Journal of Critical Reviews ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 11, 2020 ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH’S NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY John Paul J. Petrola University of San Agustin, Iloilo City, Philippines [email protected] Received: 11.03.2020 Revised: 18.04.2020 Accepted: 12.05.2020 Abstract This paper is an expose of Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition. Using document analysis and hermeneutics of Axel Honneth’s seminal works and other resources on social pathology and struggle for recognition, this paper attempts to provide a deeper interpretation of Honneth 's theory of recognition as it tries to address the context of Honneth's critical theory, its three spheres of recognition, namely affection, rights and unity, which are required in order to gain concrete self-relationship, and its principle of disrespect as the spiritual grammar of the disenfranchised in the struggle for recognition. Furthermore, it offers a new alternative in doing critical analysis of the society. Keywords: Axel Honneth, Critical theory, Love, Rights, Solidarity, Modern Society © 2020 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.11.30 INTRODUCTION These are requisites in synthesizing a background on Honneths ethical life and recognition are two key concepts of Hegel critical social theory and his concepts of the spheres of borrowed by Honneth in developing the theory of the struggle for recognition. recognition. As elucidated by Hegel, according to Deranty, the term ‘absolute ethical life’ entails the full development of the Lastly, I will present Honneths concept of disrespect or denial of individual’s theoretical and practical capacities, as well as the full recognition, and how it becomes the moral grammar of the development of social interactions [3]. Obviously, for Deranty, the oppressed who struggle for recognition. term recognition features social interactions that make individuals engage with each other [3]. For Deranty and Renault, Honneth argued in his book The Struggle for Recognition: The Honneth’s reconstruction of Hegel’s original theory of recognition Moral Grammar of Social Disputes that the likelihood of self- was purposive in order for Honneth to present the concept in the realization as a free and independent person depends on 20th century as a fundamental alternative to the rational-choice increasing self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem. and utilitarian social theories which rejuvenate the original project of critical theory [4]. It also offers a theoretical framework According to Honneth, the denial of the individual’s demands for for social criticism defining current social pathologies and recognition causes social sufferings and the experiences of pointing in the direction of emancipation. Because of this, injustice. These occurrences are empirical evidences which reveal Deranty and Renault were persuaded that Honneth 's recognition that modern society is doing something unjust to people [1]. In theory provides the most reliable paradigm for a revived critical Honneth’s lenses, it is reasonable to claim that giving full theory of society in today's modern society [4]. recognition of the individuals’ deep-seated claims and expectations is the best alternative to attain emancipation [2]. He pointed out Hegel 's attempt to include a metaphysical reconstruction of the organization of human ethical societies as a The aim of this paper is to provide thorough discussion of Axel series of stages involving a struggle for acknowledgement in Honnethskey concepts in his theory of the struggle for Honneth 's readings of Hegel's Jena scriptures [5]. For Hegel, recognition highlighting his three spheres of recognition namely, according to Pelcynzski, the ethical community refers to the state spheres of love, right and solidarity. which is politically organized, sovereign and governed by public authorities [6]. Moreover, Hegel argued that in the ethical RESEARCH METHODS community, it is easy to say what man ought to do in order to be In this paper, I employed document analysis of Axel Honneth’s virtuous [7]. original work entitled The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Also, hermeneutics was utilized to In the same manner, according to Honneth, the future ethical carefully analyze how society’s indifferences negatively impact on community, as Hegel envisioned, is grounded on the idea of the lives of marginalized individuals and how their feelings of reciprocal relations between subjects or the so-called disappointments become the moral grammar for subjects to intersubjectivity that goes beyond mere cognitive recognition. It struggle for recognition. involves patterns of recognition that provide communicative basis among individuals uniting within the context of an ethical RESULTS AND DISCUSSION community [5]. However, Honneth finds Hegel’s work incomplete Hegel and Mead because it failed to develop the concrete interactions between the The theory of the