Axel Honneth may be criticised for reducing political philosophy to moral psychology. In what follows, I argue that if his theory of recognition is reframed as one of democracy, quite another picture will appear. To do this, I systematically reconstruct Honneth’s stance as a multidimensional version of radical democracy. The question I discuss is the manner in which this framework combines the three dimensions of democratic deliberation, culture, and conflict. I then discuss Honneth’s picture from both a deliberative and agonistic (...) viewpoint. How one understands the way in which he combines the abovementioned dimensions is dependent upon which one of these two approaches one may choose. I claim that when taken together, these three dimensions form the grounding of a radical-democratic understanding of a struggle for recognition, which I term institutional agonism. (shrink)

Anerkjennelse spiller en nøkkelrolle for menneskeverdet innenfor Frankfurterskolens kritiske teori. Men hvorledes skal «anerkjennelse» forstås? Og hvorledes kan anerkjennelse innløse menneskeverdets universelle og egalitære fordring? Jürgen Habermas' og Axel Honneths «familiekrangel» bidrar med relevant innsikt om relasjonen mellom menneskeverd og anerkjennelse. Dette er en innsikt med affinitet til menneskeverdets normative legitimering i dagens transnasjonaliserte verden.Nøkkelord: Menneskeverd, transnasjonal anerkjennelsespolitikk, Jürgen Habermas, Axel HonnethEnglish summary: Recognition and the Grounding of Human Dignity – Towards a Transnational Politics of RecognitionRecognition plays a key role (...) in the Frankfurt School Critical Theory's approach to human dignity. Still, the question could arise as to how the notion of recognition should be understood, and how recognition may relate to the grounding of the concept of human dignity in a universal and egalitarian manner. Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth's «family quarrel» contributes a relevant insight into the relationship between human dignity and recognition, an insight that has affinity with the normative legitimacy of human dignity in today's transnationalised world. (shrink)

Although Axel Honneth's critical theory of recognition continues to resonate among political theorists, its relationship to the debate on political and moral cosmopolitanism remains unclear. The paper aims to fill this gap by defining a few guideposts to a ‘recognition-theoretical’ conception of the international. My argument is that Honneth's theory oscillates between a liberal-cosmopolitan model of the global spread of human rights and an alternative model that is closer to the anti-cosmopolitanism of the late Rawls. Both models reflect certain assumptions (...) about the moral standing of political communities or ‘peoples’, even if those assumptions remain implicit and unexamined. I begin by discussing the premise that recognition theory is all about ‘natural’ persons instead of ‘artificial’ persons such as states or peoples. I proceed by comparing Rawls's notion of a distinct logic of the international to Honneth's more ambiguous gestures toward an international political theory. Finally, I offer some thoughts on the place of peoples and sovereign statehood in the theory of recognition. (shrink)

The question I want to answer is if and how the recognition approach, taken from the works of Axel Honneth, could be an adequate framework for addressing the problems of global justice and poverty. My thesis is that such a globalization of the recognition approach rests on the dialectic of relative and absolute elements of recognition. (1) First, I will discuss the relativism of the recognition approach, that it understands recognition as being relative to a certain society or a set (...) of institutions. The same is true for various forms of disrespect such as denigration or exclusion. The recognition approach is a form of internal reconstructive critique, which does not want to refer to absolute or ahistorical standards. (2) Second, I show that this relative understanding of recognition and disrespect rests on an absolute core of recognition, which transcends any given society. In short, this core is the possibility of undistorted self-realization, which is the main and universal element of a good life. Such an absolute core is necessary for distinguishing between justified and unjustified claims of relative recognition. It also serves as the normative benchmark for any society. (3) Finally, I will discuss the relation of these relative and absolute elements of recognition against the background of global justice. Claims of recognition can refer to this absolute core and demand that intersubjective conditions and social relations should change in order to make undistorted self-realization possible. This is the main point of reference for a recognition-based concept of global justice. (shrink)