The Historical Effect of Habermas in the Chinese Context: A Case Study of the StructuralTransformation of the Public SphereAuthor(s): Weidong CaoReviewed work(s):Source: Frontiers of Philosophy in China, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 41-50Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30209949 .Accessed: 09/11/2011 00:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Frontiers of Philosophy inChina.

http://www.jstor.org

Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50 DOI 10.1007/sl 1466-005-0017-9

Cao Weidong

The Historical Effect of Habermas in the Chinese Context: A Case Study of the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

@ Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2006

Abstract The main purpose of this essay is not to give a full-scale and systematic exploration of the historical process concerning the acceptance of Habermas' works in the Chinese- spoken world but to examine the historical effect ofHabermas in the Chinese-spoken context and try to find a proper way to establish a good relationship between Habermas and the Chinese-spoken world by discussing the introduction, study, and application of Habermas' most famous work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, by Chinese scholars in recent years.

Keywords Habermas, public sphere, historical effect

As the head of the second generation of the Frankfurt School and one of the great zealous thinkers in the West, J. Habermas has aroused peoples' interest in reading and studying him and has exerted a significant influence upon Chinese academic circles since the 1980s. This article will focus on the historical effect of the reception of Habermas' theory in the Chinese context. The study will be based on a case study of his major work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.

As

As early as 1980 when China's reform and opening up just began, some Chinese academic periodicals noticed Habermas and published articles written by foreign scholars who had studied Habermas. For example, in the early 1980s, The Philosophical Translations and

Translated from Xiandai zhexue, 2005:1

Cao Weidong (--1) School of Chinese, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

42 Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50

Social Sciences Abroad published articles written by some Chinese scholars introducing Habermas, together with a few articles about Habermas written by Russian, Dutch, and German scholars, such as Eve-Marie Engels aus BRD. However, at that time, there were only basic introductions but no direct translations of and profound studies on Habermas' works. Until the middle of the 1980s, there were no Chinese translations of Habermas' articles. One of those dialogues with Habermas, hzterview with the Editor of Aesthetics and Communi- cation, was the first article translated into Chinese, followed by several other articles. We can call this period the initial stage of studies on Habermas in the Chinese context.

The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the first wave of studies on Habermas in the Chinese context. Among these studies, the most outstanding representative was the Studies on the Foreign Marxism and Socialisnm edited by Xu Chongwen who systematically trans- lated and introduced Habermnas, in which many important works of Habermas, such as Communication and the Evolution ofSociety and The Theory ofCommunicative Action, were included. The series also included some monographs on Habermas' thought about the "later period of capitalism" by Chinese scholars [1]. Other academic periodicals, e.g., Social Sciences Abroad and The Philosophical Translations, started to translate and introduce Habermas. Some scholars tried to study Habermas from the perspective of ethics, such as Xue Hua's Discourse Ethics ofHabennrmas [2]. From introduction of and research on Habermas in this period, we can easily see that Habermas was emphasized as a representative of Western Marxism by most of the researchers on the basis of the framework of Western Marxist Theory, and there was no comprehensive understanding and grasp of his thoughts. In other words, the research on Habermas by Chinese scholars during this period still rested on the latest developments in Marxism in the West, and Habermas in their eyes was only one of the members of the Frankfurt School, whose theory was simply regarded as one of the latest developments of Marxism in the Western context.

In the beginning of the 1990s, there was a decline in Habermas study in the Chinese context and no progress was made in research due to special historical and political reasons. However, in the middle and the late 1990s, with the start of a new round of refonnrms and improvement of the political atmosphere in China, a strong interest in Habermas was re- ignited. Many scholars published articles to introduce Habermas in various periodicals. In the late 1990s, Habermas' works were widely translated: his three main works, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Technique and Science as "Ideology "and Knowledge and Human Interests, were published by Xuelin Publishing House in Shanghai (1997). In April and May of 2001, Habermas was invited to visit China. He delivered a series of speeches in Beijing and Shanghai, which stimulated aspirations of Habermas in China and made the Chinese academic world notice another important dimension of Habermas' thought: the conception of discursive politics. To follow up, Shanghai People Publishing House published Selected Works of Habermas in succession, including Legitimation Crisis (2001), Inclusive of the Other (2002), The Postnational Constellation (2002), and Theory, of Communicative Action (2004). Other publishing companies also followed up and continuously published Habermas' works. For example, Social Science Document Publishing House in Beijing published Reconstruction ofHistorical Materialism and Theory and Practice; Yilin Press in Nanjing published Post-metaphysical thinking (2001) and The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (2004). What else camne to front was a series of dialogues with Habermas, such as Horizon of Modernity, The Past as Future, and Demarcation Line of Understanding.

Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50 43

Some biographies and research works written by foreign scholars were also introduced into China, such as Detlef Horst's Habermas (Shanghai, 2000) and the works written by William Outhwaite (Heilongjiang, 1999) and Howe (Beijing, 2002), to further promote spreading and acceptance of Habennas' works in Chinese context. Meanwhile, many Chinese scholars also published different biographies or research works with special subjects, such as Yu Lingling's Habermas (Hebei, 1998), Cao Weidong's Communicative Rationality and The Discourse of Poetics (Tianjin, 2001), Zhang Guofeng's hntroductionto The Theory of Communicative Action (Shandong, 2001), and Gong Qun's Reconstructing the Moral Utopia (Beijing, 2003).

Comparing the two upsurges in the studies on Habermas in the Chinese academic circles, we could easily tell that there ever existed great differences between them. Firstly, the motivation of acceptance has greatly changed. In the late 1990s, Chinese academic circles did not limit Habermas within the system of Marxist theory any longer. The related researches were not only conducted from the perspective of political ideological criticism but also gained through understanding of the ingenuity and richness of Habermas' theories. Secondly, the translation standards of Habermas' works had been elevated greatly. In the junction of the 1980s and 1990s, the main works of Habermas introduced were translated from their English versions. The translation quality was not satisfactory and a lot of mistakes occurred, but in the late 1990s, Habermas' works were directly translated from German originals, and many researchers joined in the translation of Habermas' works. The translation quality was ensured. Finally, researches on Habermas progressed greatly in regard to its depth and breadth. Thus, if the research works done in the junction of 1980s and 1990s were limited to introduction and discussion of Habermas' works, then in the late 1990s, the related research areas were widened and research was deepened and promoted to a new stage.

From a rough review of the reception process of Habermas in the Chinese academic circles, it is easy to see that The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere played a representative role with which no other works could be compared, because it was the first reliable translation of Habermas' works and it was also the first work which had great influences on Chinese academic circles and was widely applied to various subjects.

It is well known that Habermas' dissertation, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, which was published in 1961, is a prerequisite for him to obtain his professorship (Hablitationsschrift). However, before the 1990s, this book did not draw much attention from the public. Even in European and American academic circles, the situation was the same before the English version was published by MIT Press in 1989, but when it was republished in 1989, 30 years after the publication of the original German version, The Structural Trans- formation of the Public Sphere became popular worldwide and brought to a discussion the issues of "Public" and "Private" in the world.

It took some time before the Chinese academic circles noticed The Structural Trans- formation of the Public Sphere. In the 1990s, Wanghui and Cao Weidong first translated Habermas' article "Public Sphere" and the chapter "The Social Structure of the Public Sphere" from The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. The translations were collected in Culture and Publicity published by SDX Publishing House (1998). Tong Shijun translated the first chapter of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, and the translation was included in The State and Civil Society published by Central Compilation & Translation Press (1999). The complete Chinese version of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere appeared in 1999. The translation to the original complex form of Chinese characters was published in Taiwan in 2002. At the same time, even earlier, scholars from the Chinese

44 Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50

academic circles also published some articles to introduce and elucidate the concept of Public Sphere, such as "Keyword: Communication, Habermas, Public Sphere and Others" and "Habermas in Public Sphere" written by Cao Weidong and "The Origin and Development of Public Sphere" written by Yu Hai [3].

However, in this period, people disagreed on how to translate "Offentlichkeit" into Chinese and there came academic debates. Some scholars thought that "Offentlichkeit" should be translated as "0 ARM" (Public Sphere), some thought that it should be translated as "A0i~", while others thought it should be translated as " I,0 lI" or even "&$." The translator of the book, Cao Weidong, chose "< :SJ", which is widely accepted by the Chinese academic circles. To justify his translation, Cao Weidong pointed out in his article that Habennas applied the word into two realms: thought and society. "Offentlichkeit" in the realm of thought can be translated as "'. A 1", while in the realm of society, it should be translated as "0 / A-]". Cao Weidong says,

"Although Habermas mainly applied the ideological criticism to the realm of thought in the book, yet in my opinion, the name of the book should be translated as (~~ - 0 M 4 -J)*), rather than (00--_1 $0)0, because he abstracted 'Offentlichkeit,' the capitalist ideology, from the point of view of the change of capitalist society" [4].

