This paper assesses the extent to which the category of hope assists in preserving and redefining the vestiges of utopian thought in critical social theory. Hope has never had a systematic position among the categories of critical social theory, although it has sometimes acquired considerable prominence. It will be argued that the current philosophical and everyday interest in social hope can be traced to the limited capacity of liberal conceptions of freedom to articulate a vision of social transformation apposite to contemporary suffering and indignity. The background to these experiences is the structural changes associated with the injustices of globalisation, the mobilisation of the capitalist imaginary and the uncertainties of the risk society. The category of hope could assist in sustaining the utopianism of critical theory through conjoining normative principles with a temporal orientation. Yet, the paradoxes of the current phase of capitalist modernisation have further denuded notions of progress. Since the theological background to the category of hope constitutes a major limitation, the utopian orientation of critique is clarified in relation to the antinomies of the turn to social hope and the potential of Habermas' discourse theory of democracy, law and morality. Despite Castoriadis' profound critique of the category of hope, its present usage in social analyses will be seen to have affinities with Honneth's conception of the struggle for recognition.

Immanent critique has been a defining feature of the programme of critical social theory. It is a methodology that underpins theoretical diagnoses of contemporary society, based on its linking normative and empirical modes of analysis. Immanent critique distinctively seeks to discern emancipatory or democratizing tendencies. However, the viability of immanent critique is currently in question. Habermas argued that it was necessary to revise the normative foundations of critical social theory, late-capitalist developments tended to undermine immanent critique. Although there is a need for critical social theory to incorporate aspects of alternative interpretations of the contemporary period, the logics of influential theoretical perspectives on the present, especially postmodernism, the risk society and globalization, will be shown to be inconsistent with some of immanent critique's presuppositions. The synthetic aspirations of critical social theory nevertheless persist in recent attempts to reconcile positive liberty and social justice.

No abstract

This article investigates the manner in which anti-austerity protests constitute practical negations of capitalist legitimacy. The analysis is divided into three parts. The first part discusses the key issues at stake in contemporary anti-austerity protests, from capitalist legitimacy to collective forms of autonomy. The second part examines central sociological dimensions permeating the reality of austerity, from the power of the state, via the pervasive processes of commodification, to the emergence of a “new spirit of capitalism.” The third part reflects on the emancipatory potential of anti-austerity movements, arguing that they contribute to personal and social empowerment, as well as to radical democratization. The article suggests that the recent protests against austerity indicate that there is room not only for despair but also for hope.

The political is changing its shape. Ideologies are no longer stable, but instead build hybrid combinations. Populism is getting popular. In addition, there are new forms of political experiences, online and offline movements, and a new kind of political consciousness, which does not necessarily follow the logic of political institutions and is sometimes anti-political or post-truth. These phenomena are signs of a deep transformation of the political imaginary. Yet, the imaginary is a collective structure that organizes the imagination and the symbolism of the political. Against this background, it becomes evident that traditional concepts of political science and sociology have difficulty explaining how the political is constituted, since these disciplines have not, by and large, addressed the question of how the political is imagined. In general, these disciplines have focused on political institutions and actors, and sometimes scholars take the political culture into account, but they are mainly still using the traditional framework of the civic culture (Almond and Verba 1963). The understanding of how political principles are shared or how institutions are legitimized is still incomplete. It is the intention of this issue to reopen this question and to contribute to further work on the political imaginary.