Keeping the personality in the information societies

The application of J. Habermas’s approach



deliberative democracy, J. Habermas, personality, phenomenology, life-world, theory communicative action


The purpose of the paper is to define how the sociopolitical thought of J. Habermas – his theory of communicative action and the concept of deliberative democracy – guarantees the protection and keeping of an independent human personality in modern information societies. In order to solve this problem, the author seeks to determine what is meant by a “personality”. Analyzing this issue, the author distinguishes two different understandings of a personality among J. Habermas’s works: philosophical-personalistic and public-sociological. When integrating these understandings, the author gives an original socio-philosophical definition of a personality, in which the personality retains both individualistic and social traits. It is especially emphasized that for the affirmation of the personality and his/her development, an equal, subject-subject dialogue with Others is necessary. The paper reveals that the development of personality, first of all, is interrelated with the maintenance of a cultural, normative and valuable “life-world”, which is violated by the mechanisms of systematic technocratic regulation in modern times, in a society. The principles of this regulation are justified in a system-functional approach. The advantages of J. Habermas’s approach, capable of ensuring the development of a genuine normative essence of personality, are determined


Download data is not yet available.


Abels, H. (1998). Romantic, phenomenological sociology and qualitative social research. Journal of sociology and social anthropology, 1(1), 98-124.

Althusser, L. (2006). Marxism and humanism. Moscow: Praxis.

Berger, P. L. (2011). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Open Road Media.

Canfield, C., Klima, K., & Dawson, T. (2015). Using deliberative democracy to identify energy policy priorities in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 184-189.

Cukier, W., Bauer, R., & Middleton, C. (2004). Applying Habermas’ validity claims as a standard for critical discourse analysis. In Information systems research (pp. 233-258). Springer, Boston, MA.

Dillard, J. F., & Yuthas, K. (2006). Enterprise resource planning systems and communicative action. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(2-3), 202-223.

Dostoyevsky, F. (2017). Crime and punishment. Oxford University Press.

Easton, D. (1966). Categories for the systems analysis of politics. Varieties of political theory, 468, 468.

Fishkin, J. S. (2009). Virtual public consultation: Prospects for internet deliberative democracy. Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice, 23-35.

Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta politica, 40(3), 284-298.

Forchtner, B. (2010). Jürgen Habermas’ language-philosophy and the critical study of language. Critical approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines, 4(1), 18-37.

Foucalt, M. P. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Saint-Petersburg: A-cad.

Garffinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnometodology.

Gellner, E. (2004). Conditions of Liberty. Civil Society and Its Rivals. London: Hamilton, 1994. Usloviya svobody. Grazhdanskoe obshchestvo i ego istoricheskie soperniki. Moscow: Moscow school of political studies.

Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Stieglitz, J., Kaplan, H., & Rodriguez, D. E. (2014). The evolutionary fitness of personality traits in a small-scale subsistence society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 17-25.

Habermas, J. (1962). Structural change of the public. Investigations into a category of civil society (Habil.).

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One, Reason and the Rationalization.

Habermas, J. (1992). Facticity and validity: Contributions to the discourse theory of law and the democratic constitutional state. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Germ.). [Fr. ed: Habermas, J. (1997). Droit et democratie. Entre faits et normes. Translated from German by R. Rochlitz and Ch. Bouchindhomme. Paris: Gallimard] .

Habermas, J. (2000). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.(DV Skliadnev, Trans., Ed.). Saint Petersburg.

Habermas, J. (2005). Between naturalism and religion: philosophical essays.

Habermas, J., & Luhmann, N. (1971). Theory of society or social technology: what does systems research achieve? . Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J., Mendieta, E., & VanAntwerpen, J. (2011). The political: The rational meaning of a questionable inheritance of political theology. The power of religion in the public sphere.

Held, D. (2014). Models of democracy. Moscow: Publishing house "Delo".

Hummel, P. (2012). Deliberative democracy and electoral competition. Games and Economic Behavior, 75(2), 646-667.

Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Northwestern University Press.

Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 702-719.

Janson, M. A., Woo, C. C., & Smith, L. D. (1993). Information systems development and communicative action theory. Information & Management, 25(2), 59-72.

Kovachich, L. (2017). Bolshoy brat 2.0 Kak Kitay stroit tsifrovuju diktaturu [The Big Brother 2.0. How China Builds a Digital Dictatorship]. Moskovskij Center Karnegi .

Linde, A. N. (2017). Problema otnosheniia gumanisticheskogo i tekhnologicheskogo napravlenii v teorii sotsial'no-politicheskoi kommunikatsii [The problem of relation between humanistic and technological schools in the theory of social-political communication]. Communication. Media. Design, (2), 82-98.

Linde, A. N. (2017). The Value of the Concept of Deliberative Democracy by J. Habermas for the Theory of Political Communication [Znachenie kontseptsii deliberativnoi demokratii Yu. Khabermasa dlya teorii politicheskoi kommunikatsii]. Russian Political Science, (2), 73-81.

Luhmann, N. (2001). Power. Moscow: Praxis.

Nazarchuk, A. V. (2009). The theory of communication in present philosophy. Moscow: Progress-tradition.

Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179-217.

Parsons, T. (1993). The concept of society: The components and their interrrelations. Thesis, 1(2), 94-122.

Putnam, F. W. (1991). Recent research on multiple personality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14(3), 489-502.

Ramos, R. I. A., Mata, R. R. M., & Nacar, R. C. (2021). Mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship of personality types and employees mindfulness. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 1480-1494.

Salvaggio, J. L. (1983). Social problems of information societies: The US and Japanese experiences. Telecommunications Policy, 7(3), 228-242.

Sanjaya Adi Putra, G., & Dwirandra, A. A. N. B. (2019). The effect of auditor experience, type of personality and fraud auditing training on auditors ability in fraud detecting with professional skepticism as a mediation variable. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 6(2), 31-43.

Schmitt, C. (2010). Political theology. University of Chicago Press.

Shutz, A. (1994). Formation of the concept and theory in the social sciences. American sociological thought. Moscow: MSU.

Suputra, I. D. G. D. ., & Widhiyani , N. L. S. . (2020). Types of personality, audit structure and transformational leadership styles moderate the effect of organizational commitments on auditor performance . International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 7(6), 54-65.

Suryasa, I.W., Sudipa, I.N., Puspani, I.A.M., Netra, I.M. (2019). Translation procedure of happy emotion of english into indonesian in k???a text. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(4), 738–746

Timofeyeva, L. N. (2009). Political communicativistics: problems of the formation. Polis. Political Studies, 5(5), 41-54.

Volgin, O. S. (2016). Legitimacy: Existential aspect. Philosophical Sciences, 12, 20-33.

Wiener, N. (1988). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society (No. 320). Da Capo Press.

Wiener, N. (1994). My connection with cybernetics. Its origin and its future. Cybernetica, 193-193.

Xiu, P. ., & Xeauyin, L. . (2018). Human translation vs machine translation: The practitioner phenomenology. Linguistics and Culture Review, 2(1), 13-23.

Yoon, C. S. (2005). Diverging information societies of the Asia Pacific. Telematics and Informatics, 22(4), 291-308.

Zu, Z. (2021). The right contextual information determining the success of communication on translation. Applied Translation, 15(1), 39–43. Retrieved from



How to Cite

Linde, A. (2021). Keeping the personality in the information societies: The application of J. Habermas’s approach. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 1252-1269.



Research Articles