Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon , pp. 714 - 751Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Aboulafia, Mitchell. 1995. “Habermas and Mead: On Universality and Individuality,” Constellations 2: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboulafia, Mitchell 2001. The Cosmopolitan Self: George Herbert Mead and Continental Philosophy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Aboulafia, Mitchell, Bookman, Myra, and Kemp, Catherine, eds. 2002. Habermas and Pragmatism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Abromeit, John. 2011. Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Abromeit, John 2016. “Genealogy and Critical Historicism: Two Concepts of Enlightenment in Horkheimer and Adorno’s Writings,” Critical Historical Studies 3, no. 2: 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abromeit, John and Cobb, Mark, eds. 2004. Herbert Marcuse: A Critical Reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Addour, Azzedine. 2000. Colonial Myths: History and Narrative. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1977 [1931]. “The Actuality of Philosophy,” Telos 31 (March): 120–33.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1984. Prisms, trans. Samuel and Shierry Weber. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1985. Against Epistemology: A Metacritique, trans. Willis Domingo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1986. “What Does Coming to Terms with the Past Mean?,” in Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective, ed. Hartman, Geoffrey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 114–29.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1989. Kierkegaard: Construction of the Aesthetic, ed. and trans. Hullot-Kentor, Robert. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry, ed. Bernstein, Jay. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1998. Critical Models, trans. Henry W. Pickford. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 2000 [1966]. Negative Dialectics, trans. E. B. Ashton. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 2004. Aesthetic Theory, ed. Adorno, Gretel and Tiedemann, Rolf, trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 2005. Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life, trans. E. F. N. Jephcott. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 2006. Philosophy of New Music, trans. and ed. Hullot-Kentor, Robert. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 2016 [1962]. Philosophische Terminologie I und II: Nachgelassene Schriften, Abteilung IV: Vorlesungen, vol. ix, ed. Lonitz, Henri. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. and Gehlen, Arnold. 1974. “Ist Soziologie eine Wissenschaft vom Menschen?,” in Adornos Philosophie in Grundbegriffen: Auflösung einer Deutungsprobleme, ed. Grenz, Friedemann. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. and Horkheimer, Max. 2003. Briefweschel, vol. i, 1927–1937, ed. Gödde, Christophe and Lonitz, Henri. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. and Scholem, Gershom. 2015. “Der liebe Gott wohnt im Detail,” 1939–1969. Briefwechsel, ed. Angermann, Asaf. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. et al. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1969. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W. 1976. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, trans. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Akif Okur, Mehmet. 2007. “Rethinking Empire After 9/11: Towards A New Ontological Image of World Order,” Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 12 (Winter): 61–93.Google Scholar
Alcoff, Linda Martín and Mendieta, Eduardo, eds. 2000. Thinking from the Underside of History: Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Alcoff, Linda Mendieta, Martín 2013. Latin American Perspectives on Globalization: Ethics, Politics and Alternative Visions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert. 1989 [1978]. A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, trans. Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert 2002. A Theory of Constitutional Rights, trans. Julian Rivers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alford, C. Fred. 1985. Science and the Revenge of Nature: Marcuse & Habermas. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Allen, Amy. 1999. The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Amy 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Amy 2012. “The Unforced Force of the Better Argument: Reason and Power in Habermas’ Political Theory,” Constellations 19, no. 3: 353–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Amy 2015. “Are We Driven? Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis Reconsidered,” Critical Horizons 16, no. 4: 311–28.Google Scholar
Allen, Amy 2016. The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Amy, Forst, Rainer, and Haugaard, Mark. 2014. “Power and Reason, Justice and Domination: A Conversation,” Journal of Political Power. 7, no. 1: 7–33.Google Scholar
Alznauer, Mark, et al. Forthcoming. Special issue on Hauke Brunkhorst, Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions, Ethics & Global Politics.Google Scholar
Anderson, Joel. 2001. “Competent Need-Interpretation and Discourse Ethics,” in Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory, ed. Rehg, W. and Bohman, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Joeled. 2007. “Free Will as Part of Nature: Habermas and His Critics,” with contributions from Jürgen Habermas, Randolph Clarke, Michael Quante, John Searle and Mark Schroeder. Philosophical Explorations: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Mind and Action 10, no. 1: 3–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Joel 2011. “Autonomy, Agency, and the Self,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Joel 2013. “Autonomy,” in International Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Hugh, LaFollette. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1950. Dasein und Erkennen: eine erkenntnistheoretische Interpretation der Philosophie Heideggers. University of Bonn Press.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1958. “Technognomie – eine erkenntnisanthropologische Kategorie,” in Konkrete Vernunft, ed. Funke, G.. Bonn: H. Bouvier. 61–79.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1962a. “Arnold Gehlens Philosophie der Institutionen,” Philosophische Rundschau 10: 1–21.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1962b. “Kann es ein wissenschaftliches ‘Welt-Bild’ überhaupt geben? Die theoretische Wissenschaft der Gegenwart in erkenntnisanthropologischer Sicht,” Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 16: 26–57.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1962c. “Reflexion und materielle Praxis; zur erkenntnisanthropologischen Begründung der Dialektik zwischen Hegel und Marx,” Hegel-Studien, supplement 1: Heidelberger Hegeltage: 151–66.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1963a. Die Idee der Sprache in der Tradition des Humanismus von Dante bis Vico. Bonn: H. Bouvier.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1963b. “Das Leibapriori der Erkenntnis. Eine erkenntnisanthropologische Betrachtung im Anschluß an Leibnizens Monaden-Lehre,” Archiv für Philosophie 12: 152–72.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1975. “The Problem of Philosophical Foundations in Light of a Transcendental Pragmatics of Language,” Man and World 8: 239–75.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1976. Transformation der Philosophie, Band I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1979. Die Erklären-Verstehen Kontroverse in transzendentalpragmatischer Sicht. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1980. Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1981. Transformation der Philosophie, vol. ii. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1984. Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective, trans. Georgia Warnke. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1988. Diskurs und Verantwortung: Das Problem des Űbergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1990. “Ethics, Utopia, and the Critique of Utopia,” in The Communicative Ethics Controversy, ed. Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 23–59.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1992. “Normatively Grounding ‘Critical Theory’ Through Recourse to the Lifeworld? A Transcendental-Pragmatic Attempt to Think with Habermas against Habermas,” in Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, A. et al., trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 125–70.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1994. “C. S. Pierce and Post-Tarskian Truth,” in Karl-Otto Apel: Selected Essays, vol. i, ed. Mendieta, Eduardo. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1995. Charles S. Peirce: From Pragmatism to Pragmaticism, trans. J. M. Krois. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1996. “‘Discourse Ethics’ Before the Challenge of ‘Liberation Philosophy,’” Philosophy & Social Criticism 22, no. 2: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1998a. Auseinandersetzungen in der Erprobung des transzendentalpragmatischen Ansatzes. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1998b. From a Transcendental-Semiotic Point of View, ed. Papastephanou, Marianna. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 1999. “Openly Strategic Uses of Language: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 272–90.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto 2013. Analytic philosophy of language and the Geisteswissenschaften. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto and Dussel, Enrique. 2004. Ética del Dicurso y Ética de la Liberación. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto and Kettner, Matthias, eds. 1992. Zur Anwendung der Diskursethik in Politik, Recht und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Apel, Karl-Otto et al. 1971. Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Arato, A. 1990. “Revolution, Civil Society and Democracy,” Praxis International 10, nos. 1–2: 24–38.Google Scholar
Arato, A. 1993. From Neo-Marxism to Democratic Theory: Essays on the Critical Theory of Soviet-Type Societies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arato, A. 2000. Civil Society, Constitution, and Legitimacy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Arato, A. and Breines, J. 1979. The Young Lukács and the Origins of Western Marxism. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
Arato, A. and Cohen, J. 1994. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arato, A. and Cohen, J. 2017. “Civil Society, Populism and Religion,” Constellations 24, no. 3.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah 1974. Rahel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewish Woman. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah 1977. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah 2002. Denktagebuch: 1950 bis 1973, ed. Ludz, Ursula and Ingeborg, Nordmann. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah 2007. The Jewish Writings, ed. Kohn, Jerome and Feldman, Ron H.. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah and Blücher, Heinrich. 2000. Within Four Walls: The Correspondence Between Hannah Arendt and Heinrich Blücher: 1936–1968. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah and Jaspers, Karl. 1992. Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers’ Correspondence: 1926–1969, ed. Köhler, Lotte and Saner, Hans, trans. Robert Kimber and Rita Kimber. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Arens, Edmund. 2005. “Religion as Ritual, Communicative, and Critical Praxis,” in The Frankfurt School and Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers, ed. Mendieta, Eduardo, trans. Chad Kautzer. New York: Routledge. 373–96.Google Scholar
Arens, Edmund 2007. Gottesverständigung. Eine kommunikative Religionstheologie. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Arens, Edmund 2009. “Vom Schrei zur Verständigung. Politische Theologie als öffentliche Theologie,” in Theologisch-politische Vergewisserungen. Festschrift Johann Baptist Metz, ed. Polednitsche, Thomas, Rainer, Michael J., and Zamora, José A.. Münster: LIT. 129–38.Google Scholar
Arnason, Johann P., et al., eds. 2005. Axial Civilizations and World History. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashenden, Samantha and Owen, David, eds. 1999. Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assmann, Jan. 2012. “Cultural Memory and the Myth of the Axial Age,” in The Axial Age and Its Consequences, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 366–406.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn., ed. Sbisà, M. and Urmson, J. O.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Auxier, R. E., Anderson, D. R., and Hahn, L. E. eds. 2015. The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Avineri, Shlomo. 1968. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Azmanova, Albena. 2010. “Capitalism Reorganized: Social Justice after Neo-liberalism,” Constellations 17, no. 3: 390–406.Google Scholar
Azmanova, Albena 2014. “Crisis? Capitalism is Doing Very Well. How is Critical Theory?,” Constellations 21, No 3. 351–65.Google Scholar
Babich, Babette E., ed. 2004. Habermas, Nietzsche, and Critical Theory. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, et al., eds. 2018. Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Gideon. 2002. Civil Society and Democratic Theory: Alternative Voices. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Peter, ed. 1990. Reworking the Past: Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Historians’ Debate. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Bambach, Charles. 1995. Heidegger, Dilthey, and the Crisis of Historicism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bankovsky, Miriam. 2013. Perfecting Justice in Rawls, Habermas, and Honneth. A Deconstructive Perspective. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Barber, Michael D. 1993. Guardian of Dialogue: Max Scheler’s Phenomenology, Sociology of Knowledge, and Philosophy of Love. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Andrea. 2003. “Habermas: Discourse and Cultural Diversity,” Political Studies 51: 740–58.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Andrea 2007. “Diversity and Unity: The Problem with ‘Constitutional Patriotism,’” European Journal of Political Theory 6, no. 4: 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bausch, K. C. 1997. “The Habermas/Luhmann Debate and Subsequent Habermasian Perspectives on Systems Theory,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 14, no. 5: 315–30.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth. 1990. “Crisis and Lifeworld in Husserl and Habermas,” in Crises in Continental Philosophy, ed. Alley, A. B., Scott, C. E., and Holley Roberts, P.. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth 1992. The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth 1999. “Public Reason and Personal Autonomy,” in The Handbook of Critical Theory, ed. Rasmussen, David. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 243–54.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth 2002. “Freedom and Recognition in Hegel and Habermas,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 28, no. 1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth 2007. “Freedom as Autonomy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth 2009. “The Transcendental Turn: Habermas’s ‘Kantian Pragmatism,’” in The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, ed. Rush, Fred. Cambridge University Press. 194–218.Google Scholar
Beebe, Thomas O. 2002. “The Öffenlichkeit of Jürgen Habermas: The Frankfurt School’s Most Influential Concept?,” in Rethinking the Frankfurt School: Alternative Legacies of Cultural Critique, ed. Nealon, Jeffrey and Irr, Caren. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel. 1979. “Talcott Parsons: Nobody’s Theories Were Bigger,” New York Times, May 13: E9.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N. 2006. The Robert Bellah Reader, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Tipton, Steven M.. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N. 2010. “Confronting Modernity: Maruyama Masao, Jürgen Habermas, and Charles Taylor,” in Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, ed. Warner, Michael, VanAntwerpen, Jonathan, and Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 32–53.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N. 2011. Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N. 2012. “The Heritage of the Axial Age,” in The Axial Age and Its Consequences, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 447–66.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. 2012. The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bellon, Christina, ed. 2008. In Honor of Iris Marion Young: Theorist and Practitioner of Justice. Hypatia 23, no. 3: 1–250.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm and Utopia. A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 1996. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy,” in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, Seyla. Princeton University Press. 67–94.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2003. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2011. Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla. 1987. Feminism as Critique: On the Politics of Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred, eds. 1990. The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla and Fraser, Nancy, eds. 2004. Pragmatism, Critique, Judgment: Essays for Richard J. Bernstein. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, Bonβ, Wolfgang, and McCole, John. 1993. On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives, trans. Kenneth Baynes and John McCole. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, Tsao, Roy T., and Verovšek, Peter J., eds. 2010. Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, et al. 1995. Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2015. “Review Symposium: Rainer Forst’s The Right to Justification,” Political Theory 43, no. 6: 777–837.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. 2006. “On the Concept of History,” in Selected Writings, vol. iv, 1938–1940, ed. Eiland, Howard and Jennings, Michael W., trans. Harry Zohn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bennington, Geoffrey. 2001. “Ex-Communication,” Social and Political Thought 5: 50–55.Google Scholar
