Marco Solinas

The paper takes up Amy Allen’s challenge to contemporary German critical theory from the perspective of post- and de-colonial studies, focusing on the role played by Hegel’s legacy. More precisely, it takes up the neo-Hegelian method of normative reconstruction adopted by Axel Honneth and, in some respects, by Habermas. This perspective led Honneth to adopt a teleology of history, in the strict sense of a Geschichtsteleologie, although certainly in a post-metaphysical form, which represents an obstacle to Allen’s challenge. The teleological conception of the progressive realization of reason, especially during modernity, leads in fact to difficulties in developing a theory of history able to deal with the themes of coloniality, and more generally to discuss from this perspective the correlations between normativity, history and power relations. Finally, from the point of view of the opportunity to establish an organic connection between social critic and subaltern subjects and cultures, this conception is very problematic, especially considering the neo-Hegelian model of immanent critique.

Starting with Aristotle and moving on to Darwin, Marco Solinas outlines the basic steps from the birth, establishment and later rebirth of the traditional view of living beings, and its overturning by evolutionary revolution. The classic framework devised by Aristotle was still dominant in the 17th Century world of Galileo, Harvey and Ray, and remained hegemonic until the time of Lamarck and Cuvier in the 19th Century. Darwin's breakthrough thus takes on the dimensions of an abandonment of the traditional finalistic theory. It was a transition exemplified in the morphological analysis of useless parts, such as the sightless eyes of moles, already discussed by Aristotle, which Darwin used as a crowbar to unhinge the systematic recourse to final causes. With many excerpts, a chronological sequence and an analytical approach, this book follows the course of the two conceptions that have shaped the destiny of living beings in western culture.

The article is focused on Honneth’s teleology of history, presented as a historical process of gradual realization of an immanent normative ‘telos’, and not only as a form of axiological evaluation of events and social institutions. The author aims to show that this teleology implies a series of problems both on the level of historical analysis and with respect to the theoretical-political and critical-social outcomes of the new Hegelian critical theory. Particularly, it seems to marginalize the contingent character of historical-political conflicts and the related possibility of regressive implications and consequences of such conflicts, leading to a de-politicization of the immanent theoretical framework at stake.

The paper aims to clarify the interpretation of Kantian morality and Hegelian ethical life given by Honneth and Habermas; it try in particularly to explain the several meanings and forms of Honneth’s relaunch of Hegel’s conception of Sitt- lichkeit. The Author aims at the same time to show some structural limits of this neo-Hegelian ethical perspective from a political point of view, also in relation to the concept of «immanent critique» adopted by Honneth, and differentiated by him from the concept of «internal criticism» developed by Michael Walzer. The Author observes that the immanent approach of Honneth’s normative reconstruction and social critique seems to have some problems to take in account the plurality of different and con icting ethical-political orientations.

The aim of this paper is to show that Honneth’s philosophy of history is teleological in a narrow sense. This teleological character is problematic for the theory of the struggle for recognition, for the conception of history as such, and for the methodology of the normative reconstruction. In particular, the teleological conception gives to the theory of recognition a historical form that points out a unilateral character. Furthermore, the teleological neo-Hegelian methodology of normative reconstruction seems to adopt a too stark trust in the progress of human societies faced with the problem of social, political and cultural regressions.

Starting with Aristotle and moving on to Darwin, Marco Solinas outlines the basic steps from the birth, establishment and later rebirth of the traditional view of living beings, and its overturning by evolutionary revolution. The classic framework devised by Aristotle was still dominant in the 17th Century world of Galileo, Harvey and Ray, and remained hegemonic until the time of Lamarck and Cuvier in the 19th Century. Darwin's breakthrough thus takes on the dimensions of an abandonment of the traditional finalistic theory. It was a transition exemplified in the morphological analysis of useless parts, such as the sightless eyes of moles, already discussed by Aristotle, which Darwin used as a crowbar to unhinge the systematic recourse to final causes. With many excerpts, a chronological sequence and an analytical approach, this book follows the course of the two conceptions that have shaped the destiny of life sciences in western culture.

