Habermas's critical theory of society and modernity, which he developed by reconstructing the concepts of public sphere/civil society and rationality, suffers from some of the same weaknesses attributed to the structural-functionalist modernization theory. Both theories lean solely on European historical experience despite their proponents' claim for “universalism.” The theory of communicative action, wherein Habermas has now implanted the public sphere, is the product of merging philosophy of history (or historical hermeneutics) and empirical social science—an attempt “to free historical materialism from its philosophical ballast,” according to Habermas, and “less a promise than a conjecture.” This monograph calls for a revision or “glocalization” of Habermas's theory to remove its lingering traces of “universalism” that promote domination through globalization—a euphemism for Eurocentric hegemony as we move from theory to practice. The aporetic presumptions of Habermasian theory do not necessarily match the ontological, epistemological, and historical reservoir of the non-West. Therefore, the project of provincializing “Europe” is in order.
AckermanB. A. (1980). Social justice in the liberal state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AggerB. (2002). Sociological writing in the wake of postmodernism. Cultural Studies jêritical Methodologies, 2, 427–459.
3.
AmbrozasD. (1998). The university as public sphere. Canadian Journal of Communication, 23, 73–89.
4.
ArendtH. (1957). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
ArensE. (1997). Discourse ethics and its relevance for communication and media ethics. In ChristiansC.TraberM., Communication ethics and universal values (pp. 46–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
ArnasonJ. P. (2000, November). Globalism, ideology and traditions: Interview with Jürgen Habermas. Thesis Eleven, No.63, 1–10.
7.
BabbiliA. S. (1997). Ethics and the discourse on ethics in post-colonial India. In ChristiansC.TraberM., Communication ethics and universal values (pp. 128–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BaertP. (1998). Social theory in the twentieth century. New York: New York University Press.
9.
BalagangadharaS. N. (1994). ‘The heathen in his blindness …’ Asia, the West and the dynamic of religion. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
10.
BalagangadharaS. N. (1998). The future of the present: Thinking through Orientalism. Cultural Dynamics, 10, 101–121.
11.
BaynesK. (1992). Normative grounds for social criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
12.
BeaudP.KaufmannL. (2001). Policing opinions: Elites, science, and popular opinion. In. SplichalS.Public opinion & democracy: Vox populi—vox dei (pp. 55–84). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
13.
BeckerB.WehnerJ. (2001). Electronic networks and civil society: Reflections on structural changes in the public sphere. In EssC., Culture, technology, communication: Towards an intercultural global village (pp. 67–85). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
14.
BenhabibS. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition and Jürgen Habermas. In CalhounC., Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 73–98). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15.
BernsteinR. J. (1985). Habermas and modernity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
16.
BhargavaR.ReifeldH. (2005). Civil society, public sphere and citizenship: Dialogues and perceptions. New Delhi: Sage.
17.
BillingsD. B.ScottS. L. (1994). Religion and political legitimation. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 173–203.
18.
BitbolM. (2003). A cure for metaphysical illusions: Kant, quantum mechanics, and Madhyamaka. In WallaceB. A., Buddhism and science: Breaking new ground (pp. 325–361). New York: Columbia University Press.
19.
BohmanJ. F. (1990). Communication, ideology, and democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 84, 93–109.
20.
BowieA. (2003). Introduction to German philosophy: From Kant to Habermas. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
21.
CalhounC. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In CalhounC., Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1–48). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
CapraF. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Doubleday.
23.
CapraF. (1999). The Tao of physics: An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism (4th updated ed.). Boston: Shambhala. (First published in 1975.)
24.
CapraF. (2002). Hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability. New York: Doubleday.
25.
ChakrabartyD. (2000). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
CharneyE. (1998). Political liberalism, deliberative democracy, and the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 92, 97–110.
27.
ChatterjeeP. (1993). The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
ChatterjeeP. (2004). The politics of the governed: Reflections on popular politics in most of the world. New York: Columbia University Press.
29.
ChengC.-Y. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory. In KincaidD. L., Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 23–43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
ChengC.-Y. (1988). The I Ching [Yijing] as a symbolic system of integrated communication. In DissanayakeW., Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 79–104). Singapore: Amic.
31.
ChristiansC.TraberM. (1997). Communication ethics and universal values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
CurranJ. (1991). Rethinking the media as a public sphere. In DahlgrenP.SparksC., Communication and citizenship: Journalism and the public sphere in the new media age (pp. 27–57). London: Routledge.
33.
DahlgrenP. (1991). Introduction. In DahlgrenP.SparksC., Communication and citizenship: Journalism and the public sphere in the new media age (pp. 1–24). London: Routledge.
