Critical Theory and the Critique of Capitalism: An Immanent Critique of Nancy Fraser's “Systematic” “Crisis-Critique” of Capitalism as an “Institutionalized Social Order”

2021 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-235
Author(s):  
Chris O'Kane
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Capitalist Society ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Alternative Possibility ◽  
Systematic Theory ◽  
Immanent Critique ◽  
Nancy Fraser

The predominant approach to contemporary critical theory lacks a critical theory of capitalist society. Nancy Fraser has endeavored to provide such a critical theory in her “systematic” “crisis–critique” of capitalism as an “institutionalized social order.” Yet Fraser's “systematic” theory is not systematic, but fragmentary and internally inconsistent. The Marxian premises of Fraser's theory are at odds with its ensuing Habermasian notions of capitalism, contradiction, crises, and emancipation, and her theory consequently lacks a robust explication of these dynamics. This raises the alternative possibility of developing a contemporary critical theory of the crisis–ridden reproduction of the negative totality of capitalist society that brings Adorno and Horkheimer's critical theory together with the subterranean strand of contemporary critical theory: the New Reading of the critique of political economy as a critical social theory.

Transcendence in Postmetaphysical Thinking. Habermas' God

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maeve Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Practical Reason ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Communicative Reason ◽  
Human Practices

Habermas emphasizes the importance for critical thinking of ideas of truth and moral validity that are at once context-transcending and immanent to human practices. in a recent review, Peter Dews queries his distinction between metaphysically construed transcendence and transcendence from within, asking provocatively in what sense Habermas does not believe in God. I answer that his conception of “God” is resolutely postmetaphysical, a god that is constructed by way of human linguistic practices. I then give three reasons for why it should not be embraced by contemporary critical social theory. First, in the domain of practical reason, this conception of transcendence excludes by fiat any “Other” to communicative reason, blocking possibilities for mutual learning. Second, due to the same exclusion, it risks reproducing an undesirable social order. Third, it is inadequate for the purposes of a critical theory of social institutions. 

On the Development of the Critique of Political Economy as a Critical Social Theory of Economic Objectivity

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-193
Author(s):  
Chris O’Kane
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Critical Social

AbstractThis review-essay assays Werner Bonefeld’s timely attempt to unite contemporary critical theory with the critique of political economy. I begin by contextualising Bonefeld’s contribution in relation to the dearth of material on this issue in contemporary anglophone critical theory. I then discuss the anglophone reception of Adornian critical theory and provide an overview of the development of the subterranean critical-theoretical interpretations of the critique of political economy that Adorno influenced which have been occluded by the former. This sets up my discussion of how Bonefeld has taken up, criticised and developed this subterranean strand in critical theory and the critique of political economy. I close with some criticisms of how Bonefeld addresses the relationship between critical theory and the critique of political economy and point toward several areas of further investigation that are intended to extend this approach to the contemporary critical theory of society.

scholarly journals MEMBEDAH TEORI KRITIS MAZHAB FRANKFURT : SEJARAH, ASUMSI, DAN KONTRIBUSINYA TERHADAP PERKEMBANGAN TEORI ILMU SOSIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Umar Sholahudin
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Frankfurt School ◽  
Marxist Theory ◽  
Capitalist Society ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
Marxian Analysis ◽  
Critical Social

This article aims to examine the critical theory of the Fraknfurt school, especially those related to its history, concepts, assumptions, and contributions. Historically-geneologically, critical theory was born from the womb of Marxist theory. Although born from the womb of Marxist theory, critical theory is not too satisfied with the analysis of the Marxians who are considered too mechanistic economic determinism in seeing the social reality of Western capitalist society. According to critical theory, the Marxian analysis in viewing and analyzing the inequality of the reality of capitalist society in Europe is too reductionist, that is, it is the economic factor (structure) that determines socio-economic inequality or class conflict in a capitalist society. The critical theory developed by the people who call themselves Neo-Maxians, exists to further develop the classical Marxian analysis, which rests not only on economic factors, but also on other socio-economic factors. The Frankfurt school of critical social theory thought services pioneered by Horkheimer, however, has provided a relatively new (though not very new) theoretical perspective in seeing, understanding and analyzing social reality. This critical social theory perspective has contributed significantly to the development of social theory. One of them is that critical theory has contributed to the development of critical and emancipatory awareness of human practice in seeing social realities that are full of inequality and injustice.Keyword : Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, History, Development of Social Theory

Introduction to ‘Theodor W. Adorno on Marx and the Basic Concepts of Sociological Theory. From a Seminar Transcript in the Summer Semester of 1962’

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris O’Kane
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Sociological Theory ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Summer Semester ◽  
Critical Social

AbstractThis introduction outlines the importance that Hans-Georg Backhaus’s transcript of Adorno’s 1962 seminar on ‘Marx and the Basic Concepts of Sociological Theory’ has for shedding light on the relationship between Adorno’s critical theory and the critique of political economy. PartIsignals the importance of the seminar by assaying the Anglophone scholarship on Adorno. PartIIcontextualises the seminar in the development of his thought. PartsIIIandIVfocus on what the transcript tells us about Adorno’s interpretation of Marx and the importance this interpretation held for Adorno’s critical social theory. PartVpoints to the influence this interpretation of the critique of political economy had on the formation of the New German Reading of Marx.

