PD Dr. Andreas Pettenkofer

Die lokale Politisierung globaler Normen | The local politicization of global norms

Subproject: “Die Unwahrscheinlichkeit egalitärer Kritik | The improbability of egalitarian criticism”

According to a common conception, ‘modern’ society is characterised by egalitarian cultural premises, in particular the idea of equal dignity for all people. Such ideas - it is then said - often do not have a direct effect, but are always brought to bear anew through criticism; in this sense, ‘modern’ normative integration essentially takes place through egalitarian criticism. This view is irritated by more recent ‘right-wing populist’ movements, which also react to economic and business hierarchies, but rarely strive for egalitarian programmes. Attempts are often made to mitigate this irritation by dismissing these movements as special cases characterised by special characteristics of the groups supporting them (e.g. ‘white male workers’).

Instead, the project starts from the assumption that this reveals general difficulties with the idea that modern orders systematically produce egalitarian self-criticism. It starts with the (often only vaguely described) social mechanisms that are expected to translate dissatisfaction into criticism and asks what one sees when one explicates these assumptions and confronts them with empirical observations. To this end, it initially utilises a pragmatist perspective based on Dewey and Mead; its advantage in reconstructing the relevant mechanisms is, among other things The advantage of this perspective in reconstructing the relevant mechanisms is that it does not always take the reflexivity necessary for articulating criticism for granted, but rather starts from the question of what kind of situational irritation triggers what kind of reflexivity in each case (so that, for example, it does not have to assume either the ‘rational actor’ who is always capable of criticism or the ‘habitus’ carrier who is hardly capable of questioning from the outset).

In a first step, it is shown that the improbability of egalitarian critique cannot be explained solely by the observation - classically developed by Robert Michels - that this critique is subsequently thwarted as soon as protest movements become bureaucratic organisations: A complete explanation must start earlier, namely with the question of the conditions under which egalitarian forms of criticism seem plausible at all to those who might criticise. This is all the more important because - as will be shown in the next step - the critical activities that would be important here remain dependent on plausibility conditions that are unquestionably collective in character. The core of the project then consists in describing the mechanisms by which the hierarchical patterns that conventional theories expect to trigger egalitarian critique actually undermine these plausibility conditions. On the one hand, this concerns the world relations of those potentially practising critique: With the help of the pragmatist belief-doubt model, it is shown how the confrontation with hierarchical orders can trigger a reflected renunciation of reflection (‘You don't need to think about it anymore’) - an attitude that has a fatalistic character, not because it assumes a predetermined future, but because it expects that the contingency of modern orders will hardly give rise to any possibilities for action; which can then also drive a switch to non-egalitarian forms of criticism, e.g. to resentment criticism (‘Nobody helps us either’). On the other hand, it affects the self-relationships of those potentially practising criticism: The confrontation with hierarchical orders can regularly produce humiliation situations for them. These situations can serve as proof that they are still unable to successfully mobilise egalitarian norms that appear to be widely accepted. And even where the humiliated enter into a struggle for recognition, they can - because of these difficulties in making egalitarian criticism plausible - hold on to their demand for more recognition more easily if they articulate this demand in a non-egalitarian way.

More information about the project "Die lokale Politisierung globaler Normen"

ICAS:MP "Metamorphoses of the Political"

Subproject: "The Moral World of the Indian ‘New Middle Class’"

How can the relationship between economic change and normative change be understood when simple basic superstructure models have lost their plausibility? My project - which is part of the module “Normative Conflicts and Transformations” of the Indo-German project “Metamorphoses of the Political” (ICAS: MP) - addresses this problem through a case study of the Indian so-called new middle class, a social category that emerged in the course of the economic liberalization process in India in the 1990s. Using life history interviews with people who identify themselves as middle class and document analysis, I try to understand how and to what extent the experiences of economic change translate into new moral perceptions. In doing so, I compare narratives of individuals who have lived through the entire process since the early 1990s with narratives of individuals who were already born into a changed economic world; my focus is on Delhi. 

While most research on the Indian 'middle class', like most research on the 'middle class' in general, takes Bourdieu's habitus theory (probably the most sophisticated basic superstructure model currently available) as a conceptual starting point, my project is inspired by the theoretical alternatives offered by the so-called new sociology of morality (Luc Boltanski, Laurent Thévenot, Hans Joas, etc.). 

Therefore, my project attempts to take the self-understanding of people of the “middle class” seriously and to ask through which social experiences certain moral attitudes have become plausible and attractive to them.

More information about the project ICAS: MP "Metamorphoses of the Political"

Kritik und Gewalt. Zur Genealogie der westdeutschen Umweltbewegung | Criticism and violence. On the genealogy of the West German environmental movement

funded by the Jutta Heidemann Foundation | Link