首页> 外文OA文献 >Misdevelopments, pathologies, and normative revolutions: Normative reconstruction as method of critical theory
【2h】

Misdevelopments, pathologies, and normative revolutions: Normative reconstruction as method of critical theory

机译:失误,病态和规范革命:规范重建作为批判理论的方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

© 2015 Critical Horizons Pty Ltd. In this article I argue that the method of normative reconstruction underlying Freedom's Right undermines Critical Theory's aspiration to be a force that is unreservedly critical and progressive. I start out by giving a brief account of the four premises of the method of normative reconstruction and unpack their implications for how Honneth conceptualizes social pathologies and misdevelopments, specifically that these notions are no longer linked to radical critique and normative revolution. In the second part, I demonstrate that abandoning forms of radical critique and normative revolution is internally linked to adopting this method, before arguing that Freedom's Right contains no resources to account for why abandoning them does not amount to a deficiency. In the final part, I point out two problematic implications of turning away from radical critique and normative revolution for the very project Honneth pursues in Freedom's Right. I show that Honneth's own view about the limited scope of application of the method of normative reconstruction and his account of the dangers associated with social misdevelopments give us (additional) reasons to consider this method to be incomplete. Finally, I contend that the explanatory power of Freedom's Right is dubious because methodological premises that form part of normative reconstruction lead Honneth to ignore relevant alternative explanations of processes of deviation and disassociation from norms of social freedom, which he characterizes as social misdevelopments.
机译:©2015 Critical Horizo​​ns Pty Ltd.在本文中,我认为,以自由权为基础的规范性重构方法破坏了批判理论渴望成为一支毫无保留地批判和进步的力量的愿望。首先,我简要介绍了规范重建方法的四个前提,并阐明了它们对霍内斯如何概念化社会病态和失范的含义,特别是这些概念不再与激进的批判和规范革命联系在一起。在第二部分中,我论证了放弃激进批评和规范革命的形式与采用这种方法在内部有联系,然后认为自由权不包含任何资源来说明为什么放弃它们并不构成缺陷。在最后一部分中,我指出了摆脱激进的批判和规范性革命对于霍恩斯在《自由权》中所追求的项目的两个问题。我表明,霍恩特斯(Honneth)自己对规范重构方法的有限应用范围的看法,以及他对与社会发展失调相关的危险的解释,使我们(其他)理由认为这种方法不完整。最后,我认为自由权的解释力是可疑的,因为构成规范重建一部分的方法论前提导致霍内斯忽视了对偏离和脱离社会自由的过程的相关替代性解释,他将这种自由化描述为社会发展失调。

著录项

  • 作者

    Schaub J;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号