NTEGRITY and DISRESPECT Principlesof a Conception of Morality Basedon the Theoryof Recognition

8/13/2019 NTEGRITY and DISRESPECT Principlesof a Conception of Morality Basedon the Theoryof Recognition

1/16

Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory ofRecognitionAuthor(s): Axel HonnethSource: Political Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 187-201Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/192001.

Accessed: 29/12/2013 17:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:35:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/192001?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/192001?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/16

INTEGRITYANDDISRESPECTPrinciplesof a Conception f MoralityBasedon theTheoryof RecognitionAXELHONNETHUniversityof Frankfurt

N HISBOOK aturalLaw andHumanDignity,EmstBlochsought ouncovera singlemoral ntuition t the heartof thewidely divergent p-proachesakennthetraditionf naturalaw.As is wellknown, heconclu-sionhereachednthisstudy,whichremains fascinatingocumentorthemodemreader,was thatunlike heeudemonicntentions haracteristicfsocialutopias, aturalaw takesas itsgoaltheprotectionf human ignity.Employingsoberdiom haracterizedy analyticalistinctionsndutterlydevoidof theexpressivenessf whichhe was a master,Blochwritesat adecisivepoint n thebook:Social utopiasprimarilyaim to bring abouthappiness,or at least to eliminatedistressand the conditions which preserveor generate it. Theories of natural aw aim ...primarily o bringaboutdignity,humanrights, uridicalguarantees or the security orliberty of man,treating hese as categories of humanpride. Social utopias are, accord-ingly, orientedpredominantly oward the elimination of humanmisery, natural awpredominantly owardthe eliminationof humandegradation.I

The fact thatBlochapproachesheproblemnegativelyherereveals woconsiderationsf principlewhichfunction s determiningremisesn hisreasoning:irst,thattheessenceof everythingwhich, n moral heory,sknown s humanignity anonlybeascertainedndirectly ydeterminingthe formsof personal egradationnd njury; ndsecond, hat t wasonlysuchnegative xperiencesf disrespectnd nsult hat urnedhenormativeAUTHOR'S NOTE: This essay is a modified version of the inaugural lecture held at theDepartmentof Philosophy,Universityof Frankfurt n June 28, 1990.POLMCAL THEORY,Vl. 20 No. 2, May 1992 187-201C 1992SagePublications,nc.

187

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

188 POLITICALTHEORY May 1992

goal of securinghumandignity nto a driving orcein history.Thefirstpremisewouldappearo reston a propositionutin thetermsof moralphilosophy,hesecondpremise n a thesisascribableo whatmightbecalledmoral ociology.SinceBlochemployshetwoonlyas atheoreticaloil foraMarxistppropriationf thenaturalawtradition,eallowsboth ostandas unresolved hilosophicalypotheses.Although e situates hematthecenter f hisargumentsn moralheory,norder oupholdhehermeneuticframeworkf hisstudy,he refrainsrom urninghesepremiseshemselvesintoanobject f independenteflection. hisapproach,owever,ausedhimtooverlookwhatactuallys thephilosophicalhrust f his book. f inacon-ceptof thedignity,hecompletentegrityf man sonlyto beapproximatedby determininghatformspersonalnsultanddisrespectake, hen,con-versely, twouldhold hat heconstitutionf humanntegritys dependentontheexperience f intersubjectiveecognition.Withoutealizingt,Blochavailshimself f anormativeheory f mutualecognition;ccordingo thistheory, he integrity f human ubjects,vulnerable s theyare to injurythroughnsult nddisrespect,ependsntheir eceivingpprovalnd espectfromothers.Intheremarkshat ollow,I attempto go onestepfurthernclarifyingthis projectof an interrelationetweendisrespect nd human ntegrityoutlined n negative ermsby Bloch, but not followedthroughby him.Startingrom hefirstpremise f Bloch's tudy, seek to drawasystematicdistinctionetweendifferentormsof personal isrespect. hisdifferentia-tionofthree asic orms fdisrespect ill,inasubsequenttep,yield ndirectinsights ntothetotalityof experiences f recognitionn which a persondepends orthe safeguardingf his integrity.Onlyafterundertakinghisexcursusntothetheoryof recognitionan I concludeby treatingBloch'ssecondpremise,which,castin the termsof moralsociology,deemstheexperience f personal isrespecto represent moraldrivingorce n theprocess f societaldevelopment.

