Damaged Life: Power and Recognition in Adorno's Ethics

Brink, Bert van den; Owen, David

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498732.004

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To investigate the roots of these developments and their historical alternatives is the aim of a ‘critical theory of managerialism’ (Bronner, 2011; Horkheimer, 1972 [1937]; King, 2010). A ‘critical theory of managerialism’ does not re-develop critical theory as such as this has been done elsewhere, but it applies to managerialism theoretical themes from critical theory such as those of Horkheimer (1937), Adorno (2005 [1944], 2005), Marcuse (1966, 1968), Fromm (1960), Habermas (1997), Bernstein (2001), Klikauer (2007), Von den Brink (2010), Tarr (2011), and Outhwaite (2012), and Schecter (2013).…”

Section: Early Signposts For a Future Critical Theory Of Managerialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a problem that arises with an analysis that makes value judgments such as: ‘Can there be right living in the false’? (Adorno, 2005 [1944]; Bernstein, 2001; Von den Brink, 2010) and judgment also means that in managerialist societies, specific possibilities exist for an ethical and environmentally sustainable advancement of human life. And there are specific ways of realizing these possibilities.…”

Section: Early Signposts For a Future Critical Theory Of Managerialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Is Managerialism?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term 'managerialism' has been widely used but theoretical publications on managerialism remain rare while theory development continues to be insufficient. This article is a contribution to the current discussion on managerialism. Managerialism is a deeply ideological project transcending its traditional position when entering into society. The following theoretical rather than empirical article sets out to present a short overview of the current debate on managerialism, seeking to deliver some preliminary approximations on a possible definition of managerialism and its ideological project. The second part highlights what distinguishes managerialism from neo-liberalism. It is followed by a brief discussion on ideology. Clarifications on managerialism and ideology set the scene for a few preliminary introductory thoughts in 'Early Signposts for a Future Critical Theory of Managerialism'. The conclusion provides a brief emancipatory note on what lies beyond managerialism.

show abstract

Section: Early Signposts For a Future Critical Theory Of Managerialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Early Signposts For a Future Critical Theory Of Managerialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Managerialism?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Honneth writes, ‘far from making a lasting contribution to the autonomy of the members of our society, social recognition appears merely to serve the creation of attitudes that conform to the dominant system. The reservations about this new critical approach thus amount to the thesis that practices of recognition do not empower persons, but subject them to domination.’ Unfortunately, Honneth neither examines Adorno’s ‘there is no right life in the wrong one’, nor Brink’s recent (2010) critical assessment of Honneth’s recognition in the light of Adorno’s famous theme. The subsequent chapter on ‘Dissolutions of the social: The social theory of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thevenot’ reads very much like an extended book review; and the next, on ‘Philosophy as social research: David Miller’s theory of justice’, while not even mentioning the term ‘recognition’, is of similar make.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Book review: The I in the We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition, by Axel Honneth

Klikauer

2015

Capital & Class

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ever since the publication of The Struggle for Recognition (1995), Axel Honneth has been pursuing the Hegelian theme of 'recognition' as originally outlined in Hegel's Phenomenology (1807). The latest instalment is Honneth's The I in the We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition. A quasi-background of this can be found in the idea to move critical theory onto the theoretical and ethical platform of 'recognition', as discussed in Fraser and Honneth's Redistribution or Recognition (2003). To a large extent, The I in the We is a continuation of Honneth's project. The book has fourteen chapters, divided into four parts: 'Hegel's Roots', 'Systematic Consequences', 'Social and Theoretical Applications', and 'Psychoanalytical Ramifications'. What the book does not have is an introduction providing an overall discussion on Honneth's theme; and nor does it have a conclusion that could have comprehensively discussed 'what we could learn from all this'.After a very brief preface, Part 1 begins with a discussion on Hegel's concept of 'recognition', emphasising the fact that 'Hegel's text is especially difficult to understand'. In Chapter 2, 'The realm of actualised freedom', Honneth positions Hegel's work in its historical context, outlining 'the great disturbance caused by the Counter-Reform in Prussia', which according to d 'Hondt (1988), was a period marred by the 'Carlsbad Decrees' of 1819, signifying an historical period of state censorship, reaction, and repression. It was in this period that Hegel wrote his second great book, Philosophy of Right (1821), on which Honneth notes, 'on the whole, the book gives the highly confusing impression', arguing that Hegel's 'three-stage network of institutionalised practices and structures has been completely travelled through [so that] the realm of actualised freedom … will be presented in its entirety'. By this, Hegel meant the stages of family, civil society, and state. This is needed so that each stage can 'compensate for the flaws that characterise the previous stage'.In Chapter 3, 'The fabric of justice: On the limits of contemporary proceduralism', Honneth highlights the 'deficits of the distribution paradigm', perhaps not only because justice is linked to 'distributive justice', but also as a response to Nancy Fraser's 'distribution model'. For Honneth, justice is a 'reconstructive' issue. He notes, 'this alternative procedure could thus be termed "reconstructive", because it does not "construct" an impartial standpoint from which to justify principles of justice, but "reconstructs" them out of the historical process of relations of recognition in which they are always already at work'. The chapter on justice is followed by a chapter on 'Labour and recognition: A redefinition', in which Honneth -correctly -notes that many intellectuals have 'turned their backs' on labour (Klikauer 2012), leaving labour relations dangerously exposed to neoliberal economics, human resources management, and management studies. Honneth argues that 'to share Hegel's and Durkheim's conviction that...

show abstract

Macht in den Kapillaren des Alltäglichen. Bausteine einer Sozialkritik des Privaten

Seubert

2019

Privatsphäre 4.0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Damaged Life: Power and Recognition in Adorno's Ethics

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

What Is Managerialism?

What Is Managerialism?

Book review: The I in the We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition, by Axel Honneth

Macht in den Kapillaren des Alltäglichen. Bausteine einer Sozialkritik des Privaten

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About