Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T17:37:39.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complexity, Pluralism, and the Constitutional State: On Habermas's Faktizität und Geltung

Review products

Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1992. Pp. 633. $61.64 cloth; $32.16 paper. (“FG”)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

James Bohman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jürgen Habermas has from the start had the goal of developing a normative democratic theory based on rational consensus. From The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989a; first published in 1961) to The Theory of Communicative Action (1984, 1987), Habermas has sought to elaborate the underpinnings for such a critical theory of democracy, one that is oriented to the participation of reasoning citizens. In many respects, Habermas's recent Faktizität und Geltung, while cast as a philosophy of law, bears the fruit of that labor by offering his long-awaited “radical” democratic theory. Habermas calls his theory of democracy “deliberative politics,” clearly aligning himself with those contemporary political theorists who emphasize public deliberation and participation. However, many faithful readers of Habermas may find his approach to legal and political legitimacy in Faktizität und Geltung somewhat surprising. Rather than defending participatory democracy directly, he instead embeds these radical democratic principles in a complex account of the political and legal institutions of constitutional democracies.

Type
On Habermas's Faktizität und Geltung
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , 1994 , pp. 897 - 930
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Bruce (1988) “Neo-federalism?” in Elster, J. & Slagstad, R., eds., Constitutionalism and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce (1991) 1 We the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bessette, Joseph M. (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James (1991) New Philosophy of Social Science: Problems of Indeterminacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James (1995) “Democracy and Inevitable Complexity: On a Thought Experiment of Bernhard Peters,” 3 Constellations 275.Google Scholar
Bohman, James (in press (a)) Public Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James (in press (b)) “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism,” Political Theory.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean, & Arato, Andrew (1992) Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua (1989) “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in Hamlin, A. & Pettit, P., eds., The Good Polity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua, & Rogers, Joel (1992) “Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance,” 20 Politics & Society 393.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esdund, David M. (1990) “Democracy without Preference,” 99 Philosophical Rev. 397.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy (1992) “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in Calhoun, C., ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1973) Theory and Practice, trans. Viertel, J.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1975) Legitimation Crisis, trans. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1984) 1 The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1985) Philosophical-political Profiles, trans. Lawrence, F. G.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1987) 2 The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1988) On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans. Nicholsen, S. W. & Stark, J. A.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1989a) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Burger, T.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1989b) “Volkssouvernität als Verfahren,” in Homburg, Forum für Philosophic Bad, ed., Die Ideen von 1789. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1989c) The New Conservatism, ed. & trans. Nicholsen, S. W.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1990) “What Does Socialism Mean Today? The Rectifying Revolution and the Need for New Thinking on the Left,” 183 New Left Rev. 3.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1993a) Justification and Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1993b) “On the Pragmatic, the Ethical and the Moral Employment of Practical Reason,” in Habermas 1993:1–18.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max (1974) Eclipse of Reason. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin (1984) Marxism and Totality. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, James (1993) “Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation between Critical Theory and Rational Choice,” 87 American Political Science Rev. 74.Google Scholar
Johnson, James, & Knight, Jack (1994) “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy,” 22 Political Theory 277.Google Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, & Tyler, Tom R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard (1987) “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation,” 15 Political Theory 338.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. (1980) Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1975) “Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,” in 3 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Writings 12–143. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank (1988) “Law's Republic,” 97 Yale Law J. 1493.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott (1971) The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Peters, Bernhard (1993) Die Integration moderner Gesellschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1985) “Interest Groups in American Public Law,” 38 Stanford Law Rev. 29.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (1988) “Beyond the Republican Revival,” 97 Yale Law J. 1539.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles (1975) Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zolo, Danilo (1992) Democracy and Complexity, trans. McKie, D.. University Park: Penn State Univ. Press.Google Scholar