34.
DahlgrenP. (2002). In search of the talkative public: Media, deliberative democracy and civil culture. Javnost—the Public, 9(3), 5–26.
35.
De BaryW. T. (1958). Sources of Indian tradition. New York: Columbia University Press.
36.
De BaryW. T. (1998). Asian values and human rights: A Confucian communitarian perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
De BaryW. T.BloomI. (1999). Sources of Chinese tradition (2nd ed., Vol. 1). New York: Columbia University Press.
38.
DelantyG. (1997). Habermas and Occidental rationalism: The politics of identity, social learning, and the cultural limits of moral universalism. Sociological Theory, 15, 30–59.
39.
DeweyJ. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. (Original work published in 1927.)
40.
DhareshwarV. (1998). Valorizing the present: Orientalism, postcoloniality and the human sciences. Cultural Dynamics, 10, 211–231.
41.
DissanayakeW. (1987). The guiding image in Indian culture and its implication for communication. In KincaidD. L., Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 151–160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42.
DomesJ. (1989). China's modernization and the doctrine of democracy. In ChengChu-Yuan, Sun Yat-Sen's doctrine in the modern world (pp. 201–224). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
43.
DryzekJ. S. (1995). Critical theory as a research program. In WhiteS. K., The Cambridge companion to Habermas (pp. 87–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
DubeS. (2002). Presence of Europe: An interview with Dipesh Chakrabarty. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101(4), 859–868.
45.
FentonN.DowneyJ. (2003). Counter public spheres and global modernity. Javnost—The Public, 10(1), 15–32.
46.
FlemingM. (1997). Emancipation and illusion: Rationality and gender in Habermas's theory of modernity. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
47.
FletcherJ. (1985). Integrative history: Parallels and interconnections in the early modern period, 1500–1800. Journal of Turkish Studies, 9, 37–58.
48.
FlowerJ.LeonardP. (1996). Community values and state cooptation: Civil society in the Sichuan countryside. In HannC.DunnE., Civil society: Challenging western models (pp. 199–221). London: Routledge.
49.
FrankA. G. (1998). ReORIENT: Global economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
50.
FraserN. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In CalhounC., Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
51.
FriedlandL. A. (2001). Communication, community, and democracy: Toward a theory of communicatively integrated community. Communication Research, 28, 358–391.
52.
GarnhamN. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In CalhounC., Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 359–376). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
53.
GiddensA. (1985). Reason without revolution? Habermas's Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. In BernsteinR. J., Habermas and modernity (pp. 95–121). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
54.
GimmlerA. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39.
55.
van GinnekenJ.. (2003). Collective behavior and public opinion: Rapid shifts in opinion and communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
GoswamiA. (1993). The self-aware universe: How consciousness creates the material world. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
57.
GrahamA. C. (1989). Rationalism and anti-rationalism in pre-Buddhist China. In BidermanS.ScharfsteinB.-A., Rationality in question: On Eastern and Western views of rationality (pp. 141–164). Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
58.
GunaratneS. A. (1998). Old wine in a new bottle: Public journalism, developmental journalism, and social responsibility. In RoloffM. E., Communication Yearbook 21 (pp. 277–321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59.
GunaratneS. A. (2002). An evolving triadic world: A theoretical framework for global communication research. Journal of World-Systems Research, 8, 329–365.
60.
GunaratneS. A. (2003). Thank you Newton, welcome Prigogine: ‘Unthinking’ old paradigms and embracing new directions—Part 1 Theoretical distinctions. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 28(4), 435–455.
61.
GunaratneS. A. (2005). The Dao of the press: A humanocentric theory. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
62.
GunaratneS. A. (2006). Democracy, journalism, and systems: Perspectives from East and West. In HaoXiaomingDatta-RayS. K., Critical issues and challenges in Asian Journalism. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
63.
HabermasJ. (1975). Legitimation crisis (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Original work published in German in 1973.)
64.
HabermasJ. (1977, October). Aspects of the rationality of action. Paper delivered at the International Symposium on Rationality Today, Ottawa.
65.
HabermasJ. (1982). A reply to my critics. In ThompsonJ. B.HeldD., Habermas: Critical debates (pp. 218–283). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
66.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Reason and the rationalization of society (McCarthyT., Trans., Vol.1). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published in German in 1981.)
67.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (McCarthyT., Trans., Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published in German in 1981.)
68.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (BurgerT., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published in German in 1962.)
69.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (LenhardtC.NiddsenS., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
70.