Berger, John. 1991. “The Linguistification of the Sacred and the Delinguistification of the Economy,” in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah. 1978 [1939]. Karl Marx: His Life and Environment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Harold J. 1983. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay. 1971. Praxis and Action: Contemporary Theories of Human Activity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 1978. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 1986. Philosophical Profiles. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 1989a. “Art Against Enlightenment: Adorno’s Critique of Habermas,” in The Problems of Modernity, ed. Benjamin, A.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 1989b. “Praxis and Aporia in Habermas’ Critique of Castoriadis,” Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales 27, no. 86: 111–23.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 1991. The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizon of Modernity/Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 1995. Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Jay 2010a. “Jürgen Habermas’s Kantian Pragmatism,” in The Pragmatic Turn. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Biale, David. 1979. Kabbalah and Counter-History, 1st edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Biebricher, Thomas. 2005a. “Habermas, Foucault and Nietzsche: A Double Misunderstanding,” Foucault Studies 3: 1–26.Google Scholar
Biebricher, Thomas 2005b. Selbstkritik der Moderne: Foucault und Habermas im Vergleich. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Biebricher, Thomas 2007. “Habermas and Foucault: Deliberative Democracy and Strategic State Analysis.” Contemporary Political Theory 6: 218–45.Google Scholar
Bloch, Ernst. 1972. Das Materialismusproblem, Seine Geschichte und Substanz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bloch, Ernst 1987. Natural Law and Human Dignity, trans. Dennis J. Schmidt. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Ernst 1988. The Principle of Hope, trans. Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice, and Paul Knight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Ernst 2000. The Spirit of Utopia, trans. Anthony A. Nassar. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, Ernst 2018 [1952]. Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left, trans. Loren Goldman and Peter Thompson. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1986. “Formal Pragmatics and Social Criticism,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 11: 331–53.Google Scholar
Bohman, James 1988. “Emancipation and Rhetoric: The Perlocutions and Illocutions of the Social Critic,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 21, no. 3: 185–204.Google Scholar
Bohman, James 1994. “Complexity, Pluralism, and the Constitutional State: On Habermas’s Faktizität und Geltung,” Law and Society Review 28: 897–930.Google Scholar
Bohman, James 2000a. “Distorted Communication: Formal Pragmatics as a Critical Theory,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, L. E.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Bohman, James 2000b. “‘When Water Chokes’: Ideology, Communication, and Practical Rationality,” Constellations 7: 382–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James 2001. “Participants, Observers, and Critics: Practical Knowledge, Social Perspectives, and Critical Pluralism,” in Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn. The Transformation of Critical Theory, ed. Rehg, William and Bohman, James. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 87–114.Google Scholar
Bohman, James and Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias, eds. 1997. Perpetual Peace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James and Rehg, William, eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James and Rehg, William 2014. “Jürgen Habermas,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/ [accessed 07.10.2018].Google Scholar
Bohmann, Ulf and Montero, Dario. 2014. “History, Critique, Social Change and Democracy: An Interview with Charles Taylor,” Constellations 21: 3–14.Google Scholar
Borchert, Jens and Lessenich, Stephan. 2016. Claus Offe and the Critical Theory of the Capitalist State. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Borman, David A. 2011. The Idolatry of the Actual: Habermas, Socialization, and the Possibility of Autonomy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Borradori, Giovanna. 2003. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bortolini, Matteo. 2012. “The Trap of Intellectual Success: Robert N. Bellah, the American Civil Religion Debate, and the Sociology of Knowledge,” Theory and Society 71, no. 2: 187–210.Google Scholar
Bowman, Jonathan. 2015. Cosmoipolitan Justice: The Axial Age, Multiple Modernities and the Postsecular Turn. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1998. Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert 2000a. Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert 2000b. “Facts, Norms, and Normative Facts: A Reply to Habermas,” European Journal of Philosophy 8: 356–74.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert 2015. “Towards Reconciling Two Heroes: Habermas and Hegel,” Argumenta 1: 29–42.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. 1999. Faces of Intention. Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breda, Vito. 2004. “The Incoherence of the Patriotic State: A Critique of ‘Constitutional Patriotism,’” Res Publica 10: 247–65.Google Scholar
Breuer, Josef and Freud, Sigmund. 1976. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. ii, 1893–1895: Studies on Hysteria. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Breuer, Stefan. 2016. Kritische Theorie. Schlüsselbegriffe, Kontroversen, Grenzen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Brink, Tobias. 2015. “Economic Analysis in Critical Theory: The Impact of Friedrich Pollock’s State Capitalism Concept,” Constellations 22, no. 3: 333–40.Google Scholar
Brown, Wendy and Forst, Rainer. 2014. The Power of Tolerance: A Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Browne, Craig. 2016. Habermas and Giddens on Praxis and Modernity: A Constructive Comparision. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Browning, Gary. 2011. Global Theory from Kant to Hardt and Negri. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brunkhorst, Hauke. 1983. “Paradigmakern und Theoriedynamik der Kritischen Theorie,” Soziale Welt 34: 22–56.Google Scholar
Brunkhorst, Hauke 2004. “Critical Theory and the Analysis of Contemporary Mass Society,” in The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, ed. Rush, Fred. Cambridge University Press. 248–79.Google Scholar
Brunkhorst, Hauke 2005. Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brunkhorst, Hauke 2014a. Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions: Evolutionary Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Brunkhorst, Hauke 2014b. “Reply to Critics,” Social & Legal Studies 23, no. 4: 577–605.Google Scholar
Brunner, José. 1997. “Pride and Memory: Nationalism, Narcissism and the Historians’ Debate in Germany and Israel,” History and Memory 9, nos. 1–2 (Fall), special issue Passing into History: Nazism and the Holocaust beyond Memory – in Honor of Saul Friedlander on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday: 256–300.Google Scholar
Buchwalter, Andrew. 2011. “Law, Culture, and Constitutionalism: Remarks on Hegel and Habermas,” in Dialectics, Politics, and the Contemporary Value of Hegel’s Practical Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bürger, Peter. 1981. “Avantgarde and Contemporary Aesthetics: A Reply to Jürgen Habermas,” New German Critique 22: 19–22.Google Scholar
Bürger, Peter 1984. Theory of the Avant-Garde, trans. Michael Shaw. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1987. Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith 2004. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig. 1992. “Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–50.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig 2002. “Imagining Solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, Constitutional Patriotism, and the Public Sphere,” Public Culture 14, no. 1: 147–71.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig, et al. 2012. Classic Sociological Theory, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C., Juergensmayer, M., and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2011. Rethinking Secularism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calhoun, C., Mendieta, E., and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2013. Habermas and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, W. S. K. 2009. “Tapping Habermas’s Discourse Theory for Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Ethics 31, no. 4: 339–57.Google Scholar
Campanella, Tommaso. 1981 [1601]. The City of the Sun. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Joseph. 1975. The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carson, Cathryn. 2010. “Science as Instrumental Reason: Heidegger, Habermas, Heisenberg,” Continental Philosophy Review 42, no. 4: 483–509.Google Scholar
Casanova, José. 2013. “Exploring the Postsecular,” in Habermas and Religion, ed. Calhoun, Craig, VanAntwerpen, Jonathan, and Mendieta, Eduardo. Cambridge: Polity Press. 27–48.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. 1946 [1974]. The Myth of the State, trans. Charles Hendel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst 1951 [2009]. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, trans. James P. Pettegrove. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst 1955a. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, vol. i, Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst 1955b. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, vol. ii, Mythical Thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst 1957. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, vol. iii, The Phenomenology of Knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst 1963 [2010]. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy, trans. Mario Domandi. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society, trans. Kathleen Blamey. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Castoriadis, Cornelius 1997. “Done and to Be Done,” in The Castoriadis Reader, trans. and ed. Curtis, Daved Ames. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cavell, Stanley. 1976. “The Availability of Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy,” in Must We Mean What We Say? Cambridge University Press. 44–72.Google Scholar
Cavell, Stanley 1989. This New Yet Unapproachable America. Lectures after Emerson and Wittgenstein. Albuquerque, NM: New Batch Press.Google Scholar
Celikates, Robin. 2010. “Habermas: Sprache, Verständigung und sprachliche Gewalt,” in Philosophien sprachlicher Gewalt, ed. Kuch, Hannes and Herrmann, Steffen K.. Weilerswist: Velbrück. 272–85.Google Scholar
Celikates, Robin and Jaeggi, Rahel. 2017. “Technology and Reification,” in The Habermas Handbook, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Kreide, Regina, and Cristina, Lafont. New York: Columbia University Press. 256–70.Google Scholar
Celikates, R. and Pollman, A. 2006. “Baustellen der Vernunft. 25 Jahre Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns,” Westend 3, no. 2: 97–113.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1995a. “Discourses and Democratic Practices,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jürgen Habermas, ed. White, S. K.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone 1995b. “Feminist Discourse/Practical Discourse,” in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, J.. New York: Routledge: 163–79.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Democratic Theory 6: 307–26.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone and Kopstein, Jeffrey. 2001. “Bad Civil Society,” Political Theory 29, no. 6: 837–65.Google Scholar
Charles, Guy-Uriel and Fuentes-Rohwer, Luis. 2015. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and the Creation of a Racial Counterpublic,” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 21, no. 1: 1–21.Google Scholar
Chérif, Moustapha. 2008. Islam and the West: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Christman, John, ed. 1989. The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christman, John 2009. The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-Historical Selves. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cixous, Hélène and Clément, Catherine 1986. The Newly Born Woman, trans. Betsy Wing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Classens, Peter. 1981. Die Renaissance der Wissenschaften im 12.Jahrhundert. Zurich: Artemis.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 1982. Class and Civil Society: The Limits of Marxian Critical Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 1995. “Critical Social Theory and Feminist Critiques: The Debate with Jürgen Habermas,” in Feminist Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, J.. New York: Routledge. 57–90.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 2002. Regulating Intimacy: A New Legal Paradigm. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 2012. Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jere, Hazelrigg, Lawrence, and Pope, Whitney. 1975. “De-Parsonizing Weber: A Critique of Parsons’ Interpretation of Weber’s Sociology,” American Sociological Review 40, no. 2 (April): 229–41.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1999. “Reflections on Habermas on Democracy,” Ratio Juris 12, no. 4: 385–416.Google Scholar
Colapietro, Vincent. 2011. “Richard Rorty as Peircean Pragmatist: An Ironic Portrait and a Sincere Expression of Philosophical Friendship,” Pragmatism Today: The Journal of the Central-European Pragmatist Forum 2, no. 1 (Summer): 31–50.Google Scholar
Colapietro, Vincent 2013. “Richard J. Bernsetin: Engaged Pluralist and Dialogical Exemplar,” in Philosophical Profiles in the Theory of Communication, ed. Hannan, Jason. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cook, Deborah. 1998. “Adorno on Late Capitalism: Totalitarianism and the Welfare State,” Radical Philosophy 89: 16–26.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 1992. “Habermas, Autonomy, and the Identity of the Self,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 18: 3–4.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 1997. “Authenticity and Autonomy: Taylor, Habermas, and the Politics of Recognition,” Political Theory 25, no. 2: 258–88.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 1998. “Introduction,” in On the Pragmatics of Communication, ed. Cooke, M.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–20.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 2001. “Meaning and Truth in Habermas’s Pragmatics,” European Journal of Philosophy 9, no. 1: 1–23.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 2002. “Questioning Autonomy: The Feminist Challenge and the Challenge for Feminism,” in Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, ed. Dooley, Mark and Kearney, Richard. New York: Routledge. 258–82.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 2006b. “Salvaging and Secularizing the Semantic Contents of Religion: The Limitations of Habermas’s Postmetaphysical Proposal,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 60, no. 1: 187–207.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve 2016. “The Limits of Learning: Habermas’ Social Theory and Religion,” European Journal of Philosophy 24, no. 3: 694–711.Google Scholar
Cornell, Drucilla. 1995. The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography, and Sexual Harassment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cortina, A. 2003. Covenant and Contract: Politics, Ethics and Religion. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Cronin, Ciaran. 2011. “Cosmopolitan Democracy,” in Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. 1985. “Communicative Competence and Normative Force,” New German Critique 35: 133–45.Google Scholar
Dahms, Hans-Joachim. 1994. Positivismusstreit. Die Auseinandersetzung der Frankfurter Schule mit dem logischen Positivismus, dem amerikanischen Pragmatismus und dem kritischen Rationalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dallmayr, Fred R. 1976. “Phenomenology and Critical Theory: Adorno,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 3, no. 4: 367–405.Google Scholar
Daniel, Jamie Owen and Moylan, Tom. 1997. Not Yet: Reconsidering Ernst Bloch. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Davaney, Sheila Greeve and Frisina, Warren G., eds. 2006. The Pragmatic Century: Conversations with Richard J. Bernstein. Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Michael C. 1994. “A Black Counterpublic?: Economic Earthquakes, Racial Agenda(s), and Black Politics,” Public Culture 7: 195–223.Google Scholar
