First, I have never read him. But I had an excellent seminar series where I was one of the only people who was not deeply familiar with his work and would like to chip in, since I always found that words which refer to his works very often bleed profusely with wisdom.

Concepts like "intersubjective truth" where, through discussion we can reach agreement, or near agreement, on even the nature of the subject matter we are talking about is a first major challenge. And you will find in public discourse that certain groups will often seek to cloud the air to make it difficult to even establish what we are talking about, let alone the possibility for coming to some agreement on the ways in which we will disagree as political processes of negotiation and working towards mutual understanding unfold.

In short, I think that making good use of Habermas presupposes that diverse parties want to understand each other. But in the world out there today, there are many who would pretend that other perspectives don't even exist, let alone working towards some kind of understanding on the matter.

The desire to understand each other is a critical first step, and I think Habermas assumes that it would not be so difficult to inculcate this as a generally desirable objective. However, the great many narrow minded people who are so convinced that their limited knowledge already offers them every truth they need serves as a great barrier to this. And if we cannot agree that it is ideal to try to respect each other, then how will ANY mechanism of negotiation proceed in a generally peaceful manner which does not involve any significant trampling upon traditions, values, and repositories of knowledge?

My 2c.

thank you so mach for your responding. i want to focus on the theoretical debates according Habermas  COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY.

I hope you be successful in your scientific life.

R. Hosseini

As far as public sphere Habermas's approach is concerned, you can refer to Craig Calhoun, Seyla Benhabib critics focusing on patriarcal aspect of it theory. You can also read my paper published uploaded in  Research Gate entitled" Public Sphere power and counterpowers in post revolutionary Tunisia"

Abdesselem Mahmoud-Associate Professor of Urban Sociology at Carthage University Tunisia

Dear Abdesselem Mahmoud,

thank you so math. I 'm appreciated with your answer. I would like downland and  peruse your article. because after that  I would like to focus on Habermas public sphere theory in my thesis.

your sincerely,

R.Hosseini

These could help, from someone who work those ideas some decades

http://portal.uexternado.edu.co/pdf/5_revistaDerechoDelEstado/numero7/GuillermoHoyos.pdf

http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/idval/article/download/29235/29483.

Habermas' work is entirely philosophical in the sense that makes a description on how societes worked and currently work. His best work on the issue of public sphere is "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962, 1989), even though he discusses all three spheres in subsequent works (in Weberian fashion). If I understand your questions correctly, you want to use his tenet as a mechanism to solve conflict and not as a priori discussion.  If that is the case, it falls outside the philosophical discourse, and it enters into the "social work" or sociological realm.  Now, if you are talking about interpretative discourse, please clarify, so that we all can direct you to the appropriate area.

Dear Oscar E. Quiros

thank you for you answer. I mean find the way to solve conflict and challenges among people in society by criticism exactly, not  philosophical debates.  

Maischer Oscar, Habermas est sociologue critique qui s'inscrit dans la philosophie critique de ce qu'on appelle Ecole de Frankfort(Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer et Benjamin). J'ai bien démontré que Habermas fut critiqué par Craig Kalkoun, par Seyla benhabib, les féministes de partout. Je vous invite à lire mon article sur ResearchGate" Public sphere, power and counter power in post-revolutionary Tunisia". Habermas lui même évolue et a bien développé ses idées dans son ouvrage intitulé"

Between Facts and Norms

Contributions to a Discourse Theory

of Law and Democracy

Jurgen Habermas

translated by William Rehg

The MIT,1996

"Differential citizenship: questioning the dalit claim to equal citizenship through a projection of difference” by Riya Mukherjee and Smita Jha

This article criticizes Habermas’ universal conception of the public sphere as a European creation. Concentrating on India, the authors’ make note of where Habermas’ public sphere theory breaks down. It breaks down in India because of casteism. Dalits and Tribals cannot enter openly or as equals into public space when caste is enforced. Instead, they are subject to a life of inequality.