HabermasJ. (1991). A reply. In HonnethA.JoasH., Communicative action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas's. The Theory of Communicative Action (pp. 214–264). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
71.
HabermasJ. (1992a). Further reflections on the public sphere. In CalhounC., Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421–461). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
72.
HabermasJ. (1992b). Postmetaphysical thinking: Philosophical essays (HohengartenW. M., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
73.
HabermasJ. (1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics (CroninC., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
74.
HabermasJ. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication (CookeM., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
75.
HabermasJ. (2001a). On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action (FultnerB., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published in German in 1984.)
76.
HabermasJ. (2001b). The postnational constellation: Political essays (PenskyM., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published in German in 1998.)
77.
HannC. (1996). Introduction: Political society and civil anthropology. In HannC.DunnE.Civil society: Challenging western models (pp. 1–26). London: Routledge.
78.
HardtH.SplichalS. (2000). Ferdinand Töönnies on public opinion: Selections and analyses. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
79.
HeathJ. (2001). Communicative action and rational choice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
80.
HelvaciogluB. (2000). Globalization in the neighborhood: From the nation-state to Bilkent Center. International Sociology, 15, 326–342.
81.
HillJ. (2002). [Review of the book The postnational constellation]. Canadian Journal of Communication, 27, 558–561.
82.
HuangP. C. (1993). “Public sphere”/“civil society” in China? The third realm between state and society. Modern China, 19(2), 216–240.
83.
IngramD. (1987). Habermas and the dialectic of reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
84.
JacobsonT. L. (2001). Habermas, Dewey, and pragmatism. In PerryD. K., American pragmatism and communication research (pp. 225–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85.
JayatillekeK. N. (1963). Early Buddhist theory of knowledge. London: George Allen & Unwin.
86.
JayatillekeK. N. (1974). The message of the Buddha. New York: The Free Press.
87.
JohnsonP. (2001). Habermas's search for the public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory, 4, 215–236.
88.
JungH. Y. (1969). Confucianism and existentialism: Intersubjectivity as the way of man. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30, 186–202.
89.
KaufmanC. (1999). The unforced force of the more familiar argument: A critique of Habermas' theory of communicative rationality. Philosophy Today, 43(4), 348–361.
90.
KimK. M. (2002). On the failure of Habermas's hermeneutic objectivism. Cultural Studies jêCritical Methodologies, 2, 270–298.
91.
KooH. (2002). Civil society and democracy in South Korea. The Good Society, 11(2), 40–45.
92.
KuneliusR. (2001). Conversation: A metaphor and a method for better journalism. Journalism Studies, 2, 31–54.
93.
KuppermanJ. J. (1989). Confucius, Mencius, Hume and Kant on reason and choice. In BidermanS.ScharfsteinB.-A., Rationality in question: On Eastern and Western views of rationality (pp. 119–139). Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
94.
LiChenyang. (1999). The Tao encounters the West: Explorations in comparative philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
95.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems (BednarzJ. BaeckerJr., D., Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published in German in 1984.)
96.
LuhmannN. (2000). The reality of the mass media (CrossK., Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published in German in 1996.)
97.
MacIntyreA. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed., rev.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
98.
MatilalB. K. (1989). Dharma and rationality. In BidermanS.ScharfsteinB.-A., Rationality in question: On Eastern and Western views of rationality (pp. 191–216). Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
99.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
100.
McCarthyT. (1978). The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
101.
MohantyJ. N. (1989). Indian philosophical tradition: The theory of pramäna. In BidermanS.ScharfsteinB.-A., Rationality in question: On Eastern and Western views of rationality (pp. 217–230). Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
102.
MoonS. (2002). Carving out space: Civil society and the women's movement in South Korea. The Journal of Asian Studies, 61, 473–500.
103.
NandyA. (1987). Cultural frames for social transformation: A credo. Alternatives, 12, 113–123.
104.
NegtO.KlugeA. (1993). Public sphere and experience: Toward an analysis of the bourgeois and proletarian public sphere (LabanyiP.DanielJ. O.OksiloffA., Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in German in 1972.)
105.
PatomääkiH. (2002). From East to West: Emergent global philosophies—beginnings of the end of Western dominance? Theory, Culture & Society, 19, 89–111.
106.
PereraL. P. N. (1989). Democracy. In GurugeA. W. P., Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. IV, pp. 363–369). Colombo: Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
107.
PetersJ. D. (1993). Distrust of representation: Habermas on the public sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 15, 541–571.
108.
PinterA. (2004). Public sphere and history: Historians' response to Habermas on the “worth” of the past. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28, 217–232.
109.
