I - Terms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon , pp. 1 - 472Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Suggested Reading
Duvenage, P. 2003. Habermas and Aesthetics: The Limits of Communicative Reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 1991. “Habermas on Aesthetics and Rationality: Completing the Project of Enlightenment,” New German Critique 53: 67–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay, M. 1985. “Habermas and Modernism,” in Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, R.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kliger, G. 2015. “Art and Emancipation. Habermas’s ‘Die Moderne – ein unvollendetes Project’ Reconsidered,” New German Critique 124: 203–21.Google Scholar
Weber, S. 1976. “Aesthetic Experience and Self-Reflection as Emancipatory Processes,” in On Critical Theory, ed. O’Neil, J.. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 1991. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested reading
Eckersley, R. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy, Ecological Representation and Risk. Towards a Democracy of All Affected,” in Democratic Innovation. Deliberation, Representation and Association, ed. Saward, M.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35, no. 1: 40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyward, Clare. 2008. “Can the All-Affected Principle Include Future Persons? Green Deliberative Democracy and the Non-Identity Problem,” Environmental Politics 17, no. 4: 625–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklosi, Zoltan. 2012. “Against the Principle of All Affected Interests,” Social Theory and Practice 38, no. 3: 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle,” Political Studies 59: 116–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, David. 2012. “Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem,” Ethics and Global Politics 5, no. 3: 129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baynes, Kenneth. 1992. The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro. 1999. Justice and Judgment. The Rise and the Prospect of the Judgment Model in Contemporary Political Philosophy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1993. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991b. “Practical Discourse: On the Relation of Morality to Politics,” in Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, W. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellmer, Albrecht. 1991. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans. D. Midgley. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cooke, Maeve 1998. “Introduction,” in On the Pragmatics of Communication, ed. Cooke, M.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–20.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara. 2011. “Communicative Action and Formal Pragmatics,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 54–73.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Ferrara, A. 1993. Modernity and Authenticity: A Study of the Social and Ethical Thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ferrara, A. 1998. Reflective Authenticity: Rethinking the Project of Modernity. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferrara, A. 2009. “Authenticity Without a True Self,” in Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society, ed. Vannini, Ph and Williams, J. P.. Farnham, Ashgate. 21–35.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1992a. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Joel. 2011. “Autonomy, Agency, and the Self,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. 1999. “Public Reason and Personal Autonomy,” in The Handbook of Critical Theory, ed. Rasmussen, David. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 243–54.Google Scholar
Christman, John Philip. 2009. The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-Historical Selves. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, M. 1992. “Habermas, Autonomy, and the Identity of the Self,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 18: 269–91.Google Scholar
Meyers, Diana Tietjens. 1989. Self, Society, and Personal Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arnason, Johann P., et al., eds. 2005. Axial Civilizations and World History. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. 2012. The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1982. “The Axial Age: The Emergence of Transcendental Visions and the Rise of Clerics,” European Journal of Sociology 23: 294–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. ed. 1986. The Origin and Diversity of Axial Civilizations. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. 1953 [2014]. The Origin and Goal of History, trans. Michael Bullock. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Matuštík, Martin Beck. 2001. Jürgen Habermas: A Philosophical-Political Profile. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew G. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arato, Andrew. 2000. Civil Society, Constitution, and Legitimacy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Arato, Andrew and Cohen, Jean L. 1994. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arato, Andrew and Cohen, Jean L 2017. “Civil Society, Populism and Religion,” Constellations 24, no. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone and Kopstein, Jeffrey. 2001. “Bad Civil Society,” Political Theory 29, no. 6: 837–65.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L 1982. Class and Civil Society: The Limits of Marxian Critical Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arato, A. and Cohen, J. 1994. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Celikates, R. and Pollman, A. 2006. “Baustellen der Vernunft. 25 Jahre Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns,” Westend 3, no. 2: 97–113.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 1985. “What’s Critical About Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender,” New German Critique 35 [special issue on Jürgen Habermas]: 97–131.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. 1991. The Critique of Power. Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jütten, T. 2011. “The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, no. 5: 701–27.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, eds. 1991. Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, C. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schnädelbach, H. 1992. Zur Rehabilitierung des animal rationale. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
McCarthy, Thomas. 1973. “A Theory of Communicative Competence,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3: 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Günther, Klaus. 1998. “Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press. 241–63.Google Scholar
White, Stephen K. and Farr, Evan Robert. 2012. “No-Saying in Habermas,” Political Theory 40, no. 1: 32–57.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2012. “The Unforced Force of the Better Argument: Reason and Power in Habermas’ Political Theory,” Constellations 19, no. 3: 353–68.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey. 2004. “Communicative Power in Habermas’s Theory of Democracy,” European Journal of Political Theory 3, no. 4: 433–54.Google Scholar
Gregoratto, Federica. 2015. “Political Power and Its Pathologies: An Attempt to Reconsider Habermas’ Critical Theory of Democracy,” Constellations 22, no. 4: 533–42.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1998. “Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press. 241–63.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, Patrick. 2010. “Habermas and Communicative Power,” Journal of Power 3, no. 1: 53–73.Google Scholar
Preuss, Ulrich. 1996. “Communicative Power and the Concept of Law,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Iser, Mattias and Strecker, David. 2012. Jürgen Habermas zur Einführung, 2nd edn. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strecker, David. 2017. “The Theory of Society: The Theory of Communicative Action (1981) – A Classic of Social Theory,” in Habermas Handbook, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Kreide, Regina, and Lafont, Cristina. New York: Columbia University Press. 360–82.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Chambers, Simone. 1995a. “Discourses and Democratic Practices,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jürgen Habermas, ed. White, S. K.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 2010. Habermas: Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested reading
