Rainer Forst

Rainer Forst takes up one of the central controversies associated with toleration, i.e. the plurality of normative justifications that have been and can be given for or against toleration. At the same time, he elaborates on the distinction between a general concept and particular conceptions of toleration. He contrasts a “permission conception” of toleration with a “respect conception.” By contextualizing his intellectual journey influenced by scholars such as Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls and T.M. Scanlon, he provides an insight into the development of his research on toleration culminating in his landmark book Toleration in Conflict. He also emphasizes the importance of non-Western conceptions of toleration and their importance for future discussions in this area of scholarly research.Disagreement.

Gli esseri umani sono esseri giustificanti: offrono, chiedono ed esigono giustificazioni. Le norme e le istituzioni che seguono si basano su narrazioni di giustificazione storicamente date che, nel loro insieme, costituiscono un ordine normativo, dinamico e ricco di tensioni. Superando l’alternativa tra teorie “ideali” e teorie “realiste”, Rainer Forst dimostra in questo libro come i concetti di normatività e potere siano strettamente correlati: il potere si basa, infatti, sulla capacità di influenzare, determinare ed eventualmente restringere lo spazio delle giustificazioni. Una teoria critica della giustificazione deve quindi porre in analisi le relazioni di potere in termini di giustificazioni, e da lì riflettere sulla loro validità. Tra filosofia, storia e scienze sociali, Forst rivaluta le teorie della giustizia, così come quelle del potere, fornendo gli strumenti per un nuovo approccio di teoria critica, come teoria critica della giustificazione.

In The Shadow of God, Michael Rosen argues that modern moral philosophy in the tradition of German Idealism is profoundly shaped by religious views these thinkers could not overcome. However, a closer look at Rosen’s critique of Kant’s and Kantian conceptions of morality raises the possibility that Rosen’s view may itself be haunted by the shadow of God. In particular, Rosen appears to believe that a moral imperative of respect for human dignity necessarily requires a religious-transcendent grounding, such that there is no purely moral answer to the question of why such respect is owed. In relegating morality to an impersonal realm that alienates us from our personal understandings of the good, Rosen fails to recognize not only that Kantian morality is meant to alienate us from certain ends (e.g., racist or sexist), but that it is also meant to overcome alienation. This is because Kantian morality is not so much impersonal, as it is interpersonal: it recognizes us as belonging to a community of free and equal persons, who are autonomous when we morally reflect on, or even reject, certain ends.

The concept of civil society, generally speaking, refers to a collective of free citizens who organize their common life in an autonomous and co‐operative way. To understand the different meanings and historical dynamic of the concept, three conceptions of it need to be distinguished, the oldest of which long pre‐dates the development of modern notions of ‘state’ and ‘society’. The Aristotelian idea of koinonia politike – translated into Latin as societas civilis – refers to a political community of free and equal, virtuous citizens, bound together by a willingness to advance their common interest by means of political self‐rule in order to protect their liberty against both despotism and anarchy. Despite its historical distance from the two other, modern conceptions, this original one still poses a crucial question for any contemporary notion of civil society: what are the social understandings, forms of life and modes of action necessary for the establishment and preservation of political institutions that enable civic co‐operation and political autonomy?

Wie kommt es, dass sich Menschen an normative Ordnungen halten, und aus welchen Normen bestehen diese? Die Frage nach deren bindender Kraft beleuchten die philosophischen Beiträge dieses Bandes. Ergänzend wird aus historischer Sicht untersucht, wie sich unterschiedliche Rechtfertigungsweisen von Ordnungen entwickelt haben. Der Konstruktion neuer internationaler Rechtsordnungen gehen die rechtswissenschaftlichen Beiträge nach. Aus politikwissenschaftlicher Perspektive wird schließlich gezeigt, auf welchen Prinzipien die institutionelle Gestaltung unserer politischen Welt beruht beziehungsweise beruhen sollte.

Rainer Forst develops a critical theory capable of deciphering the deficits and potentials inherent in contemporary political reality. This calls for a perspective which is immanent to social and political practices and at the same time transcends them. Forst regards society as a whole as an ‘order of justification’ comprising complexes of different norms referring to institutions and corresponding practices of justification. The task of a ‘critique of relations of justification’, therefore, is to analyse such legitimations with regard to their validity and genesis and to explore the social and political asymmetries leading to inequalities in the ‘justification power’ which enables persons or groups to contest given justifications and to create new ones. Starting from the concept of justification as a basic social practice, Forst develops a theory of political and social justice, human rights and democracy, as well as of power and of critique itself. In so doing, he engages in a critique of a number of contemporary approaches in political philosophy and critical theory. Finally, he also addresses the question of the utopian horizon of social criticism.

Over the past 15 years, Rainer Forst has developed a fundamental research programme within the tradition of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. The core of this programme is a moral account of the basic right of justification that humans owe to one another as rational beings. This account is put to work by Forst in articulating - both historically and philosophically - the contexts and form of justice and of toleration. The result is a powerful theoretical framework within which to address issues such as transnational justice and multicultural toleration. In this volume, Forst sets out his ideas in an extended essay, which is responded to be influential interlocutors including: Andrea Sangiovanni, Amy Allen, Kevin Olson, Anthony Laden, Eva Erman and Simon Caney. The volume concludes with Forst's response to his interlocutors.

In this collection of essays, the first translation into English of the ground-breaking 'Normativität und Macht' (Suhrkamp 2015), Rainer Forst presents a new approach to critical theory. Each essay reflects on the basic principles that guide our normative thinking. Forst's argument goes beyond 'ideal' and 'realist' theories and shows how closely the concepts of normativity and power are interrelated, and how power rests on the capacity to influence, determine, and possibly restrict the space of justifications for others. By combining insights from the disciplines of philosophy, history, and the social sciences, Forst revaluates theories of justice, as well as of power, and provides the tools for a critical theory of relations of justification. Translated from German.