The essay aims to offer a critical theory of psychosocial processes of regressive and depressive type. The Author starts by discussing the determining influence attributed to social suffering in the framework of the moral grammar of social struggle outlined by Axel Honneth, then he offers an analysis of the regressive reactions activate by disrespect experiences. The Author discusses some important points of Walter Benjamin’s philosophy of history, in particularly Benjamin’s critique of traditional concept of progress, and the determining role attributed to suffering; points that are translated and moved in the framework of the analysis of regressive processes. Lastly, the Author shows how a critical theory that aims to reactivate the emancipatory potential immanent in the social suffering today frustrated may find an incisive and productive approach in a critical analysis of regressions. Il saggio mira ad offrire una teoria critica dei processi psicosociali di taglio regressivo e depressivo. L’autore muove dalla centralità attribuita alla sofferenza sociale nel quadro della grammatica morale delle lotte sociali delineato da Axel Honneth, concentrandosi poi sulle reazioni di carattere regressivo indotte dalle esperienze di spregio. Segue la ripresa di alcuni punti fondamentali della filosofia della storia di Walter Benjamin, in particolare della sua critica alla concezione tradizionale di progresso, e la sua peculiare valorizzazione della sofferenza; spunti tradotti e traslati nell’ambito dell’analisi dei processi regressivi. Infine, l’autore mostra come una teoria critica che voglia riattivare i potenziali emancipatori immanenti alla sofferenza sociale oggi frustrati possa trovare un approccio incisivo e fecondo in una analisi critica delle regressioni.

The essay aims to analyse the gradual historical process of the partial overlap, replacement and expansion of the theoretical paradigm of depression with respect to that of melancholy. The first part is devoted to analysing some of the central features of the multivalent thematizations of melancholy drawn up during modernity, also with relation to the spirit of capitalism (in its Weberian acceptation). This is followed by an overview of the birth of the modern category of depression, and the process that during the twentieth century led to its transformation into a theoretical and nosological paradigm which in the end replaced that of melancholy. The second part is the attempt to draw up a Zeitdiagnose: the aim is to assess the ‘depressive’ psychosocial impact exercised by particular socio-economic mechanisms and cultural trends, with particular reference to what has been defined as the ‘new spirit of capitalism’, as well as the new forms of individualism and their paradoxical dynamics. In conclusion, I will form a bridge between the history of the two aforesaid paradigms and the contemporary psychosocial dynamics correlated to the phenomenon today interpreted as a ‘depression epidemic’. Il saggio mira ad analizzare il graduale processo storico di parziale sovrapposizione, sostituzione ed ampliamento del paradigma teoretico della depressione rispetto a quello della melanconia. La prima parte è dedicata ad analizzare alcuni dei tratti nevralgici delle polivalenti tematizzazioni della malinconia avvenuti nel corso della modernità, anche in relazione allo spirito del capitalismo (nella sua accezione weberiana). Segue una panoramica sulla nascita della categoria moderna di depressione, e del processo che nel corso del XX secolo l’ha condotta alla sua trasformazione in un paradigma teoretico e nosologico che ha infine sostituito quello della melanconia. La seconda parte rappresenta il tentativo di elaborare una Zeitdiagnose: l’obiettivo è valutare l’impatto psicosociale di natura ‘depressiva’ esercitato da particolari meccanismi socioeconomici e tendenze culturali, con particolare riferimento a ciò che è stato definito il «nuovo spirito del capitalismo», nonché alle nuove forme dell’individualismo e alle loro dinamiche paradossali. In conclusione viene gettato un ponte tra la storia dei due suddetti paradigmi e le dinamiche psicosociali contemporanee correlate al fenomeno oggi interpretato quale «epidemia depressiva»

The paper presents a critique of Marcuse’s theory of “false needs”. It aims to clear the theoretical ground necessary to sketch out an immanent critique of the socio-economical dynamics that dictate the exhausting, and oft endless postponement of the satisfaction of a multiplicity of mass needs and desires. The paper focuses its attention on some paradoxes produced by Marcuse’s theory, correlated in particular with the critique of the wellbeing of the masses, and with the manipulative superpower ascribed to ideology. These paradoxes are interpreted as expressions of a radical distance between critic and the social reality and of a paternalistic drift, which can both be overcome by the introduction of a immanent critique. Il contributo presenta una critica della teoria dei “falsi bisogni” di Marcuse. Tale critica è volta a liberare lo spazio teorico necessario per impostare una critica immanente delle dinamiche socio-economiche che impongono un estenuante e spesso infinito differimento della soddisfazione di una molteplicità di desideri e bisogni di massa. Ci si sofferma su alcuni paradossi generati dalla teoria di Marcuse, correlati in particolare alla critica rivolta al benessere raggiunto dalle masse, ed allo strapotere manipolatorio attribuito all’ideologia. Tali paradossi vengono interpretati come espressione di un radicale distacco tra il critico e la realtà sociale, e di una sua deriva paternalistica, che possono essere superati attraverso l’adozione di una critica di tipo immanente