Response  from Dr Muzaffar Ali Malla

(Assistant Professor, Averroes Centre for Philosophical Studies, Islamic University of Science and Technology)

R. Krishnaswamy’s insightful essay, “Recognition across Axel Honneth and Paul Ricoeur: Making a Case for Solicitude” explores the theories of recognition by Axel Honneth and Paul Ricoeur. Krishnaswamy argues that Ricoeur’s notion of recognition-through-solicitude can address the limitations in Honneth's theory of recognition-through-solidarity as it provides a more inclusive model for recognition and justice. ​

Krishnaswamy argues that Honneth builds on Hegel’s philosophy, emphasizing that moral values emerge from social interactions within a community (lifeworld). ​Honneth identifies three forms of recognition: family, law within community, and solidarity (with reference to social esteem and collective pride). ​However, Honneth's approach faces twin challenges such as moral relativism and discursive over-determination and Krishnaswamy discusses the second in detail. As an alternative, Krishnaswamy explores Ricoeur's Idea of solicitude and argues that it emphasizes mutuality and trust thereby avoiding the Honnethian emphasis on abstract reciprocity and “standards of the Traid” (family, law and solidarity). Ricoeur’s perspective focuses on personal, affective bonds such as philia (friendship) ​built on agape (unconditional love) and gift-giving, where actions are not bound by expectations or equivalence, and have a situational  (and not standard-oriented ) outlook.

 The following questions demand consideration:

1. Since language (gestural or vocal) remains the major medium of seeking recognition within communities, the limitation in Honneth’s approach may have more to do with “structural over-determination” rather than “discursive over-determination.”
   

2. While Ricour’s idea of solicitude grants precedence to the idea of “unconditionality” and “situationality” in relations, our societies are burdened by conditional relationships that are purely transactional, although (at times) justified (for example market, division of labor). Therefore, solicitude while moving beyond and ahead of  Honneth’s solidarity model may lead to over-simplification and one-dimensional exploration of the social realm. Further its application to understand the gender and caste based relations and the cry for recognition within these relations demand further engagement.
   

3. Can the notion of simplified and generalized other be replaced with the notion of “other-within” and “other-without” to deal with the deadlock emerging from Honneth’s focus on generalization and Ricoeur’s focus on individuality?

Reply from R Krishnaswamy

(Associate Professor, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities)

Muzzaffar Ali has raised three questions from a careful reading of my article on Honneth and Ricoeur. Given the limited space I will not answer each question sequentially. I will make some remarks that will answer hopefully different aspects of al the three questions. My aim in that article is to point to the limitations that may arise within a society to justice in so far as those institutions are not able to capture recognitional truths, as it were, that are self-evident to victims of social violence and injustice. Muzzafar Ali is right in that though I have formulated the problem in terms of language, it can also be applied to structures in general. The idea is that there can't be a structure within human society without it being mediated by concepts or ideology or language. To that extent, whatever I have said about linguistic over-determination applies to structural over-determination.

Muzzafar Ali has noted that Ricoeur's view can't quite capture the social realities of injustice which are historically inherited like race or caste or gender. He says that in Ricoeur's model of solicitude, there is a danger of over-simplification in terms of social dynamics works. I am not sure here whether Muzzafar Ali wishes to raise a complaint against Ricoeur's explanation of social reality or whether he finds Ricoeur's prescription to adopt solicitude as the norm to be defective. If it is the former, I am sure Ricoeur would also agree, that he is not really trying to explain how injustices can happen as much as giving us a prescriptive plan as to how to avoid social violence that may emerge out of mis-recognition. Ricoeur's work on recognition is not therefore descriptive and thus to say that Ricoeur is not helping us to understand social reality is being unfair to Ricoeur. If Muzzafar Ali is trying to say the whole device of solicitude itself is ineffective or inadequate because if everyone adopts solicitude as the norm of social engagement where would ordinary transactional relationships go? Most of our everyday interactions are temporary and are purposed to fulfill some of our immediate needs and aims. Two points, one is there is no prima facie reason why we can't have transactional relationships with solicitude. One can be solicitous and still maintain temporary relationships bound by contextual concerns. Solicitude doesn't have to be permanent. The second point I wish to make is that even if solicitude and transactionality (if I may call it) are mutually exclusive, Ricoeur's view would still be something to take seriously, if we can maintain solicitude in some of our more important social engagements, if not in all.