Passerin d’Entrèves, Maurizio and Benhabib, Seyla, eds. 1997. Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holub, Robert C. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peters, Michael. 1994. “Habermas, Post-Structuralism and the Question of Postmodernity,” Social Analysis 36: 3–20.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew G. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Stephen. 1988. The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baumeister, Andrea. 2007. “Diversity and Unity: The Problem with ‘Constitutional Patriotism,’” European Journal of Political Theory 6, no. 4: 483–503.Google Scholar
Breda, Vito. 2004. “The Incoherence of the Patriotic State: A Critique of ‘Constitutional Patriotism,’” Res Publica 10: 247–65.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig. 2002. “Imagining Solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, Constitutional Patriotism, and the Public Sphere,” Public Culture 14, no. 1: 147–71.Google Scholar
Nanz, Patrizia. 2006. Europolis: Constitutional Patriotism Beyond the Nation State. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1994. “Complexity, Pluralism, and the Constitutional State: On Habermas’s Faktizität und Geltung,” Law and Society Review 28: 897–930.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank. 1997. “How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberative Democracy,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 145–71.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew, eds. 1998. Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurn, Christopher F. 2010b. “The Logic of Legitimacy: Bootstrapping Paradoxes of Constitutional Democracy,” Legal Theory 16, no. 3: 191–227.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cronin, Ciaran. 2011. “Cosmopolitan Democracy,” in Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 196–221.Google Scholar
Fine, Robert and Smith, Will. 2003. “Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Cosmopolitanism,” Constellations 10, no. 4: 469–87.Google Scholar
Genna, Gaspare, et al., eds. 2016. Jürgen Habermas and the European Economic Crisis: Cosmopolitanism Reconsidered. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nascimento, Amos. 2013a. Building Cosmopolitan Communities: A Critical and Multidimensional Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bohman, James. 2000a. “Distorted Communication: Formal Pragmatics as a Critical Theory,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, L. E.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara. 2011. “Communicative Action and Formal Pragmatics,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pereda, Carlos. 2000. “Assertions, Truth, and Argumentation,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, L. E.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Kögler, Hans-Herbert. 1999. The Power of Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicolas. 2015. “Hermeneutics and Critical Theory,” in The Routledge Companion to Hermeneutics, ed. Malpas, J. and Gander, H.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Jeffries, Stuart. 2016. Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew G. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet. 2011. Contemporary Critical Theory and Methododology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bankovsky, Miriam. 2013. Perfecting Justice in Rawls, Habermas, and Honneth. A Deconstructive Perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias. 2006. “Equal Consideration of All – An Aporetic Project?,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 32, no. 3: 299–323.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias 2010. “Equality and Singularity in Justification and Application Discourses,” European Journal of Political Theory 9, no. 3: 328–46.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias 2011. “Deconstructive Aporias: Both Quasi-Transcendental and Normative,” Continental Philosophy Review 44, no. 4: 439–68.Google Scholar
Menke, Christoph. 2006. Reflections of Equality, trans. Howard Rouse and Andrei Denejkine. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bächtiger, André, et al., eds. 2018. Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James and Rehg, William, eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey. 2004. “Communicative Power in Habermas’s Theory of Democracy,” European Journal of Political Theory 3, no. 4: 433–54.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1999. “Openly Strategic Uses of Language: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 272–90.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. 2009. “The Transcendental Turn: Habermas’s ‘Kantian Pragmatism,’” in The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, ed. Rush, Fred. Cambridge University Press. 194–218.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 2001. “Meaning and Truth in Habermas’s Pragmatics,” European Journal of Philosophy 9, no. 1: 1–23.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy, trans. José Medina. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1993. Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Aboulafia, Mitchell, Bookman, Myra, and Camp, Katherine, eds. 2002. Habermas and Pragmatism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, eds. 1991. Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1981. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellmer, Albrecht. 1991. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics, and Postmodernism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Anderson, Joel. 2001. “Competent Need-Interpretation and Discourse Ethics,” in Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory, ed. Rehg, W. and Bohman, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 193–224.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2012. The Right to Justification, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gunnarson, Logi. 2000. Making Moral Sense: Beyond Habermas and Gauthier. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1993. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Josepth. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kettner, Matthias. 2006. “Discourse Ethics: Apel, Habermas and Beyond,” in Bioethics in Cultural Contexts, ed. Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph, Düwell, Marcus and Mieth, Dietmar. Dordrecht: Springer. 299–318.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Berman, Harold J. 1983. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2000. “Multiple Modernities,” Daedalus 129, no. 1 (Winter): 1–29.Google Scholar
Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias, ed. 2015. Postsäkularismus: Zur Diskussion eines umstrittenen Begriffs. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias and Fidora, Alexander, eds. 2008. Action and Science: The Epistemology of the Practical Sciences in the 13th and 14th Centuries. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Schmidt, James, ed. 1996. What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers to Twentieth-Century Questions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Ingram, D. 2001. “Individual Freedom and Social Equality: Habermas´s Democratic Revolution in the Social Contractarian Justification of Law,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, L. E.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, G. 1996. “Why Care? – The Trouble with Social Rights,” Cardozo Law Review 17, nos. 4–5: 1365–90.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1980. “The A Priori of the Communication Community and the Foundations of Ethics: The Problem of a Rational Foundation of Ethics in the Scientific Age,” in Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 225–300.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto and Kettner, Matthias, eds. 1992. Zur Anwendung der Diskursethik in Politik, Recht und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred, eds. 1990. The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cortina, Adela. 2003. Covenant and Contract: Politics, Ethics and Religion. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1991. “Discourse and the Moral Point of View: Deriving a Dialogical Principle of Universalization,” Inquiry 34: 27–48.Google Scholar
