“Second‐Order Disorders” as Pathologies of Reason or Pathologies of Critique? Conceptualizing Critical Theory's Emancipatory Potential

Although it carries the stench of biological essentialism and traces its roots to social Darwinism, the diagnosis of social pathologies is conspicuously pervasive in contemporary critical theory. Why do critical theorists like talking about society through medical analogies? Part of the lasting appeal seems to lie in the fact that those terminologies allow for a sensitivity to the limits of both purely social-theoretical and merely normative analyses of social problems—unlike competing frameworks such as those focussed on social (in)justice (Laitinen and Särkelä 2019, 87; Harris 2022). “[I]n studying human social life descriptive and normative claims cannot be held strictly apart,” and critical theory thus needs methods and terminologies transcending an easy division of normativity and description to properly understand its objects of analysis (Neuhouser 2022, 346). There are obvious similarities between medical pathology and the assessments of social issues: They both involve the application of norms in differentiating healthy from pathological forms, the description of symptoms and causes, and the prescription of remedies. More fundamentally, the question of social pathology cuts to the heart of critical theory, as it not only concerns how we diagnose what is wrong with society but also how we understand the very obstacles that prevent transformative change. Axel Honneth has been especially influential in establishing the diagnosis of social pathologies as the central practice of (critical) social philosophy. In his view, its unifying trait (which he traces back to Rousseau) is the diagnosis of “the structural limitations that [a social lifeform] imposes on the goal of human self-realization” (Honneth 1996, 375). However, as he would argue later, such a limitation can only be taken to be structural if “a relationship of cause and effect is assumed to obtain between [the] social injustice and the absence of any negative reaction to it” (Honneth 2009, 30). That is to say, social pathologies are not just wrong, they also block forms of transformative thinking and acting that could remedy them. This is why, in his view, the unifying aim of critical theory is to achieve a diagnostic relationship with its “audience,” which opens up “the possibility of transformation through rational insight” (Honneth 2009, 40). Of course, the analogy with medical pathology has its drawbacks. As Kompridis points out, it can invite unhelpful or even dangerously paternalist conceptions of the relationship between theorist and addressee (Kompridis 2001, 242–245; Cf. Celikates 2018, 144–180). Nevertheless, the status of social pathology remains foundational for critical theory's self-understanding: Its conception not only determines the objects of critique but also indicates ways it can contribute to emancipatory struggles. The connection between social pathologies and ideological inhibition of reason became especially explicit in Christopher Zurn's influential paper Social Pathologies as Second-Order Disorders (Zurn 2011; Cf. Freyenhagen 2015, 136; Harris 2019, 86–87). Here, he attempts to identify a common structure to all the social pathologies Honneth has diagnosed: they function as “second-order disorders, that is, [...] constitutive disconnects between first-order contents and second-order reflexive comprehension of those contents, where those disconnects are pervasive and socially caused” (Zurn 2011, 345–346). In his view, this framework of social pathologies indicates remedies to be provided by critical theory. In the same volume, Honneth gave his support to this framing, which he considered both “very helpful” and conducive to “progress in the theory” (Honneth 2011, 417). In this article I will argue, however, that Zurn's theoretical goal of providing a universal social-ontological structure of social pathologies and his metatheoretical goal of gaining insight into the tasks of critical theory cannot be achieved in a single conceptual framework. This can partially account for the framework's conceptual ambiguity and what has been described as its “cognitivist” reductivity. The guiding thesis of this paper is that the idea of “second-order disorders” offers significantly more explanatory potential if it does not try to function as a universal theory of social pathologies (of reason). Instead, it should be reconstructed as a theory of social pathologies of critique, which can indicated the task, or emancipatory potential, rather than the objects of analysis of critical theory. The aim of this paper is thus to critically reconstruct the idea of “second-order disorders” in order to gain insight into the emancipatory tasks for critical theory. In order to argue this position, I will proceed in five steps. In the first section, I will briefly discuss Zurn's conceptualization of social pathologies as operating through “second-order disorders” and further discuss its terminological issues. In the second section I will outline Robin Celikates’ reconstruction of the framework as a theory of pathologies of critique, which can indicate forms of assistance critical theory can provide within a broader social practice of critique. In the third and fourth section, I will respectively clarify the idea of “first-” and “second-order disorders” in the context of pathologies of critique. First-order pathologies of critique consist of a disconnect between embryonic normative experiences and the means to create a collective and successful critique of the causes of those negative experiences. Second-order pathologies of critique consist of a distortion between metacritical reflection and the hermeneutical or rhetorical dimensions of critique, impeding the accurate diagnosis