Asger Sørensen

Fortunately, the challenge of alienation is now again taken seriously in intellectual discussions. Already years ago, Axel Honneth made the reflection on alienation a defining issue for social philosophy per se, and as the prime example of social philosophy, he brought forth Critical Theory. Within this horizon, recently two conceptions of alienation have been proposedby Rahel Jeaggi and Hartmut Rosa, and the present article takes issue with both of these proposals, criticizing in particular their anti-essentialism. Hence, questioning the post-metaphysical agenda that Jaeggi has inherited from Honneth, I criticize her juxtaposition of the existentialist and the Marxist critique of alienation, her understanding of the good life as autonomy, and finally her acceptance of post-modern and liberal criticism of metaphysics and ontology. Turning to Rosa, I appreciate his societal approach to the critique of alienation, emphasizing the significance of capitalist modernity, but also he accepts the post-metaphysical agenda, and his aesthetic idea of the good life as resonance remains strongly individualistic. Both of these conceptions of alienation thus have ideological implications that threatens to turn upside down the original intentions and implications of Critical Theory in relation to social and political justice. To conclude, the criticism of capitalism, political economy and real life politics is still relevant for understanding alienation, and therefore it is worth returning to the classics of the discussion.

Considering citizenship education specifically in relation to deliberative politics, first, I focus on the role that Habermas in Between Facts and Norms allots to opinion and will formation as a kind of Bildung, emphasizing the collective aspect of discursive formation in the state as well as in civil society. Secondly, even though I have stressed the crucial role of deliberation in the formation to virtue, I recognize that Habermas attempts to combine the republican call for civic virtue with the liberal claims to have rights. Thirdly, I emphasize that also for Habermas Bildung in some sense constitutes the truth of human being, although it is not specified in detail. Fourthly, I argue that democratic citizenship education would benefit from a substantial notion of Bildung, but that Habermas does not support such an argument. Recognizing that Habermas’s idea of collective formation is restricted to providing justice in terms of politics and law, and bearing in mind the alienation in fact produced within the multitudes of modern capitalist and militarist society, I conclude by expressing the fear that Habermas’s account of democratic formation will not be sufficiently attractive to contemporary democratic citizens and thus unable to function as a normative ideal.