Wellmer, Albrecht. 1991. “Ethics and Dialogue: Elements of Moral Judgment in Kant and Discourse Ethics,” in The Persistence of Modernity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans. D. Midgley. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Genna, Gaspare, et al., eds. 2016. Jürgen Habermas and the European Economic Crisis: Cosmopolitanism Reconsidered. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grehwal, Shivdeep Singh. 2005. “A Cosmopolitan Europe by Constitutional Means? Assessing the Theoretical Foundations of Habermas’ Political Prescriptions,” Journal of European Integration 27, no. 2: 191–215.Google Scholar
Khan, Gulshan. 2015. “Jürgen Habermas and the Crisis of the European Union,” in The European Union in Crisis: Explorations in Representation and Democratic Legitimacy, ed. Demetriou, Kyriakos N.. New York: Springer. 123–40.Google Scholar
McCormick, John P. 2007. Weber, Habermas and Transformations of the European State: Constitutional, Social and Supranational Democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew, eds. 1998. Habermas on Law and Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, René and Baynes, Kenneth, eds. 2002. Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Between Facts and Norms. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, D. 1987. Feminism as Critique: On the Politics of Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, et al. 1995. Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 2013a. Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Landes, J. 1988. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lara, M. P. 1998. Moral Textures: Feminist Narratives in the Public Sphere. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Meehan, J., ed. 1995b. Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. 1990a. Justice and the Politics of Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cooke, Maeve. 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’ Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara. 2011. “Communicative Action and Formal Pragmatics,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 54–73.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Jay, Martin. 1996. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923–950. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jeffries, Stuart. 2016. Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew G. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strydom, Piet. 2011. Contemporary Critical Theory and Methodology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Anderson, Joel, ed. 2007. “Free Will as Part of Nature: Habermas and His Critics,” with contributions from Jürgen Habermas, Randolph Clarke, Michael Quante, John Searle, and Mark Schroeder. Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Mind and Action 10, no. 1: 3–93.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Martin. 2012. “Against First Nature: Critical Theory and Neuroscience,” in Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, ed. Choudhury, Suparna and Slaby, Jan. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 67–83.Google Scholar
Wingert, Lutz. 2006. “Grenzen der naturalistischen Selbstobjektivierung,” in Philosophie und Neurowissenschaften, ed. Sturma, D.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1985. “Reason without Revolution? Habermas’ Theorie des Kommunicativen Handelns,” in Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, Richard J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 95–121.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2009. “Habermas and Analytic Marxism,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35, no. 8: 891–919.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–118.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991b. Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 152–80.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. 224–78.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2009. “Habermas and Analytic Marxism,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35, no. 8: 891–919.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1995. “From Adorno to Habermas: On the Transformation of Critical Theory,” in The Fragmented World of the Social: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy, ed. Wright, Charles W.. Albany: SUNY Press. 92–120.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–118.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991b. Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 152–80.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Ashenden, Samantha and Owen, David, eds. 1999. Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue Between Genealogy and Critical Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Biebricher, Thomas. 2005a. “Habermas, Foucault and Nietzsche. A Double Misunderstanding,” Foucault Studies 3: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joas, Hans. 2013. The Sacredness of the Person: A New Genealogy of Human Rights. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Colin. 2013. Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Saar, Martin. 2007. Genealogie als Kritik. Geschichte und Theorie des Subjekts nach Nietzsche und Foucault. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Grondin, Jean. 1994. Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ormiston, Gayle and Schrift, Alan, eds. 1990. The Hermeneutic Tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981. “Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology,” in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Cambridge University Press. 63–100.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baldwin, Peter, ed. 1990. Reworking the Past: Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Historians’ Debate. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Brunner, José. 1997. “Pride and Memory: Nationalism, Narcissism and the Historians’ Debate in Germany and Israel,” History and Memory 9, nos. 1–2 (Fall), special issue Passing into History: Nazism and the Holocaust beyond Memory – in Honor of Saul Friedlander on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday: 256–300.Google Scholar
Hartman, Geoffrey, ed. 1986. Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Holub, Robert C. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maier, Charles S. 1988. The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moses, A. Dirk. 2007. German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Klikauer, Thomas. 2016. “Habermas and Historical Materialism: A Review Essay,” Capital and Class 40, no. 2: 360–66.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Owen, David. 2002. Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rapic, Samil, ed. 2015. Habermas und der Historische Materialismus, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Gehlen, A. 1988. Man: His Nature and Place in the World, trans. C. McMillan and K. Pillemer. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Moss, L. 2007. “Contra Habermas and Towards a Critical Theory of Human Nature and the Question of Genetic Enhancement,” New Formations 60: 139–49.Google Scholar
Moss, L. and Pavesich, V. 2011. “Science, Normativity and Skill: Reviewing and Renewing the Anthropological Basis of Critical Theory,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 37, no. 2: 139–65.Google Scholar
Wood, A. 2003. “Kant and the Problem of Human Nature,” in Essays on Kant’s Anthropology, ed. Jacobs, Brian and Kain, Patrick. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Seyla, Benhabib. 2011. Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey. 2014. Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2012. The Right to Justification, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 2009. “Of Sweatshops and Subsistence: Habermas on Human Rights,” Ethics and Global Politics 2, no. 3: 193–217.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Rasmussen, David M. 1990b. Universalism vs. Communitarianism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bohman, James. 2000. “‘When Water Chokes’: Ideology, Communication, and Practical Rationality,” Constellations 7: 382–92.Google Scholar
