Analytical Analysis - Jurgen Habermas's Critical Moral Education

Document Type : Scientific - Research


1 PhD student of Philosophy of Education, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Education. Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Education, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.


Objective: The purpose of the present study is to analyze and critique Habermas's moral education and to study why and how it is applied in the Iranian educational system using two descriptive and analytical methods.
Materials and Methods: In order to answer each of the research questions, a method appropriate to the needs of each question and answer should be employed. One of the methods used in this study to answer the first question - examining the foundations of Habermas's moral education focusing on the theory of communicative action - and the second question - examining the criticisms of Habermas's moral education - is a descriptive one. In fact, we first describe Habermas's ethical components, Then, in answer to the third question - why and how Habermas's moral education is applied in the Iranian educational system - we have used the analytical method. The resources used in this research include Habermas's works as primary sources, and others' works, documents, and research in the field of secondary sources.
Discussion and Conclusion: The findings showed that Habermas belonged to the Critical School and considered the end of moral education to be liberating (Communication) and at the societal level make the pursuit of understanding based on ethical actions as the goals of moral education although many criticisms of Habermas's theory of ethical education are based on communicative action theory, his views on issues such as criticism, change, dialogue and emancipation, nonviolence, etc. can contain many messages and points in the Iranian educational system. Some examples are as follows: Linguistic competence and understanding, institutionalizing tolerance towards one another, engaging competing views simultaneously in dialogue, and institutionalizing rational reasoning and dialogue ethics through the system. School and classroom management.


Anderson. S. (2000). The Third Generation of the Frankfurt School. Washigton: Washington University Press
Bahmanpour .M. (2000). The ups and downs of rationality. Tehran: Publishing.
Bashiriye, H. (2013). Political thought in the twentieth century. The first volume. Fourth printing.tehran: Ney Publication.p 198 (In Persian).
Bolton. R. (2005). Habermas s theory of communicative action and the theory of social capital. Department of Economics and Center for Enviromental Studies Williams College.
      Gilabert, P. (2005). A substantivist construal of discourse ethics. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol.13 (3) pp: 405-437.
Goldkuhl, G. (2000). The validity of validity claim: An inquiry into communication Rationality .Aachen, Germany, September 14-16 (M.schoop,C.Quix,eds.).
Habermas, J (1979a). What is universal pragmatics?. In Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1979b). Communicacation and Evolution of Society, Translated and with an Introduction by Thomas McCarthy, London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative Action. Vol .1 Boston: Beacon press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of Communicative Action.Vol. 2 Boston: Beacon press.
Habermas. J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge. MIT Press.
Habermas. J. (1993). Justification And Application: remark on Discoure ethics, tr & ed.C. The MIT Press.
Hulab. R. (2009). Habermas: Public critique. Translated by bashiriye. Tehran: Ney Publication.
Javidi kallate gafar abadi.T. (2006). Democratic Educational Philosophy in the Islamic Republic of Iran and its implications for high school curriculum.
Karimi. A. (2008). Review the implications of Habermas' discourse ethics in moral education, in light of the phenomenon of globalization. Tehran University.
Lachat.G. (1994). Jürgen Habermas In the Fifty Great Contemporary Thinkers. Translated by Mohsen Hakimi.
Margani. B. (2007). Critical attitude in education. Alzahra University's New Educational Thoughts.
Mihammadi,A,, Zibakalam, f. (2015). Principles and methods of social education based on the theory of Habermas' communicative action. The research paper on the principles of teaching and learning.
Miler.P. (2006). The subject is the ascendancy and power. Translated by sarkhosh. N. Second edition.tehran: Ney Publication.p40. (In Persian).
Mirliuhi, H. (1997).Critical Theory Based Pedagogic perspectives. Journal of Pedagogy, No.49.pp:17-57.
Naghibzadeh.A, Nourozi .R. (2011). An analysis of the goals of moral and social education from Habermas' point of view, with an emphasis on communicative action theory. Applied Sociology Journal.
      Noddings, N (2002). Educating Moral People. Teachers College Press: New York and London.
Norouzi, R.A (2008). Analyzing the Objectives of Ethical and Social Education from the Viewpoint of Habermas. Journal of Applied Sociology. 21st.
Nouzari, H. (2008). Reading Habermas, Second Edition, Tehran: Cheshmeh Publishing.
Outhwaite, W. (2000). The Habermas reader, London: polity Press.
Piuzi, M. (2004). Jürgen Habermas. Translated by Ahmad Tadayn. First print. Tehran: Hermes publishing.
Ragi, (2011). Investigating the Impact of Critical Theory on Adult Education with Emphasis on Paolo Farier's and Jürgen Habermas's Opinions and Its Implications for Adult Literacy in Iran. Ph.D. University of Tehran.
Riters, g. (2005). The theory of sociology in contemporary times. Translated by: Mohsen Sallati. Tehran: Scientific publication.
Sagadieh.N.Irvani, Sh. zamirsn, M. (2011). Genealogical research and its inspiration for research domains in curriculum studies. Curriculum studies syllabus.
Salter, L. (2005). The communicative structrrs of journalism and public relations” .University of the west of England, SAGE Publication, Vol .6.
Satari. A. (2018). Habermas' Theory of Habermas Communication Action and Its Significance in Higher Education and Universities. Journal of Educational Sciences.
Shabani. A. (1997). Habermas's philosophy of critique and its implications for teaching social sciences. Tarbiat Modares University.
Stric .p. (2000). Critical theory. Politics and socity. London british library cataloguing.
Turner, Jonathan H. (1998). The Structure of Sociological Theory. Sixth Edition, Wadsworth publishing Company, The US.
Wilson, D. (1991). The theory of communication action and problem of commons. Ecopolicy Center, CEa, Box 270. Rutgers university, New Brunswick NJ, USA.