Et uventet og uformodet bidrag og introduktion til en filosofisk forståelse af den nye globaliserede verdensorden, der kommer fra et nyt sted i denne vores globaliserede verden: Mexiko. Ny og ukendt i hvert fald i en dansk sammenhæng – hverken vores stats- eller udenrigsminister har garanteret hørt om Enrique Dussel før. Forfatteren forholder sig eksplicit til en europæisk filosofisk tradition, men udbygger en egensindig forståelse af både filosofi og dens anvendelse i enmoderne verdensorden – netop på baggrund af en udkantserfaring i forhold til den fremherskende filosofi, politik og verdensforståelse. Hans idéer har et nyt og tankevækkende anderledes perspektiv i forhold til den kendte vestlige forståelsesramme af virkeligheden. Dussel kan sammenlignes med en lang række tænkere og filosoffer, som han også forholder sig til og er inspireret af – blandt de europæiske især Ricœur og Lévinas – men også den nutidige Naomi Klein. Materien er tungere og kræver mere fordybelse, men den er autentisk og fornyende, også pga. forfatterens baggrund, født i Argentina, hvor hans hus blev bombesprængt i 70'erne i sidste århundrede, da det daværende diktatur mente at måtte bekæmpe anderledes tænkende på denne måde – ligesom andre alternative tænkere (f.eks. en Horatio Cerutti Guldberg), der alle emigrerede til Mexiko. (Tekst fra pressemeddelelse) Filosofi kræver universel gyldighed og en frigørelsesfilosofi må derfor kræve frigørelse for alle mennesker. Frihed er dog meget ulige fordelt, og frigørelsesfilosofi tager følgelig parti for dem, der mest tydeligt er ekskluderede fra samfundsmæssige goder og politiske rettigheder: Den tredjeverdens fattige under den globaliserede kapitalisme, oprindelige folk og farvede i racistiske samfund, kvinder i mandschauvinistiske kulturer, illegale immigranter m.fl.. I Enrique Dussels frigørelsesfilosofi skal etik skal derfor ikke blot diskutere formelle principper, men hele tiden medtænke afhjælpelse af materiel lidelse. Politik kan tilsvarende ikke blot understrege demokratiske principper og menneskerettigheder, men må også indeholde en kritik af selve det kapitalistiske økonomiske system, ligesom der skal være en strategi tilforbedring af kårene for de underprivilegerede. Og i en sådan strategi er staten det vigtigste bolværk mod de transnationale selskabers udbytning af verdensressourcer. Med dette bevidst marginale perspektiv kan Dussel desuden vise, at der i vores almindelige kulturarv og filosofi er begreber og tankegange, der bidrager til at tilsløre den herskende globale ulighed. Over for den udbredte opfattelse af historien som en udvikling fra det traditionelle samfund til moderniteten, viser Dussel, at vores modernitet modsvares af underudvikling og globaludbytning, og at dette ikke er et enestående fænomen. Tidligere har f.eks. Spanien udviklet en meget rig og forfinet højkultur med individuel refleksivitet i sit centrum, der kun var mulig ved at udpine den daværende globale periferi, altså indianerne i på det amerikanske kontinent. Dussels fremhævelse af det marginale perspektiv, hans kompromisløse stillingtagen til fordel for den svage part i ethvert menneskeligt forhold og hans stringent logiske ideologikritik har vakt respekt blandt filosoffer ogintellektuelle over hele kloden. Med denne antologi præsenteres Dussels filosofi for første gang for et dansk publikum. Enrique Dussel (f. 1934), født i Argentina og videreudannet i Spanien, Frankrig, Tyskland og Israel. Doktor fra Universidad Complutense i Madrid og Sorbonne iParis. Siden 1975 professor i etik og politisk filosofi på Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa og fra 1976 også på Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, begge i Mexico by. Blandt hans vigtigste værker er Ética de la liberación [Frigørelsesetikken], der er kommet i fem udgaver siden 1998. Flere af hans øvrige værker er oversat til engelsk, tysk og fransk, universiteter over hele verden har udnævnt ham til æresdoktor, og han er hovedtaler på den filosofiske verdenskongres i Korea i 2008. (Bogens bagside tekst - udvidet version)

After years of neglect, alienation has again reached the agenda of critical thought. In my case, I recognize alienation as a challenge for education in contemporary societies. To obtain conceptual resources to overcome this challenge, I have revisited the comprehensive 20 th century discussion of alienation. Today, alienation is naturally discussed as an existential condition of human being, but still in the 1980s, there was a strong Marxist current that claimed alienation to be implied by capitalism, in particular by the institution of private property and the social division of labor, and that alienation therefore should be criticized as part of the critique of capitalism and political economy and possibly overcome. Today, under the hegemony of neo-liberal capitalism, this critical and processual concept of alienation is more relevant than ever. Hence, in the present work I argue that the basic logic of Marx's idea of alienation still has critical potential. The argument forms a long engagement with mainly 20 th century literature, departing from the very idea of capitalism, considering the ideas of history, education and democracy, discussing how to distinguish and translate key terms, considering why alienation became an object of controversy among Marxists, offering an interpretation of Marx's critique relevant for contemporary society, thus considering alienation a consequence of working under conditions of private property, i.e. being a human being in a capitalist society, and finally presenting Marx's idea of communism as relevant to the contemporary educational agenda.

The idea of the university is habitually discussed in relation to German or English language classics. Instead, I will focus on the Spanish language periphery arguing that the discussions there merit attention for distinguishing between three central Old World models of the university, namely, apart from the English and the German, also a French one. Moreover, the marginal perspective stresses the social and political importance of the university. In this perspective, José Ortega y Gasset deserves attention for arguing for a university in the service of a modern republican state. Ortega stresses the importance of a cultural formation that includes the sciences to make enlightened decisions, the distinction between teaching a discipline and doing research within it, and that between a scientist doing research and a highly educated professional practitioner. Unfortunately, the role of knowledge and truth is neglected. The argument from the periphery is therefore necessary albeit not sufficient.