Celikates, Robin and Jaeggi, Rahel. 2017. “Technology and Reification,” in The Habermas Handbook, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Kreide, Regina, and Cristina, Lafont. New York: Columbia University Press. 256–70.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon. 2003. “The Theory of Ideology and the Ideology of Theory: Habermas Contra Adorno,” Historical Materialism 11: 165–87.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cooke, M. 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lara, M. P. 1998. Moral Textures: Feminist Narratives in the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon. 2013. “The Persistence of Normative Questions in Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 518–32.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1993. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. Kenneth Baynes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jütten, Timo. 2011. “The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, no. 5: 701–27.Google Scholar
Stahl, Titus. 2013a. “Habermas and the Project of Immanent Critique,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 533–52.Google Scholar
Stahl, Titus 2013b. Immanente Kritik. Elemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 1992. “Habermas, Autonomy, and the Identity of the Self,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 18: 3–4.Google Scholar
Dews, Peter. 1999. “Communicative Paradigms and the Question of Subjectivity: Habermas, Mead, and Lacan,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meehan, Johanna. 1995a. “Autonomy, Recognition, and Respect: Habermas, Benjamin, and Honneth,” in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weir, Allison. 1995. “Toward a Model of Self-Identity: Habermas and Kristeva,” in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, Johanna. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Carson, Cathryn. 2010. “Science as Instrumental Reason: Heidegger, Habermas, Heisenberg,” Continental Philosophy Review 42, no. 4: 483–509.Google Scholar
Foster, Roger. 2006. “Rethinking the Critique of Instrumental Reason,” Social Philosophy Today 22: 169–84.Google Scholar
Held, David. 1980. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schecter, Darrow. 2010. The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Holub, Robert. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2016a. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 1995. “Universalism and the Situated Critic,” in The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen K.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max 1999. “Jürgen Habermas and the Antinomies of the Intellectual,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Gordon, Peter E. 2003. Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between Judaism and Jewish Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. and Morgan, Michael. eds. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Modern Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Jack. 2014. The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives, and Anti-Semitism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo, ed. 2005. The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom. 1981. Walter Benjamin: Story of a Friendship. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cohen, Jean. 2002. Regulating Intimacy: A New Legal Paradigm. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Deflem, Mathieu. 2013. “The Legal Theory of Jürgen Habermas,” in Law and Social Theory, ed. Banakar, Reza and Travers, Max. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1985. “What’s Critical About Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender,” New German Critique 35 [special issue on Jürgen Habermas]: 97–131.Google Scholar
Loick, Daniel. 2014. “Juridification and Politics: From the Dilemma of Juridification to the Paradoxes of Right,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40, no. 8: 757–78.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William. 2013. “Capitalism, Law, and Social Criticism,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 571–86.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Finlayson, James Gordon. 2016. “Where the Right Gets In: On Rawls’s Criticism of Habermas’s Conception of Legitimacy,” Kantian Review 21, no. 2: 161–83.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian, eds. 2011. Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2011. The Right to Justification. Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hedrick, T. 2010. Rawls and Habermas. Reason, Pluralism and the Claims of Political Philosophy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, René and Kenneth, Baynes, eds. 2002. Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Between Facts and Norms. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher. 2011. “Discourse Theory of Law,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honneth, A. 1991. “Habermasʼ Anthropology of Knowledge: The Theory of Knowledge Constitutive Interests,” in The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. K. Baynes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 203–39.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. and Joas, H. 1988. Social Action and Human Nature, trans. Raymond Meyer. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jörke, D. 2017. “Communicative Anthropology,” in The Habermas Handbook, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Kreide, Regina, and Lafont, Cristina. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schloßberger, M. 2014. “Habermas’ New Turn Towards Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology,” in Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology, ed. de Mul, Jos. Amsterdam University Press. 301–13.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bohman, James. 2001. “Participants, Observers, and Critics: Practical Knowledge, Social Perspectives, and Critical Pluralism,” in Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory, ed. Rehg, W. and Bohman, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 87–114.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991. Ideals and Illusions. On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Azmanova, A. 2010. “Capitalism Reorganized: Social Justice after Neo-liberalism,” Constellations 17, no. 3: 390–406.Google Scholar
Azmanova, A. 2014. “Crisis? Capitalism is Doing Very Well. How is Critical Theory?,” Constellations 21, no. 3: 351–65.Google Scholar
Deutscher, P. and Lafont, C., eds. 2017. Critical Theory in Critical Times: Transforming the Global Political and Economic Order. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 2013a. Fortunes of Feminism. From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Hartman, M. and Honneth, A. 2006. “Paradoxes of Capitalism,” Constellations 13, no. 1: 42–58.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. 2016. How Will Capitalism End?: Essays on a Failing System. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Alexy, Robert 2002 [1986]. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Forbath, William. 1998. “Short Circuit: A Critique of Habermas’s Understanding of Law, Politics, and Economic Life,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press. 272–86.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1993 [1988]. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, René and Baynes, Kenneth, eds. 2002. Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Owen, David S. 2002. Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1972. The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, trans. Wolfe Mays. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet. 1987. “Collective Learning: Habermas’s Concessions and their Theoretical Implications,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 13: 265–81.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet 1992. “The Ontogenetic Fallacy: The Immanent Critique of Habermas’s Developmental Logic Theory of Evolution,” Theory, Culture & Society 9: 65–93.Google Scholar
Whitton, Brian J. 1992. “Universal Pragmatics and the Formation of Western Civilization: A Critique of Habermas’s Theory of Moral Evolution,” History and Theory 31: 299–313.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arato, Andrew and Cohen, Jean. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean. 2012. Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2011c. “Three Normative Models of the Welfare State,” Public Reason 3, no. 2: 13–43.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plant, Raymond. 1982. “Jürgen Habermas and the Idea of Legitimation Crisis,” European Journal of Political Research 10: 341–52.Google Scholar
