Social Justice After Kant: Between Constructivism and Deconstruction (Rawls, Habermas, Levinas, Derrida)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Social Justice after Kant: Between Constructivism and Deconstruction (Rawls, Habermas, Levinas, Derrida) Miriam Bankovsky This thesis is submitted to the School of History and Philosophy at the University of New South Wales in fulfilment of the requirements of a PhD in Philosophy September 2008 PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname: Bankovsky First name: Miriam Other name/s: Ann Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: History and Philosophy Faculty: Arts Title: Social Justice after Kant: Between Constructivism and Deconstruction (Rawls, Habermas, Levinas, Derrida) Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) In this thesis, I examine the relation between two contrasting approaches to justice: the constructive and reconstructive projects of Rawls and Habermas, on the one hand, and the deconstructive projects of Levinas and Derrida, on the other. I pursue this task in two stages. First, reconstructing each philosopher’s account of justice as it develops in relation to Kant’s practical philosophy, I identify the central difference between the two approaches. I then argue that each project complements the other. Whilst Rawls and Habermas emphasise the possibility of objectively realising Kant’s idea of an impartial standpoint among autonomous persons, Levinas and Derrida defend the impossibility of determining the content of justice. Rawls and Habermas subscribe to the “art of the possible”, rendering Kant’s impartial standpoint by means of the “original position” (Rawls) or the “procedures of discourse ethics” (Habermas). By contrast, Levinas argues for justice’s failure, discovering, in Kant’s moral law, a principle of responsibility for the particular other which conflicts with impartiality. Distinguishing himself from both the reconstructive tradition and Levinas, Derrida affirms, in part through his readings of Kant, the “undecidability” of the critical function of justice. Committed to the possibility of justice, Derrida also acknowledges its impossibility: no local determination can reconcile responsibility before the other with impartiality among all. Having identified the central difference between the traditions, I then defend their complementarity. “Reasonable faith” with respect to justice’s possibility must be supplemented by the acknowledgment of its impossibility. Conversely, any analysis which attests to the failure of justice surrenders its critical function when it is not complemented by faith in the possibility of constructing new and better social forms. Arguing that each tradition must supplement the other, I distance myself from the prevailing liberal critique whereby deconstruction withdraws from the political (Habermas, Fraser, McCarthy, Benhabib, Gutmann), and instead add my voice to a dissenting group (Young, Cornell, Mouffe, Honig, Honneth, Patton, Thomassen), which affirms that deconstruction can be brought to bear in productive ways on the constructive tradition. Deconstruction is at home in Rawls’ view that “the ideal of a just constitution is always something to be worked toward”. Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). ……………………………………………… ……………………………………..……………… ……….………… Signature Witness Date The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award: ii ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’ Signed…………………………………………………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………………………………………….. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.' Signed…………………………………………………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………………………………………….. AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’ Signed…………………………………………………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………………………………………….. iii Acknowledgments First of all, I warmly thank my two supervisors, Paul Patton and Catherine Malabou, above all for their philosophical counsel, expertise, and sound criticism. Paul’s ability to explicitly underline an argument which I had not fully verbalised was my single most valuable resource during these last months. Moreover, Catherine’s intellectual and personal generosity during my time at Paris X-Nanterre allowed me to develop my position with confidence. I am also very grateful to both for their complete commitment to assisting me with the many headaches involved with the cotutelle. Simply put, I could not have completed this PhD without them. To my family – my parents Barbara and Yanek, my brother Damien and my niece Hiraani – thank you for your absolute love, understanding, friendship and good humour, and for always having provided me with every possible opportunity. To my lovin’ man, Sean Bowden, for your company, for making me laugh and for putting “a new coat of paint on this lonesome old town”. I have also appreciated your practical sense (and cooking!) during the years which went into this thesis, as well as your calming influence and much needed support during the last few months. I dedicate my thesis to you. To Mister Marc Jones. Thank you for willingly and generously assuming the arduous task of proof-reading this entire manuscript with your expert eye. No longer will I confuse “that” with “which”. My thanks also goes to those who, in addition to my supervisors, had a formative influence on my work: to Christian Lazzeri for his lectures on Rawls and recognition, his feedback on my essays, and his generous support; to Paula Keating for her spontaneous philosophical understanding and our many discussions of Kant and Rawls; to Ros Diprose, for her lectures on Levinas and her assistance with my work; to Jack Reynolds for facilitating the move from undergraduate to postgraduate; to Craig Browne for the experience as research assistant; to Claudia Gutiérrez for our many philosophical discussions and for her down-to-earth friendship; to Sotiria Liakaki for our reading group and her feedback on my work; to Sandra Field for her help, early on, with Kant’s philosophy of right; to Lisa Guenther for her hospitality in Montreal; to Alexandra Bourré, Hervé Bruneau, Céline Gaille, Philippe Lagadec, Peggy Bertaux, Thierry Aimar, Florentin Roche, and Christopher Hamel for their “conseils linguistiques”; to Alice Le Goff, Marie Garrau and Claire Pagès for the doctoral activities at Paris X-Nanterre; and to those with whom I shared a room at different stages of my PhD: Sarah Rice, Paula Keating, and Sandra Field. Grateful thanks also to those who helped out administratively: to Ros Diprose, Damian Grace and Mina Roces, as post-graduate coordinators at UNSW; to Marie Tourn at Université de Paris X- Nanterre; to the GRS staff at UNSW for keeping the ball rolling; and to Virginie Pierrepont at Egide. Continued over the page… iv Acknowledgments (continued…) I also thank those whose friendships