Social Pathologies, False Developments and the Heteronomy of the Social: Social Theory and the Negative Side of Recognition

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore a tension between two concepts designed to expose social discomforts in Axel Honneth’s mature work, namely social pathologies and anomie. Particular emphasis will be given to how they contribute or obstruct Honneth’s apprehension of social tensions. In the first session of this exposition I will show that Honneth’s interpretation of social pathologies is based on a conception of society as an organic whole (I). While this interpretation represents a slight change regarding Honneth’s understanding of social pathologies in Das Recht der Freiheit, it does not change the fact that in his work subsequent to that book the concept of false developments has not been properly theorized. Accordingly, social discomforts related to deviations from expected patterns of a normative reconstruction remain largely ignored. This calls for a perspective more fully able to grasp the heteronomy of social life (II). As a result, in Honneth’s mature work there seems to be a tension between the aims of a normative reconstruction and those of social critique, mainly due to an inability of the author to combine both elements of his social theory. In its final section (III), the paper will address that tension in order to critically contribute to Honneth’s attempt to link normative reconstruction, social analysis and criticism.

Cilj ovog rada je da se istraži određena napetost između dve koncepcije koje služe za analizu društvenih napetosti u zrelim radovima Aksela Honeta, naime društvenih patologija i anomije. Naročita pažnja je posvećena pitanju kako ove koncepcije pospešuju odnosno ograničavaju Honetovo razumevanje društvenih napetosti. U prvom delu rada pokazujem da Honetova interpretacija socijalnih patologija počiva na koncepciji društva kao organske celine (I). Iako ova interpretacija predstavlja određenu promenu u Honetovom shvatanju socijalnih patologija u odnosu na Pravo slobode, to ne utiče na činjenicu da u radovima koji nastaju nakon ove knjige koncepcija pogrešnih pravaca društvenog razvoja nije adekvatno teorizovana. Shodno tome, društveni problemi koji se sastoje u odstupanjima u odnosu na očekivane obrasce normativne rekonstrukcije ostaju neprimećeni. Ova činjenica upućuje na neophodnost perspektive koja bi mogla u potpunosti da shvati heteronomiju društvenog života (II). Usled svega navedenog, u Honetovim zrelim radovima postoji napetost između ciljeva normativne rekonstrukcije i društvene kritike, uglavnom zbog toga što Honet ne uspeva da kombinuje oba aspekta svoje društvene teorije. U finalnom odeljku (III), rad razmatra ovu napetost sa ciljem da se da kritički doprinos Honetovom pokušaju da poveže normativnu rekonstrukciju, društvenu analizu i kritiku.