• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• no.116
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2017

Axel Honneth's recognition-theoretical conception of morality is most often characterized as a teleological or ethical foundation of morality and understood in simple consequentialist sense. Besides teleological or consequentialist components, however, there are obviously Kantian deontological ones too in his moral conception of Recognition. This study is intended to provide a consistent and coherent interpreta-tion of it, which is largely adopting main features of the moral philosophy of Kant. This interpretation makes a deontological restructuring of Honneth's moral conception of recognition necessary. It is in this way that the moral aspect of recognition will be able to satisfy the intention and whole project of Honneth's theory of recognition.

• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.67 no.4
• /
• pp.325-348
• /
• 2015

The main purpose of the study is to explore the implications of Recognition Paradigm for domains of social work, especially focusing on the arguments exchanged between Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser, two eminent scholars in this field. The Recognition paradigm, which is an alternative perspective in practical philosophy developed to cope with the changing socio-political situations in the late modern society, is providing the domain of social work with a lot of important theoretical and practical implications as well. In particular, Honneth's recognition theory which considers the recognition as a basic prototype in human development and construction of society is able to clarify the fundamental mission and territory the social work profession is to pursue. But for the meanwhile, Fraser's dual perspective of justice, which is an extended version of redistributive justice introducing the recognition component in it, can suggest diverse practical strategies to confront complex injustice-making structures effectively in the later modern society. In spite of these abundant implications in both theoretical and practical areas, the recognition paradigm still save several fundamental considerations for social work, such as the real meaning of the recognition in social work, the exact population from whom social work seek to get recognition, and the adequate strategy, so-called "recognition struggle" which social work is to employ to acquire the recognition.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.139
• /
• pp.23-45
• /
• 2016

This paper analyzes Paul Ricoeur's theory of mutual recognition with the concern for the establishment of a desirable relationship between cultures. Ricoeur tries to construct his own theory via Hegel and Honneth. He thinks, according to their theory, the state of being recognized could not arrive eternally. This means that the struggle for recognition could continue permanently. To put an end to the struggle for recognition, Ricoeur introduces the state of peace made possible by the exchange of ceremonial gifts. In other words, the struggle could be eliminated symbolically thorough the exchange of gifts. The mutuality established by this process however, can not accomplish its meaning without overcoming the original dissymmetry between one and the other in which phenomenology has a keen interest. To integrate the dissymmetry into mutuality, Ricoeur gives attention to 'between' the giver and the receiver in the system of gift exchange. He carries out this task by securing a just distance, or a distance in proximity.

• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.11 no.12
• /
• pp.127-137
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study was to suggest the justification for social recognition of childcare staff through a review of Axel Honneth's recognition theory of childcare staff's caring work, the Constitution, the Infant Care Act, and the National Human Rights Commission Act. As a result of the study, first, the poor working environment of childcare staff was confirmed. Despite the continuous intervention of childcare policies to improve the working environment of childcare teachers, poor working conditions such as annual/monthly vacation and rest time guarantee were confirmed. Second, the human rights violations of childcare staff were confirmed. The installation of CCTV installed to prevent child abuse in childcare institutions confirmed not only the human rights violations of childcare staff but also the psychological pressure of childcare staff who are monitored 24 hours a day. Third, this study has significance in that it suggests the justification for social recognition of childcare staff through revision and supplementation of the current law for appropriate performance evaluation of childcare.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.144
• /
• pp.257-283
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is primarily to examine models of collective decision-formation and decision-making. The goal is to propose a model of decision-formation and decision-making that is appropriate for a democratic society. Habermas distinguishes these models of decision-formation and decision-making by liberal, republican, and deliberative political models according to their justification types. Axel Honneth, on the other hand, is divided into three models of liberalism, proceduralism, and republicanism. I want to divide the model of possible decision-making in democratic society into three, that is, the model based on force, the model based on procedure, and the republican model. This distinction will identify the characteristics of each decision-making model and this confirmation will help us find the best decision-making model for a democratic society. In the end, I will combine the republican model with the procedural model. For this synthesis, I will also propose three conditions in modern society. I will argue that the three conditions of collective intelligence, active freedom, and horizontal networks are necessary.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.111-132
• /
• 2018

The way of approaching 'the relationship between love and justice' varies from person to person. We can argue for superiority of love or for superiority of justice by understanding the relationship between the two as conflicting. We can also argue that we need each other by understanding each other as a complementary relationship rather than an oppositional relationship. Hegel, however, sees love and justice as independent constitutive principles valid in different areas and does not regard the two as opposing nor complementary. This can only be understood when the structure of Hegel's theory of recognition is properly assumed. The relationship between love and justice will be considered mainly in Hegel's theory of recognition. Key philosophical points of Hegel's theory of recognition and consequences drawn on the relationship between love and justice on the basis of the theory will be examined. This can be summarized in the form of a thesis, roughly as follows. - Hegel presents love, justice and solidarity, that are various forms of recognition, to a family, a civil society and a state, that are three forms of social relations, as their constitutive principles. He does not grasp the relationship between love and justice as oppositional nor as complementary, that is different from many people's general perspective on the relationship of the two. - In Hegel's theory of recognition, love and justice differ in the areas in which they are valid. Love is a valid principle in the intimacy, and justice is a valid principle in non-intimacy. So, if justice and rights are asserted in intimacy, the area of intimacy is destroyed. Conversely, if love is asserted in non-intimacy, it cannot exercise real influence. - In the political community such as a state, where intimacy and non-intimacy overlap each other, the principle of solidarity is needed as a new constitutive principle, since a state does not stand on the principle of love as in a family nor on the principle of justice as in a civil society.