Jurgen Habermas is an outstanding personality in modern German and world social science and philosophy. He is best known as the most influential intellectual in modern humanitarian science. Being a member of the Frankfurt Critical School, he represents a long-standing tradition of theoretical debates over the issues of philosophy, society, democracy, and humanity. Habermas made a great contribution to the various spheres of humanitarian sciences such as social science, discourse analysis, political science, communicational theory, etc. Besides his theoretical achievements, Habermas has a voice in German and world political debates. His views are widely regarded as crucial in such issues as economic and social development, the role of the responsible intellectual, the issues of the Holocaust, the roots of authoritarian power, and the prospects for the emancipation of humanity. He is widely cited on the vast majority of other topics.
In my research paper, I will discuss Habermas’s theory of democracy in the context of contemporary debates in social science. The analysis of Habermas’s theory of democracy will involve the discussion of its main premises such as theoretical and cultural background, those researchers that influenced his scientific direction, etc. Further on, we shall analyze the structure of his theory. It will require research into major elements of his method – theory of “communication reason” and “public sphere” theory. The main question current research attempts to address is the relevance of Habermas’s theory in modern society. To answer this question, research pays attention to the criticism of Habermas’s theory of such authors as Finlayson (2004), Braaten (1991), and Cook (2004).
To provide a comprehensive analysis of Habermas’s contribution to the democratic debate, I will use various analyses of his works by other prominent researchers and his own studies. This will allow me to produce a solid study that can prove helpful for my future research. As a result of my research paper, I will try to assess the pro and cons of Habermas’s theory of democracy which can be a feasible contribution to this problem.
The theoretical roots of Habermas’s theory of democracy
Habermas as a researcher, represents a tradition of American pragmatism and critical theory. His theory of democracy was deeply influenced by the liberal tradition of thought, starting from German Classic Philosophy and finishing with such authors as Berlin and Dahl. Besides these, he was deeply influenced by the modern studies in ethics and moral activities and, on the whole, represents the moral tradition of Christianity and Enlightenment. This, according to our finding, explains the fact why he, in his theory of democracy, so relied upon the discursive ethics of K. Appel.
It must be noted, of course, that being a colleague of such well-known representatives of Frankfurt school as T.W. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, H. Marcuse et al., and he borrowed much of their theory of “instrumentalist action” and implemented it in his theory of democracy. Later research will show how he adapted it to his own methodology.
A framework of a democratic theory constructed by Habermas draws on the vast majority of previous research in this field. One should name such authors whom Habermas regarded as valuable contributors to the democratic theory – Aristotle, Plato, J. Locke, T. Hobbes, R. Dahl, etc.
In social science, he primarily drew on the research of such authors as E. Durkheim, G. H. Mead in linguistic philosophy on the works of J.L, Austin, and L. Wittgenstein. Notwithstanding the scope of authors and traditions which influenced the thought of Habermas, he managed to develop a unique theory of democracy which is of great interest in the contemporary scientific debates.
The structure of Habermas’s theory of democracy
Habermas’s theory of democracy is built on the premise that the only way of achieving rationalist discussion of society burning issues is creating a sound democratic framework that would include every person. According to Habermas, such a framework must be based on respect for human and moral rights and be open to every part of the social process. The democratic institutions, according to Habermas thought, are the value in themselves because they represent the idea of robust communication in order to achieve the common good for all people.
This deep and crucial for the modern debates thought is primarily based on the Habermas method of the communicative actions on which his democratic theory is based. Jurgen Habermas’s (1984-87) theory of communicative reason or rationality represents a major contribution to social science. According to Habermas’s idea, the previous subject-centered mode of thinking disregarded the importance of interpersonal communication, and that is why it was repressive in nature. Habermas places more emphasis on the necessity of providing sound communicative mechanisms, which are the main prerequisites for human emancipation and constructing a fair society—combining the findings of J. Searle and L. Wittgenstein’s linguistic theories and moral tradition deriving from me. Kant, Habermas incorporates them into the viable democratic theory. According to Habermas, the positive legacy of Enlightenment can only be implemented through the communicative mechanisms of democracy such as public discussion, elections, mobilization of different segments of the population to defend their human rights and dignity.
In contrast to irrational thinkers such as Nietzsche, Habermas believes in the progressive impulse of Enlightenment that can be realized through the utilization of human reason’s potential. Habermas (1990) considers Enlightenment to be an “unfinished” project” and opposes those who reject the possibility of changing humanity for the better. That was the main reason for his distancing from the position of Frankfurt school, the representatives of which didn’t see any hope in the future.
