Jürgen Habermas
Reason lives in the way people reach understanding through open argument, and democracy works when decisions emerge from such free discussion.
Placement
Theory of communicative action: reason resides in mutual understanding; discourse ethics and deliberative democracy.
Key ideas
- Communicative action
- Domination-free discourse
- Public sphere
Teachers: Theodor W. Adorno
Students: Axel Honneth, Rainer Forst
Influence
Influenced by 18
Immanuel Kant
influenced by ✓
Habermas recast Kant’s categorical imperative as a principle of universalisation that norms must pass in real discourse among all those affected (Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln, 1983). J. Habermas, “Diskursethik – Notizen zu einem Begründungsprogramm”, in Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln (1983); SEP “Jürgen Habermas”
Immanuel Kant › 1724–1804
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
influenced by ✓
In ‘Labour and Interaction’ (1967) Habermas drew from Hegel’s Jena philosophy of spirit the distinction between labour and interaction that underlies his theory of communicative action. J. Habermas, “Arbeit und Interaktion. Bemerkungen zu Hegels Jenenser Philosophie des Geistes” (1967), in Technik und Wissenschaft als „Ideologie“ (1968)
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel › 1770–1831
Karl Marx
influenced by ✓
Habermas set out to reconstruct historical materialism, separating the development of productive forces from that of normative structures (Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus, 1976). J. Habermas, Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus (1976); Erkenntnis und Interesse (1968)
Karl Marx › 1818–1883
Sigmund Freud
influenced by ✓
In Knowledge and Human Interests (1968) Habermas took psychoanalysis as the model of a self-reflective science guided by an emancipatory interest, criticising Freud’s own scientistic self-misunderstanding. J. Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse (1968); SEP “Jürgen Habermas”
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Sigmund Freud › 1856–1939
Émile Durkheim
influenced by ✓
Habermas developed from Durkheim’s sociology of religion the thesis of a ‘linguistification of the sacred’, in which ritual authority passes into communicative agreement (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. II; É. Durkheim, Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (1912); SEP “Jürgen Habermas”
Émile Durkheim › 1858–1917
Max Weber
influenced by ✓
Habermas built his theory of modernity on Weber’s account of rationalisation, but argued that Weber had narrowed reason to its purposive, instrumental form (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. I; SEP “Jürgen Habermas”
Max Weber › 1864–1920
Show all (18)Show fewer
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling
influenced by ✓
Habermas wrote his dissertation on Schelling (Das Absolute und die Geschichte, 1954) and later drew materialist conclusions from his idea of God’s contraction (1963). J. Habermas, Das Absolute und die Geschichte. Von der Zwiespältigkeit in Schellings Denken (diss. 1954); “Dialektischer Idealismus im Übergang zum Materialismus”, in Theorie und Praxis (1963)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling › 1775–1854
Charles Sanders Peirce
influenced by
In Knowledge and Human Interests (1968) Habermas read Peirce’s logic of inquiry as uncovering the technical interest that guides the empirical sciences. J. Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse (1968); SEP “Jürgen Habermas”
Evidence: AI draft
Charles Sanders Peirce › 1839–1914
George Herbert Mead
influenced by ✓
Habermas saw in Mead’s theory of symbolically mediated interaction the paradigm shift from purposive to communicative action (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. II, “Der Paradigmenwechsel bei Mead und Durkheim”; G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (1934)
George Herbert Mead › 1863–1931
Georg Lukács
influenced by ✓
Habermas reconstructed Lukács’ theory of reification as a reading of Weber’s rationalisation and recast it as the colonisation of the lifeworld (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. I, “Von Lukács zu Adorno: Rationalisierung als Verdinglichung”; vol. II
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Georg Lukács › 1885–1971
Max Horkheimer
influenced by ✓
Habermas continued Horkheimer’s programme of an interdisciplinary critical theory but replaced his critique of instrumental reason with a theory of communicative rationality (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981); M. Horkheimer, “Traditionelle und kritische Theorie” (1937); Eclipse of Reason (1947)
Max Horkheimer › 1895–1973
Jean Piaget
influenced by ✓