De Mul, J., ed. 2014. Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology: Perspectives and Prospects. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Jodi. 1997. Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism after Identity Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Jodi 2009. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Jodi and Passavant, Paul, eds. 2003. Empire’s New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deflem, Mathieu. 2013. “The Legal Theory of Jürgen Habermas,” in Law and Social Theory, ed. Banakar, Reza and Travers, Max. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Demirović, Alex. 1999. Der nonkonformistische Intellektuelle. Die Entwicklung der Kritischen Theorie zur Frankfurter Schule. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Limited Inc., trans. Samuel Weber. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1989. Memoires for Paul de Man, trans. Peggy Kamuf, 2nd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1993. Circumfession, trans. Geoffrey Bennington. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1995. “Is There a Philosophical Language?,” in Points …: Interviews, 1974–1994, ed. Weber, Elisabeth. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1996. “Remarks on Deconstruction and Pragmatism,” in Deconstruction and Pragmatism, ed. Critchley, Simon and Mouffe, Chantal. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1998. Monolingualism of the Other: Or The Prosthesis of Origin, trans. Patrick Mensah. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 2000. “Performative Powerlessness – A Response to Simon Crichley,” trans. James Ingram, Constellations 7, no. 4: 466–68.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 2002. “Derelictions of the Right to Justice,” in Negotiations, ed. and trans. Elisabeth, Rottenberg. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 2004. “Unsere Redlichkeit!,” trans. Ulrich Müller Schöll, Frankfurter Rundschau [“Honesty of Thought,” in Thomassen 2006, 300–06].Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 2005 [1998]. “Not Utopia, The Im-possible,” in Paper Machine. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques and Wetzel, Michael. 1987. “Antwort an Apel,” Zeitmitschrift 3: 76–85.Google Scholar
Deutscher, P. and Lafont, C., eds. 2017. Critical Theory in Critical Times: Transforming the Global Political and Economic Order. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dews, Peter. 1995. The Limits of Disenchantment: Essays on Contemporary European Philosophy. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Dews, Peter 1999. “Communicative Paradigms and the Question of Subjectivity: Habermas, Mead, and Lacan,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dews, Peter 2018. “Schelling and the Frankfurt School,” in Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School, ed. Gordon, Peter, Hammer, Espen, and Honneth, Axel. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dobson, Andrew. 1996. “Representative Democracy and the Environment,” in Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects, ed. Lafferty, W. M. and Meadowcroft, J.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 125–48.Google Scholar
Donald, Merlin. 2012. “An Evolutionary Approach to Culture,” in The Axial Age and Its Consequences, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: Balknap Press. 47–75.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1990. “Green Reason: Communicative Ethics for the Biosphere,” Environmental Ethics 12, no. 3: 195–210.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1978. Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method, ed. Lukes, Steven, trans. W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile 1984. The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile 2001. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. Carol Cosman. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique. 1985a. Philosophy of Liberation, trans. Aquila Martinez and Christine Morkovsky. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 1985b. La producción teórica de Marx: Un commentario a los Grundrisse. Mexico City: Siglo XX.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 1988. Hacia un Marx desconocido: Un commentario de los Manuscripts del 61–63. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 1990. El último Marx (1863–1882) y la liberación latinoamericana. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 1995. The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “The Other” and the Myth of Modernity, trans. Michael Barber. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 1996. The Underside of Modernity: Apel, Ricoeur, Rorty, Taylor, and the Philosophy of Liberation, trans. Eduardo Mendieta. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2000. “The Formal Thought of Jürgen Habermas from the Perspective of a Universal Material Ethics,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis. Chicago: Open Court. 235–56.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2007. Política de la liberación, vol. i, Historia mundial y crítica. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2008. Twenty Theses on Politics, trans. George Ciccarello-Maher. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2009. Política de la liberación, vol. ii, Arquitectónica. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2013 [1998]. Ethics of Liberation: In the Age of Globalization and Exclusion, trans. Eduardo Mendieta, Camilo Pérez Bustillo, Yolanda Angulo, and Nelson Maldonado-Torres, ed. Vallega, Alejandro A.. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2014. 16 Tesis de Economía Política: Interpretación Filosófica. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique 2016. 14 Tesis de Ética. Hacia la Esencia del Pensamiento Critico. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
Duvenage, Peter. 2003. Habermas and Aesthetics. The Limits of Communicative Reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Dux, Günter. 1991. “Communicative Reason and Interest: On the Reconstruction of the Normative Order in Societies Sturctured by Egalitarianism or Domination,” in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Axel, Honneth and Hans, Joas, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge: Polity Press. 74–96.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eckersley, R., 2000. “Deliberative Democracy, Ecological Representation and Risk: Towards a Democracy of All Affected,” in Democratic Innovation. Deliberation, Representation and Association, ed. Saward, M.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1982. “The Axial Age: The Emergence of Transcendental Visions and the Rise of Clerics,” European Journal of Sociology 23: 294–314.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N.ed. 1986. The Origin and Diversity of Axial Civilizations. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1999. “Multiple Modernities in an Age of Globalization,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 24, no. 2 (Spring): 283–95.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2000. “Multiple Modernities,” Daedalus 129, no. 1 (Winter): 1–29.Google Scholar
Elliott, Anthony, ed. 2014. Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Endreß, Martin. 2012. “Säkular oder postsäkular? Zur Analyse der religiösen Konturen der Gegenwart im Spannungsfeld der Beiträge von Jürgen Habermas und Charles Taylor,” in Herausforderungen der Modernität, ed. Endreß, M. et al. Würzburg: Echter. 213–37.Google Scholar
Eriksen, E. and Weigard, J. 1975. Ernst Blochs Wirkung: Ein Arbeitsbuch zum 90. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Eriksen, E. and Weigard, J. 2003. Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Democracy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fanon, Frantz. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Fanon, Frantz 2004. The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Feenberg, Andrew. 1996. “Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 39, no. 1: 45–70.Google Scholar
Feenberg, Andrew 2014. The Philosophy of Praxis: Marx, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Ann and Nagel, Mechthild, eds. 2009. Dancing with Iris: The Philosophy of Iris Marion Young. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Allesandro. 1993. Modernity and Authenticity: A Study of the Social and Ethical Thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Allesandro 1998. Reflective Authenticity: Rethinking the Project of Modernity. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Allesandro 1999. Justice and Judgment. The Rise and the Prospect of the Judgment Model in Contemporary Political Philosophy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Allesandro 2008. The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Allesandro 2009. “Authenticity Without a True Self,” in Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society, ed. Vannini, Ph and Williams, J. P.. Farnham: Ashgate. 21–35.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Allesandro 2014. The Democratic Horizon: Hyperpluralism and the Renewal of Political Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferry, Jean-Marc. 1987. Habermas, l’ethique de la communication. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ferry, Jean-Marc 1991. Les puissances de l’expérience. Essai sur l’identité contemporaine. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.Google Scholar
Ferry, Luc. 1990. Political Philosophy 1: Rights – The New Quarrel Between the Ancients and the Moderns, trans. Franklin Philip. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ferry, Luc 1992. Political Philosophy 2: The Systems of Philosophies of History, trans. Franklin Philip. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ferry, Luc and Renaut, Alain. 1992. Political Philosophy 3: From the Rights of Man to the Republican Ideal, trans. Franklin Philip. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Robert and Smith, Will. 2003. “Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Cosmopolitanism,” Constellations 10, no. 4: 469–87.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2008. “The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition,” Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 20, no. 1: 251–75.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon. 2000. “Modernity and Morality in Habermas’s Discourse Ethics,” Inquiry 43: 319–40.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon 2003. “The Theory of Ideology and the Ideology of Theory: Habermas Contra Adorno,” Historical Materialism 11: 165–87.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon 2005. “Habermas’s Moral Cognitivism and the Frege–Geach Challenge,” European Journal of Philosophy 13: 319–44.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon 2013. “The Persistence of Normative Questions in Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 518–32.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon 2016. “Where the Right Gets In: On Rawls’s Criticism of Habermas’s Conception of Legitimacy,” Kantian Review 21, no. 2: 161–83.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian. 2011. “Introduction: The Habermas–Rawls Dispute – Analysis and Reevaluation,” in Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political, ed. Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fisch, Max H. 1986. Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism, ed. Ketner, Kenneth Laine and Kloesel, Christian J. W.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Joachim. 2008. Philosophische Anthropologie. Eine Denkrichtung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Fischer, Joachim 2009. “Exploring the Core Identity of Philosophical Anthropology Through the Works of Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner, and Arnold Gehlen,” Iris: European Journal of Philosophy and Public Debate 1, no. 1: 153–70.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey. 2004. “Communicative Power in Habermas’s Theory of Democracy,” European Journal of Political Theory 3, no. 4: 433–54.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey 2005. “Translator’s Introduction,” in Brunkhorst, Hauke, Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey 2011. “Two Models of Human Rights: Extending the Rawls-Habermas Debate,” in Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political, ed. Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey 2014. Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey, et al. 2006. “Special Section: On Hauke Brunkhorst’s Solidarity,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 32, no. 7: 795–838.Google Scholar
Fogelin, Robert. 1996. “Wittgenstein’s Critique of Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, ed. Sluga, Hans and Stern, Dabid G.. Cambridge University Press. 34–58.Google Scholar
Fong, Benjamin. 2016. Death and Mastery: Psychoanalytic Drive Theory and the Subject of Late Capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Forbath, William. 1998. “Short Circuit: A Critique of Habermas’s Understanding of Law, Politics, and Economic Life,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press. 272–86.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 1999. “The Basic Right to Justification: Toward a Constructivist Conception of Human Rights,” Constellations 6, no. 1: 35–60.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2002. Contexts of Justice: Political Philosophy Beyond Liberalism and Communitarianism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2005. “Political Liberty: Integrating Five Conceptions of Autonomy,” in Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism, ed. Christman, John and Joel, Anderson. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2011. “The Justification of Justice: Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Discourse Theory in Dialogue,” in The Right to Justification, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2012. The Right to Justification, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2013. Toleration in Conflict: Past and Future, trans. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainered. 2014a. Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification: Rainer Forst in Dialogue. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2014b. Justification and Critique, trans. Ciaran Cronin. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2016. “The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach,” Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 45, no. 3: 7–28.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer 2018. Normativity and Power: Analyzing Social Orders of Justification, trans. Ciaran Cronin. Oxford University Press [Normativitat und Macht].Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer, et al. 2016. “Special Section on Rainer Forst: The Justification of Basic Rights,” Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 3: 3–92.Google Scholar
Foster, Roger. 2006. “Rethinking the Critique of Instrumental Reason,” Social Philosophy Today 22: 169–84.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1983. “On the Genealogy of Ethics,” in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. Dreyfus, R. and Rabinow, P.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1988a. “The Ethics of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom,” in The Final Foucault, ed. Bernauer, James and Rasmussen, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–20.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1988b. “Practicing Criticism,” in Politics, Philosophy, Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1988c. “What is Enlightenment?,” in The Foucault Reader, ed. Rabinow, Paul. New York: Pantheon Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1994. “Critical Theory/Intellectual History,” in Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate, ed. Kelly, Michael. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fourier, Charles. 1996 [1808]. The Theory of the Four Movements. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. 1975. Der unendliche Mangel an Sein. Schellings Hegelkritik und die Anfänge der Marxschen Dialektik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred 1989a. Die Grenzen der Verständigung: ein Geistergespräch zwischen Lyotard und Habermas. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred 1989b. “Schelling’s Critique of Hegel and the Beginnings of Marxian Dialectics,” Idealistic Studies 19, no. 3: 251–68.Google Scholar
Frankenberg, Günter. 1996. “Why Care? The Trouble with Social Rights,” Cardozo Law Review, special issue Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, Part I and II, 17, nos. 4–5: 1365–90.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1981. “Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical Insights and Normative Confusions,” Praxis International 3: 272–87.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 1985. “What’s Critical About Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender,” New German Critique 35 [special issue on Jürgen Habermas]: 97–131.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 1991. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Post-Socialist” Condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 2009. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalized World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 2013a. Fortunes of Feminism. From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 2015. “Legitimation Crisis? On the Contradictions of Financialized Capitalism,” Critical Historical Studies 2, no. 2: 157–89.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy and Honneth, Axel. 2003. Redistibution or Recognition? A Political–Philosophical Exchange. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy, et al. 2014. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Frega, Roberto. 2012. “Equal Accessibility to All: Habermas, Pragmatism, and the Place of Religious Beliefs in a Post-Secular Society,” Constellations 19, no. 2: 267–87.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. xxi (1927–1931), The Future of an Illusion, Civilization and Its Discontents, and Other Works, trans. and ed. Strachey, James. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Freundlieb, Dieter. 2003. Dieter Henrich and Contemporary Philosophy: The Return to Subjectivity. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2000. A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Frings, Manfred S. 1997. The Mind of Max Scheler. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Frisby, David. 1992. The Alienated Mind: The Sociology of Knowledge in Germany 1918–1933. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias. 2006. “Equal Consideration of All – An Aporetic Project?,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 32, no. 3: 299–323.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias 2010. “Equality and Singularity in Justification and Application Discourses,” European Journal of Political Theory 9, no. 3: 328–46.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias 2011. “Deconstructive Aporias: Both Quasi-Transcendental and Normative,” Continental Philosophy Review 44, no. 4: 439–68.Google Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias, et al. 2012. “Winter 2012 Symposium: McCarthy on Race, Empire, and Development,” Symposia on Gender, Race, and Philosophy 8, no. 1.Google Scholar
