Resumen: El presente artículo reconstruye los principales motivos que impulsaron la más reciente renovación de las bases epistemológicas de la teoría crítica, esto es, el desplazamiento desde su fundamentación en una teoría de la “acción comunicativa” hacia el concepto de “reconocimiento”. Se muestra que esta renovación, así como el “giro intersubjetivo” emprendido décadas antes por Habermas en relación con el programa originario de “crítica de la ideología”, puede ser entendido a partir de una de las tareas distintivas que la teoría (...) crítica asume a partir de su posicionamiento epistemológico: comprender sus formas de conocimiento como un momento de autorreflexión de un interés emancipador socialmente existente. Esto supone conectar de alguna manera su crítica de las injusticias con las experiencias vividas de injusticia. En suma, los distintos modos de abordar esta tarea autorreflexiva pueden ser entendidos como un hilo conductor entre las sucesivas renovaciones epistemológicas de esta tradición de la crítica social.: This article reconstructs the main motives that led to the most recent renewal of the epistemological foundations of critical theory. It analyses the move from a theory based on the notion of “communicative action” to one centred on “recognition”. The article argues that both this renewal and the “inter-subjective turn”, proposed decades ago by Habermas as response to the original agenda focused on the “critique of ideology”, can be understood by looking at one of the distinctive goals critical theory seeks to meet from its epistemological positioning: to conceive its forms of knowledge as a moment of self-reflection of a socially existing emancipatory interest. This implies connecting in some way its critiques of injustice to the lived experiences of injustice. In sum, the different ways of addressing this self-reflective goal can be understood as the guideline between consecutive epistemological renewals of this tradition of social criticism. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has drawn on Koselleck’s methods of conceptual history and his diagnosis of ‘crisis’ in modernity to make sense of 21st-century developments in political, social and economic life and thought. This review essay looks at two texts that, in different ways, test Koselleck’s ideas in challenging and innovative ways. Lara’s use of conceptual history to shed light on the debates over secularization demonstrates how concepts become central to struggles over the definition of politics – definitions which thereafter disclose the (...) possibilities and set the agenda for future political action. Roitman continues Koselleck’s interest in the concept of crisis and shows how conceptual history can be used to sharpen our awareness of undisclosed content and theoretical blind spots. Both show how conceptual history serves as a ‘semantic check’ on political concepts, demanding greater reflexivity and the setting of realistic political goals. (shrink)