On the natural basis and ecological limits of recognition

Abstract

In this chapter, we will discuss the idea that social recognition requires natural resources, and examine its natural, ecological, or environmental aspects. We argue against a view, which would conceptualize social recognition (respect, esteem, trust etc) as conceptually and ontologically independent of its natural basis, which is captured nicely in Richard Sennett's question "Unlike food, respect costs nothing. Why, then should it be in short supply?" We first examine the way in which recognition was materially mediated in Hegel's dialectics of Master and Slave, and then proceed to analyze in more detail what mutual recognition is and in what sense it requires natural resources. It turns out that different forms of recognition are very deeply rooted in material redistribution, and satisfactory relations of recognition in a "society of equals" may require very radical global redistribution. We then raise the stakes by connecting recognition not only with social justice but environmental and ecological justice. We conclude by bringing up the notion of planetary limits.

Particularizing Nonhuman Nature in Stakeholder Theory: The Recognition Approach

“…The recognition of nature has also received notable attention in recent years (e.g., Hailwood, 2015;Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019;Romero & Dryzek, 2020;Schlosberg, 2007Schlosberg, , 2014, which demonstrates a shift away from the previously anthropocentric orientation in social and political theory. While the organizations and stakeholder research is yet to discuss the recognition of nature, some of the existing ideas point toward similar thinking.…”

“…Recognition studies employ two differently focused approaches: the intersubjectivist / personhood-oriented and the status-oriented (Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019;Zurn, 2003). The intersubjectivist approach emphasizes intersubjective relations between humans: the mutual recognition as confirmation of the personhood of others (and ourselves) is constitutive of social life and self-relations (Honneth, 1996).…”

“…These remarks call for widening the typically anthropocentric perspectives to agency (see also Heikkurinen et al, 2021). A/ biotic signals also demonstrate the material rootedness of agential relations, even of those relations that are communicative or attitudinal like recognition (Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019). Organizational activities, too, always have a material basis that must be taken into account (Allen et al, 2019;Heikkurinen et al, 2016) and has ontological implications on stakeholder theorizing.…”

“…Recognition attributes a normative standing to nonhumans on the basis of their agency, integrity, and distinctiveness (Hailwood, 2015;Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019;Schlosberg, 2007Schlosberg, , 2014. Stakeholder management for sustainability necessitates a version of stakeholder theory where nonhumans can be stakeholders, even partners.…”

“…Recognition concept has been previously applied to discuss the particularities of organizational actors (Pless & Maak, 2004;Alamgir and Alakavuklar, 2020) and embodied corporeality (Hancock, 2008). In environmental ethics, recognition has also been extended to the study of human-nonhuman relations (Hailwood, 2015;Kavalski and Zolkos, 2016;Laitinen & Kortetmäki, 2019;Schlosberg, 2007Schlosberg, , 2014. Building on these insights, we develop new ways to approach nonhuman nature in stakeholder research.…”