Fromm, Erich 1980. Arbeiter und Angestellte am Vorabend des Dritten Reichs, trans. Wolfgang Bonß. Stuttgart: DVA.Google Scholar
Fromm, Erich et al., eds. 1936. Studien über Autorität und Familie. Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforshung. Frankfurt am Main: Junius-Drucke.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara. 1996. “The Redemption of Truth: Idealization, Acceptability and Fallibilism in Habermas’ Theory of Meaning,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 4, no. 2: 233–51.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara 1998. “The Politics of Vulnerability: On the Role of Idealization in Butler and Habermas,” Philosophy Today 42.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara 2001. “Intelligibility and Conflict Resolution in the Lifeworld,” Continental Philosophy Review 3: 419–36.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara 2011. “Communicative Action and Formal Pragmatics,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 54–73.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1980. “The Universality of the Hermeneutical Problem,” in Contemporary Hermeneutics, ed. Bleicher, J.. London: Routledge. 128–40.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg 1985. Philosophical Apprenticeships, trans. Robert R. Sullivan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg 1986. “Replik zu Hermeneutic und Ideologiekritik,” in Hermeneutik II, collected works. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg 1989. Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg and Vogler, Paul. 1988. Neue Anthropologie. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme.Google Scholar
Garz, Detlef. 2000. “Kritik, Hermeneutik, Rekonstruktion. Über den Stellenwert der Methode bei Jürgen Habermas,” in Das Interesse der Vernunft. Rückblicke auf das Werk von Jürgen Habermas seit “Erkenntnis und Interesse,” ed. Müller-Doohm, Stefan. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 201–17.Google Scholar
Gasché, Rodolphe. 1986. The Tain of the Mirror. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gaus, Daniel. 2009. Der Sinn von Demokratie. Die Diskurstheorie der Demokratie und die Debatte über die Legitimität der Europäischen Union. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gaus, Daniel 2013. “Rational Reconstruction as a Method of Political Theory between Social Critique and Empirical Political Science,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 553–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, Daniel 2015. “Discourse Theory’s Sociological Claim: Reconstructing the Epistemic Meaning of Democracy as a Deliberative System,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 42, no. 6: 503–25.Google Scholar
Geis, Anna and Strecker, David, eds. 2005. Blockaden staatlicher Politik: Sozialwissenschaftliche Analysen im Anschluss an Claus Offe. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Gehlen, Arnold. 1969. Moral und Hypermoral. Eine pluralistische Ethik. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Gehlen, Arnold 1988. Man: His Place in Nature and the World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Genna, Gaspare, et al., eds. 2016. Jürgen Habermas and the European Economic Crisis: Cosmopolitanism Reconsidered. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Uta. 2002. Talcott Parsons: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony 1982. Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony 1985. “Reason without Revolution? Habermas’ Theorie des Kommunicativen Handelns,” in Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, Richard J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 95–121.Google Scholar
Gil, F. J. 2009. “Finitude as Mark of Excellence. Habermas, Putnam and the Peircean Theory of Truth,” Ontology Studies 9: 79–89.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilman, Nils. 2003. Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Wilhelm. 1972. Soziales und instrumentales Handeln. Probleme der Technologie bei Arnold Gehlen und Jürgen Habermas. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Gledhill, James. 2011. “Procedure in Substance and Substance in Procedure: Reframing the Rawls–Habermas Debate,” in Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political, ed. Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goode, Luke. 2005. Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35, no. 1: 40–68.Google Scholar
Gooding-Williams, Robert. 2009. In the Shadow of Du Bois. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. 2003. Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between Judaism and Jewish Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. 2010. Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. and Morgan, Michael, eds. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Modern Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gosepath, Stefan. 1998. “Das Verhältnis von Demokratie und Menschenrecht,” in Demokratischer Experimentalismus, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 201–41.Google Scholar
Gregoratto, Federica. 2015. “Political Power and Its Pathologies: An Attempt to Reconsider Habermas’ Critical Theory of Democracy,” Constellations 22, no. 4: 533–42.Google Scholar
Grehwal, Shivdeep Singh. 2005. “A Cosmopolitan Europe by Constitutional Means? Assessing the Theoretical Foundations of Habermas’ Political Prescriptions,” Journal of European Integration 27, no. 2: 191–215.Google Scholar
Grimm, D. 2009. Souveranität: Herkunft und Zukunft eines Schlüsselbegriffs. Berlin University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grumley, John. 2005. Agnes Heller: A Moralist in the Vortex of History. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Gunnarson, Logi. 2000. Making Moral Sense: Beyond Habermas and Gauthier. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1992. “Die Freiheit der Stellungnahme als politisches Grundrecht,” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 54: 58–73.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus 1993. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus 1994. “Diskurstheorie des Rechts oder liberales Naturrecht in diskurstheoretischem Gewande?,” Kritische Justiz 27, no. 4: 470–87.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus 1998. “Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press. 241–63.Google Scholar
Hammer, Espen. 2007. “Habermas and the Kant–Hegel Contrast,” in German Idealism: Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hansen, Miriam. 1993. “Unstable Mixtures, Dilated Spheres: Negt and Kluge’s The Public Sphere and Experience, Twenty Years Later,” Public Culture 5: 179–212.Google Scholar
Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. 1994. Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State-Form. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio 2004. Multitudes: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio 2009. Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hartman, Geoffrey, ed. 1986. Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Martin. 2012. “Against First Nature: Critical Theory and Neuroscience,” in Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, ed. Choudhury, Suparna and Slaby, Jan. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 67–83.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Martin and Honneth, Axel. 2006. “Paradoxes of Capitalism,” Constellations 13: 41–58.Google Scholar
Hayim, Gila. 1992. “Naturalism and the Crisis of Rationalism in Habermas,” Social Theory and Practice 18, no. 2: 187–209.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 1998. “What is a Validity Claim?,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 24: 23–41.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2001. Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2006. “Jürgen Habermas,” in A Companion to Pragmatism, ed. Shook, John and Margolis, Joseph. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2009. “Habermas and Analytic Marxism,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35, no. 8: 891–919.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2011a. “Justice: Transcendental not Metaphysical,” in Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political, ed. Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2011b. “System and Lifeworld,” in Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2011c. “Three Normative Models of the Welfare State,” Public Reason 3, no. 2: 13–43.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph M. 2014. “Rebooting Discourse Ethics,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40: 829–66.Google Scholar
Hedrick, Todd. 2010. Rawls and Habermas: Reason, Pluralism, and the Claims of Political Philosophy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hedrick, Todd 2014. “Reification in and Through Law: Elements of a Theory in Marx, Lukács, and Honneth,” European Journal of Political Theory 13, no. 2: 178–98.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1988. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans. Albert Hofstadter. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1993. “The Origin of the Work of Art,” in Basic Writings, ed. Krell, David Ferrell. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Held, David. 1980. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes. 1978. “The Positivism Dispute as a Turning Point in German Post-war Theory,” New German Critique 15: 49–56.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes 1982. “Habermas and Marxism,” in Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, John B. and Held, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes 1985. “The Discourse Ethics of Habermas: Critique and Appraisal,” Thesis Eleven 9, no. 10: 5–18.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes 1991. The Grandeur and Twilight of Radical Universalism [with Ferenc Fehér]. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes 1994. “A Reply to My Critics,” in The Social Philosophy of Agnes Heller, ed. Bernheim, John. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Heller, Ágnes and Fehér, Ferenc. 1987. Eastern Left, Western Left: Totalitarianism, Freedom and Democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hendlin, Yogi Hale and Ott, Konrad. 2016. “Habermas on Nature,” Environmental Ethics 38, no. 2: 183–208.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1982. “Fichte’s Original Insight,” Contemporary German Philosophy 1: 15–52.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 1987. “Was ist Metaphysik – was Moderne? Zwölf Thesen gegen Jürgen Habermas,” in Konzepte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 11–43.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 1999. “What is Metaphysics – What is Modernity? Twelve Theses Against Jürgen Habermas,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 291–319.Google Scholar
Heyward, Clare. 2008. “Can the All-Affected Principle Include Future Persons? Green Deliberative Democracy and the Non-Identity Problem,” Environmental Politics 17, no. 4: 625–43.Google Scholar
Hilferding, R. 1910. Das Finanzkapital, Eine Studie über die jüngste Entwicklung des Kapitalismus. Vienna: Wiener Volksbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Hillgruber, Andreas. 1986. Zweierlei Untergang. Die Zerschlagung des Deutschen Reiches und das Ende des europäischen Judentums [Two kinds of demise: the shattering of the German Empire and the end of European Jewry]. Munich: Siedler.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1994. Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914–1991. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Ewe. 1974. “Jürgen Habermas, ‘The Public Sphere,’” New German Critique 3 (Autumn): 45–48.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Ewe 1979. “Critical Theory, Public Sphere and Culture: Jürgen Habermas and His Critics,” trans. Marc Silberman, New German Critique 16 (Winter): 89–118.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Ewe 1982. The Institution of Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Ewe 1985. “The Dialectic of Enlightenment Revisited: Habermas’ Critique of the Frankfurt School,” New German Critique 35 (Spring–Summer): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Ewe 1992. “The Public Sphere: Models and Boundaries,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holub, Robert. 1991. Jürgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Honenberger, P. 2015. “Animality, Sociality, and Historicity in Helmuth Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 23, no. 5: 707–29.Google Scholar
Honig, Bonnie. 2001. “Dead Rights, Live Futures: A Reply to Habermas’s ‘Constitutional Democracy,’” Political Theory 29, no. 6: 792–805.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1982. “Von Adorno zu Habermas. Der Gestaltwandel kritischer Gesellschaftstheorie,” in Sozialforschung als Kritik, ed. Bonß, Wolfgang and Axel, Honneth. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 87–126.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 1987. “Critical Theory,” in Social Theory Today, ed. Giddens, Anthony and Turner, Jonathan. Cambridge: Polity Press. 347–82.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. Kenneth Baynes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 1995. The Fragmented World of the Social: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2003. “Halbierte Rationalität. Erkenntnisanthropologische Motive der Frankfurt Schule,” in Kunst, Macht und Institution. Studien zur philosophischen Anthropologie, soziologischen Theorie und Kultursoziologie der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. 58–74.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2005a. Dialektik der Freiheit, ed. Honneth, Axel. Frankfurter Adorno-Konferenz 2003. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2007a. “Artist of Dissonance: Albrecht Wellmer and Critical Theory,” Constellations 14, no. 3: 305–14.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2007b. Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2009b. Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2014. Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2017. The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans. 1988. Social Action and Human Nature. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hanseds. 1991. Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max 1988. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 14, ed. Schmidt, Alfred and Noerr, Gunzelin Schmid. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max 1992. Critical Theory: Selected Essays, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max 1993. Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings, ed. and trans. Hunter, J. F., Kramer, M. S., and Torpey, J.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max 1996. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. xviii, ed. Noerr, Gunzelin Schmid. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max 2005. “Theism and Atheism,” in The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers, ed. Mendieta, Eduardo. New York: Routledge. 213–23.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W. 2002. The Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, ed. Noerr, Gunzelin Schmidt, trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W. 2006. Briefwechsel, vol. iv, ed. Gödde, C. and Lonitz, H.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hudson, Wayne. 1982. The Marxist Philosophy of Ernst Bloch. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1965. “Philosophy and the Crisis of European Man,” in Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, trans. Q. Lauer. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. David Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund 1997. “The Amsterdam Lectures,” in Collected Works, vol. vi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hutter, Axel. 1996. Geschichtliche Vernunft. Die Weiterführung der Kantischen Vernunftkritik in der Spätphilosophie Schellings. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 1991. “Habermas on Aesthetics and Rationality: Completing the Project of Enlightenment,” New German Critique 53: 67–103.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 2001. “Individual Freedom and Social Equality: Habermas´s Democratic Revolution in the Social Contractarian Justification of Law,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, L. E.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 2009. “Of Sweatshops and Subsistence: Habermas on Human Rights,” Ethics and Global Politics 2, no. 3: 193–217.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 2010. Habermas: Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Iser, Mattias. 2008. Empörung und Fortschritt. Grundlagen einer kritischen Theorie der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Iser, Mattias and Strecker, David. 2012. Jürgen Habermas zur Einführung, 2nd edn. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Jack. 2014. The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives, and Anti-Semitism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, Michael R. 1999. “Tribal Sovereignty and the Intercultural Public Sphere,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 25, no. 5: 57–86.Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. 1946 [2001]. The Question of German Guilt, trans. E. B. Ashton. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. 1953 [2014]. The Origin and Goal of History, trans. Michael Bullock. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. 1962. Kant: From The Great Philosophers, vol. i, ed. Arendt, Hannah, trans. Ralph Manheim. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. 1969–71. Philosophy, vol. i–iii, trans. E. B. Ashton. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1973. “Aesthetic Theory and the Critique of Mass Culture,” in The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 173–218.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin 1985. “Habermas and Modernism,” in Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, R.. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin 1986. Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin 1992. “The Debate over Performative Contradiction: Habermas versus the Poststructuralists,” in Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, Axel et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 261–79.Google Scholar
