Suchergebnisse

Building on the analyses of cultural hegemony in the works of Nancy Fraser
and Wendy Brown, I argue in the paper that the historic bloc (order of
cultural hegemony) of post-Fordist capitalism is characterized by a
particular dynamic between several ?axes? of hegemony that gives rise to the
?paradox of engagement/disengagement?. The ?progressive-expertocratic? axis
of hegemony creates a subject-position of the ?engaged self?, a figure
embodying a certain promise of political agency that is simultaneously
obstructed by other, depoliticizing axes of hegemony. This dynamic is
conducive to the rise of contemporary right-wing authoritarianism, which
purports to fulfill this promise of political agency through a series of
displacements - the counterhegemonic left, I argue, has so far not
formulated an effective alternative to this strategy. In the second part, I
explore the potential of Axel Honneth?s theory of recognition, in particular
his concept of ?interpersonal respect?, for grounding a left strategy of
connecting (mutually articulating) the hegemonic figure of the ?engaged
self? with a progressive politics of social transformation. To that end, I
elaborate Honneth?s perspective by means of an argument about the role of
trust in the context of societal crises that Igor Cvejic, Srdjan Prodanovic
and I have recently formulated.

The paper reconstructs Axel Honneth?s Neo-Hegelian critique of the
classical-liberal conception of autonomy and his articulation of an
alternative view of personal autonomy as the property of certain types of
intersubjective relations of recognition in modernity, developed most
systematically in Honneth?s recent work Freedom?s Right (Das Recht der
Freiheit). The analysis of Freedom?s Right focuses on reconstructing
Honneth?s critique of the ?negative? and ?reflexive? types of freedom
(autonomy) articulated within the liberal tradition, and contrasting the
former two with the conception of ?social freedom? (the inter?subjectivist
conception of autonomy) that Honneth formulates through a detailed ?normative
reconstruction of modernity?. Finally, the paper considers the proximity of
Honneth?s ?Hegelian liberalism? to communitarianism.

The paper discusses a particular ?isomorphy? between two forms of social
criticism: the ?holistic? theoretical social critique represented by such
authors as J?rgen Habermas and Axel Honneth and ?collective social
engagement? represented by such civic movements as the ?We Won?t Let Belgrade
D(r)own? initiative in contemporary Serbia, which the paper tries to
distinguish from more conventional forms of popular protest. This
?isomorphy?, the paper argues, consists in a tension between three distinct
imperatives of the justification of critique - those of normative
universalism, epistemological anti-authoritarianism, and diagnosis of social
domination - produced by the attempts of both the ?holistic? social critics
and the collectively engaged actors to simultaneously respond to all three
imperatives. After presenting the three types of theoretical critique that
crystallize around each imperative, the paper discusses the internal tension
that arises in the works of ?holistic? theoretical critics and then
identifies the same kind of tension in the ?We Won?t Let Belgrade D(r)own?
initiative. The tension in the movement?s critique is outlined through a
brief analysis of the activists? discourse as articulated in the bulletin We
Won?t Let Belgrade D(r)own issued in March 2015. Since the examples also
suggest that collective engagement is better than theoretical critique at
keeping this tension ?productive?, the paper finally offers some tentative
thoughts on the possible reasons for this difference.

This paper analyzes two contemporary, ?third-generation? perspectives within
critical theory - Nancy Fraser?s and Axel Honneth?s - with the aim of
examining the degree to which the two authors succeed in grounding the
normative criteria of social critique in the perspectives of ?ordinary?
social actors, as opposed to speculative social theory. To that end, the
author focuses on the influential debate between Fraser and Honneth
Redistribution or Recognition? which concerns the appropriate normative
foundations of a ?post-metaphysical? critical theory, and attempts to
reconstruct the fundamental 29 disagreements between Fraser and Honneth over
the meaning and tasks of critical theory. The author concludes that both
critical theorists ultimately secure the normative foundations of critique
through substantive theorizations of the social, which frame the two authors?
?reconstructions? of the normativity of everyday social action, but argues
that post-metaphysical critical theory does not have to abandon comprehensive
social theory in order to be epistmologically ?non-authoritarian?.

The author attempts at questioning Habermas? and Honneth?s claim that the
linguistic turn within Critical Theory of society represents a way out of the
?dead end? of the first generation of Frankfurt School theorists, who were
unable to formulate an action-theoretic understanding of social conflicts. By
presenting a view that Adorno, in his ?Negative dialectic?, develops an
insight into a crucial characteristic of the conflict nature of modern
societies, which eludes the lingustic-pragmatist Critical Theory, the author
tries to defend and reactualize Adorno?s perspective. The paper analyzes some
key aspects of the original idea of Critical Theory, and the ?negativistic
turn? that Adorno and Horkheimer made with the writing of ?Dialectic of
Enlightenment?. Having considered the central arguments of the ?Negative
Dialectic?, the author presents his understanding of Adorno?s concept of
social conflict, which is then being contrasted with Habermas? understanding
of social conflict, formulated in terms of a systemic colonization of the
lifeworld. Pointing out the weaknesses of Habermas? concept, the author aims
at sharpening the image of the conflict nature of modern societies that
Adorno sketches, concluding that his perspective is able to question the
framework of intersubjectivity that Habermas and Honneth take for granted.

This paper presents three interconnected examinations of Asger S?rensen?s
arguments in Capitalism, Alienation and Critique, which thematize S?rensen?s
overarching understanding of the relationship between theory and practice:
his general methodological perspective on critical theory, its distinctive
epistemology and its anchoring in the empirical world. The paper authors
each try to push S?rensen on these crucial points by considering how
S?rensen?s variant of critical theory actually operates, scrutinizing in
more detail the particular relationship between the ?experience of
injustice?, which for S?rensen constitutes the empirical foothold for
critical theory, and the theoretical diagnosis of social reality which the
critical theorist should formulate against the backdrop of this experience.

The main focus of our paper is on a specific form of democratic discourse, used in different types of social engagement actions (petitions, speeches, intellectual engagement, ad hoc citizens' protests, social movements etc.), that attempts to politicize a certain issue by challenging the neoliberal principle of instrumentalism which argues that democratic procedures can legitimately be abandoned in the name of the greater efficiency of socio-economic development. Therefore, we start from identifying the discourse of "neoliberal instrumentalism" and its relative success in delegitimizing the welfare state and mechanisms of democratic decision making and we formulate a conceptual model of a democratic counter-narrative named "anti-instrumentalist discourse". Through empirical analyses of discourse used by We Won't Let Belgrade D(r)own initiative, that mobilized against the Serbian government's urban project Belgrade Wa-terfront we try to illustrate the applicability and the heuristic value of the proposed model. The data for the analyses were collected through 1) desk analysis of available secondary data on the Belgrade Waterfront project, 2) official statements and proclamations of the We Won't Let Belgrade D(r)own initiative, 3) semi-structured interviews with four core members of the initiative.