Abstract
This chapter explores the critical theory concept of legitimation in relation to Ulrich Beck’s theorisation of risk society. The process of legitimation involves the provision and consideration of reasons as the basis for evaluating and justifying practices and beliefs. This chapter adopts the three dimensions of justice developed by Fraser—redistribution, recognition and representation—and Forst's right to justification to explore the legitimation process involved in the negotiation of risk.
The chapter examines how the demands of social justice and the right to justification of the vulnerable worldwide often compete with concerns for preservation of both the self and the state in a world at risk. This tension gives rise to significant ethical conflicts and a questioning of where the boundaries for justice should legitimately be drawn. Such questions are often resolved through the moral learning facilitated by communicative action within the process of legitimation.
The chapter argues that the negotiation of risk society entails legitimation struggles at local, national and global levels. These struggles raise questions about the justice of the framing of the state even as they make increasing demands on state governments to protect their citizens from risk. The latter is often achieved by a state through securing access to resources for its citizens as the basis for its democratic legitimacy, often to the detriment of other states' attempts to do the same. The potential for injustice associated with state efforts to self-preserve is challenged by the communicative action arising from mass mobilisations as part of an emergent global legitimation process.
The chapter concludes that the evolution of communicative action and the increasingly globalised process of legitimation through which such evolution occurs represent sources of risk, but also of opportunity. This is due to the heightened reliance on the development of communicative competence within the multi-level legitimation process associated with reconciling the demands for justice and preservation in a world at risk.
I cannot muster the ‘we’ except by finding the way in which I am tied to ‘you’,by trying to translate but finding that my own language must break up and yieldif I am to know you.
(Precarious Life, Butler, 2004 : 49)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research) which was established in Germany in 1923 was home to the Frankfurt School from which critical theory emerged (Held 1980: 29). At its inception, many of the Institute’s most prominent authors were Jewish, including Theodor Adorno (1903–1969), Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) and Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979). These authors were forced to flee Germany when Hitler came to power in 1933 and much of their work was produced in exile following the school’s re-formation in the United States. These origins have continued to inform critical theory’s concern with intellectual autonomy as the means to challenging injustice and the illegitimate exercise of power. Through the work of Jürgen Habermas, communicative action has been increasingly recognised as central to this project.
- 2.
Access to resources relates to the means required to negotiate the risks of a particular context. In situations of humanitarian disasters, access to food, water and shelter will be of primary importance. Under non-emergency conditions, however, security of access to food, water, land, housing, political influence, social status, assets, wealth, employment and natural resources all serve as the basis for mitigating exposure to risk as an ongoing preoccupation. Competition to gain greater access to these resources represents an attempt to mitigate risk exposure as a concern for the preservation of certain individuals and groups over others. This highlights the ontological significance of power relations in risk society.
- 3.
Maximal justice would mean that a fully justified basic structure has been established—one that grants ‘rights, life chances and goods that citizens of a just society could not reciprocally deny each other’ (Forst 2007: 296).
- 4.
This relates to the cognitive capacity for assessing claims of justice from a decontextualised ‘original position’ (Rawls [1971], 1999: 13) where necessary in order to resolve immanent conflicts.
- 5.
The definition of ‘right’ and ‘good’ emerges through the process of legitimation itself and its concern with the negotiation and reconciliation of immanent and transcendental dimensions of human existence. The potential for relativism associated with legitimation is highlighted by the Rawlsian ([1993], 2005: 393) concern that injustice itself can be legitimated in particular contexts. This gives rise to the possibility for approaches to risk to be legitimated in one context which can exacerbate risk exposure in others. There is greater potential for injustice to be legitimated when the basis for legitimation is founded on perspectives which are narrowly or erroneously conceived, or informed by fear. The more open the process of legitimation is to extraneous influences beyond the boundaries in which it operates, the greater the likelihood is that unjust legitimations will be challenged by competing perspectives.
- 6.
The dynamic interaction between the state and civil society is referred to by Habermas (1996: 354–355) as the core-periphery model of democratic will-formation.
- 7.
These relate to concerns regarding their representativeness and lack of democratic accountability (Mehta 2007: 71), as well as their diversity in terms of their contribution to human emancipation and social justice (Adeney and Wyatt 2010: 149). This is particularly evident in the case of radical nationalist right-wing movements that assert the prioritisation of the preservation of citizens of their own states, often on the basis of a purported superior evolutionary advancement in relation to others. The presence of these movements highlights the potential for injustice, as well as the ongoing tension in the negotiation of borders with regard to preservation and justice in response to risk.
- 8.
Between 1990 and 2007, secessions led to the creation of 25 new states which were given international recognition (Pavkovic 2008: 1). There are also many other territories which are demanding statehood such as Kosovo, Chechnya, Somaliland, Catalonia, as well as secession struggles by groups in a number of Indian states, including Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Assam and Nagaland. In India, the state of Telangana was formed in 2014 following the secession of the region from the wider state of Andhra Pradesh. A full analysis of how the demands for secession in Telangana intersected with the process of legitimation and negotiation of risk in the region can be found in Legitimation in a World at Risk: The Case of Genetically Modified Crops in India.
- 9.
Self-transformation is made possible through the moral learning and ethical reflection that occurs as a result of the legitimation process which such complex issues give rise to. This learning challenges understandings of the transcendental basis for the legitimacy of immanent power structures and social practices.
- 10.
The Landless Peoples Movement in Brazil and South Africa asserts its demand for access to land as a concern for social justice.
- 11.