Jeffries, Stuart. 2016. Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1985. G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of his Thought, trans. Raymond Meyer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 1990. “The Creativity of Action and the Intersubjectivity of Reason: Mead’s Pragmatism and Social Theory,” Transactions of the C. S. Peirce Society 26:165–94.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97–118.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 2012. “The Axial Age Debate as Religious Discourse,” in The Axial Age and Its Consequences, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 9–29.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 2013. The Sacredness of the Person: A New Genealogy of Human Rights. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Genevieve Fuji. 2007. “Discursive Democracy in the Transgenerational Context,” Contemporary Political Theory 6: 67–85.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 1993. “Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation Between Critical Theory and Rational Choice,” American Political Science Review 87: 74–86.Google Scholar
Johnson, Pauline. 1998. “Carl Schmitt, Jürgen Habermas, and the Crisis of Politics,” The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms 3, no. 6: 15–32.Google Scholar
Johnson, Pauline 2006. Habermas: Rescuing the Public Sphere. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans. 1958. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans 1966. The Phenomenon of Life: Towards a Philosophical Biology. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans 1974. Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans 1979. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilization. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans 1984. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans 2008. Memoirs, ed. Wiese, Christian, trans. Krishna Winston. Waltham, MA: Brandeis Press.Google Scholar
Journal of Classical Sociology. 2015. 15, no. 2. Special issue What Is Living and What Is Dead of The Positivist Dispute? Fifty Years Later, A Debate.Google Scholar
Jörke, D. 2017. “Communicative Anthropology,” in The Habermas Handbook, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Kreide, Regina, and Lafont, Cristina. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, Courtney. 2000. Then I Was Black. South African Political Identities in Transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jütten, Timo. 2011. “The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19, no. 5: 701–27.Google Scholar
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2001. “The Politics of Autonomy and the Challenge of Deliberation: Castoriadis Contra Habermas,” Thesis Eleven 64, no. 1: 1–19.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1965. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N. K. Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1981. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. J. W. Ellison. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1983. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, trans. T. Humphrey. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1996a. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, trans. Frederick P. Van De Pitte. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1996b. The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1998a. Critique of Pure Reason, ed. and trans. Guyer, Paul and Wood, Allen. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1998b. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, trans. and ed. Wood, Allen and Giovanni, George Di. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1999. “What is Enlightenment?,” in Practical Philosophy, ed. Gregor, Mary J.. Cambridge University Press. 17–22.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 2000. The Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. Guyer, Paul, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 2015. The Critique of Practical Reason, ed. and trans. Gregor, Mary. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kellner, Douglas. 1984a. “Critical Theory and the Culture Industries: A Reassessment,” Telos 62 (Winter): 196–206.Google Scholar
Kellner, Douglas 1984b. Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael, ed. 1994. Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kettner, Matthias. 2002. “The Disappearance of Discourse Ethics in Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms,” in Discourse and Democracy, ed. René Vom Schomberg and Kenneth Baynes. Albany: SUNY Press. 201–19.Google Scholar
Kettner, Matthias 2006. “Discourse Ethics: Apel, Habermas and Beyond,” in Bioethics in Cultural Contexts, ed. Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph, Düwell, Marcus, and Mieth, Dietmar. Dordrecht: Springer. 299–318.Google Scholar
Keulartz, J. 1986. “Over kunst en kultuur in het werk van Habermas,” in Filosofie en Maatskappijkritiek, ed. van Doorne, F. and Korthals, M.. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
Khan, Gulshan. 2015. “Jürgen Habermas and the Crisis of the European Union,” in The European Union in Crisis: Explorations in Representation and Democratic Legitimacy, ed. Demetriou, Kyriakos N.. New York: Springer. 123–40.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto. 1941. “Changes in the Structure of Political Compromise,” Studies in Philosophy and the Social Sciences 9: 264–89.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto 1957. “The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes,” Social Research 24: 127–56.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto 1969. “Socialist and Bolshevik Theory of State,” in Politics, Law, and Social Change: Selected Essays by Otto Kirchheimer, ed. Burin, Frederic S. and Shell, Kurt. New York: Columbia University Press. 3–21.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto and Leites, Nathan. 1996. “Remarks on Carl Schmitt’s ‘Legality and Legitimacy,’” in The Rule of Law under Siege: Selected Essays by Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer, ed. Scheuerman, William E.. Berkeley: University of California Press. 64–99.Google Scholar
Kirkbright, S. 2004. Karl Jaspers: A Biography. Navigations in Truth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kirwan, Michael. 2008. Political Theology: A New Introduction. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.Google Scholar
Kliger, Gili. 2015. “Art and Emancipation: Habermas’s ‘Die Moderne – ein unvollendetes Project’ Reconsidered,” New German Critique 124: 203–21.Google Scholar
Klikauer, Thomas. 2016. “Habermas and Historical Materialism: A Review Essay,” Capital and Class 40, no. 2: 360–66.Google Scholar
Knödler-Bunte, Eberhard. 1975. “The Proletarian Public Sphere and Political Experience: An Analysis of Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge’s The Public Sphere and Experience,” New German Critique 4: 51–75.Google Scholar
Knowlton, James. 1993. Forever in the Shadow of Hitler?: Original Documents of the Historikerstreit, the Controversy Concerning the Singularity of the Holocaust. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kofman, Sarah. 1985. The Enigma of Woman: Woman in Freud’s Writings, trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kögler, Hans-Herbert. 1999. The Power of Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. “Appendix A: The Six Stages of Justice Judgment,” in Essays on Moral Development II: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. 621–39.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., and Hewer, A. 1983. Moral Stages: A Current Formulation and a Response to Critics. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Juha and Väliverronen, Esa. 1996. “Resurgence of the Critical Theories of Public Sphere,” Journal of Communication Theory 20: 18–36.Google Scholar
Kolb, David. 1992. “Heidegger and Habermas on Criticism and Totality,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52, no. 3: 683–93.Google Scholar
Kompridis, N. 1994. “On World Disclosure: Heidegger, Habermas, and Dewey,” Thesis Eleven 37: 29–45.Google Scholar
Kompridis, N. 2011. “Receptivity, Possibility, and Democratic Politics,” Ethics and Global Politics 4, no. 4: 255–72.Google Scholar
Koopman, Colin. 2013. Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problem of Modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. 1985 [1979]. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. K. Tribe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantick geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp].Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. 1988 [1959]. Critique and Crisis. Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Kritik und Krise. Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt. Munich: Karl Alber].Google Scholar
Koselleck, R. 2002. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing, History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kranz, Margarita. 2011 and 2013. “Begriffsgeschichte institutionell. Teil I u. II,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 53: 153–226 and 54: 119–94.Google Scholar
Kreckel, M. 1981. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kreide, Regina. 2016. “Between Morality and Law: In Defense of a Political Conception of Human Rights,” Journal of International Political Theory 12, no. 1: 10–25.Google Scholar
Krois, John Michael. 1987. Cassirer: Symbolic Forms and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 1999. The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina 2000. Heidegger, Language, and World-Disclosure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina 2004. “Moral Objectivity and Reasonable Agreement: Can Realism Be Reconciled with Kantian Constructivism?,” Ratio Juris 17, no. 1: 27–51.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina 2007. “Religion in the Public Sphere: Remarks on Habermas’s Conception of Public Deliberation in Postsecular Societies,” Constellations 14, no. 2: 239–59.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina 2009. “Religion in the Public Sphere: What are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship?,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35, no. 1: 127–50.Google Scholar
Landenne, Quentin and Carré, Louis. 2014. La philosophie reconstructive en discussions: dialogues avec Jean-Marc Ferry. Lormont: Bord de l’Eau.Google Scholar
Landes, J. 1988. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lara, María Pía. 1995. “Albrecht Wellmer: Between Spheres of Validity,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 21, no. 2: 1–22.Google Scholar
Lara, María Pía 1998. Moral Textures. Feminist Narratives in the Public Sphere. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lara, María Pía 2013. The Disclosure of Politics: Struggles over the Semantics of Secularization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. 1995. “The Foundations of Modern Democracy: Reflections on Jürgen Habermas,” European Journal of Philosophy 3, no. 1: 55–68.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Jennifer M. 1993. Deconstructing Durkheim: A Post-Post-Structuralist Critique. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lenin, V. I. 1917. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Lepenies, Wolf, ed. 1981. Geschichte der Soziologie, vol. i. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. 2000. “Luhmann, Habermas and the Theory of Communication,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17, no. 5: 273–88.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Georg. 1999. “Soziale Rechte und die Grenzen des Sozialstaates,” in Politische Philosophie des Sozialstaates, ed. Kersting, Wolfgang. Weilerswist: Velbrueck. 351–72.Google Scholar
Loick, Daniel. 2014. “Juridification and Politics: From the Dilemma of Juridification to the Paradoxes of Right,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40, no. 8: 757–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López de la Vieja, M. T. 1994. “J. Habermas en años de transición para la filosofía española (1971–1990),” in Ética. Procedimientos razonables. Iria Flavia: Novo Século. 299–336.Google Scholar
Love, Nancy. 1995. “What’s Left of Marx?,” in The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen. Cambridge University Press. 46–66.Google Scholar
Löwith, K. 1941. Von Hegel zu Nietzsche. Der Revolutionäre Bruch im Denken des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Löwith, K. 1949. Meaning in History. The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Löwith, K. 1964. From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Thought, trans. David E. Green. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Löwith, K. 1981. Sämtliche Schriften, 9 volumes, ed. Stichweh, Klaus and de Launay, Marc B.. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche.Google Scholar
Löwith, K. 1994. My Life in Germany Before and After 1933, trans. Elizabeth King. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Löwith, K. 1995. Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism, ed. Richard, Wolin, trans. Gary Steiner. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Löwy, Michael. 1979. Georg Lukacs: From Romanticism to Bolshevism, trans. Patrick Camiller. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1986. Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 1989. Ecological Communication, trans. John Bednarz, Jr. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 1995. Social Systems, trans. John Bednarz, Jr. with Dirk Baecker. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 1996. Die neuzeitlichen Wissenschaften und die Phänomenologie. Vienna: Piccus.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 1997. Protest. Systemtheorie und soziale Bewegungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 2006a. “Beyond Barbarism,” in Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems, ed. Moeller, Hans-Georg. Chicago: Open Court. 261–72.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 2006b. “Cognition as Construction,” in Luhmann Explained: From Souls to Systems, ed. Moeller, Hans-Georg. Chicago: Open Court. 241–60.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 2012. Theory of Society, vol. i, trans. Rhodes Barrett. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas 2013. Theory of Society, vol. ii, trans. Rhodes Barrett. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lukács, Georg. 1971a. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: Merlin.Google Scholar
Lukács, Georg 1971b. The Theory of the Novel: A Historico-philosophical Essay on the Forms of Great Epic Literature, trans. Anna Bostock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1973. Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lutz-Bachmann, Matthiased. 2015. Postsäkularismus: Zur Diskussion eines umstrittenen Begriffs. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias and Fidora, Alexander, eds. 2008. Action and Science: The Epistemology of the Practical Sciences in the 13th and 14th Centuries. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-François. 1984. The Postmodern Condition, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McAfee, Noëlle. 2000. Habermas, Kristeva, and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McAfee, Noëlle 2008. Democracy and the Political Unconscious. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1973. “A Theory of Communicative Competence,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3: 135–56.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1980. Kritik der Verständigungsverhältnisse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1982. “Rationality and Relativism: Habermas’ ‘Overcoming’ of Hermeneutics,” in Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, John B. and Held, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 57–78.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1991a. “Complexity and Democracy: Or The Seducements of Systems Theory,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1991b. Ideals and Illusions: On Reconstruction and Deconstruction in Contemporary Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1994. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue,” Ethics 105, no. 1: 44–63.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 2005. “On the Way to a World Republic? Kant on Race and Development,” in Festschrit zum 65. Geburstag von Karl Graf Ballestrem, Duncher and Humboldt, ed. Wass, Lothar. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 2009. Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCormick, John P. 2007. Weber, Habermas, and the Transformations of the European State: Constitutional, Social and Supranational Democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McIvor, David. 2016. Mourning in America: Race and the Politics of Loss. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona and Stoljar, Natalie, eds. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona, Rogers, Wendy, and Dodds, Susan, eds. 2014. Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, C. 1989. Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McLellan, David. 1971. The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McMahon, Christopher. 2002. “Why There Is No Issue Between Habermas and Rawls,” Journal of Philosophy 99, no. 3: 111–29.Google Scholar
