• The Korean Publising Journal, Monthly
• /
• s.205
• /
• pp.20-21
• /
• 1997

새로운 세기를 앞둔 우리 시대에 어둠을 밝혀줄 이정표는 무엇일까. 하버마스는 이 책에서 의사소통의 자유가 법적으로 제도화된 민주적 사회복지국가의 원리를 제시하고자 한다. 새로운 사회운동의 잠재력을 믿는 이들에게 이 책은 매력적인 전망을 제시한다.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.89-119
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this essay is to converge the theory of communicative action Into the new paradigm of 'public relations democracy.' The notions of communicative action rationality, the public sphere, and deliberative democracy led new public relations paradigm approaches including meaning sharing, media access enlargement, and theoretical ramifications for the powerless. As Habermas prospected the power of comprehensive rationality to solve post-capitalist problems, the paradigm of public relations democracy visions the new era of public relations equipped with rhetorical and critical approaches. The new paradigm tries to overcome functional fallacy and embraces the concept of public interest. The paradigm of public relations democracy aims at integrating all three levels of public relations activities such as individual, organizational, and social levels, and pursues to enlarge the public sphere through increasing communicative actions and resolving social conflicts. Habermas's critical theory exhibits an opportunity for public relations theory building.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2006

The main purpose of this study is to examine the implications of Habermas's Critical Theory, which has been considered as modern descendant of enlightenment thought, on the social work profession. The focus of this paper is a critical examination on expected perceptual and practical gain provided by communicative theory for the professional relations between social workers and clients. This paper proves that Habermas's theory has failed to sufficiently grasp the scope and functions of social work practice. First, in regard to perceptual gains, Habermas's theory commits some kind of reductionism which considers communicative behaviors as only and original one. It is likely to limit the scope and extent of the function and mission of social work into a kind of communication performed by humans with communicative ability. Second, in regard of practical gains, Habermas's theory does not provide detail procedure of power-free communication nor critical criteria to evaluate the degree of ideal speech situation. Without these ones, Habermas's critical theory might play a role of liberal conservatism, which is trying to replace the substantial contents with procedural formality. In sum, to be a adequate theoretical and practical framework for social work, Habermas's theory needs to combine additional humanitarian considerations into communicative paradigm with more detail requirements and preconditions for ideal speech situations between professional and clients.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.117
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2011

This article aims to elucidate the meaning of Conservativeness and Progress through the hermeneutical discussion about Tradition and Ideology. This study is concerned with Contemporary Hermeneutics, especially H.G. Gadamer, J. Habermas, and P. Ricoeur's Hermeneutics. We will find conservative aspects of Gadamer's Hermeneutics and progressive aspects of Habermas's Hermeneutics through debate on Hermeneutics between Gadamer and Habermas. And we will deal with the meaning of the concept of Conservativeness and Progress in context of Hermeneutics. Then, we will find the difference and common feature, the uppermost limits between Gadamer and Habermas's Hermeneutics in terms of Ricoeur's view. In this context, we will lastly pursue a way of solution about problem of Idea, that is Conservativeness vs Progress through hermeneutical Synthesis.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.295-327
• /
• 2002

Deliberative democracy places its great importance on the theory that the citizens should fill the role of conducting the principles of democratic society. This is divided into two main theoretical trends in modern political theories, a liberal theory advocated by J. Rawls and a critical one emphasized by J. Habermas. Mutual understanding between two scholars focuses on the responsibility of citizens; citizens should be the reflective persons who can accept the terms of just communication going beyond the preference of individual belief. It is not denied that the discussions of deliberative democracy guided by both Rawls and Habermas do not place emphasis upon mass media. Even though they seldom regard the argument how the current media can be a essential factor in encouraging deliberative democracy, they never close the eyes to the significance of communication. Rawls stresses the political freedom of speech as the very condition which leads to the citizens' autonomous participation in politics, while Habermas places his hope on the role of mass media that would amplify the citizens' will gushed out in public sphere.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.119
• /
• pp.323-345
• /
• 2011

Die Arbeit zielt darauf, die Positionen von Hegel und Habermas hinsichtlich der Religion ans Licht zu bringen. Hegels Denken richtet auf die Säkularisierung in dem Sinne, dass er die Religion als eine kulturelle Erscheinung und Gott als einen Gegenstand der Erkenntnis (nicht des Glaubens) ansieht. Im Gegensatz dazu laesst sich Habermas' Philosophie in der Hinsicht der Post-Säkularisierung lesen in dem Sinne, dass er der in dem Vorgang der Säkularisierung unterdrückten Religion eine bestimmte Rolle gibt, um z. B. das Problem des Sinnverlusts zu vermeiden, das mit der Säkularisierung hervorgerufen worden ist.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.20 no.5
• /
• pp.243-250
• /
• 2020

In the movie <12 Angry Men>, the prejudiced gaze of each jury with the title of "reasonable discussion" or "positive critical rationality" based on the theory of public opinion of Habermas constantly appears. Prejudice is a concept that cannot be judged right or wrong in itself, but as a current social and historical atmosphere, it is judged to be a hindrance to communication in the process of communication and public opinion and often causes social problems. Therefore, in this paper, the concept of prejudice is ultimately investigated by projecting Habermas' theory of public sphere in the movie, looking into the prejudices, and examining the prejudice through the discussion of the jury, that is, the process of resolving the conflict. We are going to draw realistic implications through the mediator of film about how to solve problem of 'prejudice' in the real world. As a result of the study, Habermas' ideal public opinion on the 'consensus for the community' and 'universal rationality' according to the theory of public sphere in Habermas appeared in the film, but partially from the complete prejudice by the 'wall of reality' in the film. It has been found that freedom from prejudice is difficult and that prejudice is a necessary evil in terms of mutual understanding and publicity.

• The Science & Technology
• /
• s.501
• /
• pp.78-79
• /
• 2011

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.120
• /
• pp.89-119
• /
• 2018

Among the controversial issues of Habermas/Luhmann-debate, the more important issue today is the achievement of the two scholars after the debate rather than confirming the old antagonistic framework of critical theory versus systems theory. 'Communicative action' and 'discourse' are such issues. Starting from these issues, Habermas established a theory of communicative action, and Luhmann regarded elements of social systems as communications and considered actions as elements of system's self-observation. In particular, Luhmann's work, which regards communication as a primary concept and action as a result of attribution to the actor, was a very productive conversion of sociological tradition. Nevertheless, this conversion lacks a solution of intensified attribution conflicts. I think it is necessary to pay attention to the '$Verst{\ddot{a}}ndigung$' in Habermas' concept of communicative action in order to solve the problem of infinitely repeated attribution conflicts.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.119-151
• /
• 2014

The absence of the commensurable general mass media system theory has been problematic in empirical communication studies. This study first suggests the static mass media system theory based on modified Habermas's two level society, and then develops the dynamic mass media system theory based on the boundary-agencement theory that synthesizes Luhmann's boundary theory and Delueze & Guattari's agencement theory. In the static mass media system theory, the mass media system interpenetrates other social subsystems and the life world as a part of the cultural system coordinated by generalized language media. In the dynamic mass media system theory, the mass media system is a boundary of all social subsystems. The mass media system also articulates its self-referential observations to other-referential observations from other subsystems, mediated interpenetrations between the social subsystems and the life world. Especially, performances in the mass media system deterritorizes social systems to the life world, and reterritorizes the life world to social systems. The general mass media system theory can provide commensurability for various empirical mass media system studies, and prevent biases when researchers choose research topics.