See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343615573

Journal of Critical Reviews ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH'S

NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY

Article in Journal of Critical Reviews · August 2020

DOI: 10.31838/jcr.07.11.30

CITATIONS READS

0 2

2 authors, including:

John Paul Javero Petrola

University of San Agustin
9 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sufferings as Motivation Understanding the Life of Farmers in Sara, Iloilo View project

The Significance of Symbolic Logic in Teaching English in the Level of Academic Performance of College Students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Paul Javero Petrola on 12 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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
jpetrola@usa.edu.ph

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. child’s aggressive reaction towards the mother. For example, the
child attempts to destroy the mother’s body through hitting,
In the discussion that follows, I will present Honneth’s three biting and kicking until the child experiences pleasure. According
spheres of recognition, namely, love, rights, and solidarity. For to Honneth, these aggressive acts are natural to the child for
Honneth, these basic patterns of normative interactions are him/her to recognize that the mother is an entity on its own right
important for modern subjects to develop their full autonomy [3]. [5].
The central ideas in Honneth’s theory of recognition, following
Hegel’s concept of being oneself in another, is the development of In this case, as Honneth argues, the mother has two roles for her
individual’s self-consciousness and one’s autonomy. However, the child: an environment mother and an object mother who is
realization of these two concepts is so much dependent on the repeatedly destroyed and damaged. If the mother endures the
recognition of others. In this sense, as Honneth argued, giving destructive acts of her child without taking any revenge, the child
one’s recognition in the sphere of love, rights and solidarity comes to integrate these two aspects and be able to love her at
provides the subject with self-confidence, self-respect and self- the same time [5]. Here we can see that the destructive acts
esteem, which are essential for individual’s participation in the against the mother entail the child’s initial emancipatory struggle.
larger public sphere. In this case, the mother comes to understand that her child’s
aggressive acts are usual acts ascribed to a child as an already
The Sphere of Love independent person. According to Honneth, based on his analysis
Love is regarded as the primary field of reciprocal affection in the of Winnicott’s theory of parent-infant relationship, if this mutual
theory of the struggle for affection. Honneth 's definition of love is demarcation is successfully developed, the mother and the child
not only limited to the revaluation of intimate sexual relationship will recognize their dependence on each other’s love. In this case
by Romanticism but is viewed more in a neutral way. For however, they are not anymore merged symbiotically [5]. Here,
Honneth, love as a form of recognition is understood as the strong both the mother and the child are already perceived as
emotional bond in a small group of individuals, which includes independent individuals, but are still dependent on each other in
parent-child relationship, model of friendship, and erotic terms of emotional bonds.
relationship between lovers [9].
Winnicott further claims that in the absence of the mother in the
To further explain this sphere of recognition, Honneth employed child’s omnipotent control, the child comes to recognize the
Winnicott’s object-relation theory. In his social psychology, objects in his/her environment and perceive these transitional
Winnicott discussed three categories of the infant’s intellectual objects as an intermediary between the self and the outside world
development, namely, absolute dependence, relative dependence [16]. Honneth argues that during the interaction with these
and towards independence. In the absolute dependence category, transitional objects, or during childs play time, the child
Winnicott argues that this is a phase wherein a close relationship generates enough trust in the continuity of mothers care, that
of symbiotic togetherness between the mother and the infant even if they are not together at the same time, the child has the
developed immediately after child’s birth [10]. In this category, basic confidence that he/she is in the care of a loved one [5].This
the mother and the child are entirely dependent on each other for basic confidence then, as a result of the child’s trust in the