Maier, Charles S. 1988. The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust, and German National Identity. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Makari, George. 2008. Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
Manuel, Frank and Manuel, Fritzie. 1979. Utopian Thought in the Western World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Marcuse, Herbert. 1955. Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Marcuse, Herbert 1968. “Industrialization and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber,” in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 151–70.Google Scholar
Marcuse, Herbert 1973 [1932]. “The Foundation of Historical Materialism,” in Studies in Critical Philosophy, trans. Joris de Bres. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 1–48.Google Scholar
Marcuse, Herbert 1990 [1942]. “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology,” in Essential Frankfurt School Reader, ed. Arato, A. and Gebhardt, E.. New York: Continuum. 138–62.Google Scholar
Mardones, José María. 1998. El discurso religioso de la modernidad: Habermas y la religión. Universidad Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Markell, Patchen. 2000. “Making Affect Safe for Democracy? On ‘Constitutional Patriotism,’” Political Theory 28, no. 1: 38–63.Google Scholar
Marquard, Odo. 1971. “Anthropologie,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. i, ed. Ritter, Joachim von and trans. Karlfried Gründer. Basel: Stuttgart. 362–74.Google Scholar
Marsh, James L. 2000. “What’s Critical About Critical Theory?,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis. Chicago: Open Court. 555–65.Google Scholar
Martin, Bill. 2000. “Eurocentrically Distorted Communication” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis. Chicago: Open Court. 411–22.Google Scholar
Martin, Craig. 2014. “Individuality is Zero,” in Capitalizing Religion: Ideology and the Opiate of the Bourgeoisie. London: Bloomsbury. 15–32.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975. “Marx to Ruge,” in Karl Marx: Early Writings, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Tucker, Robert C.. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck. 1993. Postnational Identity: Critical Theory and Existential Philosophy in Habermas, Kierkegaard, and Havel. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck 1995. “Kierkegaard’s Radical Existential Praxis, Or: Why the Individual Defies Liberal, Communitarian, and Postmodern Categories,” in Kierkegaard in Post/Modernity, ed. Matuštík, Martin Beck and Westphal, Merold. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 245–53.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck 2001. Jürgen Habermas: A Philosophical-Political Profile. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck 2013. Postnational Identity: Critical Theory and Existential Philosophy in Habermas, Kierkegaard, and Havel. Phoenix, AZ: New Critical Theory.Google Scholar
Maus, I. 1996. “Liberties and Popular Sovereignty: On Jürgen Habermas’s Reconstruction of the System of Rights,” Cardozo Law Review 17: 825–82.Google Scholar
Maus, I. 2011. Über Volkssouveränität. Elemente einer Demokratietheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mayhew, Leon, ed. 1982. Talcott Parsons on Institutions and Social Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. 2015. Mind, Self, and Society, ed. Morris, Charles W.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meehan, J. 1995a. “Autonomy, Recognition and Respect: Habermas, Benjamin, and Honneth,” in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, Johanna. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meehan, J.ed. 1995b. Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meinecke, F. 1936. Die Entstehung des Historismus, vols. i and ii. Munich: R. Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Meja, Volker and Stehr, Nico, eds. 1990. Knowledge and Politics: The Sociology of Knowledge Dispute. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Memmi, Albert. 1967. The Colonizer and the Colonized, trans. Howard Greenfeld. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 1993. “Communicative Freedom and Genetic Engineering,” Logos 2, no. 1 (Winter): 124–40.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 1994. “Introduction,” in Apel, Karl-Otto, Selected Essays, vol. i, Towards a Transcendental Semiotics, ed. Mendieta, E.. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. xii–xiv.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 1999. “Ethics For an Age of Globalization and Exclusion,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 25, no. 2: 115–21.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2001a. “Chronotopology: Critique of Spatio-Temporal Regimens,” in New Critical Theory: Essays on Liberation, ed. Paris, Jeffrey and Wilkerson, William. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 175–97.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2001b. “La lingüistización de lo sagrado como catalizador de la modernidad,” in Habermas, Jürgen, Israel o Atenas. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2002a. “Introduction,” in Habermas, Jürgen, Religion and Rationality, ed. Mendieta, Eduardo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2002b. “Politics in an Age of Planetarization: Enrique Dussel’s Critique of Political Reason,” in The Political. Blackwell Readings in Continental Philosophy, ed. David, Ingram. Oxford: Blackwell. 280–97.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2003. The Adventures of Transcendental Philosophy: Karl-Otto Apel’s Semiotics and Discourse Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2004a. “Un diálogo sobre Dios y el mundo,” in Tiempo de transiciones. Madrid: Trotta. 187–210.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2004b. “Habermas on Human Cloning: The Debate on the Future of the Species,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 30, nos. 5–6: 721–43.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E.ed. 2005. The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2010. “Postcolonialism, Postorientalism, Postoccidentalism: The Past that Never Went Away and the Future that Never Arrived,” in Emerging Trends in Continental Philosophy, vol. viii, History of Continental Philosophy, ed. May, Todd, gen. ed. Schrift, Alan D.. Durham: Acumen. 149–71.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2011b. The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2011c. “Rationalization, Modernity, and Secularization,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Barbara, Fultner. Durham: Acumen. 222–38.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. 2016. “Philosophy of Liberation,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter), ed. Zalta, Edward N.. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberation/ [accessed 07.10.2018].Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo, et al. 2012. “Book Symposium on Thomas McCarthy’s Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development,” Neue Politische Literatur 57: 25–31.Google Scholar
Metz, Johann Baptist. 1969. Theology of the World, trans. William Glen-Doepel. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Metz, Johann Baptist 1980. Faith in History and Society, trans. D. Smith. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Metz, Johann Baptist 2005. “Anamnestic Reason: A Theologian’s Remarks on the Crisis in the Geisteswissenschaften” [trans. B. Fultner], in The Frankfurt School on Religion, ed. Mendieta, E.. New York: Routledge. 285–89.Google Scholar
Metz, Johann Baptist 2006. Memoria Passionis: Ein provozierendes Gedächtnis in pluralistischer Gesellschaft. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Meyers, Diana Tietjens. 1989. Self, Society, and Personal Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank. 1997. “How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberative Democracy,” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 145–71.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank 1999. “Bedürfen Menschenrechte demokratischer Legitimation?,” in Recht auf Menschenrechte. Menschenrechte, Demokratie und internationale Politik, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Köhler, Wolfgang R., and Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 52–66.Google Scholar
Mignolo, Walter. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Miklosi, Zoltan. 2012. “Against the Principle of All Affected Interests,” Social Theory and Practice 38, no. 3: 483–503.Google Scholar
Mills, C. W. 1943. “The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists,” American Journal of Sociology 49, no. 2: 165–80.Google Scholar
Minto, Robert, et al. 2015. “Special Section on Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 41, no. 10: 983–1067.Google Scholar
Mohanty, Chandra 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, Eric J. 2016. “Mixing Fire and Water: A Critical Phenomenology,” in Phenomenology for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Simmons, J. A. and Hackett, J. E.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Möllers, Christoph. 2001. “Globalisierte Jurisprudenz,” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie supplement 79: 41–60.Google Scholar
Moraña, Mabel, Dussel, Enrique, and Jáuregui, Carlos A., eds. 2008. Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
More, Thomas. 1989. Utopia, ed. Logan, George M. and Adams, Robert M.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Marcia. 2015. “Heller and Habermas in Dialogue: Intersubjective Liability and Corporeal Injurability as Foundations of Ethical Subjectivity,” Revue International de Philosophie 3, no. 273: 303–20.Google Scholar
Morris, Martin. 1996. “On the Logic of the Performative Contradiction: Habermas and the Radical Critique of Reason,” Review of Politics 58, no. 4: 735–60.Google Scholar
Moses, A. Dirk. 2007. German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moss, Lenny. 2007. “Contra Habermas and Towards a Critical Theory of Human Nature and the Question of Genetic Enhancement,” New Formations 60: 139–49.Google Scholar
Moss, L. and Pavesich, V. 2011. “Science, Normativity and Skill: Reviewing and Renewing the Anthropological Basis of Critical Theory,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 37, no. 2: 139–65.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier. 1973. “Teoría crítica y razón práctica (a propósito de la obra de Jürgen Habermas),” Sistema 3: 33–58.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 1989. “The Alternative of Dissent,” in The Tanner Lectures On Human Values, vol. x, ed. Peterson, Grethe B.. Cambridge University Press. 73–129.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 1997. “De la conciencia al discurso: ¿un viaje de ida y vuelta?,” in La filosofía moral y política de Jürgen Habermas, ed. Gimbernat, J. A.. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. 63–110.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 2004a. “Del yo (¿trascendental?) al nosotros (¿intrascendente?). La lectura de Kant en el neokantismo contemporáneo,” Daimon 33: 135–55.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 2004b. Ethics and Perplexity. Toward a Critique of Dialogical Reason. Leiden: Brill [partial translation of Muguerza 1990].Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2002. “Rawls in Germany,” European Journal of Political Theory 1, no. 2: 163–79.Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner 2007. Müller, Jan-Werner. Constitutional Patriotism. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2005a. Adorno: A Biography, trans. Rodney Livingstone. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan 2005b. “Theodor W. Adorno and Jürgen Habermas: Two Ways of Being a Public Intellectual: Sociological Observations Concerning the Transformation of a Social Figure of Modernity,” European Journal of Social Theory 8, no. 3: 269–80.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan 2008. Jürgen Habermas. Leben Werk Wirkung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan 2016a. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan 2016b. “Sprache in der Theorie von Jürgen Habermas. Eine Diskussionsvorlage,” in Sprache und Kritische Theorie, ed. Hogh, Philip and Deines, Stefan. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. 241–52.Google Scholar
Nanz, Patrizia. 2006. Europolis: Constitutional Patriotism Beyond the Nation State. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Nascimento, Amos. 2013a. Building Cosmopolitan Communities: A Critical and Multidimensional Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nascimento, Amos 2013b. “Phenomenology and Hermeneutics of Communication in Karl-Otto Apel’s Philosophy,” in Philosophy, Method, and Cultural Criticism, ed. Charlton, McIlwain. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle,” Political Studies 59: 116–34.Google Scholar
Neck, Reinhard. 2008. Was bleibt vom Positivismusstreit? Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Negri, Antonio. 1999. The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza’s Metaphysics and Politics, trans. Michael Hardt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Negt, Oskar and Kluge, Alexander. 1993. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, trans. Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel, and Assenka Oksillof. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Neves, Raphael. Forthcoming. Healing the Past or Causing More Evil? Amnesty and Accountability during Transitions.Google Scholar
Neumann, Franz. 1944. Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Franz 1986 [1936]. The Rule of Law: Political Theory and the Legal System in Modern Society. Leamington Spa: Berg.Google Scholar
Nichols, Lawrence. 2001. “Parsons and Simmel at Harvard: Scientific Paradigms and Organizational Culture,” in Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology, ed. Javier, Treviño. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 1–28.Google Scholar
Nickel, Patricia Mooney. 2012. “North American Critical Theory after Postmodernism,” in North American Critical Theory after Postmodernism: Contemporary Dialogues, ed. Nickel, Patricia Mooney. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1–13.Google Scholar
Niemi, Jari I. 2005. “Habermas and Validity Claims,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13: 227–44.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1997. Untimely Meditations, ed. Breazeale, Daniel, trans. R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noerr, Gunzelin Schmid. 1998. “Horkheimer’s Habermas-Kritik von 1958,” in Frankfurter Schule und Studentenbewegung, von der Flaschenpost zum Molotowcocktail, 1946–1995, vol. iii, ed. Kraushaar, Wolfgang. Hamburg: Zweitausendeins.Google Scholar
Nolte, Ernst. 1986. “Die Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will” [The past that will not go away], Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 6.Google Scholar
Nour, Soraya and Fath, Thorsten. 2006. “Between Multitude and World-of-Life: The Criticism of Hardt and Negri on Habermas,” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 21, no. 62: 115–25.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Charles. 1998. “Habermas on Speech Acts: A Naturalistic Critique,” Philosophy Today 42, no. 2: 126–45.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1972. “Political Authority and Class Structures: An Analysis of Late Capitalist Societies,” International Journal of Sociology 2, no. 1: 73–108.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus 1974. “Structural Problems of the Capitalist State: Class Rule and the Political System. On the Selectiveness of Political Institutions,” in German Political Studies, vol. i, ed. Klaus, von Beyme. London: Sage. 31–54.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus 1987. “Toward a Theory of Late Capitalism,” in Modern German Sociology: An Anthology, ed. Meja, Volker, Misgeld, Dieter, and Stehr, Nico. New York: Columbia University Press. 324–39.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus 1992. “Bindings, Shackles, Brakes: On Self-Limitation Strategies,” in Cultural-Political Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, Axel et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 63–94.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus 2006. Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates. Aufsätze zur politischen Soziologie, rev. edn., ed. Borchert, Jens and Lessenich, Stephan. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Olafson, Frederick. 1977. “Heidegger’s Politics: An Interview with Herbert Marcuse,” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, New School for Social Research 6, no. 1: 28–40.Google Scholar
Olsen, N. 2014. History in the Plural: An Introduction to the Work of Reinhart Koselleck. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Olson, Kevin. 2003. “Do Rights Have a Formal Basis? Habermas’ Legal Theory and the Normative Foundations of the Law,” Journal of Political Philosophy 11, no. 3: 273–94.Google Scholar
Olson, Kevin 2007. “Paradoxes of Constitutional Democracy,” American Journal of Political Science 51, no. 2: 330–43.Google Scholar
Olson, Kevin 2009. “Reflexive Democracy as Popular Sovereignty,” in New Waves in Political Philosophy, ed. de Bruin, B. and Zurn, C.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 125–42.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, Patrick. 2010. “Habermas and Communicative Power,” Journal of Power 3, no. 1: 53–73.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Shane. 1997. Impartiality in Context: Grounding Justice in a Pluralist World. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ormiston, Gayle and Schrift, Alan, eds. 1990. The Hermeneutic Tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ott, Konrad, 1997. Ipso Facto: Zur ethischen Begründung normativer Implikate wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Outhwaite, William 2009: Habermas: A Critical Introduction, 2nd edn. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Overend, Tronn. 1979. “Interests, Objectivity and the Positivist Dispute,” Social Praxis 6: 69–91.Google Scholar
Owen, David. 2002. Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Owen, David 2012. “Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem,” Ethics and Global Politics 5, no. 3: 129–52.Google Scholar
