The Dilemma of Regress
| Published date | 01 April 2007 |
| Date | 01 April 2007 |
| Author | Katrin Toens |
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885107074348 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Dilemma of Regress
Social Justice and Democracy in Recent
Critical Theory
Katrin Toens University of Hamburg
abstract: Workfare reforms under conditions of fiscal and democratic constraints
are the starting point for a reflection on the relationship between social justice and
democracy. The focus is on a dilemma of regress or circularity, defined as a situation in
which these principles mutually presuppose each other. The main section picks up on
the theoretical challenge to escape this dilemma. By examining the critical theory of
Nancy Fraser, Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth, it argues that the concepts of
Fraser and Honneth seem particularly promising because they integrate discourse
ethics with a more systematic reflection about social justice and recognition. Yet they
tend to suffer from the tendency to replicate the dilemma of regress on a higher level
of reflection by treating social justice and democracy in a sequential manner as
primary or secondary issues. In search for a solution the concluding section suggests a
balanced intervention into the problem of regressive presupposition.
key words: critical theory, deliberative democracy, discourse ethics, European governance,
recognition, social justice, workfare reform
Introduction
The creation of work-based welfare systems in the EU and the OECD world is
discussed controversially in politics and the academy. Some welcome workfare as
the long-awaited end to social assistance programmes that suffocate labour supply
and exclude from productive membership in societies deeply devoted to the work
ethic. Others focus on unprecedented levels of social inequality and second-class
citizenship. Indeed, an overall judgement on programme outcomes seems diffi-
cult, because workfare reforms are, in most countries, coupled with decentraliza-
tion and the increase of local designs and implementing programmes.1Yet the
variety in legal and administrative arrangements should not hide an irritating ten-
sion between the promises and the reality of reform. Whereas workfare was sup-
posed to lift people out of unemployment and poverty, a large body of empirical
research proves that it often imposes new dimensions of economic hardship, risk-
infliction and social marginalization on the poor.2And while politicians argue that
160
article
Contact address: Katrin Toens, Assistant Professor, Department of Social Science,
University of Hamburg, Allende-Platz 1, 20146 Hamburg, Germany.
Email: ktoens@sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de
EJPT
European Journal
of Political Theory
© SAGE Publications Ltd,
London, Thousand Oaks
and New Delhi
issn 1474-8851, 6(2)160–179
[DOI: 10.1177/1474885107074348]
workfare is needed to guarantee social cohesion in the midst of change,
the contractual logic most programmes are based on could easily foster victim-
blaming and solidarity dissolution.3
These problems have broadly been acknowledged in theoretical debates on
poverty and social justice. But their interrelation with democracy is largely
ignored.4This is astonishing for at least two reasons. Given the fact that the
current trends of jobless growth and corporate mobility free large companies from
their dependence on the national labour–welfare nexus, functional economic
arguments in favour of welfare are losing some of their persuasive force. Thus it
could be worth reflecting on alternative arguments in support of welfare. To
emphasize the mutual dependence of social and democratic citizenship rights
might be a promising step in this direction. Second, in the EU, the current social
reforms coincide with changes in political decision-making that potentially
threaten the democratic legitimacy of policy choices. The process of ‘hollowing
out democracy from within’5is claimed to be reinforced by European governance
which has become extended to the issues of poverty and social inclusion.6
According to the ‘paradox of weakness’,7the losses of governments in terms of
unilateral decision-making are more than compensated by their new immunity
against the demands of parliaments, critical publics and intermediate organiza-
tions in the national policy arena. Suggestions about the compensatory aspects of
‘output-legitimacy’ and the various possibilities of participation for collective
actors of all kinds are only marginally helpful. They do not fully grasp the losses
on the part of average citizens to their traditional means of comprehending and
influencing the political process.8
Given this, the situation of citizens seems to be characterized by a twofold loss:
the downgrading of social and democratic rights. Considering the relationship
between welfare and democracy in terms of ‘mutual presupposition’, this could
easily create a downward spiral with respect to social recognition and democratic
trust. The reform politics under the former Red–Green coalition government in
Germany seems to exemplify this very well. The ‘Agenda 2010’ involves stricter
Zumutbarkeitsregeln (‘rules of reasonableness’) as well as – for the majority of the
long-term unemployed – cuts in needs-based social assistance. Particularly among
many East German citizens, who are facing regional unemployment rates of 20
percent and higher, the reforms triggered the fear of further status loss and eco-
nomic hardship. However, the street protests of the summer of 2004 had little
substantial effect on the implementation plan of the government. The common
defence of reforms as ‘hard facts without alternative’ reminds many East German
citizens of the politics without choice under the former socialist government.9 It
certainly does not enhance the trust in democratic institutions that is still a scarce
resource in East Germany.10 I do not deny that these problems come from the
exceptionalities of the German case, such as the sluggishness of reform and reuni-
fication. Moreover, the erosion of national governing capacities in integrated
European markets is not repudiated. Yet it seems that for any transnational 161
Toens: The Dilemma of Regress
To continue reading
Request your trial