Habermas modelled the development of moral consciousness, and in part social evolution, on Piaget’s developmental logic and Kohlberg’s stages (Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln, 1983). J. Habermas, Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln (1983); Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus (1976); J. Piaget, Le jugement moral chez l’enfant (1932)
Jean Piaget › 1896–1980
Alfred Schutz
influenced by
Habermas developed his concept of the lifeworld, the shared background of communication, in critical dialogue with Husserl, Schutz and Luckmann (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. II; A. Schutz and T. Luckmann, The Structures of the Life-World (1973)
Evidence: AI draft
Alfred Schutz › 1899–1959
E. E. Evans-Pritchard
influenced by
Habermas took up the rationality debate that Winch opened over Evans-Pritchard’s Zande study (1937) to contrast mythical and modern worldviews (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. I; E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (1937); P. Winch, “Understanding a Primitive Society” (1964)
Evidence: AI draft
E. E. Evans-Pritchard › 1902–1973
Talcott Parsons
influenced by ✓
Habermas took over Parsons’s account of money and power as steering media to conceive economy and state as systems, distinct from the lifeworld (Theory of Communicative Action, 1981). J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. II, “Talcott Parsons: Konstruktionsprobleme der Gesellschaftstheorie”; T. Parsons, “On the Concept of Political Power” (1963)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Talcott Parsons › 1902–1979
Hannah Arendt
influenced by ✓
Habermas took up Arendt’s communicative concept of power as the ability to act in concert but faulted its neglect of strategic action (‘Hannah Arendts Begriff der Macht’, 1976). J. Habermas, “Hannah Arendts Begriff der Macht” (1976), in Philosophisch-politische Profile (1981); Faktizität und Geltung (1992); SEP “Hannah Arendt”
Hannah Arendt › 1906–1975
Norberto Bobbio
influenced by
In Between Facts and Norms (1992) Habermas started from Bobbio’s procedural minimal definition of democracy (The Future of Democracy, 1984) and extended it into a deliberative model. J. Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung (1992); N. Bobbio, Il futuro della democrazia (1984)
Evidence: AI draft
Norberto Bobbio › 1909–2004
J. L. Austin
influenced by
Habermas built his universal pragmatics on Austin’s speech-act theory, aligning communicative action with illocutionary and strategic action with perlocutionary effects (‘Was heißt Universalpragmatik?’, 1976). J. Habermas, “Was heißt Universalpragmatik?” (1976); Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981); J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (1962); SEP “Jürgen Habermas”
Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO
J. L. Austin › 1911–1960
Influenced 4
Axel Honneth taught
taught ✓
After a doctorate at the Free University of Berlin (1983), Honneth was Habermas’s assistant at the Department of Philosophy in Frankfurt from 1983 to 1989 and took his Habilitation there in 1990 with Kampf um Anerkennung (expanded edition 1992). Columbia University, Department of Philosophy, profile of A. Honneth; A. Honneth, Kampf um Anerkennung (1992)
Evidence: AI draft
Axel Honneth › b. 1949
Iris Marion Young
influenced
Young took up Habermas’s discourse model of deliberative democracy but widened it to include greeting, rhetoric and narrative as forms of political communication (Inclusion and Democracy, 2000). I. M. Young, Inclusion and Democracy (2000); “Communication and the Other”, in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference (1996)
Evidence: AI draft
Iris Marion Young › 1949–2006
Seyla Benhabib
influenced ✓
In ‘The Generalized and the Concrete Other’ (1987) Benhabib argued that Habermas’s discourse ethics, which she defended, must also take in the concrete other. S. Benhabib, “The Generalized and the Concrete Other”, Praxis International 5 (1986), and in S. Benhabib and D. Cornell (eds.), Feminism as Critique (1987); Situating the Self (1992)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Seyla Benhabib › b. 1950
Rainer Forst taught
taught
Forst took his doctorate under Habermas in Frankfurt in 1993, after working in Habermas’s Leibniz research group on legal theory; the thesis appeared as Kontexte der Gerechtigkeit (1994). Normative Orders (Goethe University Frankfurt), notice on the Festschrift for R. Forst, 15 Aug. 2024; R. Forst, Kontexte der Gerechtigkeit (1994)
Evidence: AI draft
Rainer Forst › b. 1964
Criticism
Mutual critique 2
John Rawls ⇄ mutual
criticised
Habermas questioned whether Rawls’s original position and overlapping consensus can secure the validity, not merely acceptance, of principles of justice (‘Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason’, 1995). J. Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism”, Journal of Philosophy 92 (1995); J. Rawls, “Reply to Habermas”, ibid.
