Correction to: Recognition and Work in the Platform Economy: a Normative Reconstruction

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s40926-021-00173-1

Recognition and Work in the Platform Economy: a Normative Reconstruction

The rise of the platform economy in the past two decades (and neoliberal capitalist expansion and crises more in general), have on the whole negatively affected working conditions, leading to growing concerns about the “human side” of organizations. To address these concerns, the purpose of this paper is to apply Axel Honneth’s recognition theory and method of normative reconstruction to working conditions in the platform economy. The paper concludes that the ways in which platform organizations function constitutes a normative paradox, promising flexibility and autonomy while at the same time creating working conditions that undercut these promises. The paper ends with a critical discussion of Honneth’s approach, possible supplementing ideas and further lines of future research.

Pandangan Axel Honneth tentang Keadilan sebagai Institusionalisasi Kebebasan dalam Relasi Pengakuan

This article explores Axel Honneth’s normative reconstruction of social liberty as discussed in his book, Freedom’s Right. Honneth’s argument is complex. On one side, he believes that justice can ultimately only be judged in terms of the ideals actually institutionalised in that society. On the other side, he insists that contemporary theories of justice that are guided almost exclusively by the legal paradigm is a theoretical folly. In the first part, this article presents Honneth’s critical reading of the differences between negative and reflexive models of freedom. Then it discusses the ideas of democracy as reflexive cooperation of the ‘we’ in relation to the concept of social freedom. It then reviews Honneth’s argument on justice as institutionalised freedom. The author compares Honneth’s account of solidarity with Enrique Dussel’s views in the fourth part of this article. The conclusion shows that social freedom cannot be realised without a pedagogical process in this exclusion age, and that this process might enlarge the individuals’ horizon of solidarity as future citizens.

Understanding Social Insurance: Risk and Value Pluralism in the Early British Welfare State

This article seeks to make two contributions to the understanding of social insurance, a central policy tool of the modern welfare state. Focusing on Britain, it locates an important strand of theoretical support for early social insurance programs in antecedent developments in mathematical probability and statistics. While by no means the only source of support for social insurance, it argues that these philosophical developments were among the preconditions for the emergence of welfare policies. In addition, understanding the influence of these developments on British public discourse and policy sheds light on the normative principles that have undergirded the welfare state since its inception. Specifically, it suggests that the best model, or normative reconstruction, of social insurance in this context is a value-pluralist one, which pursues efficiency and equality or solidarity, grounded in group-based perceptions of risk.

Rights-Based Social Work and the Named Social Worker for Adults with Learning Disabilities: A Policy Intervention 50 Years in the Making

There has been a renewed interest in professional and academic discourse in the reconceptualisation of social work with adults as a human rights-based approach. This is compatible with the social model of disability, which philosophically adult social workers make claims to align with. This was recently argued for when the Department of Health in England piloted a named social worker for adults with learning disabilities, whose behaviour challenged services. This paper discusses the conceptualisation of rights-based practice, its relevance and appropriateness for contemporary social work policy. Drawing on the recognition theory literature, it shall be shown that the meta-theory of rights-based practice may have relevance to contemporary social work practice with adults with learning disabilities. The paper shall also consider the renewed interest in normative reconstruction in social work practice and influencing factors such as drives towards individualism and marketisation. It will consider how these impacted on the adoption into UK policy of social work as a positive intervention to address structural inequalities, perhaps more accurately described as disablism, experienced by adults with learning disabilities, which ultimately is concluded to be a ‘wicked problem’.

Algunas notas sobre el género como campo de problemas de la filosofía y el activismo para la paz

El presente trabajo estudia la propuesta de Filosofía para la Paz de Vicent Martínez Guzmán a la luz de los vínculos entre el dis-curso de la fenomenología y los análisis feministas. Su metodología es crítica y busca presentar los argumentos que produjo Martínez Guzmán alrededor de la noción de reconstrucción normativa del campo de la transformación de los conflictos. La hipótesis es que Martínez Guzmán articula su propuesta absorbiendo debates del análisis feminista fundamentales tanto para la producción de nociones básicas como para las proyecciones de su objetivo principal de establecer bases normativas universales para la transformación pacífica de los conflictos. Se vincula su propuesta sobre el tema con temas desarro-llados por Javier San Martín (“pensamiento no-étnico”) y María Luz Pintos Peñaranda (“mundo de la vida”).The aim of the article is to study Vicent Martínez Guzmán´s proposal for a Philosophy for Peace from the perspective of Phenomenology and Feminist Analysis. Using a critical approach, I present Martínez Guzmán´s notion of normative reconstruction of the field of conflict transformation. My hypothesis is that Martínez Guzmán articulates his ideas taking up on the debates within the field of feminist analysis, considering both its interrelationship to his main philosophical notions as well as its projections regarding his main objective of establishing universal normative bases for conflict transformation. Finally, I relate these aspects to the themes developed by Javier San Martín and María Luz Pintos Peñaranda.

Reconstruction and indignation: On the transformative potential of the latest model of Axel Honneth’s Critical Theory

This paper analyses the transformative potential of Axel Honneth’s latest model of Critical Theory and is divided in three sections. Firstly, it will be presented the criticisms towards Honneth’s latest model of Critical Theory revealing the largely shared assumption that normative reconstruction is responsible for a conservative bias. The second section will focus on Honneth’s “reconstrutive turn” exposing its reasons and outcomes. (II). The third section will then discuss how reconstructive critique is related to a genealogical proviso that will metacritically denounce the increasing gap between historical promises and the institutional provisions for their fulfillment; a gap that will be the source of the potentially revolutionary sentiment of moral indignation (III). Finally, the text will sketch some brief considerations on the relation of this feeling of indignation and Honneth’s commitment to a renewed idea of socialism.

Capitalism, Critique and Social Freedom: An Interview With Axel Honneth on Freedom’s Right

Axel Honneth is internationally renowned as one of the leading critical theorists of our time and is highly regarded for his development of the theory of recognition. In these two interviews, Axel Honneth sets out the formal modalities, normative contents, and normative justifications of the critique of capitalism that he has developed in his book Freedom’s Right. After briefly defining his conception of capitalist market society, he presents his method of normative reconstruction and the formal modalities of his critique of capitalism. He then sets out his critical diagnosis and solutions to the normative misdevelopments produced by capitalism and concludes, finally, with a discussion and justification of the normative ideal of social freedom at the core of his theory.

The Foundations of the Duty to Give Reasons and a Normative Reconstruction

Despite operating in highly constrained legal environments, executive actors may act in a constitutive capacity. This observation prompts a critical assessment of the role of procedural principles in EU administrative law. As norms of conduct deployed by executive bodies during the process of implementing norms, procedural principles may have legal dimensions that, while constitutionally relevant, may not come to the fore in judicial review. The chapter develops this argument with regard to the multifaceted character of the duty to give reasons. It argues that the duty to give reasons ought to ensure the constitutional embeddedness of the constitutive action of EU executive bodies. Such role is consistent both with the original relevance of the duty to give reasons to the law of integration (in the context of the European Coal and Steel Community) and with the current EU constitutional framework. The latter justifies reinstituting the original constitutional function of the duty to give reasons, irrespective of its current scope in the context of judicial review.