Journal of critical reviews 189

 ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH’S NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY

continuity of the mother’s care, develops in the child’s the

capacity to be alone. For Winnicott, this capacity to be alone On the other hand, in his readings of Mead, Honneth found a
enables the child to discover, without anxiety, his/her own life concept of legal relations based on traditional societies. For Mead,
[17]. Winnicott argues that the existence of a good object in the an individual is only given a degree of recognition based on
psychic reality of the individual as experienced through the his/her positive contribution to the development of his/her
continuity of mother’s care makes the individual become community. In this context, Mead's legal recognition only exists
responsive in his/her inner impulses and pursue them without when both the self and the other regard each other as legal
anxiety [18]. For Honneth, Winnicott’s concept of capacity to be subjects as they are aware of the rights and duties allocated
alone is a concrete expression of the individual’s relation-to-self, within their community [21]. This means that if and only if he /
which he relates to Erikson’s concept of trust in oneself or self- she is widely accepted as a member of the society, one may find
confidence. According to Honneth, by having an assurance of the him / herself a bearer of rights. Once legally recognized as a
mother’s continued love and care, the children learn to trust legitimate member of the community, an individual is granted the
themselves, which allows them to be alone (autonomous) without society’s protection of his human dignity, which means that that
anxiety [5]. individual has the assurance that his/her claims are recognized.
For Honneth, Mead 's definition of legal relationships is extremely
Now, Honneth argues that all love relationships are motivated by poor because it is still fused with the social position an person
the recollection of experience characterized in the merging of the may play in a generally unequal distribution of rights and
mother and child since the experience of the complete responsibilities. Honneth argues that with the development of
satisfaction of needs during the initial stages of life makes the modernity, laws are founded on the idea of free and equal
subject desire to merge with the other individual. This desire for persons’ rational agreement on disputed norms [5].
merging, according to Honneth, turns into a feeling of love once
the subject recognizes the other subjects as independent person Honneth claims that in modern law the field of recognition relies
[5]. Honneth argues further that it is only through refracted on the principle of universal equality for all persons[1]. According
symbiosis, by way of recognition of others, that the child is able to to Deranty, Honneth insists that the concept of fundamental
realize his/her independence and capacity to merge with others equality is the most significant accomplishment in modern
[5]. Here, we can see that through the child’s separation with the society, and so for Honneth, much of the acceptance struggles
mother, the child learns to be an individuated person or revolve around equality statements [3]. Furthermore, Honneth
independent from his/her mother (practical relation-to-self). argues that through legal recognition, we are able to consider
Likewise, this child-mother separation enables the child to ourselves as autonomous persons; thus, we can make our own
recognize other individuated persons, and thus, he/she develops personal decisions and act responsibly as members of the society.
relationships (being oneself in another) with those other In this way, as Honneth emphasizes, the interaction between
individuated persons. Moreover, for Honneth, mutual recognition rational subjects in the legal sphere grants the individual self-
through love and friendship is an expression of our freedom since respect which is a form of practical relation-to-self [5]. In this
we see ourselves confirmed in the desires and aims of the others manner, Honneth argues that to recognize other humans as
[19]. persons. We are deemed to act morally in a manner which we are
obliged as persons.
In the above discussions, Honneth provides concrete accounts of
the sphere of love as the primary stage of reciprocal recognition, Speaking of legal recognition, particularly in the modern society,
which again, were discounted in Hegel’s theory of recognition. Honneth highlights two things that flow in our consciousness:
Through this reciprocal recognition, the individuals acquire self- that we, as rational beings, are fully aware of our legal obligations
confidence. This self-confidence, for Honneth, serves as the pre- vis-à-vis other rational subjects; and, that through an empirical
requisites for the development of all further attitudes of self- analysis of the situation, we come to understand that in the circle
respect [5]. of concrete human subjects, rights are always applicable. Hence,
for Honneth, in the experience of legal recognition, the individual
The Sphere of Right views oneself as co-equal with all other members in the society
Like in the sphere of love, reciprocal recognition is also essential and shares the equal representation in the rational discourse in
in legal relations. Recognition in the legal sphere enables the the public sphere. In this context, Deranty argues that like in the
individual to realize his/her capacities as a full-fledged member sphere of love, legal recognition enables us to see our actions as
of the society. In the legal recognition, Honneth argues that being expressions of our freedom [5]. However, for Deranty, being
a full-fledged member of the society, the individual is considered denied recognition hampers the individual’s capacity to act freely
as co-equal with all other members. Hence, that individual is able and responsibly [3].
to participate in the rational discourse in the public sphere.
Honneth’s concept of legal relations draws heavily with Hegel’s In order to provide the link between rights and self-respect,
idea of the State. For Hegel, the state has agreed social norms or Honneth cited the work of Thomas Humphrey Marshall entitled
universal laws and composed of the individuals, the corporations, Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. In this book,
and the police forces. For Hegel, the state is an absolute Spirit Marshall classifies individual rights in three categories, namely:
because the entire system is working perfectly, and since it is civil rights, which protect a person’s life, liberty and property;
perfect, it is working for the benefit of all its members. It is only in political rights, which guarantee a person’s equal opportunity to
the state, therefore, that we can talk about freedom. Hegel’s participate in the will-formation processes; and, social rights,
concept of freedom in legal recognition refers to the constitution which ensure a person’s fair share in the distribution of material
of modern legal relations, wherein the individual expression of goods [22]. Marshall argues that it is through social struggle that
their personal autonomy is incorporated in the positive law. the individuals assert their demand for equality and for the
increase of the actual account of their being the full-fledged
Following Hegel’s idea of the state, Honneth underscores that the members of the society. For Marshall, social struggle resulted not
legal system in the modern society is an expression of general just in the growth of community membership but also in modern
interest of all the members of the society, thus, everyone is national consciousness [22].
expected to adhere to the laws since in principle, they have been
able to agree to the norms as free and co-equal individuals [5]. Marshall’s idea becomes significant in Honneth’s theory of
Because of this, for Honneth, legal recognition enables the recognition since it puts into flesh the idea that society’s
individuals to recognize and respect each other as morally inequalities resulted in social struggle for universal political
responsible agents who are capable of making rational decisions rights. Honneth’s readings of Marshall’s work leads to his
about moral norms [20]. intuition that the individuals’ experience of social injustice