Papastephanou, Marianna. 1997. “Communicative Action and Philosophical Foundations: Comments on the Apel–Habermas Debate,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 23, no. 4: 41–69.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stephen D. 1992. “Explaining Technology and Society: The Problem of Nature in Habermas,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22, no. 2: 218–30.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott and Smelser, Neil J. 1957. Economy and Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 14–19.Google Scholar
Passerin d’Entrèves, Mauricio. 1994. The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Passerin d’Entrèves, Maurizio and Benhabib, Seyla, eds. 1997. Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Jørgen. 2012. “Justification and Application: The Revival of the Rawls–Habermas Debate,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42, no. 3: 399–432.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 1995. “Universalism and the Situated Critic,” in The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen K.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max 1999. “Jürgen Habermas and the Antinomies of the Intellectual,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max 2001. Melancholy Dialectics: Walter Benjamin and the Play of Mourning. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max 2008. The Ends of Solidarity: Discourse Theory in Ethics and Politics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max 2013. “Solidarity with the Past and the Work of Translation,” in Religion and European Philosophy: Key Thinkers from Kant to Žižek, ed. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and Jonathan, VanAntwerpen. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pereda, Carlos. 2000. “Assertions, Truth, and Argumentation,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, L. E.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Peruzzotti, Enrique and Plot, Martín. 2012. Critical Theory and Democracy: Civil Society, Dictatorship, and Constitutionalism in Andrew Arato’s Democratic Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peters, Bernhard. 1994. “On Reconstructive Legal and Political Theory,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 20, no. 4: 101–34.Google Scholar
Peters, Michael. 1994. “Habermas, Post-Structuralism and the Question of Postmodernity,” Social Analysis 36: 3–20.Google Scholar
Petherbridge, Danielle. 2016. “What’s Critical About Vulnerability? Rethinking Interdependence, Recognition, and Power,” Hypatia 31, no. 3: 589–604.Google Scholar
Peukert, Helmut. 1986. Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology: Toward a Theology of Communicative Action, trans. J. Bohman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1972. The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, trans. Wolfe Mays. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 1995. “On the Notion of Technology as Ideology,” in Technology and the Politics of Knowledge, ed. Feenberg, Andrew and Hannay, Alastair. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 1997. “Hegel, Modernity, and Habermas,” in Idealism as Modernism: Hegelian Variations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert 2008. Hegel’s Practical Philosophy: Rational Agency as Ethical Life. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert, Feenberg, Andrew, and Webel, Charles, eds. 1988. Marcuse: Critical Theory and the Promise of Utopia. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Plant, Raymond. 1982. “Jürgen Habermas and the Idea of Legitimation Crisis,” European Journal of Political Research 10: 341–52.Google Scholar
Plas, Guillaume. 2013. “Die Schüler Erich Rothackers. Ableger historistischen Denkens in der deutschen Philosophie der Nachkriegszeit,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 54: 195–222.Google Scholar
Plessner, H. 1965a [1941]. Laughing and Crying: A Study of the Limits of Human Behavior, trans. M. Grene and J. Churchill. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Plessner, H. 1965b [1928]. Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch: Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plessner, H. 1999 [1924]. The Limits of Community: A Critique of Social Radicalism. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Polan, Dana. 1990. “The Public’s Fear, or Media as Monster in Habermas, Negt, and Kluge,” Social Text 25–26: 260–66.Google Scholar
Pollock, Friedrich. 1941. “State Capitalism: Its Possibilities and Limitations,” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 9, no. 2: 200–25.Google Scholar
Pollock, Friedrich 1942. “Is National Socialism a New Order?,” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 9, no. 3: 440–55.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl 1968 [1934/1959]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poster, Mark. 1992. “Postmodernity and the Politics of Multiculturalism: The Lyotard–Habermas Debate Over Social Theory,” Modern Fiction Studies 38, no. 3: 567–80.Google Scholar
Postone, Moishe. 1993. Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Postone, Moishe 2003. “Lukács and the Dialectical Critique of Capitalism,” in New Dialectics and Political Economy, ed. Albritton, Robert and Simoulidis, John. New York: Palgrave. 78–100.Google Scholar
Preuss, Ulrich. 1996. “Communicative Power and the Concept of Law,” in Habermas on Law and Democracy, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert. 1991. Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 2002a. “Antwort auf Jürgen Habermas,” in Hilary Putnam und die Tradition des Pragmatismus, ed. Raters, M.-L. and Willaschek, M.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 2002b. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 2004. Ethics without Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 2015. “Reply to Marcin Kilanowski,” in The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam, ed. Auxier, Randall et al. Chicago: Open Court. 851–62.Google Scholar
Quijano, Anibal. 2008. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Social Classification,” in Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate, ed. Moraña, Mabel, Dussel, Enrique, and Jáuregui, Carlos A.. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 181–224.Google Scholar
Raffel, Stanley. 1997. Habermas, Lyotard and the Concept of Justice. Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rapic, Samil, ed. 2015. Habermas und der Historische Materialismus, 2nd edn. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Rasch, W. 1991. “Theories of Complexity, Complexities of Theory: Habermas, Luhmann, and the Study of Social Systems,” German Studies Review 14, no. 1: 65–83.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David 1996. “How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Faktizität und Geltung,” in Habermas, Modernity and Law, ed. Deflem, Mathieu. London: Sage. 21–44.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David 1998. Liberalism Reconsidered: A Review of J. Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 82 (April): 52–55.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David 2014. “Legitimacy, Sovereignty, Solidarity, and Cosmopolitanism: On the Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40, no. 1: 13–18.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David and Swindal, James, eds. 2009. Habermas I & II, 8 volumes. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 1999a. The Law of Peoples; with, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 1999b [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Kelly, Erin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 2007. Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, ed. Freeman, Samuel. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rehberg, Karl-Siegber. 1990. “Zurück zur Kultur? Arnold Gehlens anthropologische Grundlegung der Kulturwissenschaften,” in Kultur. Bestimmungen im 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Brackert, Helmut and Wefelmeyer, Fritz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 276–316.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1991. “Discourse and the Moral Point of View: Deriving a Dialogical Principle of Universalization,” Inquiry 34: 27–48.Google Scholar
Rehg, William 1994. Insight and Solidarity: A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William 2011. “Discourse Ethics,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, B.. Durham: Acumen. 115–39.Google Scholar
Rehg, William and Bohman, James, eds. 2001. Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory. Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rensmann, Lars and Gandesha, Samir, eds. 2012. Understanding Political Modernity: Comparative Perspectives on Adorno and Arendt. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, P. and Boyd, R. 2006. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. Thompson, John B.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ringer, Fritz. 1990. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. 1995. Reconstructing Theory: Gadamer, Habermas, Luhmann. Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Rockmore, Tom. 1989. Habermas on Historical Materialism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1980a. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1980b. “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, no. 6: 717–38.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1991b. Philosophical Papers, vol. i, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1991c. Philosophical Papers, vol. ii, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1998a. “Habermas, Derrida, and the Functions of Philosophy,” in Philosophical Papers, vol. iii, Truth and Progress. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1998b. Philosophical Papers, vol. iii, Truth and Progress. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 2000. “Universality and Truth,” in Rorty and His Critics, ed. Brandom, Robert B.. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 2003. “Some American Uses of Hegel,” in Das Interesse des Denkens: Hegel aus heutiger Sicht, ed. Welsch, Wolfgang and Vieweg, Klaus. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. 33–46.Google Scholar
Rosa, Hartmut. 1995. “Goods and Life-Forms: Relativism in Charles Taylor’s Political Philosophy,” Radical Philosophy 71: 20–26.Google Scholar
Rosa, Hartmut 1996. “Cultural Relativism and Social Criticism from a Taylorian Perspective,” Constellations 3: 39–60.Google Scholar
Rosati, Massimo. 2009. Ritual and the Sacred: A Neo-Durkheimian Analysis of Politics, Religion and the Self. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Rosati, Massimo 2014.“The Archaic and Us: Ritual, Myth, the Sacred and Modernity,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40: 363–68.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel and Arato, Andrew, eds. 1998. Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rothacker, Erich 1942 [1948]. Probleme der Kulturanthropologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Russell, Matheson. 2011. “On Habermas’s Critique of Husserl,” Husserl Studies 27: 41–62.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. 1990. Women in Public. Between Banners and Ballots, 1825–1880. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Saar, Martin. 2007. Genealogie als Kritik: Geschichte und Theorie des Subjekts nach Nietzsche und Foucault. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Schecter, Darrow. 2010. The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Scheler, Max. 2009. The Human Place in the Cosmos, trans. Manfred Frings. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, F. W. J. 1946. Die Weltalter. Fragmente, ed. Manfred, Schröter. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Schelling, F. W. J. 1977. Philosophie der Offenbarung 1841/42, ed. Frank, Manfred. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schelling, F. W. J. 2000. The Ages of the World, trans. Jason M. Wirth. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William. 1994. Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, Williamed. 1996. The Rule of Law under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William 1999a. “Between Radicalism and Resignation: Democratic Theory in Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Oxford: Blackwell. 153–78.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William 1999b. Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William 2012a. “Goodbye to Radical Reform?,” Political Theory 40, no. 6: 830–38.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William 2012b. “Special Section: Fiftieth Anniversary of Habermas’ Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,” Political Theory 40, no. 6: 767–838.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William 2013. “Capitalism, Law, and Social Criticism,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 571–86.Google Scholar
Schloßberger, M. 2014. “Habermas’ New Turn Towards Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology,” in Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology, ed. Jos, de Mul. Amsterdam University Press. 301–13.Google Scholar
Schluchter, Woflgang. 1981. The Rise of Western Rationalism: Max Weber’s Developmental History, trans. Roth, Guenther. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Michael. 1982. “Habermas’ Theory of Social Evolution,” in Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, John B. and Held, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 162–80.Google Scholar
Schmidt, James, ed. 1996. What is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers to Twentieth-Century Questions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1968. Gesetz und Urteil. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Rechtspraxis. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl 2012 [1938]. Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre der Thomas Hobbes. Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Schnädelbach, Herbert. 1991. “The Transformation of Critical Theory,” in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 7–22.Google Scholar
Schnädelbach, Herbert 1992. Zur Rehabilitierung des animal rationale. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1971. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays in Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1973. Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, trans. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1981. Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship, trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Jewish Publication Society of America.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1989. “Ten Ahistorical Theses on the Kabbalah,” in Od Davar. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.Google Scholar
Schrag, Calvin O. 1989. Communicative Praxis and the Space of Subjectivity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John 1986. “Meaning, Communication, and Representation,” in Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends, ed. Grandy, Richard E. and Warner, Richard. Oxford University Press. 209–26.Google Scholar
Searle, John 2007. “Neuroscience, Intentionality and Free Will: Reply to Habermas,” Philosophical Explorations 10, no. 1: 69–76.Google Scholar
Seel, M. 1994. “On Rightness and Truth: Reflections on the Concept of World Disclosure,” Thesis Eleven 37: 64–81.Google Scholar
Shabani, Omid and Payrow, A. 2003. Democracy, Power and Legitimacy. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Shearmur, Jeremy and Stokes, Geoffrey, eds. 2016. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Popper. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shelby, Tommie. 2003. “Ideology, Racism and Critical Social Theory,” Philosophical Forum 34, no. 2: 153–88.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kirstin. 2002. Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sica, Alan. 1991. “The Power of Talk,” American Journal of Sociology 97, no. 2 (September): 524–33.Google Scholar
Sica, Alan 2004. Max Weber: A Comprehensive Bibliography. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 1986. “On Habermas and Particularity: Is There Room for Race and Gender on the Glassy Plains of Ideal Discourse?,” Praxis International 6: 328–40.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 1987. “Values, Respect and Recognition: On Race and Culture in the Neoconservative Debate,” Praxis International 7: 164–73.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 2000. “On Habermas and Difference: Critical Theory and the ‘Politics of Recognition,’” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis Edwin. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 2001. The Unfinished Project: Toward a Postmetaphysical Humanism. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simpson, Lorenzo C. 2017. “Epistemic and Political Agency,” in The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, ed. Pohlhaus, Gaile, Kidd, Ian, and Medina, Jose. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 1987. Critique of Cynical Reason, trans. M. Eldred. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 2009a. “Die Revolution der Gebenden Hand,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 13.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 2009b. “Rules for the Human Zoo: A Response to the Letter on Humanism,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 12–28.Google Scholar
Skjei, Erling. 1985. “A Comment on Performative, Subject, and Proposition in Habermas’s Theory of Communication,” Inquiry 28: 87–105.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Gary, ed. 1991. On Walter Benjamin: Critical Essays and Recollections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicolas. 2015. “Hermeneutics and Critical Theory,” in The Routledge Companion to Hermeneutics, ed. Malpas, J. and Gander, H.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sommer, Marc Nicolas. 2016. Das Konzept einer negativen Dialektik. Adorno und Hegel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Spivak, G. 1985. “Feminism and Critical Theory,” in The Spivak Reader, ed. Landry, Donna and Maclean, Gerald. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew G. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Martin E. 1970. “Weber on Legitimate Norms and Authority,” British Journal of Sociology 21: 123–34.Google Scholar
