Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and the Colonization of the Lifeworld

  • Jack Fong


The chapter introduces Jürgen Habermas’s concepts that can be made operative when we analyze the themes of Death Café “death talk” in Chapter 4. The concepts are primarily derived from Habermas’s classic two-volume work, The Theory of Communicative Action as well as from his other publications. The chapter discusses Habermas’s contention that democracy need not be embodied by macro-level institutional mechanisms that promote elections, a process that is dependent on bureaucratic mechanisms that operate only during election cycles. He contends that attributes of democracy can be unearthed in a potentially free communication that can exist in the lifeworld, a world of everyday activities, and its corresponding communication content to facilitate these activities.


  1. Alexy, Robert. 1996. “Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Legal Discourse.” Cardozo Law Review 17(4–5): 1027–1034.Google Scholar
  2. Calhoun, Craig. 1994. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chriss, James J. 1998. “Review Essay of Jürgen Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms.” Sociology & Criminology Faculty Publications. Paper 100.Google Scholar
  4. Frank, Arthur. 2000. “Notes on Habermas: Lifeworld and System.” University of Calgary, Dept. of Sociology. WEBSITE accessed on June 11, 2014.
  5. Fromm, Erich. 2012. To Have or To Be. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. “New Social Movement.” Telos 49: 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functional Reason. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jütten, Timo. 2013. “Habermas and Markets.” Constellations 20(4): 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemmis, Stephen, and McTaggart Robin. 2007. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere..” In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 271–330. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Kim, Hesook Suzie, and Inger Margrethe Holter. 1995. “Critical Theory for Science of Nursing Practice.” In In Search of Nursing Science, edited by A. Omery, C. E. Kasper, and G. Page, 205–219. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krey, Peter. 2002. “The Life-World and the Two Systems.” Scholardarity. WEBSITE accessed on November 28, 2015.
  17. Mezirow, Jack. 2003. “Transformative Learning as Discourse.” Journal of Transformative Education 1(1): 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miles, Lizzy, and Charles A. Corr. 2017. “Death Café: What Is It and What We Can Learn from It.” Omega—Journal of Death and Dying. 75(2):151–165.Google Scholar
  19. Niemi, Jari I. 2005. “Habermas and Validity Claims.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12(2): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oldenburg, Ray. 1999. The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe & Company.Google Scholar
  21. Reay, Diane. 2013. “Universities and the Reproduction of Inequality.” In A Manifesto for the Public University, edited by J. Holmwood, 112–126. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Slaughter, Shiela, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stahl, Titus. 2013. “Habermas and the Project of Immanent Critique.” Constellations 20(4): 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Szczelkun, Stefan. 1999. “Summary of the Theory of Communicative Action.” Royal College of Art, London. WEBSITE accessed on June 8, 2016.
  25. Warren, Mark E. 1993. “Can Participatory Democracy Produce Better Selves? Psychological Dimensions of Habermas’s Discursive Model of Democracy.” Political Sociology 14(2): 209–234.Google Scholar
  26. Yetim, Fahri. 2005. “A Discourse-Based Meta-Communication Model for Collective Sense-Making.” Paper presented at The Language Acton Perspective on Communication Modelling, Kiruna, Sweden, June 19–20, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Fong
    • 1
  1. 1.Associate Professor of SociologyDepartment of Psychology & Sociology California State Polytechnic UniversityPomona CAUSA

Personalised recommendations