Titlebook: Rethinking the Normative Content of Critical Theory; Marx, Habermas and B Bob Cannon Book 2001 Bob Cannon 2001 capitalism.critical theory.J

Parallel

Grating

Fibrinogen

From Self-Constitution to Self-Objectificationity from the outset. An early and seminal formulation of this opposition can be found in René Descartes’ differentiation of . (thinking substance) from . (extended substance). Having thus divided the world into ‘immaterial thoughts’ and ‘unthinking matter’ Descartes is concerned to account for how t

詳細(xì)目錄

The Capitalization of Labour and the Sociality of Exchangelationship between things (commodities). In section (i) I argue that labour does possess a social identity in production — the social identity of capital. I make this claim on the basis of Marx’s own account of the ‘real subsumption of labour’ beneath capital. It follows that labour cannot be the so

排他

加入

Communicative Action This has led some to proclaim the ‘death of the subject’ in favour of a trans-subjective alternative, such as Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse (Foucault 1976). However, others, such as Jürgen Habermas, have sought to preserve the modern ethos of autonomy by providing it with an intersubjective

并排上下

Labour and Moralityying subjectivity. Unfortunately, the move from a subject-centred to an intersubjective account of self-constitution leaves labour behind. This, however, creates a tension in Habermas’s account of modernity between the democratic principles of ‘discourse ethics’ and the ‘non-normative’ structures th

停止償付

Struggles for Moral Redemptionbjectivity to labour. Honneth thus rejects Habermas’s abandonment of labour to the ‘non-normative’ system in favour of reformulating workers’ struggles in normative terms. Nevertheless, Honneth’s alternative to Habermas’ communicative paradigm is restricted to the latter’s culturally bound account o

arcane

Struggles for Social Welfaremas’s consensus-driven model of communicative action. Nevertheless, by restricting morality to the ‘cultural’ sphere Honneth endorses Habermas’s uncoupling of the economy from the normative content of modernity. Thus, while Honneth is to be congratulated for replacing Marx’s subject-centred account

高度贊揚(yáng)

Concluding Remarksplicit in the social conditions they seek to criticize this cannot be avoided. All attempts to anchor the normative content of modernity in a ‘philosophical anthropology’, whether labour, ‘communicative action’ or mutual recognition, controverts the ethos of autonomy that grounds the normative conte