IThe anguagef everydayife is still nvestedwithaknowledge-whichwe take orgranted- hatwe oweour ntegrity,n a subliminal ay,tothereceipt f approval rrecognitionromotherpersons.Uptothepresent ay,whenindividualswho see themselvesas victimsof moralmaltreatmentdescribehemselves,heyassigna dominantoletocategorieshat,aswithinsult r degradation,rerelatedoformsof disrespect,othedenialof



4/16

HonnethINTEGRITYNDDISRESPECT 189

recognition. egative oncepts f thiskindareusedto characterizeformof behaviorhatdoes notrepresentninjusticeolelybecauset constrainsthe subjectsn their reedom or actionor does themharm.Rather,uchbehavior s injuriousbecauseit impairs hesepersons n theirpositiveunderstandingfself- anunderstandingcquired yintersubjectiveeans.There anbe no meaningful se whatsoeverf theconcepts f disrespector insult wereit notfor theimplicit eferenceo a subject's laim o begranted ecognition y others.Hence he language f everydayife,whichBloch himself nvokesas a matter f course,contains he reference o aconceptbased on the theoryof intersubjectivity;his conceptholds theinvulnerabilitynd ntegrity f human eings odepend napproval eingforthcomingromothers.Notonly Hegel's heory f recognitionutespe-ciallyG.H. Mead's ocialpsychologyransformedhis ntuitive nowledgeintoa basis or he rameworkf asystematicheory. ccordingothis heory,human ndividuations a process n which the individual an unfoldapracticaldentity o the extent hathe is capable f reassuringimselfofrecognition y a growingcircle of partnerso communication.2ubjectscapableof languageand actionare constituted s individualsolely bylearning,rom the perspective f otherswho offerapproval,o relate othemselves s beingswhopossesscertainpositivequalities nd abilities.Thusastheir onsciousnessf their ndividualityrows, heycome odependto anever ncreasingxtent n theconditionsfrecognitionheyareaffordedbythe ife-world f their ocialenvironment.hatparticularumanulner-ability ignifiedbytheconcept f disrespect rises rom his nterlockingof individuationndrecognitionnwhichbothHegelandMeadbased heirinquiries. ince, nhisnormativemageof self- somethingMeadwould allhis Me - every individuals dependent n the possibilityof constantreassurancey theOther; he experience f disrespect osesthe riskof aninjury hatcancause he dentity f theentireperson o collapse.It is obvious hatwe use the terms disrespect r insult n everydaylanguage o designatea varietyof degreesof psychologicalnjury o asubject.Theuse of asingleexpression ould hreateno efface hecategor-icaldifference etween heblatant egradationhich s boundupwiththedeprivationf basichumanights nd hesubtlehumiliationhataccompan-iespublic tatements s to the failingsof a givenperson.However,hefactthatwe are also intuitivelynclined o breakdown thepositivecounter-conceptof respect nto a number f intuitive radationslreadympliesthat nternal ifferencesxistbetweenndividualorms fdisrespect. ant'sintroductionf theconcept frespectnto he ieldof moralheorys attestedtoinadiscussionf thenotion tillunderwayoday.There, varietyf means



5/16


- be theyphenomenologicalr drawn roman analytical hilosophy flanguage has been employedn an attempto distinguish etween hediffering egrees frespect ccorded notherersonn terms fwhichofhispersonalityraits chieve ecognitionnd nwhatway.3AsI seekto setupasystematiclassificationfthree orms f disrespect, willimplicitlyeferbackto this debate.The differences etween heseformsaremeasuredythedegreeo which heycanupsetaperson's racticalelationshipo selfbydeprivinghisperson f therecognitionf certain laims oidentity.If we base ourstandardsf comparisonn suchanapproach,t wouldappearensible o start roma typeof disrespecthatpertainso a person'sphysicalntegrity. hose ormsof practicalmaltreatmentnwhichapersonis forcibly'deprivedf anyopportunityodispose reelyoverhis ownbodyrepresenthemost undamentalypeofpersonalegradation.his sthecasebecause veryattempto seizecontrol f a person's odyagainsthiswill,irrespectivef the ntentionnvolved,ausesadegree fhumiliation,hich,bycomparisonoother ormsof disrespect,asamoreprofoundlyestruc-tive mpactn an ndividual'sracticalelationshipoself.Forwhat sspecialabout uch ormsofphysicalnjury, sexemplifiedytorture rrape,snotthe rawpainexperiencedythebodybut hecoupling f thispainwiththefeelingofbeingdefenselessly tthemercy fanotherubject,o thepointofbeingdeprived fallsenseofreality.4hephysicalmaltreatmentfasubjectrepresents typeof disrespecthatdoes lastingdamage o thesubject'sconfidence,cquiredt anearly tate, hathe cancoordinateisownbodyautonomously.enceoneof theconsequences, edded o a typeof socialshame,sthe oss ofself-confidencend rustntheworld, nd hisadverselyaffectsallpracticalnteractionithother ubjects,venataphysicalevel.Throughheexperience f thistypeof disrespect,herefore,hepersonsdeprivedfthat ormofrecognitionhat sexpressednunconditionalespectforautonomousontrol verhisownbody,a formof respect cquiredustthroughxperiencingmotionalttachmentnthesocializationrocess. lhesuccessfulntegrationfphysical ndemotionalualities fbehaviorsthusshatteredostfactofromwithout, ripplinghemostfundamentalormofthepracticalelationshipoself,namely,onfidencenoneself.Thisextreme ypeof disrespect,whichinterruptshe continuity f apositivemageofselfevenatthecorporealevel, s tobedistinguishedromformsof degradationhataffectaperson's ormativenderstandingf self.Iamreferringothose orms fpersonalisrespecthichasubject ndergoesbybeingstructurallyxcludedrom hepossession fcertainightswithinagivensociety.Wecanconstrueheterm rights osignify hose ndividualclaimsthata personcanlegitimatelyxpectsocietyto fulfill,since, as a



6/16

Honneth INTEGRITYAND DISRESPECI 191

full-fledgedmemberf acommunity,ehasanequalright oparticipatenitsinstitutionalrder. houldhenowbesystematicallyenied ertain ightsof thiskind,theimplications thathe is not deemed o possessthesamedegree f moral ccountabilitys othermembers f society.Thedistinguish-ingfeature f such ormsof disrespect,stypified ythe denialof rights rby socialostracism,hus lies not solely in comparativeestrictions npersonalautonomy ut in the combination f these restrictions ith thefeeling hat hesubjectacks hestatus f full-fledged artnersointeractionwhoallpossessthesamemoralrights.Fortheindividual, aving ociallyvalid egalrightswithheldromhimorher ignifies violation f theperson'sintersubjectivexpectationhathe or she will be recognized s a subjectcapable freachingmoraludgments. othisextent,heexperiencefbeingdenied ightss typically oupledwitha lossof self-respect,f theabilityorelate o oneselfas apartnero interactionnpossessionf equal ights n aparwith all otherindividuals.5hroughhe experience f this type ofdisrespect,herefore,hepersons deprivedf that ormof recognitionhattakes heshapeof cognitive espector moral ccountability.he atter,oritspart,wasonlypainstakinglycquirednthe nteractiverocessesnvolvedinsocialization.This secondtype of disrespect,whichhas a detrimentalffecton asubject's ormativenderstandingf self, is to be set off froma thirdandfinal ypeofdegradation,hichentailsnegative onsequencesorthesocialvalueof individualsr groups.Onlywhen we consider hese,as it were,evaluative ormsof disrespect,namely, he denigration f individual rcollectiveife-styles, owe actually rrive t the ormofbehaviororwhichoureverydayanguage rovides uchdesignationss insult r degrada-tion. The honor, dignity r, o usethemodem erm, status f apersoncanbeunderstoodosignify hedegree fsocialacceptanceorthcomingoraperson'smethod fself-realizationithin hehorizon f culturalraditionsin a givensociety.6f thishierarchyf societalvalues s structuredo astodowngradendividualormsof livingandconvictionsor being nferior rdeficient,hen trobs hesubjectsnquestion f everyopportunityoaccordtheirabilities ocialvalue.Onceconfronted ithan evaluationhatdown-gradescertainpatterns f self-realization,hosewhohave opted orthesepatternsannot elate o theirmodeoffulfillmentssomethingnvestedwithpositivesignificancewithin heircommunity. heindividualwhoexperi-encesthistypeof socialdevaluationypically allspreyto a loss of self-esteem thats,he isnolongern aposition oconceive f himself s abeingwhosecharacteristicraitsandabilities reworthyof esteem.Throughheexperiencef thistypeof disrespect,herefore,heperson sdeprived f the



7/16


form of recognitionhat is expressedn society'sapproval f a typeofself-realizationhatthe personhadonlybeenable to acquirehrough narduous rocessnvolving ncouragementn theformofgroup olidarity.It is a standardeature f the threegroupsof experiencesf disrespectdistinguishedntheforegoing nalysishat heir onsequencesortheindi-vidualareregularlyescribedwithmetaphorserivedrom tatesof decayof thehuman ody.Psychologicaltudiesnvestigatinghepersonalfteref-fects of experiencingorture r rapefrequently peakof psychologicaldeath. Researchnto the collectiveprocessing f beingdeniedrightsandsocialostracism, hich akes lavery s itsexample, owroutinely perateswith theconceptof socialdeath. Andthecategory f injury ccupiesaprivileged ositionn discussions f thekindof disrespectssociatedwiththecultural owngradingf aformof living.7Thesemetaphoricalllusionsto physical uffering nd deathexpress hefact that he various ormsofdisrespectorpsychologicalntegrityake on the samenegative ole thatorganicdiseasesplayin the contextof bodyprocesses.Theexperience fsocialdegradationndhumiliationeopardizeshe dentity f human eingsto the samedegreeas thesuffering f illnesses eopardizesheirphysicalwell-being. f there s anytruthn this inksuggested ytheconventionsfourlanguage,t followsthatoursurveyof the various ormsof disrespectshouldalso enableus to draw onclusions stothefactors hat osterwhatmaybetermed sychologicalhealth r humanntegrity.een nthis ight,thepreventivereatmentfillnesseswould orrespondothesocialguaranteeof relationsf recognitionhatarecapable fprovidinghesubjectwith hegreatestpossibleprotectionromanexperience f disrespect. n thenextsection,I venturea briefexplanation f thethesiswhichthisconnectionimplies.

*IIf, takingour cue fromErnstBloch,we regard hedefenseof human

integrityhroughrotectionromdegradationnd nsultas thecentralmoralthrust f thevarious trands f the naturalaw tradition,henwe canbegintoreformulateurproblemnpositive erms.Theclassificationf threeormsof disrespect, hichhasbeen he ocalpointof thepresentnquiry pto thispoint, tselfcontains n indirecteferenceointersubjectiveelationshipsfrecognitionwhosecollectiveexistence ormstheprerequisiteor humanintegrity. s HegelandMeadconvincinglyemonstrated,ubjects apableof actionowetheirpotentialordeveloping positive elationshipoself to



8/16

Honneth INTEGRITYAND DISRESPECT 193

theexperiencef mutualecognition.ince t canonly earn elf-confidenceandself-respectrom heperspectivef theapprovingeactions f partnersto interaction,heirpracticalEgo is dependentn intersubjectiveelation-ships n which tis capable fexperiencingecognition.hisbeing hecase,it mustbe possible oapply otheserelationshipsf mutual ecognitionhesamedistinctionss we haveobserved etween hevarious ormsof socialdisrespect.Afterall,eachtypeof insultanddegradationhatwe examinedinvolved he injuryof a specific nstance f positiverelationshipo self,which, n turn, t seemscan only come about f the correspondingpecificrelation f recognitionxists.Tothisextent, hedifferentiationf three ormsof disrespect rovides swiththekeytoclassifying n identical umber frelationshipsf mutual ecognition.f thisargumentations accurate,hentheserelationshipsstablishhemoral nfrastructuref a social ife-worldnwhichindividualsanboth acquire ndpreserveheir ntegrity s humanbeings.I basedmy distinctionsn thoseformsof disrespect resentn acts ofphysicalhumiliation,uchas torturerrape.Thesecouldbe classedas themost undamentalypeof human egradationecauseheystripaperson fwhat has becomea physicalautonomyn interaction ith self and thusdestroy artof hisbasic rustntheworld.What orrespondso this ypeofdisrespects a relationfrecognition, hich,becausetenables he ndividualtodevelophisbody-relatedelf-confidencenthefirstplace, akes heformof emotionalattachmentf the sort thatHegel,theRomantic, ought oexpressntheconcept f love. As needsandemotions,na certainense,canonly receive confirmation y being directly atisfiedor answered,recognitionnthiscase must tselftake he formof emotional pproval ndencouragement.hisrelation f recognitionhusalsodepends nthe con-cretephysical xistence f otherpersonswhoacknowledgeachotherwithspecial eelingsofappreciation.hepositive ttitude hich he ndividualscapable f assumingoward imselff heexperienceshis ypeof emotionalrecognitions thatof self-confidence. am referring,n otherwords, o theunderlyingayer f anemotional, ody-relatedenseof securityn expressingone sown needsand eelings,alayerwhich orms hepsychological rereq-uisite orthedevelopmentf allfurther ttitudes f self-respect.8hereareno moregeneral erms or this modeof reciprocal ecognition eyond hecircleof primaryocialrelationshipsuchas areto be found nemotionaltiespattemedfter amilies, riendships,nd oveaffairs.Becauseattitudesof emotionalaffirmation retied to theprerequisitesf attraction hichindividuals o nothaveat theiruniquedisposal, heseattitudes annotbeindefinitely xtended o cover a largernumber f partnerso interaction.



9/16


Hencethis relation f recognitionnherentlyntailsa moralparticularismwhichnoattempttgeneralizationansucceedndissolving.The physicalmaltreatment,hichhas as its positivecounterpartheemotionalattachmentsn primary elationshipsf thiskind,was distin-guished roma second ormof disrespect,amely, enyingomeone ightsandostracizinghemsocially.With hisform,a humanbeingincurs hedishonor fhavinghecommunityefuse ogrant im hemoral ccountabil-itythatafull-fledgedegalmember f that ommunity ouldhave.Accord-ingly,this typeof disrespectmustbe pairedwith a condition f mutualrecognitionnwhich he ndividualearns o seehimself rom heperspectiveof hispartnerso interactionsabearer f equalrights.Themechanismywhich his akesplacewas dentifiedyMead stheprocess fassumingheperspective f a generalized ther, ho,at thesame imeasprescribingcertain esponsibilities,uaranteesheSelf (asin thepracticalelationshipto self) thatspecificclaimswill be fulfilled. t followsthat, n contrastointimateelationships,histypeof relationf recognitions investedwithaprimarilyognitive haracter:go andaltermutuallyecognize achotheras legalpersons,n that heysharea knowledge f thosenormsbywhichtheirparticularommunityuperintendsherightsandresponsibilitiesowhichthey areequallyentitled.Thepositiveattitudehata subjectcanassumeoward imselffheexperienceshiskindoflegalrecognitions thatof fundamentalelf-respect.He is able to considerhimselfa personwhoshareswithallothermembersf hiscommunityhequalities f a morallyaccountablectivesubject.9 his egalrelationshipontrasts iththerela-tionsofrecognitionntheprimaryelationshipor tpermitshatmedium frecognitionniqueothesubjectobegeneralizedntwodirections:tallowsfortheexpansion f rights nbothobjective ndsocialgrounds.nthefirstinstance, he rightsareenhancedn termsof theirmaterialontent; s aconsequence,he individual ifferencesn theopportunitiesor realizingintersubjectivelyuaranteedreedoms re ncreasinglyakennto egalac-count. nthesecondnstance,owever,he egalrelationshipsuniversalizedin the sensethata growingcircle of hitherto xcludedor disadvantagedgroups as hesamerights xtendedoitas areenjoyed yallothermembersof thecommunity. ence heconditions nderwhichrightsarerecognizedinherentlyntailaprinciple f universalism,hichunfoldsnthecourseofhistoricaltruggles.Finally, hethird ypeof disrespect istinguishedn theforegoingpro-posedclassificationnvolves hedowngradingf thesocialvalueof formsof self-realization.uchpatternsf denigrativevaluationf certainormsof livingrobthesubjectsn question f thepotentialortakinga positive



10/16


view in the senseof social acceptance of the abilities hattheyhaveacquiredn thecourse f their ives.Accordingly,hecounterpartf this ormof disrespects a relationshipf recognitionhatcan aid theindividualnacquiringhis kind of self-esteema conditionof solidaritywith,andapproval f, unconventionalife-styles.This conditionwouldenable hesubjects o findrecognition asedon mutual ncouragementiventheirspecialcharacteristicsspersonswhoseindividualityasbeenformedbytheir pecificbiographies.Meadhadthistypeof relation f recognitionnmindwhenhe arguedhatbecause heSelf(as in thepracticalelationshipto self) hadto reassuretselfthat t was notonlyan autonomousut anindividuatedeing, t was alsoforcedoassumeheperspectivef a gener-alizedOther romwhomwith ntersubjectivepprovals forthcomingorits claim o uniquenessnd rreplaceability.10hepotentialorthistypeofethical elf-reassurances provided ya condition f mutualecognitionnwhichego andalterencounterne another gainst horizon f valuesandgoals,wherebyhese ignal otherespectiveOtherhe ndispensableignif-icanceof Ego's ifeforhimor her. nsofar s thisformof recognitionouldnotexistwere t not orthevitalexperiencefcommonlyhared urdens ndresponsibilities,talwaysgoes beyond hebounds f thecognitivemomentof ethicalknowledge,ncorporatingnemotional lement f solidarityndsympathy. hepositiveattitudewhichasubject anassumeoward imselfif he receives ecognitionnthis orms thatof acquiringsteem orhimself:since he is respectedby his partnerso interaction s a personwhoseindividuality asbeen formedby his biography,he subjects capableofunreserveddentificationithhisparticularualitiesndabilities. orMead,then, he specific eature f sucha relation f ethical ecognitionies in thefact hat tisgearednternallyowardhepossibilityf asuccessive peningto the tendencieshat he Selfhasfor self-realization.heethicalnormsnthe ightof which ndividualsmutuallyecognizeheirndividualharacter-isticsareopen o theirbeing nfluencedytheprocess f detraditionalization.Asthisprocessunfolds,ncreasingevelsof generalizationtrip hesenormsof theirprescriptiveharacternd hemannernwhich heygenerate ierar-chies. Thusa principle f egalitarianifferencenheresn the relation frecognition asedon solidarity rethics,and t is a principlehat anunfoldif individualizedubjects ringpressureo bear.Thesethreepatterns f recognitionlove, rights,andsolidaritysetdownthe formalrequirementsorconditions f interaction ithinwhichhuman eingscanfeel assured f their dignity r integrity. heseprecon-ditionsare fonnal n thesense that hey,andthe typesof recognition nwhichtheyarebased,are meantonlyto distinguishtructuraleatures f



11/16


12/16


taneously. omymind, his ineof argumentointsoward napproachhatservespartiallyoredresshe failure f contemporaryoral heoryo dealadequately ith hequestionfmotivation. 2owever,hisapproacheces-sitatesouranchoringhe responsibilitiesf moralitymoredirectlyn theintersubjectivelaimsofcorporealubjectshan scurrentlyhecase, otakeone example,withattemptsogroundmoralityn thetheory f language.If theyare to establish productiveelationshipo self, human eingsare to return ne last time to theinsights haredby Hegeland Meaddependentn theintersubjectiveecognitionf theirabilitiesandachieve-ments.Should his form of socialapprovalail to arise at any level ofdevelopment,t opensup,as it were,a psychologicalapwithin he per-sonality,which heperson eeksto expressby meansof the negative mo-tionalreactions f shameor anger, ffenseor contempt. heexperiencefdisrespects, as a consequence,lwaysaccompanied y emotionswhichdiscloseo the ndividualhat,n principle,ocietys deprivingimof certainformsof recognition.t wouldseemadvisable o drawon the conceptofhuman motions utforwardriginally y JohnDewey nhis pragmaticistpsychologyn order ogivethiscomplexpropositiont least hevestigesofplausibility.Insomeof hisearly ssays,Deweyarguedhat hewidespreadonceptionof human motions s forms hat entexpressiono an nner motional tatewaswrong.Hemaintainedhat uchaconception,nestilltobe encounteredin theworkof Williamames,nevitablymisjudgedhe unctionf emotionswith regard o action,for it alwaysassumed hat psychicactivitywassomething inside heactions hatwere aimed outwards. 13ewey,bycontrast, roceeds rom the observationhat emotions n the horizonofhumanxperienceepend ither ositively rnegativelyntheexecutionfactions.They eitheraccompanyheexperience f particularlyuccessfulcommunicationwith hingsorpersons)n the formof corporeallyasedexcitementr ariseas the experiencef the repellenceeltin unsuccessful,disruptedttemptso executeanaction. t s theanalysis f suchexperiencesof repellencehatprovidesDewey withthe key with whichto deviseanaction-theoreticonceptionf human motions.This analysis eveals hatnegative eelings,such as anger, ndignation,nd sorrow, omprise heaffective esponsenvolvedwhen heperson oncernednevitablyhiftshisattentiono focus on hisownexpectationshemoment hefurther onse-quencesplannedor acompleted ctionarenotforthcoming.ositive eel-ings,such as joy or pride,are,by contrast,hesubject's eactiono beingfreed uddenlyroma burdensometateof excitementyhavingbeenableto find a suitable uccessful olution o a pressingactionproblem.Thus



13/16


Deweyregardseelings, nprinciple,sthe affective eactionsrisingromtherepelleduccessor failure f the ntentionsf ouractions.If we take this approach s the generalstartingpoint,then we candifferentiatemotions tillfurther,ssuminghat hetypesof disruptances,whichmay nprinciple ausehabitual uman ctions o fail,canbedistin-guished rom one anothermoreclosely.Giventhatsuchdisruptancesrfailuresare to be assessedagainst he backgroundf the orientationalexpectationshatprecededhecompletionf theaction,we canmakeaninitial, oughdivisionbetween wo differentypesof expectations. outinehumanactionscancomeup againstobstacles ither n the framework fexpectationsf instrumentaluccessorin thecontextof normativeehav-ioralexpectations. hould uccess-orientedctions ail, owingto theiren-counteringnforeseen bstructionsn thearea n which hetaskshave obecarried ut,then his eads o technical isruptancesn thewidest enseoftheword.Should,bycontrast,ctions hatadhereospecificnorms eboundincertain ituations wing o a violation f thenorms hatareassumedo bevalid, hen his eads o moral onflictsnthesocial ife-world. hissecondformof disruptancesn thecompletionf actions onstituteshehorizon fexperienceshatservesas thepracticalocation f humanmoral motionalreactions. he latter an beunderstoodnDewey'ssenseas those ormsofemotional xcitementhatariseastheperson's eactionoexperiencingheunforeseen epellenceof his actionas a consequence f a violationofnormativeehavioralxpectations. hedifferences etween heindividualfeelings anbe measureduite lementarilynterms fwhetherheviolationof a normwhichhinders nactionscausedbythesubject imself rbythepartnero interaction.ntheformer ase,therepellence f an action ausesthepersonoexperiencefeelingof guiltand, nthe atter,moralndignation.Inbothcases,however,whatDeweyregarded stypical or suchsituationsin whichrepelledactionsare experiencedffectivelyholds true.For,byshiftingone'sattentiono focus on one's ownexpectations, ne becomesconscious lso of thecognitive lements f thoseexpectations-in his in-stance,moral nowledge,lements f whichnformedheoriginallylanned,nowhindered ction.Shame s the mostopenof ourmoral eelings, o the extent hat t doesnot refer imply o shynessat the exposure f the person's ody,a shynesswhichevidentlyhas deepanthropologicaloots. n the case of shame, t isnotclear rom he outsetwhichof the partnerso interactions responsibleforthatviolationof thenormwhich,as it were,the subject an no longerdraw n inorderocontinueoutinely ithhisaction.Theemotionalontentsof shameconsist,as psychoanalyticalndphenomenologicalpproaches



14/16


have concurrentlyhown,of a form of loweringone's own feelingofself-esteem.Thesubjectwhois ashamedf himselfwhenexperiencingherepellence f his action, xperiences imselfasbeingof lowersocialvaluethanpreviously ssumed.Psychoanalyticallypeaking,his means hat heaction-inhibitingiolation f amoralnormhasanegative mpact otontheSuperEgobut on thesubject'sEgo ideals.'4 ucha formof shame s ex-periencednlyin thepresence f a realorimaginary artnerointeractionwho s, as it were,accordedheroleofwitnessinghedashedEgo deals.Thistypeof shamecanbe causedbytheperson xperiencingt oralternativelymaybetheconsequencef extemal auses. n he ormernstance,hepersonexperienceshimselfas inferiorbecausehe has violateda moralnorm,adherenceowhich onstitutedprinciplef hisEgo deals. n he atterase,by contrast,hepersons oppressed y thefeelingof lacking elf-esteembecausehispartnerninteractioniolatesmoralnorms, dherenceo whichhadenabled im ocountas thepersonwhichhe desiredo beinterms f hisEgo deals. nthiscontext, hemoral risis ncommunicationstriggered ythe act hatnormativexpectationsredashed, xpectationshich heactivepersonbelieved he couldhave with regard o the interactive artner'swillingnessorespect im.To thisextent, hissecond ypeof moral hamerepresentsheemotionalxcitementhatovercomes personwho s notablesimplyto continuewith his action,owingto his being confrontedwithdisrespector his Egoclaims.In thisaffective ituation,whatthe personexperiences bouthimself s the constitutiveependence f hispersononrecognition y others.In otherwords,amoralityhatattemptso bring heprinciplesf mutualrecognitiono bearcanonly finda weakempiricalooting n the affectivereaction f shame, orthecognitive onvictionhat hepracticalccurrenceof disrespect nflictsdamageon the intersubjectiveonditions f humansocietalizationlways mergesnsuchprinciples. heprinciplesf a moral-ityconstruednterms f a theory f recognitionnlyhaveameager hanceofbeingrealizednthesocial ife-worldo theextent hathumanubjects reincapablef reactingwithneutraleelings osocial njury, uchas physicalabuse,underprivileging,nddegradation.nynegative motional eactionselicitedbytheexperience f disrespect aid o claims orecognition oten-tiallyenablethe subject n question o acquirea cognitivegraspof theinjustice ehassuffered.Tothisextent, he eelingsof moralndignation ithwhichhuman eingsreact oinsultanddisrespectontain hepotentialoran dealizing nticipa-tionofconditions fsuccessful, ndistortedecognition. headmitted eak-nessof thispractical illar fmorality ithin ocietal ealitysevidenced y



15/16

200 POLMCALTHEORYMay1992

the fact that these emotional eactions o not automaticallyisclosetheinjusticewhichdisrespectntailsbut only bearthepotentialordoingso.Whetherhecognitivepotentialnherentnthefeelingsof socialshameandoffenseevolves ntoa moral onviction ependsargely ntheform hat hepoliticalandculturalnvironmentf thesubjectsn questionakes.If theexperience f disrespects to becomea sourceof motivationor acts ofpolitical esistance,hena socialmovementmustexistviawhich t canbearticulatedndthusmanifesttself in positive orm.Once heemotionallyfiredcondemnationf disrespect ndinsulttakes the shape of a socialstruggle, owever,t representsn empiricalnterestwhichcorrespondsothe theoreticaloncernsof morality.A conceptof morality asedon thetheory f recognition ouldrely, herefore,n the supportf historicalndsociologicaltudies hatarecapable f showing hatmoralprogresss bornof thestruggleorrecognition.

