Feminist philosophers and philosophers drawing on the German tradition of social philosophy have recently converged in stressing the importance of the concept of reification?first explicitly discussed by György Lukács?for the diagnosis of contemporary social and ethical problems. However, importing a theoretical framework alien to Lukács? original discussion has often led to the conflation of reification with other social and ethical problems. Here it is argued that a coherent conception of reification, free of implausible Marxist and idealist trappings, can be recovered (...) from Lukács? original discussion of it: the socially induced distortion of experience such that what is in fact human action appears as mere natural happening. This phenomenon is to be distinguished from, firstly, instrumentalising objectification of persons and, secondly, person-identification failure, with which Martha Nussbaum and Axel Honneth respectively have equated reification in recent work. Reification, on the understanding of it recovered here, is problematic not just because it is an illusion, but also because it can render moral reasons for action or omission, and grounds of ethical evaluation, invisible to agents, and, moreover, because it can lead people to tolerate as inevitable undesirable situations which could in fact be changed. It can thus ground social criticism. (shrink)

The paper takes heed of the fact that, when evaluating normative issues through the semantics of visibility and invisibility, a transfer takes place from optical to political semantics which is not without consequences. The paper attempts a typology of the extremely diverse functions (in)visibility takes in current discourses, moving from the characterization of situations of discrimination to that of the resistance to it. In a first step, it analyses the affirmative uses of the notion of political visibilisation, whether of individuals, (...) groups or concerns, that fashion themselves as targeted answers to discrimination. In a second step, it looks at the politics of invisibilisation, stealth, and opaqueness, claiming emancipatory and critical potential in resisting the limelight of public space. Specifically, it assesses whether the traditional connect of politicization and public visibility still holds true in all cases. In a third part, the paper suggests a possible reorganization of the polarity of visibility and invisibility as one that runs along the continuum between determinacy and indeterminacy, indicating its effects for patterns of discrimination as well as for practices of resistance. (shrink)

Contemporary Christian ethics encounters the challenge to communicate genuinely Christian normative orientations within the scientific debate in such a way as to render these orientations comprehensible, and to maintain or enhance their plausibility even for non-Christians. This essay, therefore, proceeds from a biblical motif, takes up certain themes from the Christian tradition (in particular the idea of social justice), and connects both with a compelling contemporary approach to ethics by secular moral philosophy, i.e. with Axel Honneth's reception of Hegel, as (...) based on Hegel's theory of recognition. As a first step, elements of an ethics of recognition are developed on the basis of an anthropological recourse to the conditions of intersubjective encounters. These conditions are then brought to bear on the idea of social justice, as developed in the social-Catholic tradition, and as systematically explored in the Pastoral Letter of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice For All (1986). Proceeding from this basis, aspects of a Christian ethics of community service with regard to long-term care can be defined. (shrink)

En el presente artículo se lleva a cabo un análisis comparativo de las concepciones fundamentales de la “autoconciencia” de J. G. Fichte y G. H Mead. Tal análisis busca demostrar, como tesis central, que ambas concepciones convergen en la configuración de una idea del sujeto autoconsciente en la que la interacción intersubjetiva se pone a la base de condición de posibilidad del “yo” (Fichte) o del “sí mismo” (Mead). Esta demostración obliga a explicitar los modelos de intersubjetividad que subyacen a (...) las respectivas nociones de autoconciencia, representados, en el caso de Fichte, en la teoría de la “exhortación” y, en Mead, en la teoría de la “asunción de roles”. En esta exploración se busca poner de manifiesto que ambas nociones describen un orden de la intersubjetividad práctica en virtud de la significación normativa contenida en ambos modelos, es decir, en virtud de las actitudes y comportamientos que exigen de los sujetos para toda relación intersubjetiva lograda. Esta significación normativa permite apropiarse finalmente del sentido último que encierran ambas nociones de la autoconciencia: el que ésta es, para ambos pensadores, un fenómeno posible sólo por la mediación social que le precede y en la que se halla originariamente inmersa. (shrink)

