The Habermas-Gadamer Debate
Abstract
The full implications of the Habermas-Gadamer debate have yet to be drawn. In 1967, in the context of a discussion of the methodology of social science, Habermas criticized Gadamer's hermeneutics. His criticisms precipitated a confrontation which included replies and counter-replies by the two main figures as well as contributions by Karl-Otto Apel, Albrecht Wellmer, and Paul Ricoeur.' But the discussions of this intellectual event in English thus far have been either largely exegetical or have failed to put the issues in their proper context and to assess their broader implications.2 In particular, the meaning of the debate for Marxism and critical theory has to be made clear. It hinges most fundamentally on the relation of critical theory to the living traditions which prevail in the societies in which critique arises and which it seeks to transform.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Habermas claims that Gadamer overemphasizes the role of language and fails to properly distinguish between things that exist in language and things that are merely reflected by it, like labor and domination.
“He claims that Gadamer overemphasizes the role of language and fails to properly distinguish between things that exist in language and things that are merely reflected by it, like labor and domination (Mendelson, 1979, p. 64).”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Mendelson, 1979, p. 64
Habermas argues that Gadamer's view does not leave enough room for social criticism or for properly critical hermeneutics.
“Habermas argues that Gadamer's view does not leave enough room for social criticism or for properly critical hermeneutics (Mendelson, 1979, p. 64, 67).”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Mendelson, 1979, p. 64, 67
A central point of Habermas's criticism against Gadamer is Gadamer's positive view of tradition.
“A central point of Habermas's criticism against Gadamer is Gadamer's positive view of tradition.”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Mendelson, 1979, p. 64, 67
Habermas criticizes Gadamer for his views on language and tradition.
“Habermas criticizes Gadamer for his views on language and tradition.”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Mendelson, 1979, p. 64
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games
Arjoranta, J. (2018) · doi:10.31237/osf.io/uep74 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mendelson, J.
- Corresponding author
- Mendelson, Jack
- Venue
- New German Critique
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1979
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 44
- ISSN
- 0094-033X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2315079808
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- New German Critique (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Theory and Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Marxism and Critical Theory
- Keywords
- Jürgen Habermas, Hans-Georg Gadamer, hermeneutics, Karl-Otto Apel, Albrecht Wellmer, Paul Ricoeur, social science methodology, Marxism, critical theory, living tradition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