Journal of critical reviews 190

 ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH’S NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY

motivates them to struggle over the expansion of both their present society, various individuals, most especially those who
rights-claims and the scope of their social status as legal persons belong to the groups of cultural minority, ethnic groups and the
[5]. indigenous peoples, see themselves as being wrongly treated by
others, insulted and humiliated. For Honneth, these forms of
Again, legal recognition for Honneth is anchored in the principle disrespect, the denial of recognition for that matter, are forms of
of universal equality. It is in this sphere of recognition that the injustice that injure the subjects’ positive understanding of
subject is granted self-respect which enables him/her to realize themselves that they have acquired intersubjectively or even
his or her personhood as full-fledged member of the society. bring interruption on one’s practical relation-to-self [5].Thus, as
Moreover, the recognition in the sphere of rights enables the Honneth argues, these forms of injustice deprive the person the
subject to act as a morally responsible agent, who is capable of opportunity to exercise his/her freedom and gain control over
making rational decisions about the moral norms. his/her body. This is because the degree of humiliation or insult
created in the individual a feeling of defenselessness at the mercy
Solidarity of the other [5].
The discussions above on the spheres of love and rights showed
how the individual achieves practical relation-to-self. To recall, Honneth illustrates the different forms of disrespect to the
Hegel’s ethical life signifies a point in one’s social life where individuals and how these forms of disrespect motivate them to
his/her capabilities as well as his/her reciprocal interactions are struggle for recognition. First, in the sphere of love, in which one
fully developed. On the other hand, Mead’s division of labor gains self-confidence, it is through the experience of physical
recognizes the individual as member of the society depending on abuse, such as torture or rape that hinders the child to have
his/her contributions in the labor force. Both in love and legal access to his/her affective and physiological needs. As a result,
recognitions, the individual generates social esteem that enables one loses trust in oneself and the control over oneself is taken for
oneself to express his/her capacities as an autonomous granted. Second, in the sphere of rights, in which one gains self-
individual. respect, it is by way of social ostracism or denial of one’s rights as
a full-fledged member of the society that bring the individual’s
In Honneth’s readings of Mead’s concept of the division of labor, feelings of social shame. Furthermore, this form of disrespect
the individuals are being recognized because of their contribution creates in the individual a feeling of being neglected as a morally
to their community, particularly their achievements in their job responsible agent of the society since his/her expectations and
that benefit the entire community. In this sense, self-esteem is deep-seated claims were denied. It also resulted in one’s feelings
being determined only by the individual’s valuable contribution of being marginalized since he/she loses his/her ability to relate
to the community. Thus, the individual is not recognized or will to oneself as co-equal partner of interaction with other human
not gain self-esteem if his job is insignificant to the community. persons. Also, the individual feels being disenfranchised since he
For Honneth, Mead’s concept of the division of labor discredits is being disregarded as a subject capable of forming moral
the fact that not all jobs or works guarantee a sense of superiority judgments. Lastly, in solidarity, where one gains self-esteem, it is
or self-esteem [5]. If given, for example, the task of being a plain through the experience of social devaluation wherein the status
housewife or a househusband is considered an insignificant or the “value” of the person is being degraded, depriving him/her
contribution to the common good, then it follows that the of such recognition of his/her contribution in the society. As a
individual, that is, the wife or the husband for that matter, fails to result, the individual feels that he/she has no significant value in
acquire self-esteem. the community [5].

