Taking Care Seriously: Gendering Honneth’s The Working Sovereign – A Normative Theory of work

IF 1 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Christine Wimbauer
{"title":"Taking Care Seriously: Gendering Honneth’s The Working Sovereign – A Normative Theory of work","authors":"Christine Wimbauer","doi":"10.1177/1468795X231170827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Axel Honneth’s latest work The Working Sovereign. A Normative Theory of Work states that the democratization of work and employees’ experience of democracy at work are important prerequisites for creating and promoting democracy as well as social and political participation. According to Honneth, various aspects of ‘good work’ are essential for such a democratization of work. Undoubtedly working conditions must be improved and it is an inestimable merit of Axel Honneth’s book to demand this so clearly. Beyond this fundamental agreement, I would, however, take a broader view of some details and draw some conclusions differently. First, it is difficult to derive the improvements needed in the world of work from a theory of democracy alone as its limited scope hides other urgent problems. Second, any approach might prove short-sighted if the democratization of work thesis only refers to wage labour or, at best, to paid care work. Rather, a comprehensive concept of care/work must be the starting point. On a surface level, Honneth’s conception of work is broad and gender-sensitive. However, Honneth does not follow this to its logical conclusion and fails to provide a systematic role to his conception of work when deriving his claims in the final chapters of his book. Rather, this broad conception of work is lost more or less inconspicuously behind a latent androcentrism. This has far-reaching consequences: from a comprehensive, gender-theoretical perspective, it would have been necessary to demand the ‘democratization of care/work’ such that gender and specifically women, who are the main care providers and perform this work largely unpaid and invisibly, finally are also included. What is more, in Honneth’s analysis the same elision applies to other intersectional categories, as race, migration, citizenship and ability are all lost from view in Honneth’s nation-state-based, homogeneous and harmonious concept of democratization. In sum, in my critical engagement with Honneth’s new text I will show that while he very clearly points out the indispensable need for better working conditions, he is blind to gender and care work.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Classical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X231170827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Axel Honneth’s latest work The Working Sovereign. A Normative Theory of Work states that the democratization of work and employees’ experience of democracy at work are important prerequisites for creating and promoting democracy as well as social and political participation. According to Honneth, various aspects of ‘good work’ are essential for such a democratization of work. Undoubtedly working conditions must be improved and it is an inestimable merit of Axel Honneth’s book to demand this so clearly. Beyond this fundamental agreement, I would, however, take a broader view of some details and draw some conclusions differently. First, it is difficult to derive the improvements needed in the world of work from a theory of democracy alone as its limited scope hides other urgent problems. Second, any approach might prove short-sighted if the democratization of work thesis only refers to wage labour or, at best, to paid care work. Rather, a comprehensive concept of care/work must be the starting point. On a surface level, Honneth’s conception of work is broad and gender-sensitive. However, Honneth does not follow this to its logical conclusion and fails to provide a systematic role to his conception of work when deriving his claims in the final chapters of his book. Rather, this broad conception of work is lost more or less inconspicuously behind a latent androcentrism. This has far-reaching consequences: from a comprehensive, gender-theoretical perspective, it would have been necessary to demand the ‘democratization of care/work’ such that gender and specifically women, who are the main care providers and perform this work largely unpaid and invisibly, finally are also included. What is more, in Honneth’s analysis the same elision applies to other intersectional categories, as race, migration, citizenship and ability are all lost from view in Honneth’s nation-state-based, homogeneous and harmonious concept of democratization. In sum, in my critical engagement with Honneth’s new text I will show that while he very clearly points out the indispensable need for better working conditions, he is blind to gender and care work.
认真对待:Gendering Honneth的《工作的君主》——一种规范性的工作理论
阿克塞尔·洪内斯的最新作品《在职君主》。《规范性工作理论》指出,工作的民主化和员工在工作中的民主体验是创造和促进民主以及社会和政治参与的重要前提。Honneth认为,“好工作”的各个方面对于工作的民主化至关重要。毫无疑问,工作条件必须得到改善,阿克塞尔·洪内斯的书如此明确地要求这一点是不可估量的。然而,除了这一基本协议之外,我将从更广泛的角度看待一些细节,并得出一些不同的结论。首先,很难仅从民主理论中得出工作世界所需的改进,因为其有限的范围掩盖了其他紧迫的问题。其次,如果工作论文的民主化只涉及有薪劳动,或者充其量只涉及带薪护理工作,那么任何方法都可能被证明是短视的。相反,护理/工作的全面概念必须是出发点。从表面上看,洪尼斯的工作观是宽泛的,对性别问题敏感。然而,洪尼斯并没有遵循这一点得出合乎逻辑的结论,在书的最后几章中提出自己的主张时,也没有为他的工作概念提供系统的作用。相反,在潜在的男性中心主义背后,这种广泛的工作概念或多或少地被忽视了。这产生了深远的影响:从全面的性别理论角度来看,有必要要求“护理/工作的民主化”,这样性别,特别是女性,她们是主要的护理提供者,在很大程度上无偿和无形地从事这项工作,最终也被包括在内。此外,在洪尼斯的分析中,同样的省略也适用于其他交叉类别,因为在洪尼斯基于民族国家、同质和谐的民主化概念中,种族、移民、公民身份和能力都从视野中消失了。总之,在我对Honneth新文本的批判性参与中,我将表明,尽管他非常明确地指出了改善工作条件的必要性,但他对性别和护理工作视而不见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Journal of Classical Sociology publishes cutting-edge articles that will command general respect within the academic community. The aim of the Journal of Classical Sociology is to demonstrate scholarly excellence in the study of the sociological tradition. The journal elucidates the origins of sociology and also demonstrates how the classical tradition renews the sociological imagination in the present day. The journal is a critical but constructive reflection on the roots and formation of sociology from the Enlightenment to the 21st century. Journal of Classical Sociology promotes discussions of early social theory, such as Hobbesian contract theory, through the 19th- and early 20th- century classics associated with the thought of Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, Veblen.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信