Shabani, Omid and Payrow, A. 2003. Democracy, Power and Legitimacy. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. 96–122.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Martin and Honneth, Axel. 2006. “Paradoxes of Capitalism,” Constellations 13: 41–58.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–118.Google Scholar
Schnädelbach, Herbert. 1991. “The Transformation of Critical Theory,” in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 7–22.Google Scholar
White, Stephen K. 1988. The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Calhoun, C., Mendieta, E., and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2013. Habermas and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honneth, Axel. 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. Kenneth Baynes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–118.Google Scholar
Jütten, Timo. 2011. “The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, no. 5: 701–27.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991. “Complexity and Democracy: or the Seducements of Systems Theory,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Brunkhorst, Hauke. 2004. “Critical Theory and the Analysis of Contemporary Mass Society,” in The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, ed. Rush, Fred. Cambridge University Press. 248–79.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. 1979. “Critical Theory, Public Sphere and Culture: Jürgen Habermas and His Critics,” trans. Marc Silberman, New German Critique 16 (Winter): 89–118.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1973. “Aesthetic Theory and the Critique of Mass Culture,” in The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 173–218.Google Scholar
Kellner, Douglas. 1984a. “Critical Theory and the Culture Industries: A Reassessment,” Telos 62 (Winter): 196–206.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. 1979. “Critical Theory, Public Sphere and Culture: Jürgen Habermas and His Critics,” New German Critique 16 (Winter): 89–118.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Banerjee, Kiran. 2010. “Re-theorizing Human Rights through the Refugee: On the Interrelation between Democracy and Global Justice,” Refuge 27, no. 1: 24–35.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Berger, J. 1991. “The Linguistification of the Sacred and the Delinguistification of the Economy,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 165–80.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro. 2014. The Democratic Horizon. Hyperpluralism and the Renewal of Political Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. Kenneth Baynes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–118.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991a. “Complexity and Democracy: or the Seducements of Systems Theory,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Borman, David A. 2011. The Idolatry of the Actual: Habermas, Socialization, and the Possibility of Autonomy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. “Appendix A: The Six Stages of Justice Judgment,” in Essays on Moral Development II: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. 621–39.Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. 2015. Mind, Self, and Society: The Definitive Edition, ed. Morris, Charles W.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 1995. “The Self in Discursive Democracy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen K.. Cambridge University Press. 167–200.Google Scholar
White, Stephen K. 1988. The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baumeister, Andrea T. 2003. “Habermas: Discourse and Cultural Diversity,” Political Studies 51: 740–58.Google Scholar
James, Michael R. 1999. “Tribal Sovereignty and the Intercultural Public Sphere,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 25, no. 5: 57–86.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 2000. “On Habermas and Difference: Critical Theory and the ‘Politics of Recognition,’” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Lewis, Edwin Hahn. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C 2001. The Unfinished Project: Toward a Postmetaphysical Humanism. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Eisenstadt, S. N. 1999. “Multiple Modernities in an Age of Globalization,”Canadian Journal of Sociology 24, no. 2 (Spring): 283–95.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 2009. Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development. Cambridge University Press. 192–229.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Hayim, Gila. 1992. “Naturalism and the Crisis of Rationalism in Habermas,” Social Theory and Practice 18, no. 2: 187–209.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stephen D. 1992. “Explaining Technology and Society: The Problem of Nature in Habermas,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22, no. 2: 218–30.Google Scholar
Vogel, Steven. 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cameron, W. S. K. 2009. “Tapping Habermas’s Discourse Theory for Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Ethics 31, no. 4: 339–57.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1990. “Green Reason: Communicative Ethics for the Biosphere,” Environmental Ethics 12, no. 3: 195–210.Google Scholar
Hendlin, Yogi Hale and Ott, Konrad. 2016. “Habermas on Nature,” Environmental Ethics 38, no. 2: 183–208.Google Scholar
Vogel, Steven. 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1975. “The Problem of Philosophical Foundations in Light of a Transcendental Pragmatics of Language,” Man and World 8: 239–75.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1980. Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay. 1995. Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1992. “The Debate over Performative Contradiction: Habermas versus the Poststructuralists,” in Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Axel, Honneth et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 261–79.Google Scholar
Morris, Martin. 1996. “On the Logic of the Performative Contradiction: Habermas and the Radical Critique of Reason,” Review of Politics 58, no. 4: 735–60.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fischer, J. 2008. Philosophische Anthropologie. Eine Denkrichtung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. and Joas, H. 1988. Social Action and Human Nature, trans. Raymond Meyer. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marquard, Odo. 1971. “Anthropologie,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. i, ed. Ritter, Joachim von, trans. Karlfried Gründer. Basel: Stuttgart. 362–74.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2016. The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rockmore, T. 1989. Habermas on Historical Materialism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ungureanu, Camil and Monti, Paolo. 2017. Contemporary Political Philosophy and Religion: Between Public Reason and Pluralism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bennington, Geoffrey. 2001. “Ex-Communication,” Social and Political Thought 5: 50–55.Google Scholar
Passerin d’Entrèves, Maurizio and Benhabib, Seyla, eds. 1997. Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1999. “To Think and Act Differently: Foucault’s Four Reciprocal Objections to Habermas’ Theory,” in Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory, ed. Ashenden, Samantha and Owen, David. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Whitebook, Joel. 1995. Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honig, Bonnie. 2001. “Dead Rights, Live Futures: A Reply to Habermas’s ‘Constitutional Democracy,’” Political Theory 29, no. 6: 792–805.Google Scholar
Markell, Patchen. 2000. “Making Affect Safe for Democracy? On ‘Constitutional Patriotism,’” Political Theory 28, no. 1: 38–63.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank. 1997. “How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberative Democracy,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 145–71.Google Scholar
Olson, Kevin. 2007. “Paradoxes of Constitutional Democracy,” American Journal of Political Science 51, no. 2: 330–43.Google Scholar