struggle for acceptance by Axel Honneth draws individual in the society. Honneth noted that Hegel did not fully heavily from Jena writings by Hegel and the social psychology by develop his spheres of recognition, namely, love, rights, and Mead. In his book entitled The System of Ethical Life published in solidarity. For Honneth, these three spheres of recognition are 1802, Hegel developed his concepts of the absolute ethical life necessary in the formative process of achieving the ethical and recognition. For Deranty, a known scholar on Honneth, communities, but they were abandoned by Hegel. Furthermore, Journal of critical reviews 188 ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH’S NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY Honneth argued that Hegel failed to provide clarity and empirical the satisfaction of their needs. Thus, they could never be verification to his concept of the development of the individual’s separated from each other. On one hand, the infant, in his/her self-consciousness, desire and recognition [8]. Instead, Hegel first months, is so much dependent on his/her mother not only abandoned the project of reconstruction of ethical communities for physiological, but also for his/her psychological needs. On the through social conflicts, specifically through struggle for other hand, the mother towards the end of pregnancy is recognition, in favor of the philosophy of consciousness or the preoccupied with the care for her baby, which seems like a part of philosophy of mind. herself [11]. The mother is very much emotionally attached to her baby and knows what the baby needs and feels. Thus, the mother Because of this deficit that Honneth found in Hegel’s theory of expresses her love to her child through maternal care, which recognition, he proceeded to appropriate Mead’s social Winnicott calls the holding phase. For Winnicott the term holding, psychology. It was Mead’s social psychology that provided the which denotes the physical holding of the baby, is a form of loving concrete details to Honneth’s theory of the struggle for and perhaps the only way wherein the mother can show her love recognition. In reality, as Honneth said, Mead's social psychology for her infant. As a result, the infant feels a basic sense of has provided an account of the tripartite interrelationship protection, safety and security of his/her mother [12]. Moreover, between individual identity-formation and social patterns of Winnicott argues that in this phase of maternal care, the infant interaction[5]. In Honneth's readings of Mead, he interpreted the starts to recognize and explore his/her environment. Likewise, in 'I' not only as a person capable of thought, speaking and acting this phase, the establishment of the infant’s first objects’ but also as a source of creativity from which new claims of relationship and experiences of instinctual gratification take place identity are asserted [5]. Here, Mead’s notion of the ‘I’ has been [13]. essential for Honneth in the development of his notion of autonomy and morally responsible agent, which are the core For Winnicott, according to Abram, relative dependence occurs ideas in the spheres of rights and solidarity. when the mother starts to fail to adapt to every need of her child. It is in this stage that the child begins to develop his/ her Hegel and Mead agreed that mutual recognition among intellectual capacities. This takes place when the mother already individuals is necessary in order for these individuals to develop returned to her daily routine, leaving the child for a long period of a practical relation-to-self. However, for Honneth, both Hegel and time. Because of this, the mother fails to attend to her child’s Mead settled only with the purely theoretical aspects of their need. Winnicott argues that the child’s separation from the thought and did not provide empirical data or the actual analysis mother creates a feeling of anxiety where the child could now of the interactions or patterns of recognition among these distinguish him/herself from his/her mother and his/her individuals. However, unlike Hegel, Mead offered the specifics of environment [14]. According to Cook, for Winnicott, the failures this developmental cycle as well as the motivational foundations that the mother is committing and the child’s feelings of anxiety on which the subject or the “I” should anchor its recognition allow the child to identify him/herself with his/her mother and movement, but both were unable to recognize social factors that see his/her mother as an independent subject separate from cause individuals to search for recognition. [5]. Because of these him/herself [15]. insufficiencies found in both Hegel and Mead, Honneth developed a new model of social theory, the struggle for recognition, with a Apparently, for Winnicott, the absence of the mother poses a more detailed content based on the individuals’ actual difficult challenge in the child’s development and it produces the experiences of being victims of social injustice.