PANEL 17 / DEMOCRATIC CRISES AND CRITICAL RESPONSES
CONVENOR: PHILIPP WAGENHALS
All enquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
Democratic societies depend fundamentally on the critical faculties of their citizens. Within a functioning democracy, the demos is not a passive recipient of elite-driven processes but the primary political agent. As autonomous or “mündige” agents, citizens must be capable of reflecting upon the structures, decisions, and power dynamics that shape their lives.
The flourishing of democracy is therefore tethered to the capacity for critical reflection. This link is currently under unprecedented strain. We find ourselves confronted with a “polycrisis”, where intersecting challenges—from ecological collapse to the erosion of the public sphere—threaten the very foundations of democratic agency. This panel seeks to explore the vital relationship between democratic practice, critical social theory, and the pressing challenges of the 21st century.
Situated at this crossroads, critical social theory has a longstanding legacy of reflecting on the tension between the inherent rational potential of democratic practices and its various pathologies, from the early scholars’ work on authoritarianism and Nazism (e.g. Adorno 1950; Neumann 1963) to later works engaging with political philosophy in the narrower sense (Forst 2012; Habermas 1996; Honneth 2011). Recent scholarship engages with tendencies of regression (Forst 2023; Jaeggi 2023), ideology (Celikates and Haslanger forthcoming), and the rise of authoritarian tendencies (Amlinger and Nachtwey 2024). It analyses how exploitative labour conditions and new communicative technology undermine democracy (Fraser 2022; Habermas 2023; Honneth 2023). Others explore the potential for political resistance of marginalised groups (Loick 2024) and civil disobedience (Celikates 2016; Cooke 2016).
Approaching the current democratic crisis through the lens of critical social theory allows for a dual perspective of diagnosing social grievances and theorising social change. The social-diagnostic dimension deepens our understanding of the various crises of democracy posed by the ascent of the far-right, the contradictions within liberal economics and politics, and the feeling of hopelessness from the perspective of critical theorising. Departing from social grievances, critical theory’s reflections on social change help us to identify pointers for social liberation. This includes theorising of practices of democratic imagination, resistance to powers of oppression, and the role of social and political agents in struggles for emancipation.
The first paper “Judgement, Normativity, and Experimentalism” bridges the dual perspective of diagnosis and intervention through a discussion of Arendt, Dewey, and critical social theory. As traditional standards fail in times of crisis, it argues that Deweyian “practical judgement” becomes paramount and enables a democratic experimentalism.
The second paper “Democratic Rationality and Negative Affects" uses Lois McNay’s Critical Theory to critique rationalist consensus models. It argues these overlook neoliberalism's "negative affects," proposing a dialogical framework that integrates lived experience with political reflection to better understand modern democracy.
The third paper argues that Axel Honneth’s attempt to secure democratic agency through the reconstruction of work poses a limit: it recognises resistance only when it appears as constructive contribution. Drawing on Honig, this paper treats refusal as a democratic activity and diagnoses Honneth’s oversight to register negative practices as political.
All enquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
Democratic societies depend fundamentally on the critical faculties of their citizens. Within a functioning democracy, the demos is not a passive recipient of elite-driven processes but the primary political agent. As autonomous or “mündige” agents, citizens must be capable of reflecting upon the structures, decisions, and power dynamics that shape their lives.
The flourishing of democracy is therefore tethered to the capacity for critical reflection. This link is currently under unprecedented strain. We find ourselves confronted with a “polycrisis”, where intersecting challenges—from ecological collapse to the erosion of the public sphere—threaten the very foundations of democratic agency. This panel seeks to explore the vital relationship between democratic practice, critical social theory, and the pressing challenges of the 21st century.
Situated at this crossroads, critical social theory has a longstanding legacy of reflecting on the tension between the inherent rational potential of democratic practices and its various pathologies, from the early scholars’ work on authoritarianism and Nazism (e.g. Adorno 1950; Neumann 1963) to later works engaging with political philosophy in the narrower sense (Forst 2012; Habermas 1996; Honneth 2011). Recent scholarship engages with tendencies of regression (Forst 2023; Jaeggi 2023), ideology (Celikates and Haslanger forthcoming), and the rise of authoritarian tendencies (Amlinger and Nachtwey 2024). It analyses how exploitative labour conditions and new communicative technology undermine democracy (Fraser 2022; Habermas 2023; Honneth 2023). Others explore the potential for political resistance of marginalised groups (Loick 2024) and civil disobedience (Celikates 2016; Cooke 2016).
Approaching the current democratic crisis through the lens of critical social theory allows for a dual perspective of diagnosing social grievances and theorising social change. The social-diagnostic dimension deepens our understanding of the various crises of democracy posed by the ascent of the far-right, the contradictions within liberal economics and politics, and the feeling of hopelessness from the perspective of critical theorising. Departing from social grievances, critical theory’s reflections on social change help us to identify pointers for social liberation. This includes theorising of practices of democratic imagination, resistance to powers of oppression, and the role of social and political agents in struggles for emancipation.
The first paper “Judgement, Normativity, and Experimentalism” bridges the dual perspective of diagnosis and intervention through a discussion of Arendt, Dewey, and critical social theory. As traditional standards fail in times of crisis, it argues that Deweyian “practical judgement” becomes paramount and enables a democratic experimentalism.
The second paper “Democratic Rationality and Negative Affects" uses Lois McNay’s Critical Theory to critique rationalist consensus models. It argues these overlook neoliberalism's "negative affects," proposing a dialogical framework that integrates lived experience with political reflection to better understand modern democracy.
The third paper argues that Axel Honneth’s attempt to secure democratic agency through the reconstruction of work poses a limit: it recognises resistance only when it appears as constructive contribution. Drawing on Honig, this paper treats refusal as a democratic activity and diagnoses Honneth’s oversight to register negative practices as political.
