kilby, R. 2004. “Critical Thinking, Epistemic Virtue, and the Significance of Inclusion: Reflections on Harvey Siegel's Theory of Rationality,” Educational Theory 54,3: 299-313.
    • Kelly, Michael (ed.). 1990. Hermeneutics and Critical Theory in Ethics and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Kemp, Ray. 1985. “Planning, Public Hearings, and the Politics of Public Discourse.” Pp. 177- 201 in John Forester (ed.), Critical Theory and Public Life. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    • Koczanowicz, Leszek. 1999. “The Choice of Tradition and the Tradition of Choice: Habermas's and Rorty's interpretation of Pragmatism,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 25, 1: 55-70.
    • Kögler, Hans-Herbert. 2005. “Constructing a Cosmopolitan Public Sphere: Hermeneutic Capabilities and Universal Values,” European Journal of Social Theory 8, 3: 297-320.
    • Ku, Agnes S. 2000. “Revisiting the Notion of 'Public' in Habermas's Theory: Toward a Theory of Politics of Public Credibility,” Sociological Theory 18, 2: 216-240.
    • Lafont, Cristina. 2005. “Universalization or Threat Advantage? The Difficult Dialogue between Discourse Ethics and the Theory of Rational Choice,” Dialogue 44, 2: 373-382.
    • Matustik, Martin J. 1989. “Habermas on Communicative Reason and Performative Contradiction,” New German Critique 47: 143-172.
    • McCarthy, Thomas. 1973. “A Theory of Communicative Competence,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3, 2: 135-156.
    • McNay, Lois. 2003. “Having it Both Ways: The Incompatibility of Narrative Identity and Communicative Ethics in Feminist Thought,” Theory, Culture & Society 20, 6: 1-20.
    • Mendelson, Jack. 1979. “The Habermas-Gadamer Debate,” New German Critique 18: 44-73.
    • Milley, Peter. 2002. “Imagining Good Organizations: Moral Orders or Moral Communities?,” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 30, 1: 47-64.
    • Mitchell, Gordon R. 2003. “Did Habermas Cede Nature to the Positivists?,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36, 1: 1-21.
    • Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2000. “Kritik in kritischen Theorien. Oder: Wie kritisches Denken selber zu rechtfertigen sei.“ Pp. 71-106 in Stefan Müller-Doohm (ed.), Das Interesse der Vernunft: Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit „Erkenntnis und Interesse“. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    • Myles, John F. 2004. “From Doxa to Experience: Issues in Bourdieu's Adoption of Husserlian Phenomenology,” Theory, Culture & Society 21, 2: 91-107.
    • Nielsen, Greg Marc. 1995. “Bakhtin and Habermas: Toward a Transcultural Ethics,” Theory and Society 24, 6: 803-835.
    • O'Neill, Shane. 2000. “The Politics of Inclusive Agreements: Towards a Critical Discourse Theory of Democracy,” Political Studies 48, 3: 503-521.
    • Poupeau, Franck. 2000. “Reasons for Domination, Bourdieu versus Habermas.” Pp. 69-87 in Bridget Fowler (ed.), Reading Bourdieu on Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell/ Sociological Review.
    • Prieto Navarro, Evaristo. 2003. Jürgen Habermas: acción comunicativa e identidad política. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
    • Pusey, Michael. 1987. Jürgen Habermas. London: Routledge.
    • Rabotnikof, Nora. 1997. El espacio público y la democracia moderna. México, D.F: Instituto Federal Electoral, Colección Temas de la Democracia, Serie Ensayos, Núm. 1.
    • Rabotnikof, Nora. 1998. “Público-Privado,” Debate Feminista Año 9, Vol. 18: 3-13.
    • Ray, Larry. 2004. “Pragmatism and Critical Theory,” European Journal of Social Theory 7, 3: 307-321.
    • Ricoeur, Paul. 1979. Main Trends in Philosophy. New York: Holmes & Meier.
    • Robbins, Bruce. (ed.). 1993. The Phantom Public Sphere. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Rochlitz, Rainer. (ed.). 2002. Habermas: L'usage public de la raison. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    • Rorty, Richard. 1994. “Sind Aussagen universelle Geltungsansprüche?,“ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 42, 6: 975-988.
    • Schweppenhäuser, Gerhard. 1989. “Die 'kommunikativ verflüssigte Moral'. Zur Diskursethik bei Habermas.“ Pp. 122-145 in Gerhard Bolte (ed.), Unkritische Theorie: Gegen Habermas. Lüneburg: zu Klampen.
    • Seemann, Axel. 2004. “Lifeworld, Discourse, and Realism: On Jürgen Habermas's Theory of Truth,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 30, 4: 503-514.
    • Sintomer, Yves. 1999. “Bourdieu et Habermas.“ Pp. 158-162 in Yves Sintomer, La démocratie impossible? Politique et modernité chez Weber et Habermas. Paris: La Découverte & Syros.
    • Steinberger, Peter J. 1999. “Pubic and Private,“ Political Studies 47, 2: 292-313.
    • Steinhoff, Uwe. 2001. Kritik der kommunikativen Rationalität: Eine Gesamtdarstellung und Analyse der kommunikationstheoretischen jüngeren Kritischen Theorie. Marsberg: Die Deutsche Bibliothek.
    • Susen, Simon. 2007. The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology. Oxford: Bardwell.
    • _____. 2009. “Between Emancipation and Domination: Habermasian Reflections on the Empowerment and Disempowerment of the Human Subject,” Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy 20: 80-110.
    • Tassone, Giuseppe. 2005. “Amoral Adorno: Negative Dialectics Outside Ethics,” European Journal of Social Theory 8, 3: 251-267.
    • Thompson, Janna. 2000. “A Defence of Communicative Ethics,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 2, 3: 240-255.
    • Thompson, John B. 1981. Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Thompson, John B. 1982. “Universal Pragmatics.” Pp. 116-133 in John B. Thompson and David Held (eds.), Habermas: Critical Debates. London: Macmillan.
    • Trautsch, Asmus. 2004. “Glauben und Wissen. Jürgen Habermas zum Verhältnis von Philosophie und Religion,“ Philosophisches Jahrbuch 111, 1: 180-198.
    • Ulbert, Cornelia and Thomas Risse. 2005. “Deliberately Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective?,” Acta Politica 40, 3: 351-367.
    • Villoro, Luis. 1997. El poder y el valor. Fundamentos de una ética política. México, D.F: El Colegio Nacional, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
    • Voirol, Olivier. 2003. “L'espace public et les luttes pour la reconnaissance: De Habermas à Honneth. ” Pp. 117-137 in Claudia Barril, Marion Carrel, Juan-Carlos Guerrero and Alicia Márquez (eds.), Le public en action : Usages et limites de la notion d'espace public en sciences sociales. Paris: L'Harmattan.
    • Wacquant, Loïc J. D. 1992. “Reason, Ethics, and Politics.” Pp. 47-59 in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc J. D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Weintraub, Jeff Alan and Krishan Kumar. (eds.). 1997. Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • White, Stephen K. 1994. “Diskursethik, schwere Fürsorge und leichte Fürsorge,“ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 42, 6: 1051-1056.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article