The significance of the original J. Habermas's approach to the discourse (compared with the structuralist approach)

A major aim of this paper is to analyze J. Habermas' original approach to socio-political discourse. The paper begins by analyzing two approaches to defining discourse: the personal-rationalist and the structuralist. The first of the above refers back to the ancient Greek definition of discourse as the mind embracing the personalities' own, independent meanings and forming an equal discourse out of them. The paper argues that this approach is closer to democracy, in which the public opinion of all individuals is taken into account. The opposite approach -structuralist - argues that all discourses are always conditioned and set by shared social structures that 'programming' each individual. This structuralist approach is closer to authoritarianism, since it presupposes the predominance of structures over the individual. In contrast to the structuralist approach, J. Habermas develops his original approach, methodologically based on three strands in philosophy: phenomenology, analytical philosophy of language and critical theory of society. This approach ensures the involvement of each individual in the discourse and his free, equal participation in the general discussion. A rational, authentic public opinion evolves from such a discourse, which allows a democratic regime to be maintained in practice.