1. Why is the structure versus agency debate framed through Foucault and Habermas? Given that this involves a contextualization of Habermas’s project, how can this avoid returning us in the end to a prior iteration of Habermasian critical theory?
2. What is at stake in conceptualizing autonomy as a capacity rather than as a practice, or as a pure correlate of practices? There was a worry that there was a remnant of transcendentalizing or substantivizing the subject in construing autonomy as a capacity. What is the relation between the idea of ‘capacities’ of autonomy and the idea of ‘practices’ or ‘acts’ of autonomy’? Do ‘practices’ express, or manifest, or [??], ‘capacities’ for critical reflection and self transformation? How should we conceptualize that relation? (This has been much-discussed but will be of benefit to the group.)
No comments:
Post a Comment