With the wide acceptance of the concept of "Public Sphere" in the Chinese academic circles, there came forth plenty of academic papers employing the concept. The papers involve areas of media theory, history, law, society, politics, and education. Many Master's degree candidates and Ph.D. candidates also chose "Public Sphere" as the subject of their dissertations with satisfactory achievements. A certain research scale is reached, and unique research perspectives are formed in the areas of history studies and media research.

11

According to Habermas, the concept of "Public Sphere" means the Public Sphere of Bourgeois, which appeared in the UK in the late seventeenth century and in France in the eighteenth century. He clarified that the so-called "Public Sphere" was derived from the clear distinction between the private sphere and the representative aristocratic public sphere. According to Habermas, the exchange of merchandise and information specific to the cap- italism is the precondition of the development of public sphere. He says that private economic activities must be under public instruction and supervision with the continuously expanding merchandise exchange as the guideline. The most obvious external characteristic is that individuals form an open and flexible communication network when they read newspapers or other media, and through private communities or academic societies, reading groups, fraternal orders, or religious organizations, they get together voluntarily. Public places such as theatres, coffee bars, saloons, etc. provide them with a public space for en- tertainment and communication. Habermas says,

These public spheres in the early period extended gradually along social dimensions, and in the aspect of the topic ... Focus point turned from art to politics. Finally, this kind of contact and communication network became the fundamental element of certain Bourgeois societies, which is 'between' or 'out of market economy and sovereign state [5].

Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50 45

In modem China, capitalism came into being. Together with the aggravation of the consciousness of the political and national crisis, the traditional academies, associations organized by intellectuals, and newly arisen newspapers became the important outlets for people to express their opinions on thecurrent situations. These channels were independent and were able to acquire some characteristics of the Public Sphere described by Habermas. Therefore, scholars in the field of Sinology in the United States, such as William T. Rowe and Mary Rankin, made great achievements in their research on Chinese modern history by using the concept of Public Sphere since the 1980s, e.g., the case study on Hankou by William T. Rowe and research on the status of gentry class in modern China by Mary Rankin. They thought that modern China itself had the potential and energy to modernize, and the basic form of Public Sphere had already been shaped.

However, in the early 1990s, there were harsh debates within the Sinology Circles in the United States represented by Wei Feide and Philip C. C. Huang as to whether the concept of Public Sphere was applicable to China or not. Both of them considered that the concept "Public Sphere" could hardly be applied to China directly. In Public Sphere and Civil Society in China [6], Philip C. C. Huang first clarified different types of the concept of "Public Sphere" and then demonstrated that the historical characteristics of the concept of "Capitalist Public Sphere" is too strong to be really applied to China. When he further investigated the concept of Habermas' "Public Sphere" itself, he found that this concept has two aspects: "Public Sphere occupied two different areas"-on the one hand, according to the trichotomy of state, "Public Sphere," and society, "Public Sphere" is the area where a strong tension exists between state and society; on the other hand, according to the dualistic antinomy between state and society, "Public Sphere" is only a kind of extension of the democratic process of (civil) society against autarchy. Obviously, Philip C. C. Huang's emphasis was on the latter "Public Sphere." From Huang's point of view, if this concept of "Public Sphere" is applied to China, it might cause mistakes and confusions because there was no substantial antinomy between society and state in China at that time.

Nevertheless, Habermas himself did not pay much attention to the complicated concept of this "Public Sphere," which stays between state and society and changes when state and society change. Therefore, Philip C. C. Huang pointed out that the very concept of Public Sphere in this sense involved something that is applicable to China. To grasp this mediate area precisely and avoid misapplication and confusion while using Habermas' concept of Public Sphere, Philip C. C. Huang suggested using the concept of Third Sphere. In China, there really exists this Third Sphere standing between state and society that is influenced by their resultant force, but this Third Sphere has its own characteristics and logic beyond the influence of state and society. The application of the Third Sphere was in fact equivalent to peeling off the Public Sphere from the civil society and endowing it with the possibility of independence. By using this concept, debating as to whether the characteristics of Western civil society are shared by Chinese society or not becomes unnecessary. In addition, this helped us recognize an objective fact; that is, there was already a new emerging force following its own rule between the state and society in China.