Stahl, Titus. 2013a. “Habermas and the Project of Immanent Critique,” Constellations 20, no. 4: 533–52.Google Scholar
Stahl, Titus 2013b. Immanente Kritik. Elemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Stöwer, Ralph. 2012. Erich Rothacker. Sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Straehle, Christine, ed. 2016. Vulnerability, Autonomy, and Applied Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1974 [2008]. Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strecker, David. 2009. “Warum deliberative Demokratie?,” in Das Staatsverständnis von Jürgen Habermas, ed. Schaal, Gary S.. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 59–80.Google Scholar
Strecker, David 2017. “The Theory of Society: The Theory of Communicative Action (1981) – A Classic of Social Theory,” in Habermas Handbook, ed. Brunkhorst, Hauke, Kreide, Regina, and Lafont, Cristina. New York: Columbia University Press. 360–82.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang 2016. How Will Capitalism End?: Essays on a Failing System. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Strum, Arthur. 1994. “A Bibliography of the Concept Öffenlichkeit,” New German Critique 61 (Winter): 161–202.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet. 1987. “Collective Learning: Habermas’s Concessions and Their Theoretical Implications,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 13: 265–81.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet 1992. “The Ontogenetic Fallacy: The Immanent Critique of Habermas’s Developmental Logic Theory of Evolution,” Theory, Culture & Society 9: 65–93.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet 2011. Contemporary Critical Theory and Methododology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swindal, James. 1999. Reflection Revisited: On Habermas’s Discursive Theory of Truth. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Szacki, Jerzi. 1981. “‘Schule’ in der Soziologie,” in Geschichte der Soziologie, vol. ii, ed. Lepenies, Wolf. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 16–30.Google Scholar
Szelenyi, Iván. 2016. “Weber’s Theory of Domination and Post-Communist Capitalisms,” Theory and Society 45: 1–24.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1985a. Philosophical Papers, vol. i, Human Agency and Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1985b. Philosophical Papers, vol. ii, Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1986. “Die Motive einer Verfahrensethik,” in Moralität und Sittlichkeit. Das Problem Hegels und die Diskursethik, ed. Kuhlmann, Wolfgang. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 101–35.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1989. Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1991. “Language and Society,” in Communicative Action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, ed. Honneth, Axel and Joas, Hans, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 23–35.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1992a. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1992b. “Modernity and the Rise of the Public Sphere,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 14: 203–60.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1993. “The Motivation Behind a Procedural Ethics,” in Kant and Political Philosophy: The Contemporary Legacy, ed. Beiner, R. and Booth, W. J.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 337–60.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1995. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2004. Multiculturalism: Examining The Politics of Recognition. An Essay by Charles Taylor with Commentary by Anthony Kwame Appiah, Jürgen Habermas, Stephen C. Rockefeller, Michael Walzer, Susan Wolf and Amy Gutman, ed. Gutman, Amy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2014. “How to Define Secularism,” in Boundaries of Toleration, ed. Stepan, A. and Taylor, C.. New York: Columbia University Press. 59–78.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2016. The Language Animal: The Full Shape of the Human Linguistic Capacity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther, ed. 1987. Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust and Social Welfare Law. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Terezakis, Katie 2014. “Telling the Truth: History and Personality in the Philosophy of Agnes Heller,” Thesis Eleven 125, no. 1: 16–31.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael. 1970. Hegels Lehre vom absoluten Geist als theologisch-politischer Traktat. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 1978. Sein und Schein. Zur kritischen Funktion der Hegelschen Logik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 1980. “Zwangszusammenhang und Kommunikation. Laudatio für Jürgen Habermas,” in Kritische Theorie der Gesellschaft. Berlin: De Gruyter. 41–57.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 1984. The Other: Studies in the Social Ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Buber, trans. C. McCann. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 2005. Kierkegaard’s Concept of Despair. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1984. Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. and Held, David, eds. 1982. Habermas: Critical Debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Peter and Žižek, Slavoj, eds. 2013. The Privatization of Hope: Ernst Bloch and the Future of Utopia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, Chris, et al. 2014. “Special Issue: Hauke Brunkhorst and the Sociology of Law,” Social & Legal Studies 23, no. 4: 487–605.Google Scholar
Thyen, Anke. 1989. Negative Dialektik und Erfahrung. Zur Rationalität des Nichtidentischen bei Adorno. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael 2014. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Troeltsch, E. 1922. Der Historismus und seine Probleme. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. iii. Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, Ernst. 1966. Der Wahrheitsbegriff bei Husserl und Heidegger. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, Ernst 1982. Traditional and Analytical Philosophy: Lectures on the Philosophy of Language, trans. P. A. Gorner. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, Ernst 1985. “Habermas’ Concept of Communicative Action,” in Social Action, ed. Seebass, G. and Tuomela, R.. Dordrecht: Reidel. 179–86.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, Ernst 1989. Self-Consciousness and Self-Determination, trans. Paul Stern. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, Ernst 1992. Ethik und Politik: Vorträge und Stellungnahmen aus den Jahren 1978–1991. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, Ernst 2002. “Habermas on Communicative Action,” in Jürgen Habermas, ed. Rasmussen, David and Swindal, James. London: Sage. 216–22.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1999. “To Think and Act Differently: Foucault’s Four Reciprocal Objections to Habermas’ Theory,” in Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory, ed. Ashenden, Samantha and Owen, David. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Tully, James 2003. “Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy,” in The Grammar of Politics: Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy, ed. Heyes, Cressida. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 17–42.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2007. The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ungureanu, Camil and Monti, Paolo. 2017. Contemporary Political Philosophy and Religion: Between Public Reason and Pluralism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni. 1988. The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Postmodern Culture, trans. J. R. Snyder. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni 1992. The Transparent Society, trans. David Webb. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni 2004. Nihilism and Emancipation: Ethics, Politics, and Law, ed. Zabala, Santiago, trans. William McCuaig. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni 2014. A Farewell to Truth, trans. R. Valgenti. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Verovšek, Peter J. 2012. “Meeting Principles and Lifeworlds Halfway: Jürgen Habermas on the Future of Europe,” Political Studies 60, no. 2: 363–80.Google Scholar
Verovšek, Peter J. 2014. “Unexpected Support for European Integration: Memory, Totalitarianism and Rupture in Hannah Arendt’s Political Theory,” Review of Politics 76, no. 3: 389–413.Google Scholar
Villa, Dana Richard. 1996. Arendt and Heidegger: The Fate of the Political. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Steven. 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Von Schomberg, René and Baynes, Kenneth, eds. 2002. Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Between Facts and Norms. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Waller, Stefan. 2015. Leben in Entlastung. Mensch und Naturzweck bei Arnold Gehlen. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Wallulis, Jerald. 1990. The Hermeneutics of Life History: Personal Achievement and History in Gadamer, Habermas, and Erikson. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Lucy Jane. 2016. Freedom and Dissatisfaction in the Works of Agnes Heller: With and Against Marx. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Warner, Michael, VanAntwerpen, Jonathan, and Calhoun, Craig. 2010. Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warnke, G. 1987. Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition, and Reason. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Warnke, G. 1999. Legitimate Differences: Interpretation in the Abortion Controversy and Other Public Debates. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Warnke, Georgia, et al. 1996. “Book Symposium on Thomas McCarthy, Ideals and Illusions,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 22, no. 2: 67–108.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 1995. “The self in discursive democracy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen K.. Cambridge University Press. 167–200.Google Scholar
Weber, Max 2009. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, with Other Writings on the Rise of the West, trans. S. Kalberg. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Samuel. 1976. “Aesthetic Experience and Self-Reflection as Emancipatory Processes,” in On Critical Theory, ed. Neil, J. O’. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Weir, Allison. 1995. “Toward a Model of Self-Identity: Habermas and Kristeva,” in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Meehan, Johanna. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 1991. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans. D. Midgley. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 1992. “What is a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning?,” in Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, Axel et al., trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 171–219.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 1993. “Truth, Contingency, and Modernity,” Modern Philology 90 (May): 109–24.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 1998. Endgames: Essays and Lectures on the Irreconcilable Nature of Modernity, trans. D. Midgley. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 2000. “Der Streit um Wahrheit. Pragmatismus ohne regulative Ideen,” in Die Renaissance des Pragmatismus. Aktuelle Verflechtungen zwischen analytischer und kontinentaler Philosophie, ed. Sandbothe, Mike. Weilerswist: Velbrueck. 253–70.Google Scholar
Wellmer, A. 2004. “The Debate About Truth: Pragmatism without Regulative Ideas,” in Critical Theory After Habermas, ed. Freundlieb, Dieter, Hudson, Wayne, and Rundell, John. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wenar, Leif. 2015. “Rights,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#2.1 [accessed 05.02.2017].Google Scholar
White, Stephen. 1988. The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Stephen K. and Farr, Evan Robert. 2012. “No-Saying in Habermas,” Political Theory 40, no. 1: 32–57.Google Scholar
Whitebook, J. 1985. “Reason and Happiness: Some Psychoanalytic Themes in Critical Theory,” in Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, R. J.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Whitebook, J. 1989. “Intersubjectivity and the Monadic Core of the Psyche: Habermas and Castoriadis on the Unconscious,” Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales 27, no. 86: 225–44.Google Scholar
Whitebook, J. 1993. “From Schoenberg to Odysseus: Aesthetic, Psychic, and Social Synthesis in Adorno and Wellmer,” New German Critique 58: 45–64.Google Scholar
Whitebook, J. 1995. Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitebook, J. 1999. “Fantasy and Critique: Some Thoughts on Freud and the Frankfurt School,” in Handbook of Critical Theory, ed. Rasmussen, David. London: Blackwell. 287–304.Google Scholar
Whitton, Brian J. 1992. “Universal Pragmatics and the Formation of Western Civilization: A Critique of Habermas’s Theory of Moral Evolution,” History and Theory 31: 299–313.Google Scholar
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2002. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael. 2002. “On Some Critics of Deflationism,” in What Is Truth?, ed. Schantz, Richard. New York: De Gruyter. 146–58.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1958. Culture and Society. London: Chatto & Windus [new edn. with a new introduction, New York: Columbia University Press, 1963].Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond 1977. Marxism and Literature. Marxist Introductions series. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond 1989. “The Idea of a Common Culture,” in Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, and Socialism, ed. Gable, R.. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Wingert, Lutz. 2006. “Grenzen der naturalistischen Selbstobjektivierung,” in Philosophie und Neurowissenschaften, ed. Sturma, D.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Wingert, Lutz and Günther, Klaus. 2001. Die Öffenlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffenlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Winter, Rainer. 2010. “The Perspectives of Radical Democracy: Raymond Williams’ Work and Its Significance for a Critical Social Theory,” in About Raymond Williams, ed. Seidl, M, Horak, R., and Grossberg, L.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1972. On Certainty, ed. Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H., trans. Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 2009. Philosophical Investigations, 4th edn, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, and Joachim Schulte. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolin, Richard. 2001. Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wolters, Gereon. 2004. Vertuschung, Anklage, Rechtfertigung. Impromptus zum Rückblick der deutschen Philosophie auf das‚ Dritte Reich. Bonn University Press.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2013. “An Engagement with Jürgen Habermas on Postmetaphysical Philosophy, Religion, and Political Dialogue,” in Habermas and Religion, ed. Calhoun, Craig, VanAntwerpen, Jonathan, and Mendieta, Eduardo. Cambridge: Polity Press. 92–113.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen. 2003. “Kant and the Problem of Human Nature,” in Essays on Kant’s Anthropology, ed. Jacobs, Brian and Kain, Patrick. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wörhle, Patrick. 2010. Metamorphosen des Mängelwesens. Zu Werk und Wirkung Arnold Gehlens. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Yates, Melissa. 2007. “Rawls and Habermas On Religion in the Public Sphere,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 33, no. 7: 880–89.Google Scholar
Yos, Roman. 2016. “Der junge Habermas. Eine ideengeschichtliche Untersuchung seines frühen Denkens (1952–1962).” Doctoral thesis, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Young, Iris-Marion. 1987. “Impartiality and the Civic Public,” in Feminism as Critique, ed. Seyla, Benhabib and Cornell, Drucilla. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris-Marion 1990a. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris-Marion 1990b. Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris-Marion 1997. Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris-Marion 2007. Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. 1982. Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth 2006. Why Arendt Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zabala, S., ed. 2007. Weakening Philosophy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Zabala, S. 2008. The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy. A Study of Ernst Tugendhat, trans. M. Haskell and S. Zabala. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, P. and Shook, J., eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Secularism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zuidervaart, Lambert. 2017. Truth in Husserl, Heidegger, and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher. 2007. Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher 2010a. “Jürgen Habermas,” in The History of Continental Philosophy, vol. vi, Poststructuralism and Critical Theory’s Second Generation, ed. Schrift, Alan. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher 2010b. “The Logic of Legitimacy: Bootstrapping Paradoxes of Constitutional Democracy,” Legal Theory 16, no. 3: 191–227.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher 2011. “Discourse Theory of Law,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher 2014. Axel Honneth: A Critical Theory of the Social. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar