Work as a Sphere of Norms, Paradoxes, and Ideologies of Recognition

Abstract

This model of conflict is by no means exclusive to naturalistic social theories such as sociobiology and rational choice theory: it also finds its way into the so-called "critical" theories of society. While the definition of "critical theory" is a complex matter, at least part of what makes a social theory "critical" is the centrality of a concept of domination. Critical social theories typically conceptualise the conflicts and pathologies that characterise the modern agewhat should be the agenda-setting items for social researchas effects or symptoms of relations of domination. Rather than claiming to be value free in regard to their subject-matter, like naturalistic theories, critical theories are explicitly committed to a goal of emancipation, or release from the forms of domination they analyze. This goal is typically conceived as the authentic realisation of a distinctive human capacitysuch as autonomy, selfcreation or democratic will-formationwhich is distinct from and irreducible to selfpreservation secured through competitive advantage. The latter may well be ends of systems of action that have emerged in the modern world, as Habermas"s version of critical theory postulates, but to the extent that they suppress morally oriented action, or action that gives expression to the distinctive human capacity for autonomy and democratic will-formation, they give rise to "zones of conflict" and pathologies such as anomie and alienation (Habermas 1987). Within such systems, of which markets and state bureaucracies are taken to be paradigmatic, instrumental reason plays a decisive role: instrumentally rational action is necessary not just to flourish within the system but to survive within it. The capitalist economy, as well as an array of modern social institutions aimed at the control of life, are then targeted for critique as suprapersonal agents of the domination of instrumental reason.

A need to be recognised: On the importance of shared semantics for young adults while not in education or employment

“…Social esteem is defined here as the recognition of a person's capacities to realise culturally defined values, and their subsequent achievements; it is an important part of allowing individuals to interpret themselves as different from others and positively valued (Honneth, 1995: 125). For young adults who are not seen as worthy of social esteem because they are outside of education or paid work, the problem is a structural one: they have been deprived of the mutual recognition taking place in the labour market, which is where individuals recognise each other as important contributors to the common good (Honneth, 2010; see also Smith, 2012: 95–96). From this perspective, young adults are motivated to participate in the labour market and formal education because it is in the context of these institutions that they can feel themselves fulfilling their roles as productive and useful members of society.…”