The Indian Chipko movement which sought to protect the livelihoods of indigenous forest populations inspired environmental protests worldwide.
- 12.
La Via Campesina has a membership of 200 million small farmers in 73 countries and works to promote social justice and dignity through the promotion of sustainable agriculture as a counter-power to globalised commercial agriculture.
- 13.
While attempts were made to prevent civil society mobilisations at the summit owing to security concerns, thousands gathered at a protest organised by Global Justice Now on 12 December, 2015. Agreement to this protest had been negotiated with the French government.
- 14.
Available at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations. Accessed on 23/11/2017.
Bibliography
Adeney, K., and Wyatt, A., (2010), Contemporary India, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Arendt, H., ([1954], 2006), Between Past and Future, London: Penguin Books.
Beck, U., (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.
Beck, U., (1999), World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (2007), Power in the Global Age: A new global political economy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., (2009), World at Risk, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beetham, D., (2013), The Legitimation of Power, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benford, R., and Snow, D., (2000), ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.’ Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 611–639.
Benhabib, S., (2004), The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernstein, S. (2004). The Elusive Basis of Legitimacy in Global Governance: Three Conceptions. Working Paper: GHC 04/2. Hamilton: Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition.
Bohman, J., (2007), Democracy across Borders, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Boylan, B., (2015), ‘In pursuit of independence: the political economy of Catalonia’s secessionist movement.’ Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 761–785.
Butler, J., (2004), Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence, London: Verso.
Clark, I., (2007), ‘Legitimacy in International or World Society.’ In: Hurrelmann, A., Schneider, S., and Steffek, J. (eds), Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 193–210.
Corbridge, S., Harriss, J., and Jeffrey, C., (2013), India Today: Economy, Politics and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A., (1982), Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers, London: University of California Press.
Forst, R., (2007), ‘First Things First: Redistribution, Recognition and Justification.’ European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, 291–304.
Forst, R., (2014), Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification, London: Bloomsbury.
Fraser, N., (2007), ‘Re-framing justice in a globalizing world.’ In: Lovell, T., (Mis)recognition, Social Inequality and Social Justice. London: Routledge, pp. 17–35.
Fraser, N., (2008), Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fraser, N., and Honneth, A., (2003), Redistribution or Recognition: A Political-Philosophical Exchange: London: Verso.
Ghimire, K. B., (2005), The Contemporary Global Social Movements: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Giri, A. K., (2013), Knowledge and Human Liberation: Towards Planetary Realizations, Delhi: Anthem Press.
Habermas, J., (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J., (1996), Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J., (1998), The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory: Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Habermas, J., (2001), The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J., (2008), Between Naturalism and Religion: Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J., ([1973], 1976), Legitimation Crisis, London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Haunss, S., (2007), ‘Challenging Legitimacy: Repertoires of Contention, Political Claims-Making, and Collective Action Frames.’ In: Hurrelmann, A., Schneider, S., and Steffek, J. (eds), Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 156–172.
Held, D., (1980), Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hurrelmann, A., Schneider, S., and Steffek, J., (2007), ‘Introduction: Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics.’ In: Hurrelmann, A., Schneider, S., and Steffek, J., Legitimacy in an Age of Global Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–16.
Kothari, R., (2005), Rethinking Democracy, New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
Kuper, A. (2004). Democracy Beyond Borders: Justice and Representation in Global Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Locke, J., ([1690], 1967), Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M., (1997), ‘Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation-state?’ Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 472–496.
Mehta, P. B. (2007). The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty. Journal of Democracy, 18(2), 70–83.
Pavkovic, A., (2008), ‘Introduction.’ In: Pavkovic, A., and Radan, P., On the way to statehood: secession and globalization. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Pleyers, G., (2010), Alter-Globalization: Becoming Actors in the Global Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pogge, T., (2008), World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rawls, J., ([1971], 1999), A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J., ([1993], 2005), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Renn, O., (2008), Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, London: Earthscan.
Rousseau, J.-J., ([1762], 1973), The Social Contract and Discourses, London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
Scanlon, T. M., (2012), ‘Justification and legitimation: Comments on Sebastiano Maffettone’s Rawls: An Introduction.’ Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol. 38, No. 9, 887–892.
Strydom, P., (1999), ‘Triple contingency: the theoretical problem of the public in communication societies.’ Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1–25.
Strydom, P., (2001), ‘The Problem of Triple Contingency in Habermas.’ Sociological Theory, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 165–186.
Strydom, P., (2002), Risk, environment and society, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Strydom, P., (2007–2008), The Emerging World Society: Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism and Collective Learning: Unpublished Lecture Series. Available at: https://ucc-ie.academia.edu/PietStrydom.
Strydom, P., (2008), Immanent Transcendence: Critical Theory’s Left Hegelian Heritage. Journal of European Social Theory Conference Paper. Available at: https://ucc-ie.academia.edu/PietStrydom.
Strydom, P., (2011), Contemporary Critical Theory and Methodology, London: Routledge.
Strydom, P., (2015), ‘Critical Theory of Justice: On Forst’s “Basic Structure of Justification” from a Cognitive Sociological Perspective.’ Philosophical Inquiry, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 110–33.
Touraine, A., (2000), Can We Live Together? Equality and Difference, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Weber, M., ([1968], 1978), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Vol. 1, London: University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Desmond, E. (2018). Critical Theory and Communicative Action: The Challenge of Legitimation in a World at Risk. In: Giri, A. (eds) Social Theory and Asian Dialogues. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7095-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7095-2_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7094-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7095-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)