of one's own pathologies of critique. These two “orders” of pathology correspond to distinct forms of assistance from critical theory. In the final section, I will provisionally indicate the rhetorical of critique and critical theory which is in the framework of pathologies of Zurn's framework to identify a to all social pathologies by In his view, of social pathologies of reflection a structure as they on disconnects between first-order contents and second-order reflexive comprehension of those contents, where those disconnects are pervasive and socially to an of second-order pathologies is the disconnect in of The social is in such a to prevent or critical that it (Zurn 2011, became within and of the of the paper also by Honneth (Honneth 2015, 2018, As Harris conception of social pathologies he Zurn's as reflexive of social 2022, Honneth In this framing, social pathologies a of of by and for to claims and understand own in of rather than the negative of within a more of and especially social (Honneth This the diagnosis of pathology in rather than the social that emancipatory social social pathologies as obstacles to In his diagnosis has been further to a in a and Although thus a on this should not be Zurn's more than seems to be of a from which in “the of the [...] theory of as a theory of in the of 2019, Nevertheless, the framework has as a of in the about social pathologies and conceptual potential, which this paper to in it to the that been Zurn's conception of social pathologies as “second-order The to the framework is its conceptual the idea of two to about both a within for experiences and [...] second-order reflexive and about the social pathologies the “second-order disorders” (Zurn 2011, 346). his of those second-order if the are social or forms of social (Laitinen 2015, In it remains a second-order pathology a disconnect between society and of it or a disconnect between that of society and reflection own This second ambiguity as it to those two distinct of social which forms of Zurn's account is its it is not a theory of social does it to all social pathologies by Honneth 2022, Freyenhagen 2015, As Freyenhagen the framework is as it is only descriptive of the of social pathologies that are the even such do not to in a 2015, Zurn's that it is to of social and that are but socially and thus pathologies of the social (Laitinen 2015, The ambiguity and of Zurn's framework however, in by an to his framework of second-order social pathologies has two diagnostic theory of social pathologies and the tasks a critical social theory if it is to and to its social (Zurn 2011, thus to achieve a theoretical and a metatheoretical both of which are in own As I will further in the section, are between two insight into the of social pathologies cannot be into an of the tasks critical theory to In Zurn's to achieve two is achieved to a in the a theory of social pathologies a social a metatheoretical of critical theory's within social practice a social of pathologies of critique. There are two to the framework. As been the framework's theoretical the only of the framework seems to be as I will discuss in more Zurn's framework should be reconstructed as a social of pathologies of critique, which can to the social task, or emancipatory potential, of critical theory. In order to the of such a reconstruction of the I will discuss and further on Celikates’ of that framework in his of critique as a social Although and of Zurn's framework focussed on its theoretical that is, its Celikates on the metatheoretical potential of the idea of second-order such a of the of its which cause on a theoretical such as its on reflexive disconnects in critical of the for in the social practice of critique. In order to understand the function of theory in such a social Celikates the of and as his the fact that social are of and in of critique. This the question of critical theory's can it contribute within such a social context an reflection of that Celikates a second of critique as a social that are or as a social practice is by or limitations that be a of tasks for critical theory 2018, “the of critical theory is to the of and those which social of and 2018, That is to say, critical theory which block the social of critical theory “a second-order a of which to the social of critique, as to to the and transformative of In his of the idea of “second-order Celikates thus the to indicate not all social but only those pathologies or social forms block the social practice of In “second-order are in this framework pathologies of critique. Although Celikates and pathologies of reason with pathologies of critique, his of is more of a critical than he seems to what Celikates in his from pathologies of reason to pathologies of critique is tasks of critical theory, rather than its objects of In the of a theory of social pathologies (of like can indicate the objects of analysis of critical theory, but that cannot be with the or tasks of critical theory. of theory, as is within the framework of a of social and and with the of understand the function of a theory, it thus be within the social context it is constitutive of and As an if to a to task, that is, the to it would not to about of analysis practice of pathologies is an a means to an but the aim or function of a cannot be to of The diagnosis of pathologies insight into the potential and of a within the broader of the which the is from the the of the the or absence of an of the and The analogy with the is but it that even a and universal theory of social pathologies (of about critical theory's task, that is, what it can contribute to the broader practice of social critique. Celikates does try to provisionally outline that of critical theory by analyses of the practice of critique. This to argue that a between critical theory's critical and an of critical a