Reunion with the proletariat: Axel Honneth calls for a new politics of work

Monotonous activities, so-called bullshit jobs, which show no social benefit, and the “new precarization” are reasons why people are now talking about a “brave new world of work”. Axel Honneth’s central thesis is that anyone who has to submit to their own job will not be persuaded that their own voice is being heard in the democratic process.

Civic action presupposes a certain degree of social freedom and codetermination in one’s job, without which neither sense nor interest in the common good can develop, according to the social philosopher in his new book “The Working Sovereign”. So it’s not just: “First comes the eating, then comes the morals” (Brecht). But also: Without a minimum of good quality work, there is no democracy.

Deficits, Honneth’s ethical critique of the current working world leaves no doubt about that, exist both in terms of pay and the division of labor overall. Employees are becoming increasingly socially isolated at work – think of the trend of replacing meetings and business trips with video calls – while at the same time the boundaries between free time and work are being torn down by the need to be available at all times.

More participation

As early as the 1990s, the long-serving director of the Institute for Social Research, which is linked to the Frankfurt School, developed a theory of “recognition” whose core political concern is greater operational co-determination and social democratization. Today, as then, Honneth, who was born in Essen in 1949 and habilitated with Jürgen Habermas, seems to think of his philosophy as a kind of radical expansion of the German welfare state. Consequently, he criticizes the undermining of this model and calls for a new politics of work.

The norms of democracy themselves are intended to provide orientation, although it remains unclear what power they possess. Who should help the norms to become a political reality? Why should the “working sovereign” of all things follow the political suggestions that the social philosopher distilled from the democratic claim to freedom, equality and fraternity?

Honneth writes that “social-democratic-minded governments” are most likely to be addressed, without revealing why social democracy, of all things, which has been the engine of the neoliberal turn and the “bureaucratization of the trade unions” since Agenda 2010, should be able to do this.

heated discussions

It could also be objected to Honneth’s thesis that the classic modern democracy movements in the 19th century by no means waited for fair working conditions, but that the desire for democracy – especially in the “hungry” 1840s – was an attempt by the working population to get their own living conditions under control to get.

If, as in the 19th century, a twelve-hour working day did not prevent people from arguing heatedly in salons at night, founding workers’ associations and conspiring against the European monarchs, why should conditions today make it difficult even to go to the ballot box? Why should the current crisis of democracy come primarily from labor relations, instead of from the supply side of politics, so to speak, the lack of a political perspective and a party, for example, which could show the “working sovereign” a meaningful democratic policy?

In general, Honneth seems to underestimate the ability of the sovereign to form political opinions, when it is well known what proportion of what today can best be described as the working class contributed to Brexit, Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016 and the sometimes quite anti-neoliberal protests of the new generation had rights. There isn’t a word about this on almost 400 pages.

According to Honneth, the “farewell to the proletariat” announced in the 1980s by the left-wing social theorist André Gorz contributed in the long term to the fact that the concerns of Hans Fallada’s “Little Man” were neglected. Although Honneth himself explains the meager prospects for his own perspective with the desolate state of the social left and the lack of a positive vision of the future, the political conditions do not seem to have any effect on his theoretical conception.

Despite these weaknesses, “The Working Sovereign” reads as a plea for a pragmatic new start in left-wing and trade union politics. Honneth demonstrates his sense of the importance of civil society institutions and liberal norms. In pessimistic times he makes the ambitious attempt to formulate a realistic utopia for the present. This is refreshing in the otherwise often unstimulating public debate.

To home page