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Replying to Habermas, Rawls argued that his own liberalism is freestanding and political, whereas Habermas’s discourse theory is a comprehensive doctrine (‘Political Liberalism: Reply to Habermas’, 1995). J. Rawls, “Political Liberalism: Reply to Habermas”, Journal of Philosophy 92 (1995), 132–180; J. Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason”, ibid., 109–131
Evidence: AI draft
John Rawls › 1921–2002
Niklas Luhmann ⇄ mutual
criticised
Habermas objected that Luhmann’s systems theory is a sophisticated form of technocratic thinking that redefines practical questions as technical ones (Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie?, 1971). J. Habermas & N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung? (1971), Habermas’s contribution
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Luhmann rejected Habermas’s anchoring of social theory in consensus reached through discourse, analysing society as differentiated systems that reduce complexity (Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie?, 1971). J. Habermas & N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie – Was leistet die Systemforschung? (1971)
Evidence: AI draft
Niklas Luhmann › 1927–1998
Criticized by 6
Jean-François Lyotard
criticised by
Lyotard objected that Habermas’s aim of universal consensus through discourse rests on an outdated narrative of emancipation and does violence to heterogeneous language games (The Postmodern Condition, 1979). J.-F. Lyotard, La condition postmoderne (1979), §14; “Réponse à la question: qu’est-ce que le postmoderne?” (1982)
Evidence: AI draft
Jean-François Lyotard › 1924–1998
Enrique Dussel
criticised by
Dussel objected that Habermas’s discourse ethics presupposes a community of equal participants and forgets those excluded from it – the victims (Ética de la liberación, 1998). E. Dussel, Ética de la liberación en la edad de la globalización y de la exclusión (1998); The Underside of Modernity (1996)
Evidence: AI draft
Enrique Dussel › 1934–2023
Nancy Fraser influenced
influenced
Fraser kept Habermas’s public sphere as an indispensable concept of critical theory and carried it beyond the frame of the nation-state (‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere’, 2007). N. Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere”, Social Text 25/26 (1990); “Transnationalizing the Public Sphere”, Theory, Culture & Society 24 (2007)
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
Fraser objected that Habermas’s system–lifeworld split hides the family’s gendered economy and that his account of the public sphere idealises a forum that excluded women (1985; 1990). N. Fraser, “What’s Critical about Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender”, New German Critique 35 (1985); “Rethinking the Public Sphere”, Social Text 25/26 (1990)
Evidence: AI draft
Nancy Fraser › b. 1947
Peter Sloterdijk
criticised by
In an open letter declaring ‘critical theory is dead’, Sloterdijk suspected Habermas behind the press criticism of Regeln für den Menschenpark (Die Zeit, 9 Sept. 1999). P. Sloterdijk, “Die Kritische Theorie ist tot”, Die Zeit, 9 Sept. 1999; Regeln für den Menschenpark (Elmau lecture, 1999); Habermas’s reply: letter in Die Zeit, 16 Sept. 1999 (reported in Radical Philosophy 99, 2000)
Evidence: AI draft
Peter Sloterdijk › b. 1947
Slavoj Žižek
criticised by
Žižek opened The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989) by reading Habermas’s neglect of Lacan as symptomatic, setting Lacan’s constitutive antagonism against Habermas’s ideal of transparent communication. S. Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989), Introduction
Evidence: AI draft
Slavoj Žižek › b. 1949
Paul Gilroy
criticised by
In the same chapter of The Black Atlantic (1993) Gilroy objected that Habermas’s defence of modernity as an unfinished project of reason leaves out slavery and racial terror, which for the Black Atlantic belong to modernity’s core. P. Gilroy, The Black Atlantic (1993), ch. 2; J. Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985)
Evidence: AI draft
Paul Gilroy › b. 1956
Criticizes 9
Martin Heidegger
criticised
In 1953 Habermas asked publicly why Heidegger had republished his 1935 phrase on the ‘inner truth and greatness’ of National Socialism without comment (FAZ, 25 July 1953). J. Habermas, “Mit Heidegger gegen Heidegger denken”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 July 1953; Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985), Lecture VI
Evidence: AI draft
Martin Heidegger › 1889–1976
Hans-Georg Gadamer
criticised
Habermas objected that Gadamer’s rehabilitation of tradition and prejudice overlooks language as a medium of domination, which calls for critique of ideology (Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften, 1967). J. Habermas, Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften (1967), on Gadamer’s Wahrheit und Methode; “Der Universalitätsanspruch der Hermeneutik” (1970), in Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik (1971)
Evidence: AI draft
Hans-Georg Gadamer › 1900–2002
Karl Popper
criticised