critical theory that to pathologies of critique. In that the function of critical theory would it a it is a and the social practice it is constitutive These social pathologies the social practice of critique I will a of pathologies of critique is not merely a human Nevertheless, Celikates such a critique of the does he his own to potential, in This can be in his application of the “orders” to critique through the “second-order and Here, Celikates the and of critical theory. would the of that is by the it seems a critique of of critique that is in critical theory. The of critique is with the social practice through the of theoretical critique. in the for a analysis would a of and only the forms of critique the such and in can to the to critical of those theory thus the social practice of critique through a critique of social through a critique of critique. In the social pathologies of critique are through a critique of social pathologies in the critical theory cannot be as a or second-order critique. more is through the of second-order social pathologies and social pathologies of critique. In this the conceptual ambiguity of Zurn's framework is into The ambiguity concerns a second-order pathology a disconnect between society and how we of it or a disconnect between that of society and reflection own critique of it is that both are and distinct as aim is to the metatheoretical potential of Zurn's the second of this paper will outline both of the social pathologies of critique. In however, I by the first as social pathologies of critique, and the second as the only for the of but also to distinct and metatheoretical in order to the limitations of Zurn's framework (which are in Celikates’ I will a account of the of the of As if the obstacles for critical reflection could be more obstacles for social such as and (Laitinen 2015, of the pathologies of critique should not only the of critique but also that of critique, in order to for that be an critical a is and thus of hermeneutical a critical a connection to an is and As I will argue, this can be as the of critique, which can be on the two to the second of which of the of this that is, the and of critical theory In the of the second of this paper are to further the framework by the two forms of social pathology the of “second-order social in the establishing a of the social pathologies of the hermeneutical of critique on the and forms of that can be provided by critical theory. In the final section I will also this by provisionally the rhetorical of critique and critical theory As second-order social pathologies as socially disconnects between first-order contents and second-order reflexive comprehension of those to of the two forms of disconnect through that the first would a between and one's first-order comprehension of it” (Laitinen 2015, In his view, such a social pathology would the of a disconnect between the of social and how or of Although the social of of a society or are constitutive of the collective it is for or within such an to from that on social In it is for or to with the of of social the of to a where the social of or is (Laitinen 2015, As will however, a disconnect from the socially is not are pathological forms of disconnect between and one's first-order comprehension of order of social has to do with how social life is In relationship with the social the that to the experiences of social life are through In and are to such an that it seems to of in experiences of or injustice are by a socially pervasive of to as and However, such as and or can be or to with and of this thus a within a with a from of a it is for hermeneutical framework to partially from experiences the the of such a disconnect between and would be those between socially experiences of injustice and the of of those as This of disconnect is thus “a injustice [...] that is not as an injustice or that does not as to into an of 2019, in its the first of hermeneutical inhibition would be a disconnect between to experiences and the normative of hermeneutical where this disconnect the from or such a social as an Nevertheless, it is that the disconnect not be between and That would that is only to and that is not However, are not two that can to will such a conception of and normativity As a pathological disconnect the The to a social as the or to and thus and an and in the of that cannot be in a framework of in the social (Honneth the disconnect is thus not to be between and but between embryonic experiences and the hermeneutical also means to create a and critique of the causes of those negative experiences. These socially disconnects thus not the of social but [...] the it is and (Honneth This by as [...] the injustice of of one's social from collective to and hermeneutical forms of hermeneutical injustice are the of the social of hermeneutical of or injustice the of that is, the in which we understand society and in it 2011, However, as has to such an of structural social injustice is not merely a question of normative There are also by social in critical which are to contemporary critical theory's on normative social be to the causes and of the social they are in of such experiences is not is to and remedy an of structural social injustice This of first-order pathologies of critique is not only in the of social the to and forms of also in the and of and by social and to of the between social and one's first order comprehension of it has that forms of disconnect from the can be from the framework of social is in order to be a critical seems more to the pathology in the disconnect between social as it is and the hermeneutical and it would not be a for of a society to be from the social framework of that seems to be a The is that they do not the hermeneutical and to collective experiences to a social which in be to and the framework of disconnect