Axel Honneth (1995).  The Struggle for Recognition:  The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts.  Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press.

ORIENTING NOTES WHILE YOU DO THE READING

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HONNETH'S BOOK?

Two streams of Marxian thought re. a philosophy of history:

• "Scientific Marxism":  historical materialism;  dominance of class interests.  Material forces;  no utopianism.
• "humanistic Marxism":  focus on alienation;  how to live like a human being.  Recognition by all that a problem exists, a la the "Attila the Hun" analogy.
  • Kant:  categorical imperative as transcendental truth  [But of course Kant lived before Marx.]
  • Hegel:  the Zeitgeist;  movement through dialectical oppositions.
  • Marx:  alienation
  • Habermas:  communication;  discourse ethics
  • Chilton:  introjection;  looking each other in the eye
  • Honneth:  recognition
• So we seek to explain history in terms of an increasing understanding of what these various things mean.  Thus Honneth's subtitle:  "The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts".  Honneth seeks to grasp what social conflicts are about, namely, "recognition". 

THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALITY

However, he doesn't want to create a teleological theory.  (After all, we don't know in advance whether the goal we contemplate now is the goal we will still be pursuing after we understand it better or approach it more closely.)  But he still has to say something concrete;  he can't just give the old circular definitions, a la "Recognition is what we come to understand as recognition."

Compare Kant and Aristotle.  Kant's categorical imperative is too vague;  he doesn't say much about the nature of morality in concrete historical circumstances.  On the other hand,  Aristotle's "virtuous life" is too specific;  he sets up a very specific teleology in the context of a very specific culture.

HONNETH'S THREE FORMS OF RECOGNITION

As we read Honneth, we have to ask ourselves about our personal response to what he says.  This is not an abstract argument meant to lead you into changing your mind about what is moral (a la Locke's theories);  rather, it is intended as a description of something already inside you.  It proves itself by making you aware of something you already implicitly recognize.  If you don't see yourself in it (or come to see yourself in it after thinking about it), then the theory is not correct.  So in reading about the various forms of recognition, keep asking yourself whether you have experienced their violation and/or their importance.  You might also then ask yourself whether they seem as universal as Honneth must claim.

Here's a question you might ask yourself:  "Honneth tries to use Hegel and [esp.] Mead to give some content to the abstract notion of recognition.   Do I believe he has succeeded in doing this?"

Now:  on to the specifics of the three forms of recognition.

Love and Basic Self-confidence;  Trust in Oneself;  Individuation

• Access one's needs;  express them;  expect results
• Bodily integrity;  love;  concern
• Versus rape, torture & other physical violations;  indifference to one's needs by caregiver(s);  lack of boundaries

Self-respect

• Raise & defend claims;  take responsibility for agreement
• Rights = recognized capacities necessary for personhood.  [I thought this was a neat formulation.]  These can shift over time, as when we have come to recognize sexuality as one of those elements of personhood.
• Rights imply responsibility for exmploying them as intended, i.e., for one's own personhood and with respect for others' similar rights.  [This is my own comment, not any specific claim by Honneth.]
• Versus discrimination, repression, ignoring.

Self-esteem

• One is valued for uniqueness, not just left alone with one's own liberty.  "Valuing me" does not mean "agreeing with me" but rather "being willing to be affected by what I say" — willing to listen, at least.
• [Compare the concepts, advanced by T. H. Green, of "positive liberty" vs. "negative liberty".  The latter would correspond to the rights necessary for self-respect;  the form to the valuing necessary for self-esteem.]
• [Read Stephen Chilton & Anne Meyer (2000) "'Heritable Intelligence': Real & Important - or an Arbitrary Social Construct?".]
• Self-esteem is seen as deriving from (or rather as inherently intertwined with) others' esteem.
• What is individual to you?

FURTHER NOTES [May not be available until after class discussion of the material.]