From a decolonial perspective, Habermas’ theory is seen by many as Eurocentric and in philosophical alliance with colonial rule. In particular, his theory of progress is seen as offensive because it devalues non-Western ways of understanding in comparison to their modern Western counterparts. On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, Habermas’ actual concept of progress can also be used to formulate a critique of colonialist development imperatives. Moreover, his concept of “systematically distorted communication” can make an (...) interesting contribution to understanding colonial rule: even colonial rule is communicatively mediated, with the constant risk of dissent precariously held in check by racist discourse barriers. Fanon already provides strong starting points for this communication-theoretical view of colonial rule. With him, the decolonial struggles against racist discourse barriers also come into view. (shrink)

The contemporary proliferation of “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” seems to render obsolete the notion of a public sphere in the singular. In my article, I would like to argue against this view: Following Jürgen Habermas, “the public sphere” can be understood as the concomitant horizon of communicative action, while the latter permeates society as a whole. On the basis of this socio-philosophical approach, the omnipresent tendencies toward fragmentation appear as reactive attempts to ward off this socially established and context-transcending (...) context of discussion. Habermas himself, however, has never adopted this perspective. Instead, he interprets the various symptoms of the decline of the public sphere—including its fragmentation—as the result of a “colonization of the lifeworld” by economic, bureaucratic, and technological system logics. However, on the basis of the concept of “systematically distorted communication,” which was still crucial for Habermas’s early work, it is possible to reconstruct how the lifeworld context of communicative action, out of which the public sphere emerges, is not only corroded and cut through from the outside by system logics but also exhibits its own dialectic of the refusal of discourse and the overcoming of this refusal. The fragmentation of the public sphere that we are confronted with today can be theoretically interpreted and politically addressed as a precarious standstill of this dialectic. (shrink)