For this reason, Honneth situates esteem in view of values shared Honneth further argues that the experience of being socially
within a particular group or culture. Honneth argues that gaining humiliated, disrespected or being denied recognition jeopardizes
self-esteem is a matter of cultural or group’s struggle for the identity of the human person because the negative experience
recognition by those vilified contributors to the common good. brought that person a feeling of social shame; this characterizes
This is where the concept of solidarity comes in. Solidarity is a the lowering or losing of one’s feeling of self-worth and social
term Honneth used to describe the normative behavior of value since one’s action is rejected [23]. As a normal reaction to
oppressed individuals coming up together with the goal of this negative experience, the person will get angry, ashamed, hurt
gaining self-esteem [20]. Though sometimes equated with or indignant. In order to provide substance as to how the denial
sympathy, solidarity makes the individuals share their common of rights and exclusion from the society affects the emotional
concerns, values and interests. In most cases, solidarity is evident reaction of the victim, Honneth cited John Dewey’s pragmatist
among social groups who struggle against political oppression psychology. According to Dewey, as Honneth sees it, negative
and other forms of discrimination. These social groups include feelings, such as anger, indignation and sorrow, come out when
LGBT, indigenous peoples, women’s group and cultural minorities one’s expectations are not met. On the contrary, positive feelings,
who struggle for the recognition of their rights and social justice. such as joy or pride, arise when one finds a suitable solution to
Honneth firmly believes that a good society is where the his/her pressing problem [24].
individuals have a real opportunity for self-realization. It would
be a society which the common values match the concerns of its With these concepts from Dewey, Honneth argues that the denial
members and, thus, all members are given the equal opportunity of recognition and the experience of disrespect or injustice create
to acquire self-esteem [5]. an obstruction in the habitual human actions, or so to speak, the
capacity of the human person to act freely and responsibly.
Based on the above topic, the three recognition spheres of According to Honneth, if human actions or human freedom is
Honneth enable individuals to acquire self-confidence, self- violated, then, it causes moral conflicts in the society [5]. In this
respect and self-esteem that are important for the development sense, if the person’s normative expectations are hampered or
of their identity. It requires reciprocity, which means that self- violated, it will create a feeling of social shame, inferiority and
realization relies on the fellow human being, in order to achieve disappointment. With this, Honneth is convinced that these
the substantive relationship-to-self in the realms of love, freedom negative emotional experiences brought by denial of recognition
and solidarity.. serve as impetus for the individuals to struggle for recognition,
and, thus, those individuals who have suffered denial of
Disrespect as Moral Grammar for Social Struggle recognition could still potentially reclaim the place in which their
The discussion on the three spheres of recognition proves that expectations can be achieved [3]. For Honneth, the adverse
indeed, we, as human persons, need a sense of approval and emotional responses arising from the experience of rejection for
recognition from other people. Put in a political context, this acceptance indicate the likelihood that one's oppression will
means respecting our rights as free citizens. However, in the manifest cognitively and become a motivation for political