Im neueren Denken Judith Butlers nimmt der Begriff der Vulnerabilität eine Schlüsselrolle ein. Kaum eines der vielen Themen, denen sich die US-amerikanische Autorin seit der Jahrtausendwende widmet, kann ohne Kenntnis ihrer Überlegungen zu diesem Terminus angemessen verstanden werden. Der Versuch einer Rekonstruktion ihrer Konzeption von Vulnerabilität steht allerdings vor der Schwierigkeit, dass Butlers Gedanken hierzu über zahlreiche Texte hinweg verstreut sind, wobei bisweilen unterschiedliche Aspekte betont und verschiedene Schwerpunktsetzungen vorgenommen werden. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Butlers vulnerabilitätstheoretische Ausführungen in gebündelter Weise (...) dargestellt und interpretiert. Dabei wird die Bedeutsamkeit von Butlers Überlegungen zur Vulnerabilität für ihre Vorstellung von Körperlichkeit aufgewiesen, der Zusammenhang von Vulnerabilität und Anerkennung erläutert und gezeigt, welche ethischen Erwägungen Butler ausgehend von ihrer Anerkennungskonzeption und ihrem Denken der Vulnerabilität anstellt und inwiefern Vulnerabilität und politische Handlungsfähigkeit einander nicht ausschließen. Abschließend wird Butlers Vulnerabilitätsverständnis mit einigen kritischen Rückfragen konfrontiert. (shrink)

El presente artículo trata de presentar los modelos teóricos de Axel Honneth y Adela Cortina —teoría de la lucha por el reconocimiento y ética de la razón cordial, respectivamente— como una respuesta crítica a algunas deficiencias localizadas en la teoría de la acción comunicativa y la ética del discurso habermasiana. Tras exponer los elementos más importantes de los modelos de Habermas, sistematizaré algunos de los problemas fundamentales que se derivan de ellos. En segundo lugar, reconstruiré el significado de la teoría (...) de la lucha por el reconocimiento en el sentido de una superación de la dicotómica separación habermasiana entre sistema y mundo de la vida; para realizar, en tercer lugar, una exposición de la ética de la razón cordial entendida como correctivo tanto al excesivo procedimentalismo de la ética discursiva, como a la negativa habermasiana a incluir también la coordinación comunicativa de las acciones en ámbitos considerados sistémicos.This paper attempts to present the conceptual frameworks proposed by Axel Honneth and Adela Cortina —theory of the struggle for recognition and ethics of cordial reason, respectively— as a critical response to certain deficiencies of Habermas´s theory of communicative action and discourse ethics. Firstly the key elements of Habermas´s theory of communicative action and discourse ethics will be presented, as well as some of its main problems. Secondly the meaning of Honneth´s theory of the struggle for recognition will be reconstructed as an overcoming of one of this problem, namely the Habermasian strict distinction between system and lifeworld. Thirdly the sense of Cortina´s ethics of cordial reason will be presented as a corrective to Habermas´s proceduralism, as well as to the exclusion of communicative rationality from systemic spheres. (shrink)

Abstract Nancy Fraser raises serious doubts about the critical potential of identity theories of recognition on the ground that they encourage the reduction of personal identity to cultural identity. Based on a comparative analysis of Charles Taylor's and Axel Honneth's theories of recognition, this paper argues that Fraser's critique is justified with respect to some aspects of Taylor's theory of identity, but not with respect to his conception of recognition, or to Honneth's conception of both identity and recognition. Taylor's theory (...) of identity recognition is vulnerable to Fraser's critique because under certain conditions of pathological socialization it cannot prevent the normative subordination of strong evaluation to whatever dominant goods are acquired through acculturation. Honneth's theory of identity recognition overcomes this normative weakness in three ways. First, Honneth differentiates between three types of self-relation that cannot be reduced to cultural identity. Second, he operates with a mixed, attributive?responsive model of recognition that normatively underwrites all these types of self-relation. Third, he makes the condition of reciprocity in recognition the criterion for successful self-realization that enables one to distinguish between misrecognition and non-normative experiences of human suffering. (shrink)