NOTES1. ErnstBloch,NaturrechtundmenschlicheWurdeFrankfurt: uhrkamp,1961),234.2. InmyHabilitationschrift, undertook detailedreconstructionf thisconcept;see AxelHonneth,KampfumErkennung,in Theorieprogrammn Anschluss n HegelundMead(Frankfurt, 989).3. Forexamples,seeAronGurewitsch,ZurGeschichtedesActungbegriffsundzur Theorieder sittlichen Gefuehle, Inauguraldissertation Wuerzburg,1897); Rudolf von Ihering,DerZweck im Recht, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1905), 388ff. A modern study from the perspectiveof

linguistics s putforwardby StephenL Darwall, TwoKindsof Respect, Ethics88, no. 1,36ff.4. Foranexcellentstudyof loss of realityas a resultof torture, ee ElaineScary,TheBodyin Pain: TheMakingand Unmakingof the World New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1985),chap. 1. A surveyof the literature s providedby GuenterFrankenberg, PolitischesAsyl- einMenschenrecht? n KritischeJustiz.5. On the connectionbetweenrightsandself-respect,see Joel Feinberg, TheNatureandValue f Rights, nhisRights,ustice nd heBounds fLiberty: ssaysnSocialPhilosophy(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1980),143ff.Amoredifferentiated ersionhassincebeen providedby AndreasWild,RechtundSelbstachtung manuscript, 990).6. Among the exhaustive iterature n the subject,the clearestexposition of this phenom-enon is, in my opinion, WilhelmKorff,Ehre,Prestige,Gewissen(Cologne, 1966). Of interestfrom the sociological perspectiveare PeterBerger, Onthe Obsolescence of the ConceptofHonor, nEuropeanJournalof Sociology 11(1970):339, andHansSpeier, HonorandSocialStructure, nSocialOrder ndtheRisksof War: apers nPoliticalSociologyNewYork,1952), 36ff.7. Among studies pointingto the categoryof psychologicaldeath are those of BrunoBettelheim, nSurvivingandOtherEssays (London:Thames& Hudson,1979), especiallypart1. On the categoryof socialdeal, see, amongothers,OrlandoPatterson,SlaveryandSocial



16/16

HonnethINTEGRITYNDDISRESPECI 201

Death:A Comparativetudy Cambridge, A:Harvard niversity ress,1982),andClaudeMeillassoux,nthropologieerSklavereiFrankfurt,989),part1, chap.5.8. Forasystematicnalysis f self-confidencestheresult fexperiencesf attachmentinearly hildhood,ee ErikH.Erikson,dentitynd heLife-CyckLondon:980).Forastudyin terms f theory f recognitionrawing n Hegelian oncepts utusingadvancedsychoan-alytical ools,see JessicaBenjamin, heBondsofLove:Psychoanalysis,eminism nd theProblem f DominationNewYork, 988), sp.chap.1.9. On thispoint, ee G.H.Mead,Geist,Identitaet ndGesellschaftFrankfurt,973),263ff. A reconstructionrom heperspectivef self-respects undertakenyErnstTugendhat,SelbstbewusstseinndSelbstbestimmungFrankfurt,979), ecture 2,282ff.10.On hispoint,eeMead, 44ff.Myownreconstructionocuses n his ssue; eeHonneth,

Kampf mAnerkenmungFrankfort:uhrkamp,orthcoming),sp.183ff.11. SeeBloch,309 ff.12. Foran examinationf thispointwithreferenceothetheories f MaxHorkheimer,eeHerbert chnaedelbach,axHorkheimernddieMoraphilosophieesdeutschendealismus,inMaxHorkheimerheute:erk ndWirkiung,dited y Norbert ltwickerndAlfred chmidt(Frankfurt,986),52ff.13.See JohnDewey, TheTheory f Emotion Psychologicaleview1894): 53ff.,andTheTheory f Emotion I, Psychological eview 1895):13ff.Fora usefuldiscussion fDewey's heory f emotion, ee Eduard aumgarten,ies giestigenGrundlagenes amer-ikanischenGemeinwesens,ol. 2, Der Pragmatismus:. WEmerson,W.James,J. Dewey(Frankfurt/Main,938),274ff.14.As examples f thisargument,ee Gerhartiers ndMiltonB. Singer, hame ndGuilt:APsychoanalyticnda Cultural tudy NewYork,1971), sp. 23ff.;andHelenM. Lynd,OnShame nd heSearchor IdentityNewYork, 958), hap.2. GeorgSimmelwas aiming t asimilardefinitionn this ZurPsychologie erScham 1901)publishedn his SchriftenurSoziologie, ditedby J.-J.Dahme nd0. RammstedtFrankfurt/Main,983),140ff.

AxelHonneths Professor fPhilosophyt theUniversityfFrankfurtndauthor fseveralbooks, monghemTheCritiquef Power ndSocialAction ndHuman ature.

NTEGRITY and DISRESPECT Principlesof a Conception of Morality Basedon the Theoryof Recognition

Documents

Transcript of NTEGRITY and DISRESPECT Principlesof a Conception of Morality Basedon the Theoryof Recognition