How Not to Go Beyond Marx: A Reply to Worrell and Krier

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Smith
Keyword(s):  
Social Theory ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Capitalist Society ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Sociological Analysis ◽  
General Direction ◽  
Fatal Flaw ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Imaginary

Worrell and Krier’s ‘Atopia Awaits! A Critical Sociological Analysis of Marx’s Political Imaginary’ raises serious issues regarding Marx’s legacy. They hold that a fatal flaw in Marx’s framework can be detected in his account of a post-capitalist society, which reveals a theoretically impoverished and politically dangerous neglect of essential features of social life. I argue that there are good reasons to reject Worrell and Krier’s thesis that Marx got immensely important things horribly wrong. Marx’s limited remarks on post-capitalist society are certainly inadequate in numerous respects. However, they point in the right general direction, and Worrell and Krier fail to offer a satisfactory alternative. The prospects for a critical social theory adequate to the immense challenges of the 21st century would be harmed if their readers agreed with the paper’s main thesis.

Can social systems theory be used for immanent critique?

Thesis Eleven ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 143 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexei Procyshyn
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Frankfurt School ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
Social Systems Theory ◽  
Immanent Critique

Two trends have emerged in recent work from the Frankfurt School: the first involves a reconsideration of immanent critique’s basic commitments and viability for critical social theory, while the second involves an effort to introduce temporal considerations for social interaction into critical theorizing to help make sense of the phenomenon of social acceleration. This article contributes to these ongoing discussions by investigating whether social systems theory, in which temporal relations play a primary role, can be integrated with immanent critique. If such a synthesis were successful, it would promise to unify two distinct forms of social theorizing that have often been taken to be orthogonal or incommensurate since the debate between Luhmann and Habermas in the 1970s. The investigation proceeds in three parts: first, the article delineates immanent critique’s conditions of success; second, using these conditions, it identifies potential points of contact between social systems theorizing and immanent critical forms of analysis, while exemplifying these commonalities via a case study; finally, the article argues that, although immanent critique is not a strict method of analysis or investigation, its success conditions preclude social systems theory on the grounds that the latter approach cannot anchor itself within the context of analysis in the way ‘immanent critique’ requires.

Reason and receptivity in critical theory

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 1043-1051
Author(s):  
Fred Rush
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Hermeneutic Phenomenology ◽  
Frankfurt School ◽  
Discourse Ethics ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
German Romanticism ◽  
Historical Fact ◽  
Future Direction ◽  
Historical Antecedents

Nikolas Kompridis' Critique and Disclosure is a sustained argument for the proposition that critical social theory in the tradition of the Frankfurt School is best carried forward by rejecting central aspects of Habermas' neo-Kantian version of it. The most promising future direction for critical theory according to Kompridis involves a reconsideration of the resources of hermeneutic phenomenology, especially renewed attention to the Heideggerian concept ‘disclosure’. To this end, Kompridis develops a distinctive dialectical version of this concept. I agree that Kantian versions of critical theory are philosophically suspect, and that critical theory is most conceptually vital and politically trenchant when turned away from ‘discourse ethics' and the like. I am a bit less sanguine than is Kompridis with a turn to Heidegger, however, and raise several issues having to do with that aspect of Kompridis' account. This caution is not rooted simply in the historical fact that critical theory from its inception has attempted to immunize itself against phenomenology; it is rather a conceptual matter. In my judgment, Kompridis does not need to develop, as he does, an intricate account of overlap between what he holds best about critical theory and Heidegger’s ontology. If one were looking for historical antecedents that do not come freighted with what Horkheimer derided as ‘irrationalism’, one would do better to investigate early German Romanticism, in which there is an explicitly interpretive yet dialectical methodology on offer. Moreover, the central doctrines of Jena Romanticism exhibit more positive points of contact with the earlier, more skeptical forms of critical theory that Kompridis might favor, e.g. Adorno’s.

scholarly journals Die Ordnung des Wissens

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (151) ◽  
pp. 255-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Kappeler
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Social Theory ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Archaeology Of Knowledge ◽  
The One ◽  
Critical Social

In its first part, the article deals with Michel Foucaults "discourse analysis", as developed in his "Archaeology of knowledge". The second part considers the concept of discourse in relation to Foucaults "analytic of power" and to a critical theory of society inspired by Karl Marx, especially Louis Althussers notion of ideology. Thus, on the one hand, some propositions for a methodology of discourse analysis are being made, and, on the other hand, its position within a project of critical social theory is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document