Actually, Habermas himself has been very careful about the issue whether the concept of Public Sphere is applicable in the context of other cultures. He once seriously reminded people in the prelude of the first edition of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: "Civil Public Sphere is an epoch-making category, and can't be isolated from the special historical development of'civil society' derived from the Middle Ages in Europe and can't be made into an ideal type, which can be freely applied to the similar historical context."

46 Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50

However, Habermas' admonition did not stop Chinese academic circles' enthusiastic application; instead, the admonition caused objections from some scholars. Xu Jilin pointed out, "No matter how careful Habermas himself is, Public Sphere ... has evolved from a special experience analysis to an ideal type with extensive competence of explanation. It is abstracted from European history and became a universal fabric of explanation related to issues of modernity" [7].

Based on this cognition, Xu Jilin composed the long article, The Public Sphere in modern China: Shanghai as a case, in which he not only carefully explored the conditions of the development of Public Sphere in the whole country, especially in Shanghai, from the Qing Dynasty to the early period of the Republic of China, but also clarified resources of Public Sphere in the Chinese Tradition. Like Philip C. C. Huang, Xu Jilin also adopted the trichotomy of"Public Sphere," state, and society. He thought that the Public Sphere is not a political field; it differs from both political voting and private field. It is also quite different from the civil society that takes market as its core. He says, "Public Sphere lies between the two ... and carries out the task of public supervision and criticism of politic power through public opinions. The political legitimacy, based on public opinions, is what the value and the meaning of Public Sphere consists in" [7].

It is not difficult to find that the difference between Xu Jilin and Philip C. C. Huang lies in that Xu distinctly recognized the inner political function of the Public Sphere; lthat is, Public Sphere is the origin of political legitimacy. In Xu Jilin's opinion, the universality of the concept of Public Sphere consists in that "the independent and rational public carries out public criticism in this space to form public opinion." Hence, each social phenomenon endowed with this kind of character could be analyzed under the category of Public Sphere, in which the most important aspect is the impartial public opinion.

In Xu Jilin's explanation, Public Sphere is significant as a framework of explanation and its concrete historical meaning is abolished. With this standard, the Confucian humanism and the literati and officialdom's tradition ofjust comment were both integrated into the category of Public Sphere. In the modern times, schools, associations, and newspapers constituted the 'trinity' of Public Sphere in the beginning. Then, newspapers gradually took charge of creating public opinion by themselves. Xu Jilin considered that the difference between Public Sphere in Chinese history and the one discussed by Habermas was that the participants of the former were not citizens but the social elite; what hindered its development was not the infiltration of money and power in late capitalist society but the inner contest between parties that could not achieve legal status within the system.

While unscrambling the concept of Public Sphere, both Philip C. C. Huang and Xu Jilin paid attention to history. Philip C. C. Huang propounded the Third Sphere according to the special historical circumstances, which were considered the challenge to as well as enrichment and development of Habermas' concept of Public Sphere. Xu Jilin emphasized the public opinion and the political legitimacy in Public Sphere and analyzed the special political function of public opinion and medium in the period from the ancient times to the modern ages in China. However, his analysis on the communication medium only focused on ideological criticism, and he did not make an in-depth analysis of the function of communication medium in the Public Sphere. This mission has been undertaken by modern scholars of conunmnication medium, and they have made certain achievements.

Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50 47

In the article "the Theory of Public Sphere and Media by Habermas" [8], Zhan Jiang introduced Habermas' explanation of communication medium in his book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and found that it was the function of communication medium that weakened the structural change of the modem capitalist Public Sphere. Observing the current media in China, Zhan Jiang pointed out that mass communication media, especially the news media, were used to being led rather than spearheading supervision and criticism. In another article, The Dimension and Role of Media [9], Zhan Jiang believed that as a member of the establishment in Chinese society, mass medium became commercially oriented due to its professional monopolization status in the course of market economy. This combination of political power and economic benefits not only met the requirements of going-to-market and industrialization of news/mass communication media but also caused power imbalance. Correspondingly, the news function of the news media also degenerated, obviously changing from reporting, animadverting, and forming public opinions to reporting, explaining, and reflecting public opinions. As for the content of medium, the proportion of news report/comment to nonnews content/advertisement declined increasingly, only to generally satisfy public demands in knowing current issues, events, and processes. These communication media inclined, to some extent, to reflect public thinking in their interaction with the public; they could also cover some legal contents, but they were far from being characterized as political criticism.