Olson, Kevin. 2009. “Reflexive Democracy as Popular Sovereignty,” in New Waves in Political Philosophy, ed. de Bruin, B. and Zurn, C.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 125–42.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 2012a. “Goodbye to Radical Reform?,” Political Theory 40, no. 6: 830–38.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Adorno, Theodor W., ed. 1976. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, trans. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Holub, Robert C. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holub, Robert C. Journal of Classical Sociology 15, no. 2 (2015) [special issue: “What is Living and What is Dead of the Positivist Dispute? Fifty Years Later, A Debate”].Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Overend, Tronn. 1979. “Interests, Objectivity and the Positivist Dispute,” Social Praxis 6: 69–91.Google Scholar
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Readings
Dussel, Enrique. 1995. The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “The Other” and the Myth of Modernity, trans. Michael Barber. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fanon, Frantz. 2004. The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Richard Philcox. New York: Grove.Google Scholar
Marsh, James L. 2000. “What’s Critical About Critical Theory?,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis. Chicago: Open Court. 555–65.Google Scholar
Martin, Bill. 2000. “Eurocentrically Distorted Communication,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis. Chicago: Open Court. 411–22.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo. 2001a. “Chronotopology: Critique of Spatio-Temporal Regimens,” in New Critical Theory: Essays on Liberation, ed. Paris, Jeffrey and Wilkerson, William. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 175–97.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo 2010. “Postcolonialism, Postorientalism, Postoccidentalism: The Past that Never Went Away and the Future that Never Arrived,” in Emerging Trends in Continental Philosophy, vol. viii, History of Continental Philosophy, ed. May, Todd, gen. ed. Schrift, Alan D.. Durham: Acumen. 149–71.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Brink, Tobias. 2015. “Economic Analysis in Critical Theory: The Impact of Friedrich Pollock’s State Capitalism Concept,” Constellations 22, no. 3: 333–40.Google Scholar
Cook, Deborah. 1998. “Adorno on Late Capitalism: Totalitarianism and the Welfare State,” Radical Philosophy 89: 16–26.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter U. 1985. “The Dialectic of Enlightenment Revisited: Habermas’ Critique of the Frankfurt School,” New German Critique 35 (Spring–Summer): 3–26.Google Scholar
Postone, Moishe. 1993. Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Casanova, José. 2013. “Exploring the Postsecular,” in Habermas and Religion, ed. Calhoun, Craig, VanAntwerpen, Jonathan, and Mendieta, Eduardo. Cambridge: Polity Press. 27–48.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 2006b. “Salvaging and Secularizing the Semantic Contents of Religion: the Limitations of Habermas’s Postmetaphysical Proposal,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 60, no. 1: 187–207.Google Scholar
Dews, Peter. 1995. The Limits of Disenchantment: Essays on Contemporary European Philosophy. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Frega, Roberto. 2012. “Equal Accessibility to All: Habermas, Pragmatism, and the Place of Religious Beliefs in a Post-Secular Society,” Constellations 19, no. 2: 267–87.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1999. “What is Metaphysics – What is Modernity? Twelve Theses Against Jürgen Habermas,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Oxford: Blackwell. 291–319.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2007. “Religion in the Public Sphere: Remarks on Habermas’s Conception of Public Deliberation in Postsecular Societies,” Constellations 14, no. 2: 239–59.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2013. “An Engagement with Jürgen Habermas on Postmetaphysical Philosophy, Religion, and Political Dialogue,” in Habermas and Religion, ed. Calhoun, Craig, VanAntwerpen, Jonathan, and Mendieta, Eduardo. Cambridge: Polity Press. 92–113.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ashenden, Samantha and Owen, David, eds. 1999. Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, et al. 1995. Feminist Contention: A Philosophical Exchange. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael, ed. 1994. Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2016a. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 2008. The Ends of Solidarity: Discourse Theory in Ethics and Politics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fraser, Nancy. 1985. “What’s Critical About Critical Theory,” New German Critique 35 [special issue on Jürgen Habermas]: 97–131.Google Scholar
Strecker, David. 2009. “Warum deliberative Demokratie?,” in Das Staatsverständnis von Jürgen Habermas, ed. Schaal, Gary S.. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 59–80.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred, eds. 1990. The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1991b. Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew, eds. 1998. Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Aboulafia, Mitchell, Bookman, Myra, and Kemp, Catherine, eds. 2002. Habermas and Pragmatism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Apel, K.-O. 1995. Charles S. Peirce: From Pragmatism to Pragmaticism, trans. J. M. Krois. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 1993. “Truth, Contingency, and Modernity,” Modern Philology 90 (May): 109–24.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Aboulafia, Mitchell, Bookman, Myra, and Kemp, Catherine, eds. 2002. Habermas and Pragmatism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 2010. “Jürgen Habermas’s Kantian Pragmatism,” in The Pragmatic Turn. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2006. “Jürgen Habermas,” in A Companion to Pragmatism, ed. Shook, John and Margolis, Joseph. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1998 [1995]. “Habermas, Derrida, and the Functions of Philosophy,” in Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, vol. iii. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Eriksen, E. and Weigard, J. 2003. Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Democracy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1979. Die Erklären-Verstehen Kontroverse in transzendentalpragmatischer Sicht. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 2013. Analytic Philosophy of Language and the Geisteswissenschaften. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1996. “‘Discourse Ethics’ Before the Challenge of ‘Liberation Philosophy,’” Philosophy & Social Criticism 22, no. 2: 1–25.Google Scholar
Papastephanou, Marianna. 1997. “Communicative Action and Philosophical Foundations: Comments on the Apel–Habermas Debate,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 23, no. 4: 41–69.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arato, A. and Rosenfeld, M., eds. 1998. Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Finlayson, J. G. and Freyenhagen, F., eds. 2011. Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schomberg, R. von and Baynes, K., eds. 2002. Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2015. “Are We Driven? Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis Reconsidered,” Critical Horizons 16, no. 4: 311–28.Google Scholar
McAfee, Noëlle. 2000. Habermas, Kristeva, and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McAfee, Noëlle 2008. Democracy and the Political Unconscious. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Whitebook, Joel. 1995. Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitebook, Joel 1999. “Fantasy and Critique: Some Thoughts on Freud and the Frankfurt School,” in Handbook of Critical Theory, ed. Rasmussen, David. Oxford: Blackwell. 287–304.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Beebe, Thomas O. 2002. “The Öffenlichkeit of Jürgen Habermas: The Frankfurt School’s Most Influential Concept?,” in Rethinking the Frankfurt School: Alternative Legacies of Cultural Critique, ed. Nealon, Jeffrey and Irr, Caren. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy, et al. 2014. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Negt, Oskar and Kluge, Alexander. 1993. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, trans. Peter Labanyi, Jamie O. Daniel, and Assenka Oksillof. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E., ed. 2012b. “Special Section: Fiftieth Anniversary of Habermas’ Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,” Political Theory 40, no. 6: 767–838.Google Scholar
