Search results for: Honneth

Authors: Yotaro Natani

Abstract:

In his recent works, Frankfurt School theorist Axel Honneth elucidates an intersubjective notion of social freedom and outlines a vision of socialism as the realization of social freedom in the family, market economy, and public sphere. These arguments are part of his broader project of defending the tradition of immanent critique and normative reconstruction. In contrast, American Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright spells out a vision of socialism in terms of building real utopias -democratic, egalitarian, alternative institutions- through the exercise of civil society’s social power over the economy and state. Wright identifies ‘eroding capitalism’ as the framework for thinking about the strategic logics of gradually diminishing the dominance of capitalism. Both thinkers envision the transition toward socialism in terms of democratic experimentation; Honneth is more attentive to the immanent norms of social life, whereas Wright is better aware of the power of antagonistic structures. This paper attempts to synthesize the ideas of Honneth and Wright. It will show that Honneth’s critique of capitalism suffers from certain ambiguities because he attributes normative legitimacy to existing institutions, resulting in arguments that do not problematize aspects of capitalist structures. This paper will argue that incorporating the notion of power and thematizing the erosion of capitalism as a long-term goal for socialist change will allow Honneth to think more precisely about the conditions for realizing social freedom, in a manner that is still consistent with the immanent critique tradition. Such reformulation will result in a concept of social freedom that is less static and rooted in functional teleology and more oriented toward creative agency and experimental democracy.

Keywords: Axel Honneth, immanent critique, real utopias, social freedom, socialism

Procedia PDF Downloads 114

Authors: David Schafer

Abstract:

Critical Theory is in sore need of a workable account of technology. It had one in the writings of Herbert Marcuse, or so it seemed until Jürgen Habermas mounted a critique in 'Technology and Science as Ideology' (Habermas, 1970) that decisively put it away. Ever since Marcuse’s work has been regarded outdated – a 'philosophy of consciousness' no longer seriously tenable. But with Marcuse’s view has gone the important insight that technology is no norm-free system (as Habermas portrays it) but can be laden with social bias. Andrew Feenberg is among a few serious scholars who have perceived this problem in post-Habermasian critical theory and has sought to revive a basically Marcusean account of technology. On his view, while so-called ‘technical elements’ that physically make up technologies are neutral with regard to social interests, there is a sense in which we may speak of a normative grammar or ‘technical code’ built-in to technology that can be socially biased in favor of certain groups over others (Feenberg, 2002). According to Feenberg, those perspectives on technology are reified which consider technology only by their technical elements to the neglect of their technical codes. Nevertheless, Feenberg’s account fails to explain what is normatively problematic with such reified views of technology. His plausible claim that they represent false perspectives on technology by itself does not explain how such views may be oppressive, even though Feenberg surely wants to be doing that stronger level of normative theorizing. Perceiving this deficit in his own account of reification, he tries to adopt Habermas’s version of systems-theory to ground his own critical theory of technology (Feenberg, 1999). But this is a curious move in light of Feenberg’s own legitimate critiques of Habermas’s portrayals of technology as reified or ‘norm-free.’ This paper argues that a better foundation may be found in Axel Honneth’s recent text, Freedom’s Right (Honneth, 2014). Though Honneth there says little explicitly about technology, he offers an implicit account of reification formulated in opposition to Habermas’s systems-theoretic approach. On this ‘normative functionalist’ account of reification, social spheres are reified when participants prioritize individualist ideals of freedom (moral and legal freedom) to the neglect of an intersubjective form of freedom-through-recognition that Honneth calls ‘social freedom.’ Such misprioritization is ultimately problematic because it is unsustainable: individual freedom is philosophically and institutionally dependent upon social freedom. The main difficulty in adopting Honneth’s social theory for the purposes of a theory of technology, however, is that the notion of social freedom is predicable only of social institutions, whereas it appears difficult to conceive of technology as an institution. Nevertheless, in light of Feenberg’s work, the idea that technology includes within itself a normative grammar (technical code) takes on much plausibility. To the extent that this normative grammar may be understood by the category of social freedom, Honneth’s dialectical account of the relationship between individual and social forms of freedom provides a more solid basis from which to ground the normative claims of Feenberg’s sociological account of technology than Habermas’s systems theory.

Keywords: Habermas, Honneth, technology, Feenberg

Procedia PDF Downloads 166

Authors: Dominic Roulx

Abstract:

Many scholars have in the past decade emphasized the relevance of Adorno’s criticism of the rationalized domination of nature (Naturbeherrschung) for thinking the environmental crisis. Beyond the intersubjective critical models of thinkers such as Habermas and Honneth, Adorno’s critical theory has the benefit, according to them, of disclosing the entwinement of social and natural domination in a critically productive way. The author will be arguing in this paper that Adorno’s model of critical theory displays a theoretical framework that is both original and relevant for thinking the ins and outs of the currentenvironmental crisis. To do so, he first construe Adorno’s understanding of the historical domination of nature and argue that Adorno’s method for its criticizing is immanent critique. He puts emphasis on how his understanding of the domination of nature implicitly implies an account of thedialectical relationship between reason and nature. In doing so, he presents a naturalistic understanding of his idea of the primacy of the object. Second, regarding Adorno’s concept of nature, he discusses what he sees as the shortcomings of many commentators’ understanding of the concept of nature in Adorno. He contends that they tend to fall short of Adorno’s concept of nature in failing to make sense of its thoroughly negative signification, thereby falling into an uncritical and fetichized comprehension of “nature. Third, he discusses the prospect for a possible “reconciliation” (Versöhnung) of nature with society. Highlighting how the domination of nature proves to produce the necessary conditions for its own overcoming, he contends that reconciliation with nature relies mainly on the subject’s capacity for critical self-reflection.

Keywords: german philosophy, adorno, nature, environmental crisis

Procedia PDF Downloads 62

Authors: Hasan Sungur, Evrim Baran, Benjamin Ahn, Aliye Karabulut Ilgu, Chris Rehmann, Cassandra Rutherford

Abstract:

Engineering identity contributes to the professional and educational persistence of women engineers. A crucial factor contributing to the development of the engineering identity is recognition. Those without adequate recognition often do not succeed in positively building their identities. This research draws on Honneth’s recognition theory to identify factors impacting women civil engineers’ feelings of recognition as civil engineers. A survey was composed and distributed to 330 female alumni who graduated from the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at Iowa State University in the last ten years. The survey items include demographics, perceptions of the identity of civil engineering, and factors that influence the recognition of civil engineering identities, such as views of society and family. Descriptive analysis of the survey responses revealed that the perceptions of civil engineering varied widely. Participants’ definitions of civil engineering included the terms: construction, design, and infrastructure. Almost half of the participants reported that the major reason to study civil engineering was their interest in the subject matter, and most reported that they were proud to be civil engineers. Many study participants reported that their parents see them as civil engineers. Treatment of institutions and the workplace were also considered as having a significant impact on the recognition of women civil engineers. Almost half of the participants reported that they felt isolated or ignored at work because of their gender. This research emphasizes the importance of recognition for the development of the civil engineering identity of women

Keywords: civil engineering, gender, identity, recognition

Procedia PDF Downloads 218