In this article, I argue that Habermas’s method of rational reconstruction faces limitations when it comes to analysing newly emerging and contested political practices. As rational reconstruction aims to criticize existing practices by determining their normative meaning as reflected in the participants’ idealizing presuppositions, it reaches its limits where emerging and contested practices make it impossible to identify a shared self-understanding and a single participants’ perspective. Using the example of membership politics, I argue that this is often the case where nationally constituted forms of politics become controversial or are fundamentally questioned. Building on the work of Benhabib and Fraser, I develop an alternative reconstructive method of plural reconstruction, which modifies the basic premises of rational reconstruction, adjusting it to emerging and contested political contexts.

在本文中，我认为哈贝马斯的理性重构方法在分析新兴的和有争议的政治实践时面临局限性。由于理性重建旨在通过确定参与者理想化预设所反映的规范意义来批评现有实践，因此它达到了其极限，即新兴的和有争议的实践使得无法确定共享的自我理解和单一的参与者观点。以会员制政治为例，我认为这通常是由国家构成的政治形式引起争议或受到根本质疑的情况。在 Benhabib 和 Fraser 的工作的基础上，我开发了一种多元重构的替代重构方法，它修改了理性重构的基本前提，