Under the circumstances that news media are playing a lesser role in supervision, the mission has historically been obscured by media criticism. According to Habermas' concept of Public Sphere, topical magazines take the most important part and they provide the readers with information with an aftertaste that can inspire readers' imagination and reconsideration and lead readers to pursue their ideals. They do not have strong local characteristics as newspapers do, and regard citizens of one country as their objects to "direct." Having noticed this phenomenon and through an in-depth analysis, Zhan Jiang pointed out that the development of topical magazines in Mainland China is at a low level with limited circulation and variety and that the magazines have little national influence. The reason is that the political space for the survival and operation of the topical magazines is too narrow and that the in-depth reports and comments containing criticism and exposure of serious problems seldom exist, although this is the life force of topical magazines.

Zhan Jiang's analysis of the cause of topical magazines' weak life force was their lack of attraction in the sense of political animadversion. His analysis hits the point. Indeed, the political reality in China does not allow the Western-styled freedom of information. Thus, from the point of view of public opinion, we could see that the Public Sphere in China is not sufficiently developed-there are not enough openness and interaction. The public, which should be the important participant, still plays a minor role of passive acceptance. Media became a body of power rather than a channel of communication. Therefore, the problems concerning refeudalization and the commnercialization of the capitalist Public Sphere, which was animadverted fiercely by Habermas, were not postnatal developmental trends of China's modern media but congenital problems that accompanied the occurrence and development of the media. In the course of the formation of the Public Sphere, the objective problems that need to be conquered are quite severe; ordinary Chinese citizens have difficulty in under- standing their own identity and citizenship as regards their rights and obligations.

Zhan Jiang's analysis is closely related to the theoretical aspect of Habermas' Public Sphere. He investigates mainly the developmental conditions of Chinese media from a macrocosmic point of view and discovers the weakness and shortness of Chinese media in the course of

48 Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50

constructing the Public Sphere. The results are disappointing. Meanwhile, other scholars focus their attention on the Internet, which enjoyed a higher degree of freedom, and try to find an optimistic foreground for the construction of Chinese Public Sphere through the microcosmic analysis.

In Internet, Public Sphere and Politics of Life [10], Xu Ying pointed out that the public discussion caused by the "Sheng Hongjia Event" in March 1998 was carried out like a raging fire on the Internet. The Chinese public seemed to cram a span of thousands of years within the short period of 2 years and 5 months. They became independent "citizens" with the capability to debate rationally, instead of "individuals" in a private society. The public discussion via the Internet caused by the "Sheng Hongjia Event" came across some twists and turns, but it nearly perfectly practiced the concept of Public Sphere given by Habermas, which was blamed for "overidealization" by many scholars. Habernnas says, "First, Public Sphere is a realm of our social life, which is opened to everybody in principle. The people, as the individuals in the realm, get together. They agree on the issues of common benefit on the basis of rational arguments, and adopt democratic control onto the national event" [11].

In Xu Ying's opinion, the possibility of constructing a Public Sphere by the public forum on the Internet is demonstrated by the following facts: not only is the public forum, such as BBS, open to all in principle, but also to all the netizens in reality; most of the netizens taking part in the discussion of "Sheng Hongjia Event" are "anonymous" "individuals"; the fre- quently issued articles and the large amount of delivery suggest that "the rational debate" is carried out among the "private" netizens; the topic of public discussion is elevated from "the spiritual support" to Sheng Hongjia to the comprehensive consideration of Chinese Telecom system, and this indicates that the topic of public discussion is elevated to "the issue of common interest." Finally, China Telecom consented to adjust telephone fees in front of the public opinion and started their system reform. Since many public forums on the Internet came forth and the public attached themselves to it actively, the Chinese public made a "democratic control" on "state action" successfully. Thus, although there were some setbacks in the process, we were still able to obtain quite a number of significant achievements. Hence, in Xu Ying's opinion, in any sense, it is a very successful constructional practice of Public Sphere. Apparently, if the new digital media (Internet) did not greatly intervened, the widespread discussion on China Telecom could not take place in China, and the system reform and innovation of China Telecom that were in a special monopolistic status could not be launched.

