Jürgen Habermas’s theories have received enormous attention in the public sphere as well as in political science. It is therefore surprising that his method, rational reconstruction, is not more debated. In political science the method is of particular interest because of its ambition to bridge the gap between empirical and normative approaches. In this article the author traces Habermas’s interest in rational reconstruction by going back to his writings on theory and practice and subsequently shows what the method’s main principles are. He then specifies how this methodological conception is used in Habermas’s political theory. Finally, the introduction of an empirical design allows the author to discuss one of the fundamental tensions in Habermas’s approach: the hypotheses arrived at through rational reconstruction are empirical hypotheses but cannot be tested by empirical means.
Aars, Jakob.2001. Resultater og erfaringer fra tre deliberative folkehøringer . In Deliberasjon og Demokrati, edited by Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Marit Irene Skivenes. LOS-senteret Rapport 0112.
2.
Apel, Karl Otto.2002. Regarding the relationship of morality, law and democracy. On Habermas’ philosophy of law from a transcendental-pragmatic point of view. In Habermas and pragmatism, edited by M. Aboulafia, M. Bookman , and C. Kemp, 17-30. London : Routledge.
3.
Baynes, Kenneth.1989. Rational reconstruction and social criticism: Habermas’s model of interpretive social science. The Philosophical Forum21 (1/2): 122-45.
Conover, P., and Searing, D.2005. Studying "everyday political talk" in the deliberative system. Acta Politica40 (3): 384-92.
6.
Dryzek, John S.1995. Critical theory as a research program. In The Cambridge companion to Habermas, edited by Stephen K. White.New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar.2003. Integration and the quest for consensus-on the micro foundation of supranationalism. In European governance, deliberation and the quest for democratization, edited by E. Eriksen, C. Joerges, and J. Neyer. Arena report 2, 2003.
8.
Eriksen, Erik Oddvar, and Skivenes, Marit.2001. Legitimeringsproblemer i barnevernet. In Eriksen (2001) Demokratiets sorte hull. Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag.
9.
Habermas, Jürgen.1973. A postscript to knowledge and human interests. Philosophy of the Social Sciences3 (2): 157-89.
10.
---. 1974. The classical doctrine of politics in relation to social philosophy. In Theory and practice. London : Heinemann.
11.
---. 1974. Natural law and revolution. In Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.
12.
---. 1976. Hannah Arendts Begriff der Macht. In Jürgen Habermas: Politik, Kunst, Religion. Stuttgart: Reclam.
13.
---. 1979. Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.
14.
---. 1982. A reply to my critics. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by David Held and John B. Thompson.London: Macmillan.
15.
---. 1983. Interpretive social science vs. hermeneuticism. In Social science as moral inquiry, edited by Norma Haan, Robert N. Bellah, P. Rabinow, and William M. Sullivan.New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
---. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1, Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
17.
---. 1987. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2, The critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
18.
--- . 1990. Moral conciousness and communicative action. Polity Press. Cambridge.
19.
---. 1994. Om den interne forbindelse mellom rettsstat og demokrati . In Den politiske orden, edited by Erik Oddvar Eriksen.Oslo: Tano.
20.
---. 1995. Tre normative demokratimodeller: Om begrepet deliberativ politikk. In Deliberativ politick, edited by Erik Oddvar Eriksen.Oslo: Tano.
21.
---. 1996. Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory on law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: SAGE Publications.
22.
---. 1999. Det sivile samfunn og rettsstaten. In Habermas, Jürgen: Kraften i de bedre argumenter. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
23.
---. 2003. Zur Architektonik der Diskursdifferenzierung. Kleine Replik auf eine grosse Auseinandersetzung. In Reflexion und Verantwortung. Ausseinanderzetzungen mit Karl Otto Apel, edited by D. Böhler, M. Kettner, and G. Skirbekk.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
24.
---. 2005. Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta Politica40 (3): 384-92.
25.
Honneth, Axel, and Stojano, Krassomir.2006. Die anerkennung ist ein Grundmechanismus sozialer Existenz. Interview von Krassmir Stojanov mit Axel Honneth. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-12-08-honneth-de.html . Also published in Critique and Humanism 22 (2006).
26.
Jensen, Tor yvind.2001. Deliberativt elektronisk demokrati. In Deliberasjon og Demokrati, edited by Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Marit Irene Skivenes. LOS-senteret Rapport 0112.
27.
Kelly, Terrence.2001. Sociological not political. Rawls and the reconstructive sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences31 (1): 3-19.
28.
Koller, Peter.2003. Praktische rationalität und empirisches wissen in der ethischpolitischen theoriebildung. In Modelle politischer philosophie, edited by Rolf Geige.Mentnis: Paderborn.
29.
Maus, Ingeborg.2002. Liberties and popular sovereignty. On Habermas’ reconstruction of the system of rights. In Discourse and democracy. Essays on Habermas’ Between Facts and Norms, edited by Rene Von Schomberg and Kenneth Baynes.Albany, NY: SUNY Press .
30.
McCarthy, Thomas.1978. The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
31.
---. 1982. Rationality and relativism: Habermas’ "overcoming" of hermeneutics. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by David Held and John B. Thompson.London: Macmillian .
Pedersen, Jørgen.2003. Demokrati, normativ teori og empiri. En undersøkelse av begrepet kommunikativ rasjonalitet. Hovedfagsoppgave Institutt for Sammenlignende Politikk. Universitetet i Bergen.
34.
---. 2006. Rasjonell rekonstruksjon som metodisk innstilling.En undersøkelse av Jürgen Habermas’ metode. Hovedfagsoppgave ved Filosofisk institutt, Universitetet i Bergen (2005). Publisert som SVT Arbeidsnotat nr12006.
35.
---. 2008. Habermas’ method: Rational reconstruction. Philosophy of the Social Sciences31 (4): 457-485.
36.
Peters, Bernhard.1994. On reconstructive legal and political theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism20 (4): 101-34.
37.
---. 2000. Normative Theorien und Soziale Empirie. In Das Interesse der Vernunft, edited by Stefan Müller-Doom.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
38.
Pålshaugen, yvind.1997. Kritikk av den ene fornuft. Adorno, Derrida og Wittgenstein contra Habermas. Oslo: Spartacus Forlag A/S.
39.
Skirbekk, Gunnar.1997. Overtale og overtyde. Greske poeng i norsk debatt. In Regime under kritikk. Hans Skjervheim i norsk filosofi, edited by Hermund Slaatelid.Aschehoug. Oslo.
40.
---. 2002. Rasjonalitet-universell og pluralistisk? In Undringa, edited by Gunnar Skirbekk.Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
41.
Turner, Bryan S.2004. Introduction. In The Blackwell companion to social theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
42.
Winsvold, Marte, and Myrvold, Trine.2005. Lokalavisene som offentlig rom. Befolkningen ytrer, politikerne lytter. In Lokalvalg og lokalt folkestyre, edited by Jo Sagli and Tor Bjørklund , 144-60. Oslo: Gyldendal.
