This article combines the neo-Hegelian theory of recognition with an analysis of social pathologies to show how the populist formulations of political goals in struggles for recognition are – despite their potential positive motivating force – socially pathological. The concept of recognition, combined with the idea of social pathologies, can thus be used to introduce normative considerations into the populism analysis. In this article it is argued that, although populism is useful in the sense that it aims to ameliorate real experienced lack of recognition through fostering political movements, it is also harmful. The simplified populist representations of collective identities are often guilty of essentializing and reifying identities. Furthermore, populist identities are also harmful for the populists themselves as the simplified view is applied also to oneself. This article claims that these dynamics can be understood as an obstruction of discursive identity-formation. From the perspective developed, populism leads to the lack of genuine mutual recognition between those who struggle to get their identities affirmed.

by Onni Hirvonen IntroductionAs a critical social theory, the theory of recognition is focused on the pathologies of the social world (Honneth, 2007;Honneth, 2009). The common intuitions behind various recognition theories are that recognition -as positive status attribution -is important for a good life, and that recognition is also a political concept that holds the key to determining what a good society is. Pathology, in turn, is a term that has been recently used to describe either the failures of realizing recognition relationships successfully or the inherent dangers that unstable or ambivalent recognition relationships pose (Canivez, 2011, 882-883). The aim of any critical social theory is to explain and understand social pathologies and, where possible, provide remedies and suggestions on how to run our social life in a successful manner. Instead of analyzing the practical pathologies of recognition, this article has a more meta-theoretical and descriptive aim: that is, to explore the possibilities of pathologies of collective recognition.Pathologies of recognition are often understood as collective in their nature. Examples include systemic and institutional problems in providing opportunities for flourishing lives, cultural biases and racism, problems of international politics and even war (see e.g. Lindemann, 2010; Lindemann & Ringmar, 2012; Martineau, Meer & Thompson, 2012). It is true that in some primitive sense all pathologies of recognition are collective pathologies, given that recognition is defined in terms of interpersonal social interaction. However, it seems that there is also a different sense of 'collective' at work in recognition theoretical discussions: namely, collectives as groups of people who are conceived of as subjects and objects of recognition in themselves.Thus, to map out the possibilities of conceptualizing collective pathologies from a recognition-theoretical perspective, we need to first analyze the role of collectives in recognition. This is done in section 2 by, firstly, offering a broad definition of recognition as a multi-dimensional phenomenon with varying success conditions and, secondly, distinguishing between vertical and horizontal forms of recognition. With these distinctions, it is argued that collectives have a twofold role in recognition -as normative frameworks and as agents.After what is meant by collective recognition has been established, we 210 turn to defining pathologies of recognition (section 3). The aim is to provide a broad understanding of pathologies of recognition as systematic deviations from the key norms of recognition. With this definition in place, it becomes possible to analyze the role of collectives in pathologies of recognition (section 4). It is suggested that, firstly, collective pathologies can be either systemic or agential and that, secondly, if we accept the existence of collective agents in society, that opens possibilities for specific collective pathologies. Though some of the current literature on collective recognition and its...

No abstract

This is an introduction to a special issue on recognition and democracy. We outline the constitutive and enabling relations between democracy and recognition. We distinguish between pre-political and political forms of identity and recognition, between horizontal and vertical forms of recognition, and between democratic and other ways or arranging the vertical and horizontal aspects of political life. We also distinguish between the roles of a subject and a co-author of law. The intruduction also includes an overview of the individual articles in this special issue. The issue tries to fill some theoretical gaps in theories of democracy and recognition, with a special emphasis on feminist politics.

No abstract