PostoneM. (1990). History and critical social theory [Review of the bookThe theory of communicative action, Vol.2]. Contemporary Sociology, 19(2), 170–176.
110.
PrigogineI.StengersI. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.
111.
RaboA. (1996). Gender, state and civil society in Jordan and Syria. In HannC.DunnE., Civil society: Challenging western models (pp. 155–177). London: Routledge.
112.
RitzerG. (2003). The globalization of nothing. SAIS Review, 23(2), 189–200.
113.
RobertsonR. (1994). Globalization or glocalization? The Journal of International Communication, 1, 33–52.
114.
RosenJ. (1999). What are journalists for? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
115.
RussillC. D. (2003, May). Some problems in Habermas's proposed linguistic turn for social interaction: Criticism from a pragmatist perspective. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego.
116.
SarkarB. K. (1918). Democratic ideals and republican institutions in India. The American Political Science Review, 12(4), 581–606.
117.
SchudsonM. (1992). Was there ever a public sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American case. In CalhounC., Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 143–163). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
118.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1947). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (2nd ed.). New York: Harper.
119.
ServaesJ.JacobsonT. L.WhiteS. A. (1996). Participatory communication for social change. New Delhi: Sage.
120.
ShalinD. N. (1992). Critical theory and the pragmatist challenge. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 237–279.
121.
SharmaJ. B. (1968). Republics in ancient India. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
122.
SideritsM. (1989). Thinking on empty: Madhyamika anti-realism and canons of rationality. In BidermanS.ScharfsteinB.-A., Rationality in question: On Eastern and Western views of rationality (pp. 231–249). Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
123.
SparksC. (2000). The global, the local and the public sphere. In WangG.ServaesJ.GoonasekeraA., The new communication landscape: Demystifying media globalization (pp. 74–95). London and New York: Routledge.
124.
SplichalS. (2002a). Principles of publicity and press freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
125.
SplichalS. (2002b). Rethinking publicness: The precedence of the right to communicate. Javnost—The Public, 9(3), 83–106.
126.
SquiresC. R. (2002). Rethinking the black public sphere: An alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres. Communication Theory, 12, 446–468.
127.
StrykerS. D. (2000). Communicative action in history. European Journal of Social Theory, 3, 215–234.
128.
TamK. K. (1988). Taoism [Daoism] and the Chinese view of literary communication. In DissanayakeW., Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 105–125). Singapore: Amic.
129.
ThompsonJ. B. (1994). Social theory and the media. In CrowleyD.MitchellD., Communication theory today (pp. 27–49). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
130.
ThompsonJ. B.HeldD. (1982). Habermas: Critical debates. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
131.
ThorntonW. H. (1998). Korea and East Asian exceptionalism. Theory, Culture & Society, 15, 137–154.
132.
TongShijun. (2000). The dialectics of modernization: Habermas and the Chinese discourse of modernization. Sydney: Wild Peony.
133.
TsienT. H. (1985). Paper and printing. In NeedhamJ., Science and civilization in China (Vol. 5, Part 1, Section 32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
134.
VenturelliS. (1998). Liberalizing the European media: Politics, regulation, and the public sphere. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
135.
VerstraetenH. (1996). The media and the transformation of the public sphere: A contribution for a critical political economy of the public sphere. European Journal of Communication, 11, 347–370.
136.
VillaD. R. (1992). Postmodernism and the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 86, 712–721.
137.
Wahl-JorgensenK.GalperinH. (2000). Discourse ethics and the regulation of media: The case of the U.S. newspaper. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 24, 19–40.
138.
WallaceB. A. (2003). Buddhism and science: Breaking new ground. New York: Columbia University Press.
139.
WallersteinI. (1999). The end of the world as we know it: Social science for the 21st century. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
140.
WeberM. (1951). The religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism (GerthH. H., Trans.). New York: The Free Press.
141.
WeberM. (1958). The religion of India: The sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism (GerthH. H.MartinsdaleD., Trans.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
142.
WhiteJ. B. (1996). Civic culture and Islam in urban Turkey. In HannC.DunnE., Civil society: Challenging western models (pp. 143–154). London: Routledge.
143.
WhiteS. K. (1979). Rationality and the foundation of political philosophy: An introduction to the recent work of Jürgen Habermas. The Journal of Politics, 41, 1156–1171.
144.
WolfeA. (2000). Social philosophy. In BorgattaE. F.MontgomeryR. J. V., Encyclopedia of sociology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 2755–2758). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
145.
YuB.LuZ. (2000). Confucianism and modernity—insights from an interview with Tu Wei-ming. China Review International, 7, 377–387.
