What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cambridge Companion to Habermas
This volume examines the historical and intellectual contexts out of which Habermas' work emerged, and offers an overview of his main ideas, including those in his most recent publication. Among the topics discussed are: his relationship to Marx and the Frankfurt School of critical theory, his unique contributions to the philosophy of social sciences, the concept of "communicative ethics," and the critique of postmodernism. Particular attention is paid to Habermas' recent work on democratic theory and the constitutional state.
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
4 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 17, 2024
A VERY HELPFUL VOLUME OF SUPPORTIVE AND CRITICAL ESSAYS ON HABERMAS
Jürgen Habermas (born 1929) is a German philosopher and sociologist who is one of the leading figures of the Frankfurt School.
Editor Stephen White said in his Introduction to this 1995 book, “[Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno] had been among the founders of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. The institute members carried out a wide range of philosophical and social investigations sharply critical of the economics, politics, and culture of Western societies. Although they considered themselves to be on the left politically, their attachment to Marxism became looser and looser, especially as the character of Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union became increasingly apparent.
"Horkheimer coined the term ‘critical theory’ in the 1930s to describe their stance. As originally conceived, critical theory would have the role of giving new life to ideals of reason and freedom by revealing their false embodiment in scientism, capitalism, the ‘culture industry,’ and bourgeois Western political institutions.” (Pg. 4)
He continues, “Habermas’s philosophical journey begins with a departure from the positions of Horkheimer and Adorno’s later years, but it is a departure that Habermas has always felt better retains the spirit of the Frankfurt School’s prewar period… Many readers of The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity are perplexed at the intensity and relentlessness of Habermas’s attack on his opponents. Adding to the perplexity is the fact that one of the hallmarks of his career has been an extraordinary openness to critical discussions.” (Pg. 5)
Nancy Love quotes Habermas and observes, “These passages… provide clues that help explain Habermas’s continued commitment to socialism. Socialism is not dead, nor will it rise again. In response to recent events, Habermas suggests a different, less dialectical, approach to resurrection… ‘socialism-as-critique’ remains a source of hope… For Habermas socialism is to be sustained as a ‘discourse-in-exile.’ What’s left of Marx in this in the tradition of Jewish mysticism.” (Pg. 46)
Max Pensky states, “For Habermas, universalism is the only formal criterion of the RIGHTNESS or justice of collective norms that is available, and hence the ONLY recourse that modern societies have for opening up a sphere in which particular questions of the good life can even be addressed. In this sense ‘universalism’ means something like the basic shared mentality that allows individuals to conceive of themselves as CITIZENS of a democratic state, one in which citizenship consists of a constellation of interlocking duties and rights that together form an abstract level of popular sovereignty subsisting below… the spectrum of particularistic kinds of identity operating within a diverse society.” (Pg. 70)
John Dryzek begins his essay with the statement, “Critical theory is often dismissed … by empirically inclined social scientists as an obscure, speculative, and unscientific philosophical enterprise… It must be admitted that there are often good reasons why these social scientists should scorn the efforts of their more philosophically inclined colleagues. But here I shall argue that the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas stands out from most of what now passes for political and social theory in its ability to engage empirical social science in fruitful dialogue.” (Pg. 97)
Later, he adds, “State administrators are probably not going to be too keen on a style of analysis that thoroughly questions their own authority and competence, and this perhaps explains why critical policy analysis is mostly a project of academics, rather than policy analysts actually working in public bureaucracies.” (Pg. 110)
This is a very helpful volume for understanding Habermas’s often difficult-to-follow thought. It will be of great value both to “newbies” as well as experienced readers of Habermas’s books.
Jürgen Habermas (born 1929) is a German philosopher and sociologist who is one of the leading figures of the Frankfurt School.
Editor Stephen White said in his Introduction to this 1995 book, “[Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno] had been among the founders of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt. The institute members carried out a wide range of philosophical and social investigations sharply critical of the economics, politics, and culture of Western societies. Although they considered themselves to be on the left politically, their attachment to Marxism became looser and looser, especially as the character of Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union became increasingly apparent.
"Horkheimer coined the term ‘critical theory’ in the 1930s to describe their stance. As originally conceived, critical theory would have the role of giving new life to ideals of reason and freedom by revealing their false embodiment in scientism, capitalism, the ‘culture industry,’ and bourgeois Western political institutions.” (Pg. 4)
He continues, “Habermas’s philosophical journey begins with a departure from the positions of Horkheimer and Adorno’s later years, but it is a departure that Habermas has always felt better retains the spirit of the Frankfurt School’s prewar period… Many readers of The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity are perplexed at the intensity and relentlessness of Habermas’s attack on his opponents. Adding to the perplexity is the fact that one of the hallmarks of his career has been an extraordinary openness to critical discussions.” (Pg. 5)
Nancy Love quotes Habermas and observes, “These passages… provide clues that help explain Habermas’s continued commitment to socialism. Socialism is not dead, nor will it rise again. In response to recent events, Habermas suggests a different, less dialectical, approach to resurrection… ‘socialism-as-critique’ remains a source of hope… For Habermas socialism is to be sustained as a ‘discourse-in-exile.’ What’s left of Marx in this in the tradition of Jewish mysticism.” (Pg. 46)
Max Pensky states, “For Habermas, universalism is the only formal criterion of the RIGHTNESS or justice of collective norms that is available, and hence the ONLY recourse that modern societies have for opening up a sphere in which particular questions of the good life can even be addressed. In this sense ‘universalism’ means something like the basic shared mentality that allows individuals to conceive of themselves as CITIZENS of a democratic state, one in which citizenship consists of a constellation of interlocking duties and rights that together form an abstract level of popular sovereignty subsisting below… the spectrum of particularistic kinds of identity operating within a diverse society.” (Pg. 70)
John Dryzek begins his essay with the statement, “Critical theory is often dismissed … by empirically inclined social scientists as an obscure, speculative, and unscientific philosophical enterprise… It must be admitted that there are often good reasons why these social scientists should scorn the efforts of their more philosophically inclined colleagues. But here I shall argue that the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas stands out from most of what now passes for political and social theory in its ability to engage empirical social science in fruitful dialogue.” (Pg. 97)
Later, he adds, “State administrators are probably not going to be too keen on a style of analysis that thoroughly questions their own authority and competence, and this perhaps explains why critical policy analysis is mostly a project of academics, rather than policy analysts actually working in public bureaucracies.” (Pg. 110)
This is a very helpful volume for understanding Habermas’s often difficult-to-follow thought. It will be of great value both to “newbies” as well as experienced readers of Habermas’s books.
Displaying 1 of 1 review