《公共领域的结构转型》的目的是分析“资产阶级公共领域（burgerlicheOffentlichkeit）。研究对象特别难以把握，这就对研究方法提出了挑战。首先，由于研究对象比较复杂，用单一某个学科的方法是难以奏效的。因此，我们必须把公共领域范畴放到传统“政治学”曾经关注的那样一个比较开阔的视野里加以探讨；①研究对象就其自身而言打破了社会科学各学科之间的界限。社会学和经济学、宪法学和政治学以及社会思想史等各学科一体化所带来的难题是很清楚的：从目前社会科学学科分化和专业化水平来看，没有谁能“掌握”多门学科，更不用说“掌握”所有学科了。

《哈贝马斯的批判理论》内容简介：托马斯·麦卡锡(Thomas McCarthy)刚刚从美国西北大学讲座教授任上荣休，随即被聘往耶鲁大学。他是法兰克福学派的批判理论第二代主要人物尤根·哈贝马斯在英语世界的主要译介者，很大程度上也成为该学派第二代向第三代发展、该学派从德国本土向英美世界发展的关键人物。哈贝马斯曾经对麦卡锡做过这样的评价：
“托马斯·麦卡锡对我来说是一大幸运——我常常有这样的印象：对我的文本他比我自己理解得还要好。每次他对我提出批评，他所捍卫的观点，我后来会承认是我们的共同立场。他的批评(尤其是对于福柯、罗蒂和解构主义的批评)是如此的尖锐，以至于当他在他的论著中强调他与我的著作的分歧的时候，我感到了某种焦虑。”

This collection of ten essays offers the first systematic assessment of Jurgen Habermas's Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, a book that defended the rational potential of the modern age against the depiction of modernity as a spent epoch. The essays (of which four are newly commissioned, five were published in the journal Praxis International, and one -- by Habermas -- first appeared in translation in New Critique) are divided into two sections: Critical Rejoinders and Thematic Reformulations.An opening essay by d'Entreves sets out the main issues and orients the debate between Habermas and the postmodernists by identifying two different senses of responsibility: a responsibility to act versus a responsibility to otherness (an openness to difference, dissonance, and ambiguity). These are linked with two alternative understandings of the primary function of language: action-orienting versus world-disclosing. This is a fruitful way of looking at the issues that Habermas has raised in his attempt to resurrect and complete the project of Enlightenment.Habermas's essay discusses the main themes of his book in the context of a critical engagement with neoconservative cultural and political trends. The main body of essays offer an interesting collection of points of view, for and against Habermas's position by philosophers, social scientists, intellectual historians, and literary critics.SECTIONS & CONTRIBUTORS : Introduction, Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves. Modernity versus Postmodernity, Jurgen Habermas. Critical Rejoinders : Fred Dallmayr. Christopher Norris. David C. Hoy. James Schmidt. Joel Whitebook. Thematic Reformulations : James Bohman. Diana Coole. Jay M. Bernstein. David Ingram.

《在事实与规范之间：关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论》的作者哈贝马斯提出对法律和宪法的范式性背景理解加以澄清，它所针对的是法学界日益流行的法律怀疑论，尤其是我怕谓的虚假实在论，它低估了现存法律实践的那些规范性预设的经验效用。在我们自17世纪以来不断进行着的关于政治共同体之法律构成的讨论中，还表现出了一种对整个现代笥的道德实践自我理解。这种自我理解不仅存在于一种普遍主义道德意识的种种证据之中，而且存在于民主法治国的自由建制之中。商谈论所要做的工作，是对这种自我理解作一种重构，使它能维护自己的规范性硬核，既抵制科学主义的还原，也抵制审美主义的同化。这是一本非同寻常的著作。从某种意义上说，它可能是哈贝马斯很好的著作。