This essay explores the nature of being visible and its normative dimensions. In a first part, core traits of an anthropology of visibility are sketched, drawing mainly on Hans Blumenberg’s phenomenological studies. In a second part, human visibility is investigated regarding its implications for our self-understanding, for our relation to others, and for the publicness of our existence. Apart from Blumenberg, also Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles Taylor, Hannah Arendt are involved in this examination. In a third part, two ‘basic rights’ are (...) brought into focus: the right to be seen and the right to remain unseen. In addition to the philosophical exploration, texts by Ralph Ellison, Elena Ferrante and Dave Eggers are discussed as literary references. In a fourth part, a performance by Marina Abramovic that thematised the connection of visibility and recognition is introduced and analysed. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to make use of Edith Stein’s phenomenological analyses of empathy, emotion, and personhood to clarify and critically assess the recent suggestion by Axel Honneth that a basic form of recognition is affective in nature. I will begin by considering Honneth’s own presentation of this claim in his discussion of the role of affect in recognitive gestures, as well as in his notion of ‘elementary recognition,’ arguing that while his account contains much of value it (...) also generates problems. On the basis of this analysis, I will try to show that Stein’s account of empathy demarcates an elementary form of recognition in a less problematic fashion than does Honneth’s own treatment of this issue. I will then spell out the consequences of this move for the emotional recognition thesis, arguing that Stein’s treatment lends it further credence, before ending with some remarks on the connection between recognition and emotional personality. (shrink)

Traditionelle Personenbegriffe der abendländischen Philosophie rekurrieren oft auf rationale Fähigkeiten wie Vernunft- bzw. Moralfähigkeit oder reflexives Selbstbewusstsein als Grundlage von individuellem moralischem Status bzw. der korrelierenden moralischen Verpflichtung. Dem steht die Erfahrung besonderer moralischer Verpflichtungen etwa gegenüber Kindern, Menschen mit besonderen Bedürfnissen oder Tieren entgegen, die durch ratiozentristische Engführungen aus dem Blick zu geraten drohen. Die gegenwärtigen Diskurse um die Begriffe der Vulnerabilität und Anerkennung sind deshalb eine wichtige Ergänzung, um einerseits die Selektivität klassischer moralphilosophischer Konzeptionen zu mindern, indem sie (...) auf eine universal geteilte Bedürftigkeit statt auf Kompetenzen als Anker der Moralität hinweisen, sowie andererseits auch positive Fürsorgepflichten für angewiesene Wesen zu begründen. Allerdings bedarf diese Ergänzung, wie argumentiert wird, ihrerseits einer Erweiterung, weil sie erstens von der kontingenten Anerkennung der Vulnerabilität in einem jeweiligen Ethos abhängt, ohne selbst hinreichende normative Kriterien an die Hand zu geben, zweitens von geteilten, jedoch nicht singulären Ansprüchen und Bedürfnissen ausgeht und drittens den Motivationsgrund der Verpflichtung nicht klärt, weil sie von Allokationsstrukturen und nicht von konkreten Begegnungen ausgeht. Eine Korrektur von der Phänomenologie der Leiblichkeit her, deren Implikationen für moraltheoretische Fragestellungen in den folgenden Ausführungen skizziert werden, scheint daher angezeigt. (shrink)

I seek to draw out the unique character of Levinas’ theory of recognition by highlighting its transitional character in a double sense. It is transitional, firstly, in that it stands between two models of recognition: the earlier agonistic model of Kojeve and the later model of Honneth which takes as its point of departure a primordial relation of mutual affirmation between individuals. It is transitional secondly in the sense that, while Levinas initially employs the concept of recognition, he is later (...) explicit in his rejection of it. The interest of Levinas’ transitional model of recognition for the philosophy of religion is that Levinas negotiates both transitions by calling on archetypes borrowed from the Jewish tradition. An exploration of this model thus provides us with a fresh vantage point from which to address anew the question of the articulation of social philosophy and the philosophy of religion in his work. (shrink)

ABSTRACTI extract a problematic from Levinas’ shifting attitude towards the idea of recognition. An underappreciated aspect of Levinas’ work is that at an early stage he appeals to a recognition-based model of intersubjectivity, which characteristically plots a relation of mutual affirmation between individuals. However, he later explicitly rejects this paradigm in favour of an intensified heterological orientation which invests in otherness as a value in itself. Levinas’ rejection of recognition raises the question of how we are to interpret the relation (...) between the latter and heterology as rival models for reading into intersubjectivity an immanent and dynamic source of normativity. (shrink)