Habermas attacked Popper’s critical rationalism as a ‘positivistically halved rationalism’ that confines reason to method and leaves the choice of values to decision (1963–64, in Der Positivismusstreit, 1969). J. Habermas, “Analytische Wissenschaftstheorie und Dialektik” (1963); “Gegen einen positivistisch halbierten Rationalismus” (1964, reply to H. Albert); both in Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (1969)
Evidence: AI draft
Karl Popper › 1902–1994
Theodor W. Adorno studied with
studied with ✓
After a doctorate in Bonn on Schelling (1954), Habermas came to Frankfurt in 1956 as Adorno’s assistant at the Institute for Social Research; in 1959 he left, pushed out by Horkheimer, and took his Habilitation with Wolfgang Abendroth in Marburg (1961). SEP “Jürgen Habermas”; S. Müller-Doohm, Jürgen Habermas. Eine Biographie (2014)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
criticised
Habermas objected that Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment totalises the critique of reason and thereby undercuts its own standards (Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 1985, Lecture V). J. Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985), Lecture V; Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981), vol. 1, ch. IV
Evidence: AI draft
Theodor W. Adorno › 1903–1969
Michel Foucault
criticised
Habermas charged Foucault’s genealogy of power with presentism, relativism and ‘cryptonormativism’, since it cannot account for the norms its own critique presupposes (Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 1985, IX–X). J. Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985), Lectures IX–X
Evidence: AI draft
Michel Foucault › 1926–1984
Jacques Derrida
criticised
Habermas objected that Derrida levels the genre distinction between philosophy and literature, giving up the problem-solving power of argument for rhetoric (Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 1985, excursus). J. Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985), Lecture VII and excursus on levelling the genre distinction between philosophy and literature
Evidence: AI draft
Jacques Derrida › 1930–2004
Show all (9)Show fewer
Carl Schmitt
criticised
Habermas objected that Schmitt’s decisionism dissolves the normative foundations of constitutional democracy (‘Die Schrecken der Autonomie. Carl Schmitt auf Englisch’, in Eine Art Schadensabwicklung, 1987). J. Habermas, “Die Schrecken der Autonomie. Carl Schmitt auf Englisch”, in Eine Art Schadensabwicklung (1987)
Evidence: AI draft
Carl Schmitt › 1888–1985
Cornelius Castoriadis
criticised
Habermas objected that Castoriadis’s creative social imaginary transfers the philosophy of the subject to society and cannot ground rational autonomy (Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 1985). J. Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne (1985), excursus on Castoriadis (after Lecture XI)
Evidence: AI draft
Cornelius Castoriadis › 1922–1997
Reinhart Koselleck
criticised
Habermas read Koselleck’s Kritik und Krise (1959) as a neo-conservative critique of the Enlightenment and of the philosophy of history (‘Verrufener Fortschritt – verkanntes Jahrhundert’, Merkur, 1960). J. Habermas, “Verrufener Fortschritt – verkanntes Jahrhundert”, Merkur 14 (1960); N. Olsen, History in the Plural (2012)
Evidence: AI draft
Reinhart Koselleck › 1923–2006
Works
The rise and decline of the bourgeois public sphere.
Knowledge is guided by technical, practical and emancipatory interests.
Lifeworld and system; the rationality of reaching understanding.
Lectures against the critique of reason from Nietzsche to Foucault and Derrida.
Position
Habermas led Critical Theory out of the pessimism of Adorno and Horkheimer. Reason, he argued, is not only instrumental: in everyday speech we implicitly raise claims to truth, rightness and sincerity that can be tested in argument. This communicative rationality aims at understanding rather than success and contains a standard for criticising society. Modern society is split between the lifeworld, held together by communication, and systems such as markets and administration, steered by money and power; pathologies arise when systems “colonise” the lifeworld. In discourse ethics, valid norms are those all affected could agree to in free discussion. His work grounds a theory of deliberative democracy and a defence of modernity’s unfinished project.
Life & context
Born in 1929 in Düsseldorf and raised in Gummersbach, Habermas studied in Göttingen, Zurich and Bonn and became Adorno’s assistant in Frankfurt. After a professorship in Heidelberg he took over Horkheimer’s chair, directed a Max Planck Institute in Starnberg and returned to Frankfurt. Over decades he intervened in German public debates, among them the historians’ dispute of 1986, as an advocate of constitutional democracy and European integration. He died in Starnberg on 14 March 2026.
Further main works
- Between Facts and Norms (1992)
Appears in
- Journey ‘Hegel’s Heirs’ · Stop 8 of 10
- Debate ‘Are We Free? Free Will in an Age of Neuroscience’
- Debate ‘Democracy, Truth and Polarisation’
- Debate ‘Social Media and the Public Sphere’
- Debate ‘War and Peace: When Is Armed Force Justified?’
- Debate ‘The Positivism Dispute in German Sociology’
- Debate ‘The Historians’ Dispute (Historikerstreit)’
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made