Journal of critical reviews 191

 ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH’S NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY

resistance. However, for Honneth, it still depends on the subject’s prestige or value of one’s labor or efforts and that one is
cultural-political environment that the forms of injustice take recognized as an autonomous member of the workforce that
shape, since it is through the articulation of the social movement builds society [27]. Conclusively, this paper asserts that the in
that the experiences of disrespect and forms of injustice become Honneth’s concept of the struggle for recognition, irregularities in
the driving force for acts of political resistance [5]. society, referring to Honneth’s assertions on a pathological
society, can be curbed concretely and specifically through the
In the times, we have seen various kinds of political resistance; manifestations of the three spheres of recognition.
for instance, the struggle of LGBT communities, cultural
minorities, ethnic groups and indigenous peoples all over the REFERENCES
world. Their social struggles involve not just the equal 1. Honneth, Axel and Nancy Fraser. Redistribution or
distribution of wealth, but also the respect of their rights and Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. New York:
equal treatment, which is moral in nature. This means that the Verso; 2003.
social struggles in the present times are motivated by their 2. Ocay, Jeffry V. Critical Theory at the Margins: Applying
experiences of being denied of recognition or their experience of Marcuse’s Model of Critical Social Theory in the Philippines.
injustice [5]. These forms of injustice are manifestations that the A Dissertation Paper presented to the Department of
present society is indeed pathological. Considering that Honneth Philosophy, Macquarie University- Sydney; 2011.
views the society as pathological, it is therefore through the 3. Deranty, Jen- Philippe. Beyond Communication. A Critical
giving of recognition to the individuals’ demands and Study by Axel Honneth’s Social Philosophy. Leiden and
expectations that would emancipate them from all forms of Boston: Brill; 2009.
domination [25]. 4. Deranty, Jean-Philippe and Emmanuel
Renault.PoliticizingHonneth’s Ethics of Recognition.Thesis
CONCLUSION Eleven 2007; Vol. 88, No. 1:92-111.
In the sense of Honneth’s theory of recognition as synthesized 5. Honneth, Axel. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral
from Hegel’s ethical life and Mead’s social psychology, achieving Grammar of Social Conflicts. Translated by Joel Anderson.
practical relation-to-self is inseparable from the individual’s very Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1995.
nature and essence in seeking and attaining recognition [26]. The 6. Pelczynski, Z. A. The State and Civil Society: Studies in Hegel’s
following assertions have been construed. First, in the Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press;
microscopic sense, as asserted in Honneth’s readings and 1984.
concrete explicative implements, it is innate for humanity to seek 7. Hegel, G. W. F. Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, translated by S. W.
validity from one’s society. In the strictest context, society Dyde. London: George Bell and Sons; 1896.
pertains to the sphere of commonality on socio-normative 8. Gjesdal, Kristin. Debates in Nineteenth-Century European
aspects such as politics, culture and moral systems. Second, in the Philosophy: Essential Readings and Contemporary
macroscopic sense, it is ideally and normatively Responses. New York and London: Routledge; 2016.
phenomenological for individuals to reciprocate the recognition 9. Thrana, Hilde Marie. Love: Recognising relationships in work
that society has endowed to one, i.e. it is normative for a circle with vulnerable youth. Scottish Journal of Residential Child
with social commonalities to acknowledge the individuality of Care 2016; Vol. 15, No. 3:75.
their members. Third, as inspired by Honneth’s postulates on 10. David Wasdell, The Holding Environment,
critical theory, society is ‘pathological’ in the sense of the latter http://www.meridian.org.uk/_PDFs/Holding%20Environme
assertion that humanity deviates from their normative nt.pdf. Retrieved: 04 April 2020.
phenomenology of reciprocating recognition. Fourth, this disease 11. Miller, Lisa. Closely Observed Infants, eds. Margaret Rustin,
or irregularity leads into Honneth’s subsequent paradigm which Michael Rustin and Judy Shuttleworth. London: Duckworth;
affirms that these abnormalities on the normative workings of 1989.
society in mutually returning recognition deprives individuals of 12. Brabender, Virginia M. and April E. Fallon. Working with
the validity that one aspires to receive from his or her social circle Adoptive Parents. Research, Theory, and Therapeutic
which ultimately leads one to struggle for recognition. Lastly, in Interventions. New Jersey and Canada: John Wiley & Sons,
the sense of Dewey, according to Honneth, this depravity hinders Inc.; 2013.
the individual from acting freely and responsibly, whereas such 13. Wilkinson, Margaret. Coming into Mind: The Mind-Brain
disenfranchisement can be redeemed through the reprisal of the Relationsip: A Jungian Clinical Perspective. London:
recognition that has been deprived from ‘the disenfranchised’ Routledge; 2006.
according to one’s intersubjective demands and expectations 14. Abram, Jan. The Language of Winnicott: A Dictionary of
within his circle, thereby achieving emancipation. Winnicott’s Use of Words. 2nd Edition. London: Karmac Books;
2007.
The essential aspects of this paper’s exposition on Honneth’s 15. Cook, Jenny. The Paradox of Autonomy: Relating Winnicott
theory of recognition proposes a tangible and measurable factor with Counseling Experience. Journal of Psycho-Social Studies
to a better degree on his refinement of Hegel’s ethical life and 2013; Vol. 7, Issue 1:54-77.
Meads social psychology by introducing the three spheres of 16. Donald W. Winnicott. The Family and Individual
recognition whereas Honneth’s synthesis distinguishes an Development. London and New York: Tavistock Publications
empirical means of identifying the abstractions of Hegel’s and Limited; 1965.
Mead’s concepts. The manifestation of these three spheres of 17. Hoberts, Jennifer H. Winnicott’s “Capacity to be Alone” in
recognition, i.e. love, rights and solidarity, define the Normative and Non-Normative Adolescent Development, an
emancipation of the disenfranchised. To define, recognition in the unpublished dissertation presented to the Department of
sphere of love is manifested through the emergence of autonomy Clinical Psychology, Antioch University, England(2011).
and individuality as acknowledge between specific or micro https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/antioch131
relationships of the individual among one’s primary social 9053358/inline. Retrieved: 05 February 2020.
institutions, e.g. family, school, church and community. The 18. Buswell, Gill. A Bear in the Attic. Journal of Psycho-Social
sphere of rights is identified through the acknowledgement of the Studies 2011; Vol. 5, Issue 2:245-263.
individual as a legal entity who is subject to privileges, protection, 19. Honneth, Axel. Freedom’s Right. The Social Foundations of
as well as civic responsibilities and liabilities; it is further Democratic Life. Translated by Joseph Ganahl. Cambridge:
concretized through the fulfillment of these political and civic Polity Press; 2014.
endowments. Lastly, the sphere of solidarity is manifested 20. Laoutides, Costas. Self- Determination and Collective
through the acknowledgement of the individual as an economic Responsibility in the Secessionist Struggle. New York:
and social entity of society whereas one is entitled to a degree of Routledge; 2015.