ABSTRACT According to Max Horkheimer, a critical theory of society has to fulfil two tasks: the elimination of social injustice and the critical reflection of its own conceptual means. Based on this definition, I argue that Axel Honneth’s critical theory of recognition is at risk of losing sight of the ambivalence of recognition which limits the scope of his analysis of social pathologies. By drawing on the concept of misrecognising recognition it can be shown that recognition itself is an ambivalent (...) concept which can not only serve the purpose of self-realisation but also the purpose of self-subjection. Following the lead of Jean-Paul Sartre in this article I will unfold the concept of misrecognising recognition and put it at work to show how a variety of social pathologies of self-subjection can only be addressed if the ambivalence of recognition is taken into account. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss the recent attempt of Axel Honneth of establishing a robust notion of progress through reference to recognitive structures. I claim that two strategies can be found in his writings for founding such a claim. On the one hand he tries to found the notion of progress on how differentiated the recognitive structures are. On the other hand he tries to found it on certain empirically revealed anthropological and psychological constants. I argue that both strategies fail. (...) The differentiation-strategy is too open, the psychological strategy is too narrow.I discuss in what sense Honneth’s reflections on the importance of recognitive structures still may be of value in critical discussions. Even though it may be granted that a certain notion of progress is inevitable in critical discussions, it does not follow that it has to be a robust notion. I suggest that recognitive structures may serve as a universal reference point that can be used to locate disagreement (recognitive structures are always at play), rather than a robust universal starting point that can be used solve disagreement (it is not given that we agree upon which recognitive structures should be furthered). (shrink)

This article discusses Axel Honneth’s recent theory of recognition, as exposed in his book Freedom’s Right. The argument defended here is that Honneth’s approach does not apprehend the normative implications of political conflicts, for it relies on what some critics have called normative history. Against that approach, this paper defends a model of social theory that is not committed to normative presuppositions of analysis. Rather, it seeks to understand how political struggles strive for normative authority. As an illustration of forms (...) of recognition that are alternative to the ones Honneth calls normative, the paper builds on an example from Brazilian society. (shrink)

This article argues that Axel Honneth’s ethics of recognition offers a robust model for a renewed critical theory of society, provided that it does not shy away from its political dimensions. First, the ethics of recognition needs to clarify its political moment at the conceptual level to remain conceptually sustainable. This requires a clarification of the notion of identity in relation to the three spheres of recognition, and a clarification of its exact place in a politics of recognition. We suggest (...) that a return to Hegel’s mature theory of subjectivity helps specify the relationship between the normative demand for autonomous identity and its realization in and through politics. (shrink)

This article retraces and discusses the philosophical itinerary of Axel Honneth, from the groundbreaking book Struggle for Recognition up to the recent essays Freedom’s Right and The Idea of Socialism. In the first section, I examine Honneth’s programmatic concept of social pathology in relation to Ernst Cassirer’s idea of the secularisation of theodicy (i. e. the attribution of responsibility for human suffering to society) and to the enlightenment legacy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the second section, after assessing Honneth’s position in (...) the tradition of critical theory, I analyse his philosophical views. I identify two different theoretical frameworks in Honneth’s work: on the one hand, the theory of the struggle for recognition; on the other hand, the recent theory of social freedom. While the first is grounded in a formal and allegedly universal anthropology, the second draws on the Hegelian doctrine of the ethical life and develops a historicist and internalist model of reconstructive social criticism. Finally, in the third section, I critically address the “divinisation of the social” entailed in Honneth’s project of social pathologies’ critique, and argue that Honneth’s trust in the normative power of intersubjectivity might be excessive. (shrink)