Another finding concerning his democratic theory is its incorporation with the theory of instrumental rationalization. According to Habermas, democratic practices are opposite to the model of rationalization, which dominates modern capitalist societies. He claims that it is necessary to maintain intact those spheres of social interaction that presuppose open communication in search of truth and progress. Habermas sees the process of democratization and humanization of society as a realization of the potential for positive change. But still, according to him, the main obstacles to robust communication lie in the realm of instrumental rationality, which forms state, market, industrial science, and other entities. In this way, the logic of society precludes the development of positive communication trends. So, according to our research, Habermas’ theory of democracy is comprised of several intact methods and concepts. The carcass of his model is the theory of communicative action which claims that democratic practices are the only which lead to high moral standards in society. In its turn, it presupposes the theory of the public sphere – the realm in which people democratically discuss their issues and take appropriate decisions on their future lives. And eventually, we have a model of instrumental rationalization which points to the essential constraints to the realization of the “ideal communicative situation” in practice. The essential part of this theory to which we paid much attention in this research is the Habermas concept of the public sphere.
Democratic theory and the notion of the public sphere
Habermas elaborated the concept of the public sphere to describe the changes in western societies which had taken place at the beginning of the 19-the century. According to Habermas (1987), this period it was created the free sphere of communication on issues of political and social importance in which the power of the argument was more respected than the power of tradition or authority. That event fostered the development of the liberal western culture and the discourse on human rights, freedom, and democracy. The main motor of these changes was the growth of human awareness and the development of culture. This period is characterized by the growing empowerment and democratization of politics, economy, and culture. In politics, we have an extraordinary suffrage movement that led to the emergence of mass democracy. In economics, the mobilization of working classes in trade unions forced businessmen and states to ensure social guarantees, which resulted in the creation of the so-called “welfare state.” Eventually, the democratization of culture increased the level of education and literariness among ordinary people. These features of the emerging public sphere, according to Habermas, were the main achievements of modern civilizations, which must be preserved and fostered by the future generation. This motive goes through his entire theory.
But the stability of the public space was broken due to important structural drawbacks of the existing western societies. According to Habermas (1990), the process of the monopolization and commoditization of media communication resulted in the gradual dying off of the public sphere.
In his major work, Theory of Communicative Action (1984-87), he harshly criticized the process of one-folded rationalization and modernization. In his analyses of the bureaucratic organizations, mass consumption, and the market forces, Habermas comes to the conclusion that the increasing formalization of the structures that control our daily life leads to the alienation of the people.
The abovementioned processes result in the deterioration of the participatory democracy quality. Democracy flourishes only in the event if institutions provide citizens with the framework for open discussion of public issues. In the ideal type of “ideal speech situation,” Habermas shows the circumstances under which communication is built on the liberal principles of respect for social and individual rights and is not contaminated by ideology and mistrust. Habermas considers it possible to redress this situation. In a society that overcomes gender, ethnic and cultural divisions, there exists a possibility of creating a just legal framework that would provide people with the possibility to take part in the decision-making process. This all requires public opinion to become a dominant force of democratic transformation. As a result of this section of this research, we came to the conclusion that Habermas’s theory represents a well-thought-out and comprehensive framework that is essential to the analysis of modern transformation in democratic governance and transitions. It is critical to hold all positive facets of this theory intact and criticize some misinterpretations and drawbacks.
Criticisms of Habermas’s theory of democracy
Habermas’s theory of democracy was criticized by many scholars. Some of them, like Cook (2004), claimed that it is idealistic in essence and fails to understand the substantially undemocratic character of modern democratic institutions. According to Cook, Habermas understates the formality of democracy and makes wrong generalizations. The majority of modern democratic countries have only democratic procedures in places, such as plebiscite and elections, but it doesn’t mean the populace enjoys sound democratic rights. The majority of the population in 3-rd world countries suffers from deprivation, low standards of living. The democratic practices in them are nothing more than a means of social order legitimization, which has nothing to do with democratic rights. Another reproach to Habermas concerns his confusion of liberal and democratic rights. According to Cook, liberal rights are not always democratic and, on the whole, are insufficient for ensuring sound democratic governance.
Other criticisms of Habermas’s theory of democracy concerned his notion of the public sphere. As J.G. Finlayson (2004) pointed out, the development of mass communication makes this sphere impossible to exist, and Jane Braaten (1991) claims that the public sphere as a realm of communicative action and debates never existed. Notwithstanding these criticisms, the theory of Habermas is very important for understanding the structure of modern western society and the ways of its transformation.
Conclusion
The results of the research show that Habermas’s theory of democracy includes both negative and positive facets. In the first place, it stresses the progressive motor of democratic institutions, which can be described as a responsible and brave scientific stance in the era of total domination of postmodern and conservative thought. Unlike other theoreticians that seek to totally deconstruct the achievements of the modern western civilization, Habermas rightly holds that there exists a possibility for change. But as with each social theory, Habermas’s theory of democracy has essential drawbacks. As noted above, it tends to overestimate the role of democratic institutions as if they had a value in themselves. Democracy is only viable if there exists social justice and equal distribution of social products. Unless this is the case, democracy becomes formalized and empty.
References
- Braaten, A. (1991). Habermas’s Critical Theory of Society. New York: State University of New York Press.
- Cook, D. (2004). Adorno, Habermas, and the Search for a Rational Society. New York: Routledge.
- Finlayson, J.G., (2004). Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Habermas, J., (1984-1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. by Thomas McCarthy, 2 vol. Cambridge: Polity.