Strum, Arthur. 1994. “A Bibliography of the Concept Öffenlichkeit,” New German Critique 61 (Winter): 161–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Charles, Guy-Uriel and Fuentes-Rohwer, Luis. 2015. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and the Creation of a Racial Counterpublic,” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 21, no. 1: 1–21.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique. 1996. The Underside of Modernity: Apel, Ricoeur, Rorty, Taylor, and the Philosophy of Liberation, trans. Eduardo Mendieta. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Gooding-Williams, Robert. 2009. In the Shadow of Du Bois. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 2009. Race, Empire and the Idea of Human Development. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shelby, Tommie. 2003. “Ideology, Racism and Critical Social Theory,” Philosophical Forum 34, no. 2: 153–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 1986. “On Habermas and Particularity: Is there Room for Race and Gender on the Glassy Plains of Ideal Discourse?,” Praxis International 6: 328–40.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C 1987. “Values, Respect and Recognition: On Race and Culture in the Neoconservative Debate,” Praxis International 7: 164–73.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C 2017. “Epistemic and Political Agency,” in The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, ed. Pohlhaus, Gaile, Kidd, Ian, and Medina, Jose. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Suggested Reading
Garz, Detlef. 2000. “Kritik, Hermeneutik, Rekonstruktion. Über den Stellenwert der Methode bei Jürgen Habermas,” in Das Interesse der Vernunft. Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse,” ed. Müller-Doohm, Stefan. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 201–17.Google Scholar
Gaus, Daniel. 2009. Der Sinn von Demokratie. Die Diskurstheorie der Demokratie und die Debatte über die Legitimität der Europäischen Union. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gaus, Daniel 2013. “Rational Reconstruction as a Method of Political Theory between Social Critique and Empirical Political Science,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 553–70.Google Scholar
Gaus, Daniel 2015. “Discourse Theory’s Sociological Claim: Reconstructing the Epistemic Meaning of Democracy as a Deliberative System,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 42, no. 6: 503–25.Google Scholar
Peters, Bernhard. 1994. “On Reconstructive Legal and Political Theory,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 20, no. 4: 101–34.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2016. The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussel, Enrique. 1996. The Underside of Modernity: Apel, Ricouer, Rorty, Taylor, and the Philosophy of Liberation, trans. Eduardo Mendieta. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Schluchter, Woflgang. 1981. The Rise of Western Rationalism: Max Weber’s Developmental History, trans. Guenther Roth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baynes, Kenneth. 2002. “Freedom and Recognition in Hegel and Habermas,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 28, no. 1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 1997. “Authenticity and Autonomy: Taylor, Habermas, and the Politics of Recognition,” Political Theory 25, no. 2: 258–88.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2007. Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Iser, Mattias. 2008. Empörung und Fortschritt. Grundlagen einer kritischen Theorie der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Campus [English translation upcoming, Oxford University Press].Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Joas, Hans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jütten, Timo. 2011. “The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, no. 5: 701–27.Google Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 1971a. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: Merlin.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Calhoun, C., Mendieta, E., and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2013. Habermas and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2011. The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere: Butler, Habermas, Taylor and West in Dialogue. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arens, Edmund. 2005. “Religion as Ritual, Communicative, and Critical Praxis,”in The Frankfurt School and Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers, ed. Mendieta, Eduardo, trans. Chad Kautzer. New York: Routledge. 373–96.Google Scholar
Arens, Edmund 2007. Gottesverständigung. Eine kommunikative Religionstheologie. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Rosati, Massimo. 2009. Ritual and the Sacred: A Neo-Durkheimian Analysis of Politics, Religion and the Self. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Rosati, Massimo 2014.“The Archaic and Us: Ritual, Myth, the Sacred and Modernity,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40: 363–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Alexy, Robert. 1989 [1978]. A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, trans. Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1993 [1988]. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law, trans. John Farrell. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Franz. 1986 [1936]. The Rule of Law: Political Theory and the Legal System in Modern Society. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher. 2007. Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Aguirre, Javier. 2012. “Postmetaphysical Reason and Postsecular Consciousness: Habermas’ Analysis of Religion in the Public Sphere.” Doctorial dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Aguirre, Javier 2013. “Habermas’ Account of the Role of Religion in the Public Sphere: A Response to Cristina Lafont’s Critiques Through an Illustrative Political Debate about Same-Sex Marriage,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 39, no. 7: 637–73.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C., Mendieta, E., and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2013. Habermas and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mardones, José María. 1998. El discurso religioso de la modernidad: Habermas y la religión. México City: Universidad Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo. 2002a. “Introduction,” in Habermas, Jürgen, Religion and Rationality, ed. Eduardo, Mendieta. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo 2011c. “Rationalization, Modernity, and Secularization,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 222–38.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, P. and Shook, J., eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Koselleck, R. 1985. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. K. Tribe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantick geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp].Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. 1988 [1959]. Critique and Crisis. Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Kritik und Krise. Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt. Munich: Karl Alber].Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. 2002. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing, History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lara, M. P. 2013. The Disclosure of Politics: Semantic Struggles Over the Semantics of Secularization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Owen, David S. 2002. Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Michael. 1982. “Habermas’ Theory of Social Evolution,” in Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, John B. and Held, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 162–80.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet. 1987. “Collective Learning: Habermas’s Concessions and their Theoretical Implications,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 13: 265–81.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet 1992. “The Ontogenetic Fallacy: The Immanent Critique of Habermas’s Developmental Logic Theory of Evolution,” Theory, Culture & Society 9: 65–93.Google Scholar
