SCHWERPUNKT: UNGERECHTIGKEITEN

AUS DEM INHALT:

GESPRÄCHE

Verschärfen sich die Ungerechtigkeiten? Ein Gespräch mit Robert Castel und François Dubet

Gibt es eine europäische Gesellschaft? Jacques Delors im Gespräch mit Nikola Tietze und Ulrich Bielefeld

AUFSÄTZE

Martin Hartmann: Kritik des Verteilungsparadigmas. Die Gerechtigkeitstheorien Axel Honneths und François Dubets im Vergleich

Hans J. Pongratz: Das Subjekt der Kritik. Ein arbeitssoziologischer Kommentar zu Dubets Ungerechtigkeiten

Jörg Potthast: Soziologie der ausbleibenden Kritik

LITERATURBEILAGE

Nikola Tietze: Erfahrung, Institution und Kritik in der postindustriellen Gesellschaft: François Dubets Soziologie

François Dubet – ein Werküberblick, bearbeitet von Ingwer Schwensen

ABSTRACTS

Hans J. Pongratz
Das Subjekt der Kritik. Ein arbeitssoziologischer Kommentar zu Dubets “Ungerechtigkeiten”
[The Subject of Critique: A Commentary from the Sociology of Work on Dubet’s Injustice]
Seen from the perspective of industrial sociology and the sociology of work as they have developed in Germany, François Dubet’s study on “the subjective perception of injustice in the workplace” raises the issue of who is, in fact, the subject of social critique. Many of the cases presented by Dubet describe experience in the workplace that closely resembles findings from Germany, although much of the research done by German scholars lacks the consistency and scope of his work. But Dubet’s call for an empirically -based “sociology of critique” runs counter to industrial sociology’s self-defined mission of advancing a theoretically-informed, critical sociology. His results suggest that a sociology of critique must be complemented by a theory of society whenever the subjects critical judgment on everyday life tends to lose sight of the structurally prefigured conflict constellations of the system as a whole.

Jörg Potthast
Soziologie der ausbleibenden Kritik
[Sociology of Limited Critical Capacities]
Contrasting a “sociology of critical capacity” with “critical sociology” has at times meant that the former approach has been cut off from its pragmatic roots. Most notably, pragmatic sociology regards everyday forms of moral indignation and political discourse as a continuum and perceives critique as situated in practice. To further our understanding of these distinctions, this contribution reconsiders a contrasting study by François Dubet. While explicitly adopting a point of view rooted in the sociology of critique, Injustice at Work leaves out crucial elements of the pragmatic research program. On the other hand, it scrutinizes ways of criticizing that do not result in a test of worth and thus remain below the threshold of passing judgment. These findings confirm once again that the orders-of-worth model presented by Boltanski and Thévenot should be elaborated and extended.

Martin Hartmann
Kritik des Verteilungsparadigmas. Die Gerechtigkeitstheorien Axel Honneths und François Dubets im Vergleich
[Critique of the Distributive Paradigm: A Comparison of Axel Honneth’s and François Dubet’s Theories of Justice]
Despite their different academic background both Axel Honneth and Francois Dubet have developed theories of justice that overlap in many interesting ways. This article attempts to establish a dialogue between the two approaches by highlighting parallels and differences. A strong similarity is their attempt to distance themselves from distributive paradigms in theories of justice. Honneth and Dubet stress the symbolic relevance of equal and unequal social treatments that cannot be reduced to the question of the material distribution of goods. Furthermore, both develop a pluralistic conception of justice that distinguishes spheres of recognition or of justification and criticize competing theoretical models that emphasize only one principle of justice as relevant to social distribution. Finally, even though both distinguish three principles of justice or recognition, they also prioritize a concept of equality as somehow foundational. Despite these important similarities, the article also mentions differences. Thus, Dubet rejects recognition as a central category of justice as it appears to oversocialize subjects and to overlook individual idiosyncrasies that Dubet attempts to capture in his account of autonomy. This criticism, it is claimed, ignores social and economic influences that demand specific forms of subjectivity.