Journal of critical reviews 192

 ETHICS OF RECOGNITION: AXEL HONNETH’S NORMATIVE CRITIQUE OF MODERN SOCIETY

21. Petherbridge, Danielle. The Critical Theory of Axel Honneth.

Maryland: Lexington Books; 2013.
22. Marshall, Thomas H. Citizenship and Social Class and other
essays. London: Cambridge University Press; 1950.
23. Petherbridge, Danielle. Axel Honneth: Critical Essays With a
Reply by Axel Honneth. Leiden: Bill; 2011.
24. Dewey, John. The Theory of Emotion, I emotional Attitudes.
Psychological Review, Vol. 1 (1984): 553-569
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1895.html.
Retrieved: 02 March 2020.
25. Zurn, Christopher F. Recognition, Redistribution, and
Democracy: Dilemmas of Honneth’s Critical Social Theory.
European Journal of Philosophy 2005; Vol. 13, Issue 1:89-126.
26. Petrola, John Paul J. Paralympics: Spheres of Recognition for
PWDs in the Philippines. International Journal of Science and
Research 2017; Volume 6 Issue 11:2025-2032.
27. Petrola, John Paul J. Economic Globalization and the Manobo
Peoples’ Struggle for Social Justice. International Journal of
Science and Research 2017; Volume 6 Issue 12:1887-1897.

Journal of critical reviews 193

View publication stats