Während Nietzsche in der Debatte um Anerkennung bisher vorwiegend in Bezug zur Verkennungslinie interpretiert wird, geht es in dem Beitrag dagegen um die Abgrenzung Nietzsches zu dieser vorwiegend französisch geprägten Verkennungslinie. Dies soll an der sozialen Praktik der Scham als distinktes Beispiel für eine konkrete Situation von Anerkennungsbeziehungen im Lebenszusammenhang gezeigt werden. Für die Verkennungslinie wird exemplarisch Jean Paul-Sartres Verständnis von Scham aus Das Sein und das Nichts als Anerkennungsbeziehung herangezogen. Dazu kontrastierend soll auf Nietzsches Beschreibung des „Scham-Ersparens“ als konkrete (...) Form von Anerkennungsverhältnissen eingegangen werden. Hierbei geht es Nietzsche um eine grundsätzliche Fragilität, durch die das Anerkennungsgeschehen stets in eine Form von Verletzung und Verkennung umzuschlagen droht. Dabei soll gezeigt werden, dass Nietzsche nicht Sartres Weg einschlägt, in dem der Andere sein Gegenüber immer schon durch seinen Blick verdinglicht und dadurch die Freiheit des Anderen verunmöglicht. Wie schwierig die Umsetzung im konkreten Fall bei Nietzsche auch sein mag, so gesteht Nietzsche ihr dennoch grundlegend eine gelingende Möglichkeit im ‚Scham-Ersparen’ zu, oder anders gewendet: Es geht Nietzsche um ein Anerkennen im Angesicht der wechselseitigen Verletzlichkeit. (shrink)

En el presente artículo se lleva a cabo un análisis comparativo de las concepciones fundamentales de la “autoconciencia” de J. G. Fichte y G. H Mead. Tal análisis busca demostrar, como tesis central, que ambas concepciones convergen en la configuración de una idea del sujeto autoconsciente en la que la interacción intersubjetiva se pone a la base de condición de posibilidad del “yo” (Fichte) o del “sí mismo” (Mead). Esta demostración obliga a explicitar los modelos de intersubjetividad que subyacen a (...) las respectivas nociones de autoconciencia, representados, en el caso de Fichte, en la teoría de la “exhortación” y, en Mead, en la teoría de la “asunción de roles”. En esta exploración se busca poner de manifiesto que ambas nociones describen un orden de la intersubjetividad práctica en virtud de la significación normativa contenida en ambos modelos, es decir, en virtud de las actitudes y comportamientos que exigen de los sujetos para toda relación intersubjetiva lograda. Esta significación normativa permite apropiarse finalmente del sentido último que encierran ambas nociones de la autoconciencia: el que ésta es, para ambos pensadores, un fenómeno posible sólo por la mediación social que le precede y en la que se halla originariamente inmersa. (shrink)

Hegel's influence on post-Hegelian philosophy is as profound as it is ambiguous. Modern philosophy is philosophy after Hegel. Taking leave of Hegel's system appears to be a common feature of modern and post-modern thought. One could even argue that giving up Hegel's claim of totality defines philosophy after Hegel. Modern and post-modern philosophies are philosophies of finitude: Hegel's philosophy cannot be repeated. However, its status as a negative backdrop for modern and post-modern thought already shows its pervasive influence. Precisely in (...) its criticism of Hegel, modern thought is bound up with his thinking. (shrink)

Axel Honneth se pregunta si el concepto del reconocimiento puede hacerse cargo de la función que Jürgen Habermas había atribuido al concepto de la comunicación. Con ello se coloca en posición crítica frente a la tradición de pensamiento en la que él mismo se inscribe, la teoría crítica. Cuestiona ante todo el carácter abstracto o formal de la teoría moral que se da en la Ética del Discurso, que remite finalmente a Habermas a Kant. Honneth, por su lado, se apoya (...) en el joven y casi materialista Hegel de Jena y en el behaviorista G. H. Mead, para proponer una teoría de la sociedad, no ajena a lo empírico, que contenga sustancia normativa , equidistante del formalismo de la ética comunicativa y de la materialidad del comunitarismo, superando así las dos tendencias, la universalista y la relativista, con el fin de mediarlas.Axel Honneth asks himself if the concept of recognition can assume the function that Jürgen Habermas had attributed to the concept of communication. Thus he places himself in a critical position regarding the thinking tradition he belonged to-the critic theory. He questions the abstract or formal character of the moral theory of the Ethics of Discourse, which ultimately leads to Habermas and Kant. Honneth, on his side, seeks support in the young and almost materialist Hegel of Jena and in the behaviorist G. H. Mead to propose a theory of society, not altogether unempirical, somehow normative , equidistant from the formalism of communicative ethics and from the materiality of "communitarism", and going beyond both universalism and relativism. (shrink)