Whitton, Brian J. 1992. “Universal Pragmatics and the Formation of Western Civilization: A Critique of Habermas’s Theory of Moral Evolution,” History and Theory 31: 299–313.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honneth, A. 2007. “Pathologies of the Social,” in Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. 3–48.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. 2009. Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, T. 1991b. “Complexity and Democracy: The Seducements of Systems Theory,” in Ideals and Illusions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 152–80.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1943. “The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists,” American Journal of Sociology 49, no. 2: 165–80.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honneth, Axel. 2017. The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1973. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Love, Nancy. 1995. “What’s left of Marx?,” in The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen. Cambridge University Press. 46–66.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Durkheim, Émile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. 2015. Mind, Self, and Society, ed. Morris, Charles W.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Brunkhorst, Hauke. 2005. Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 2008. The Ends of Solidarity: Discourse Theory in Ethics and Politics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1999. “Openly Strategic Uses of Language: a Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective (A Second Attempt to Think With Habermas Against Habermas),” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1975. How Do To Things With Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skjei, Erling. 1985. “A Comment on Performative, Subject, and Proposition in Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action,” Inquiry 28: 87–104.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Heath, Joseph. 2011b. “System and Lifeworld,” in Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 1993. “Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation between Critical Theory and Rational Choice,” American Political Science Review 87: 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Flynn, Jeffrey. 2014. “Reconstructing the Western Model,” in Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2012. “The Justification of Justice: Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Discourse Theory in Dialogue,” in The Right to Justification. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 1995. “The Foundations of Modern Democracy,” European Journal of Philosophy 3, no. 1: 55–68.Google Scholar
Maus, Ingeborg. 1996. “Liberties and Popular Sovereignty: On Jürgen Habermas’s Reconstruction of the System of Rights,” Cardozo Law Review 17: 825–82.Google Scholar
Olson, Kevin. 2003. “Do Rights Have a Formal Basis? Habermas’ Legal Theory and the Normative Foundations of the Law,” Journal of Political Philosophy 11, no. 3: 273–94.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1986. “Formal Pragmatics and Social Criticism,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 11: 331–53.Google Scholar
Celikates, Robin. 2010. “Habermas: Sprache, Verständigung und sprachliche Gewalt,” in Philosophien sprachlicher Gewalt, ed. Kuch, Hannes and Herrmann, Steffen K.. Weilerswist: Velbrück. 272–85.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Alford, C. Fred. 1985. Science and the Revenge of Nature: Marcuse & Habermas. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Feenberg, Andrew. 1996. “Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 39, no. 1: 45–70.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert B. 1995. “On the Notion of Technology as Ideology,” in Technology and the Politics of Knowledge, ed. Feenberg, Andrew and Hannay, Alastair. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Steven. 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Adorno, Theodor W. 1986. “What Does Coming to Terms with the Past Mean?,” in Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective, ed. Hartman, Geoffrey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 114–29.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1998. “Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press. 241–63.Google Scholar
Knowlton, James. 1993. Forever in the Shadow of Hitler?: Original Documents of the Historikerstreit, the Controversy Concerning the Singularity of the Holocaust. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Neves, Raphael. Forthcoming. Healing the Past or Causing More Evil? Amnesty and Accountability during Transitions.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fultner, Barbara. 1996. “The Redemption of Truth: Idealization, Acceptability and Fallibilism in Habermas’ Theory of Meaning,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 4, no. 2: 233–51.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellmer, Albrecht. 1992. “What is a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning?,” in Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, Axel et al., trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 171–219.Google Scholar
Zuidervaart, Lambert. 2017. Truth in Husserl, Heidegger, and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred, eds. 1990. The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1991. “Discourse and the Moral Point of View: Deriving a Dialogical Principle of Universalization,” Inquiry 34: 27–48.Google Scholar
Rehg, William 2011. “Discourse Ethics,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 115–39.Google Scholar
Wellmer, Albrecht. 1991. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans. D. Midgley. Cambridge: Polity Press. 113–231.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1990. “Ethics, Utopia, and the Critique of Utopia,” in The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 23–59.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1988c. “What is Enlightenment?,” in The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon. 32–50.Google Scholar
Wellmer, Albrecht 2004. “The Debate About Truth: Pragmatism without Regulative Ideas,” in Critical Theory after Habermas. Leiden: Brill. 181–211.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bohman, James and Rehg, William. 2014. “Jürgen Habermas,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew, eds. 1998. Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, René and Baynes, Kenneth, eds. 2002. Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Between Facts and Norms. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Finlayson, James Gordon. 2005. “Habermas’s Moral Cognitivism and the Frege–Geach Challenge,” European Journal of Philosophy 13: 319–44.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 1998. “What is a Validity Claim?,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 24: 23–41.Google Scholar
Niemi, Jari I. 2005. “Habermas and Validity Claims,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13: 227–44.Google Scholar
Skjei, Erling. 1985. “A Comment on Performative, Subject, and Proposition in Habermas’s Theory of Communication,” Inquiry 28: 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2008. “The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition,” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20, no. 1: 251–75.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona, Rogers, Wendy, and Dodds, Susan, eds. 2014. Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 2008. The Ends of Solidarity: Discourse Theory in Ethics and Politics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Petherbridge, Danielle. 2016. “What’s Critical About Vulnerability? Rethinking Interdependence, Recognition, and Power,” Hypatia 31, no. 3: 589–604.Google Scholar
Straehle, Christine, ed. 2016. Vulnerability, Autonomy, and Applied Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Kompridis, N. 1994. “On World Disclosure: Heidegger, Habermas, and Dewey,” Thesis Eleven 37: 29–45.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1991. “Language and Society,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 23–35.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1995. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 100–26.Google Scholar