Besides, in The Media Age and the Reconstruction of The Public Sphere [12], Xu Ying further indicated that the digital technology has been improving its equality enormously due to the following facts: information was changed into the data package and information is of equal status; information could be copied infinitely, reducing the cost infinitely and resulting to equal chances being offered to the people; the IP address is the only sign to confirm the location and identity of individuals; hence, individuals are of equal status too. All these facts helped establish an excellent foundation for the formation of Chinese Public Sphere.

In the above discussions, we traced the historical effect of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in the Chinese context. It is obvious that the Chinese academic circles' reception of Habermas reflects the claim made by German aesthetics of reception: to a great extent, it satisfied the initiative need of the Chinese context. Probably due to the Chinese

Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50 49

academic circles' excessive emphasis on subjectivity, Habermas becomes so favorable, or even popular, in the Chinese context. However, it is difficult to prevent misunderstandings, prejudices, and errors from arising in the process of introduction, translation, and reception of Habermas. Moreover, there are several problems to be solved in the application of his theories.

Let me take The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere as an example again. Although the concept of Public Sphere has been studied and widely applied to the Chinese context, the whole picture of the concept is not displayed before the readers. As we know, the concept of Public Sphere according to Habermas is the entrance to his modernity criticism. The concept is based on profound historical premises and political motives. However, in the Chinese context, its historical premises and political motives are usually ignored, especially the consciousness of political criticism contained in the concept. The scholars either limited their study within the sphere of Chinese history and avoided the implications of political problems or narrowed down their study to media and avoided facing reality. Furthermore, we have not adequately noticed that although Habermas did not reemphasize the importance of the concept of Public Sphere, he insisted on enriching and developing his own concept of Public Sphere, which was mainly embodied in his theory of "postnation Constellation." In Habermas' opinion, if we want to go beyond nation-state to set up a world without a world government when facing the globalization challenge, it is important that we construct a global political Public Sphere containing all the cosmopolites. Therefore, Habermas' attention on Public Sphere has gone beyond the nation-state context and entered into the postnational state. Unfortunately, our current study is still limited to the single nation-state orientation, almost with no exception!

Therefore, whether we are concerned with the concept of Public Sphere or the whole theory of Habermnas, the author insists on his own idea that was put forward years ago,

Today's China is in a process of rapid change with the impulse of modernity. Beyond our expectations are the political reform, the social vicissitude, and the crisis of cultural identity and the contravention of individual faith. We cannot rely on the resources of our traditional theories to explain and solve modern problems. In this case, Habermas' standard criticism of Public Sphere/Publicity provides us with a possible way of social criticism. Certainly, it does not mean that we must submit to him, but his critical spirit and methodology set us a good example [13].

Finally, it is high time that we should meet the globalization challenge, reexplore Habermnnas' theories, reconsider the real conditions of China, and reconstruct the relationship between Habermas and the Chinese context.

References

1. Chen Xueming, Study on Habermas' thought of "later period of capitalism", Chongqing Press, 1988 2. Xue Hua, Discourse Ethics of Habermas, Education Press, 1988 3. Yu Hai, The Origin and Development of Public Sphere, The Society, 1998, vol. 6 4. Cao Weidong, Haberrmas-public sphere and others, The Newspaper of Reading, 1998, 11 5. Habermas J., Answers to the questions about the public sphere, Sociol. Res., 1999, 3

50 Front. Philos. China (2006) 1: 41-50

6. Huang P. C. C., Public Sphere and Civil Society in China. In: The State and Civil Society, Central Compilation & Translation Press, 1999

7. Xu Jilin, The public sphere in modem China: Shanghai as a case, History, 2003, 2 8. Zhan Jiang, The theory of public sphere and media by Habermas, J. Coll. Polit., 2002, 2 9. Zhan Jiang, The dimension and role of media, Mod. Commun., 1998, 2-6

10. Xu Ying, Internet, public sphere and politics of life, J. Humanism, 2002, 3 11. Habermas J., Public Sphere, Culture and Publicity, SDX Publishing House, 1998 12. Xu Ying, The media age and the reconstruction of the public sphere, J. Nanjing Normal Univ., 2002, 3 13. Cao Weidong, Between private and public, Reading, 1999, 2