Page 154 - Democracy and the Public Sphere

Notes 149

10. J. Habermas, ‘Technical progress and the social life-world’, in Toward a
Rational Society, pp. 57–8.
11. Habermas, ‘The university in a democracy’, p. 7.
12. Holub, Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere, pp. 78–105. See also
J. Habermas, Philosophical and Political Profiles, trans. F. Lawrence
(London: Heinemann, 1983), pp. 165–70.
13. Holub, Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere, p. 85.
14. J. Habermas, ‘Technology and science as “ideology”’, in Toward a
Rational Society.
15. Habermas, ‘The scientisation of politics and public opinion’, p. 73.
16. J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action vol. 1: Reason and the
Rationalisation of Society, trans. T. McCarthy (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1991 [1981]), pp. 90–3.
17. J. Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.
C. Lenhardt and S. Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990
[1983]), p. 9.
18. J. Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. F. Lawrence
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987).
19. J. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. T.
McCarthy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984 [1976]), pp. 1–68.
20. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, p. 68.
21. Ibid., pp. 50–1.
22. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action vol. 1, p. 297.
23. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, p. 64.
24. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action vol. 1, p. 303.
25. Ibid., p. 302.
26. Unlike ‘strategic action’ which ‘remains indifferent with respect to its
motivational conditions.’ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution
of Society, p. 118.
27. M. Jay, ‘Habermas and Modernism’, in R. Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and
Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985).
28. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, p. 65.
29. See R. Blaug, Democracy, Real and Ideal: Discourse Ethics and Radical
Politics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999). Blaug has
rightly argued that the metaphor of a critical ‘yardstick’ often claimed
for Habermas’s ideal speech situation is misleading. There are too
many variables to be able to measure or compare various actual speech
situations with the kind of precision this objectivist metaphor implies.
However, I’m not convinced by his suggestion that this renders the
notion entirely meaningless. The ‘ideal speech situation’ should not be
conceived as a calibration tool for the social scientist, but rather, as a
framework for understanding the processes by which actual participants
work at the challenge of better communication.
30. See J.D. Peters, Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). Peters mounts an elegant,
but unnecessarily extreme, critique of reciprocity.

31. ‘Our first sentence expresses unequivocally the intention of universal and
unconstrained consensus.’ J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests,
trans. J. Shapiro (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987 [1968], p. 314.

23/8/05 09:36:16
Goode 02 chap04 149 23/8/05 09:36:16
Goode 02 chap04 149