102

H

HABERMAS, JÜRGEN (1929– ). An
influential German philosopher and
sociologist, Jürgen Habermas was born
outside of Düsseldorf, Germany and wit-
nessed the fall of the Third Reich as
an adolescent. The postwar revelation of
the crimes committed under National
Socialism had a deep impact on his out-
look. In 1954 he finished his dissertation
at the University of Bonn and first gained
notice (as well as criticism) for his book,
published in 1962, about the development
and role of the public sphere in Western
culture, a subject which forms a major
theme in his work. He was a professor
first at the University of Heidelberg, then
at Frankfurt in 1964, the Max Planck
Institute in Starnberg in 1971, and the
University of Frankfurt from 1982 until
his retirement in 1994.
While writing on a number of topics
having to do with philosophy and
society, one of Habermas’ central philo-
sophical projects was his development of
a theory of rationality. His system drew
on speech act theories, and he proposed
commu nication resulting in consensus
as the primary function of rationality.

He also suggested the importance of an

“ideal speech situation,” in which com-

municants can discuss important social

issues on the basis of rationality alone,

free from inequality or distortion. Truth,

in his system, is the consensus that

would be reached in this ideal speech

situation.

Habermas thus sees the existence of a

free and equitable public sphere as vitally

important to democratic societies and

believes that this function is impaired

in contemporary societies by economic

forces. Regarding the role of religious rea-

soning in the public sphere, Habermas

draws a line between personal justifica-

tions and the justifications offered for

public policies. He rejects as too stringent

the view held by some philosophers

that individuals must only rely on secular

reasoning when discoursing in the public

sphere, but he also insists that justifica-

tion for coercive laws must be offered

in non-religious language that is equally

accessible to all. Ultimately he suggests

that the dialogue between religious and

secular individuals is mutually informa-

tive and of value to both.