Habermas is a philosopher that I rarely see getting a lot of credit or discussion, and if I do he is usually being criticized. However his political and sociological work have had a huge impact on me and the way I view civilization and power. So I'm writing a review (1.) to say this is a really good book. And (2.) that I think a lot of the criticism of Habermas comes from misinterpretation.
Habermas's magnum opus, "The Theory of Communicative Action", is a sprawling and difficult work to read. If you are planning on reading "Facts and Norms" you should at least read a summary of that work. The two volumes have been criticized for applying principles in language to political theory that are too abstract to be taken seriously, and creating a theory and standard of communication that is idealistic and unrealistic to impose on social and political institutions. This is where I think the misinterpretation begins. I agree that in his early work his dissection of language can be tedious. However his overarching concept, that language and communication creates a crucial medium for the relation of power structures is a huge idea. From here readers are able to move beyond social ontologies of political institutions, to the utility of their actions through dialogue. I also don't think Habermas is trying to create an ideal language for us to perfectly adhere to. Instead he creates an ontology of communication that allows one to hold institutions such as government, bureaucracy, media etc. to a standard of how they engage with each other and with civil society.
So "Between Facts and Norms" continues the TCA project into discussing what makes democracy and law ideal, and what we as citizens and political bodies should expect from political order. I actually found his later work much more focused and extremely on point. His meditations on law and democracy often fall on binary oppositions and how we define rights, government, leadership, and morals within the democratic framework. How do we decide what is normative vs a certain truth? How do we create universal maxims while remaining in a pluralistic society? Do we as citizens take a conservative view and see ourselves as agents for the state? Or do we take a liberal stance that the state exists for us and the benefit of our social relations? A huge amount of questions are taken into account and discussed, in addition to other great political philosophers such as Rawls, Khun, Weber, Parsons, Dworkin and more.
My only criticism of this book is that he includes only a short section in the last chapter on the necessity of the integration feminist political and ethical theory into democracy and law.. Habermas gets points for being a philosopher that has addressed the need for philosophy and political theory to take feminism more seriously, but this theme could be a book in it's own right. His take on the necessity of paying attention to women's rights and equal opportunity and the need to move away from essentialist views of gender is powerful and I wish he had spent more time on it. Other than that this is an incredible book and if you are looking for a more modern work on political philosophy I highly recommend it.