This essay asks: What is Jürgen Habermas’s legacy for media and communication studies? Jürgen Habermas (1929-2026), a towering figure in critical theory, profoundly shaped media and communication studies by emphasising communication as the cornerstone of social existence. His theory of communicative action, rooted in the interplay between language, culture, and society, redefined communication as both a means of social reproduction and a site of democratic potential. Habermas’s concept of the public sphere – where communicative rationality confronts instrumental reason – remains essential for analysing how power structures, from capitalism to digital authoritarianism, distort democratic discourse. His critique of the colonisation of the lifeworld by systemic forces such as money and power offers a framework for assessing contemporary challenges, including algorithmic control, fragmented digital publics, and the rise of far-right ideologies online. By linking communication to emancipatory ideals, Habermas challenged scholars to interrogate the tensions between economic imperatives and democratic promises. His anti-fascist stance, informed by post-war Germany’s reckoning with Nazism, underscores the urgency of defending universalism and humanism against resurgent authoritarianism. While his dualisms (e.g., lifeworld vs system) invite debate, Habermas’s legacy lies in his insistence that communication is not merely instrumental but inherently normative – a space for contesting domination and imagining alternatives. This article explores how Habermas’s ideas on communication, the public sphere, and (anti-)fascism provide critical tools to navigate today’s mediated landscapes, where digital capitalism and ideological polarisation threaten the very foundations of democratic dialogue. Engaging with Habermas means confronting his blind spots while building on his vision of communication as a recursive process of social transformation. His work compels us to ask: How can we reclaim the public sphere in an era of algorithmic fragmentation and ideological extremism? Habermas’s answers, though provisional, remain indispensable for theorising communication’s role in fostering – or undermining – justice and solidarity.
Christian Fuchs (Fri,) studied this question.