Robert Brandom is an heir of the Enlightenment. Though politics is a topic Brandom is quietist about, a political orientation is discernible. Broadly, on the spectrum of political inclination, Brandom is a progressive. He hails modernity, “the only thing that has ever really happened to Geist” (Brandom 2019: 496), and yet diagnoses pathologies distinct of modernity, whose treatment lie not in a return to tradition but in leaping forward to a postmodern age of trust, where tradition and modernity…
Read moreRobert Brandom is an heir of the Enlightenment. Though politics is a topic Brandom is quietist about, a political orientation is discernible. Broadly, on the spectrum of political inclination, Brandom is a progressive. He hails modernity, “the only thing that has ever really happened to Geist” (Brandom 2019: 496), and yet diagnoses pathologies distinct of modernity, whose treatment lie not in a return to tradition but in leaping forward to a postmodern age of trust, where tradition and modernity are brought into synthesis, safeguarding both norm and freedom, societal cohesion and individual self-expression. Brandom’s diagnosis is insightful, and his projection to the future admirable, but there are doubts that the former doesn’t go deep enough, casting doubt, in turn, on the purchase of the latter. I will raise these doubts by examining the limits of Brandom’s reading of Marx and by outlining how an alternative interpretation – one that remains in proximity to the Brandomian conceptual space – poses challenges to the Brandomian project itself.