from the hermeneutical framework the that is, the transformation of socially but experiences of injustice into a framework of critical norms and it to even discuss negative social experiences 2011, In order to a of the tasks for critical theory this it is to on that critical theory can and theoretical for the of in of social This a and to of critical theory's in a broader his to would also allow for the of critical theorists social and to normative and of social if the idea of the of from is taken by it of to the of critical theory with contemporary like critical to the potential to be a in a critical theory the first disconnect is between the of social and a social the second disconnect in Zurn's framework is between a critical and to this to a disconnect between how of social life and how they on that social of a distortion in reflection the hermeneutical framework is the that the conception of society is and These “second-order social to more common thus the connection between social and metacritical is from a or of As as a in the of is, all a diagnostic which to identify significantly as such a they will to remedy the that In the of a first-order social pathology from the hermeneutical to hermeneutical As with any human this diagnostic is and and it can is through a disconnects from social the of socially constitutive of the diagnosis of first-order social are the of the social status or the pervasive ideological in the of hermeneutical social forms are taken to be that they considered and thus to However, Zurn's of to do to a broader of social the between second-order reflection and first-order is not a for In a second of second-order social pathologies where metacritical of first-order social or own hermeneutical could be as and This can be by the of socially pervasive negative of the critical of of a social or a in the of the hermeneutical Second-order thus the of a to diagnose first-order social pathologies or an of first-order social As pathologies of critique and pathologies of very tasks for the critical The of first-order is on the hermeneutical from the of negative experiences in a framework. That is to say, any assistance of critical theory would be a of the of the critical for the of the but not this the of a social of is as theoretical is on the and of the However, the critical theorist be to the of the social a more the reflection is through second-order The of that and the connection to the of social are the of this However, Celikates’ of the can be In Celikates’ view, to achieve the critical this the of a and diagnosis of second-order an this diagnosis is achieved through where both the theorist and the the The diagnosis can be or by the in question and thus cannot in to 2018, Cf. Kompridis 2001, of the diagnosis of second-order be as a of a distortion of the metacritical of the which to a further and critical theorist will be to in such a provisionally it is own the of the which is 2018, a and which cannot be within the of this reflection can be is that the of and the of the are first this seems to be a as both of social pathologies of critique are and in any social thus seems to forms of However, this to the of critical theory is not a but rather indicates the of of critical theory's (Zurn 2011, theory, if thus in its of a of forms of theoretical with the they are the of normative and and all be in a and for critical theory to through with in reflection on its own status and its as of social 2019, that the thesis of this paper on the that pathologies of critique cannot be the pathologies of it is to the of critique. to Zurn's by the of This third of pathologies is second-order reflection is and not of with but [...] one's and to on it been (Laitinen 2015, The in his view, the of forms of critical Although his terminological seems as a involve a to diagnose a to diagnose a it is to up on his that of critique can of critical and can involve critical not only a a and second-order but thus also the means to should be considered as the constitutive of critique as a social In the or of critique and its hermeneutical are not two but are dimensions of critical of social and especially with the of thus the to an thus rhetorical critical both an and is a practice that is thus also through a collective and the of a of the is not critical and also of a hermeneutical if the is not critical on and its transformative potential and of social pathologies of critique would to account for such forms of critical this idea as constitutive of to the framework for the conceptualization of rhetorical as of first-order pathologies of critique. pathologies of (critical) in disconnects between the of and of critical on the and an and an on the experiences of injustice are the to in the hermeneutical frameworks will also the in or an to to and the means to critical Although it can very forms, such as social for the of more means and for to concerns to a in to more social As the rhetorical and hermeneutical dimensions of the practice of critique are any first-order pathology of critical also a and with critical will in a of and in will in any attempts to are of critique the As with any however, reflexive can be in its to diagnose first-order social pathologies of critical In this the same two forms of distortion are as for second-order pathologies of critical In a first of this pathology of critique, the diagnostic is or and the thus to an This of can the of a to diagnose the of an that is, an or of or an that is, a critique which is taken to be and dimensions of this inhibition can be in social In such rhetorical of critique is from a of and one's to very of rhetorical and the of which from a rhetorical even if such a is it also the disconnect between the More is to only its potential to diagnose this which is what is achieved such critical would a second-order pathology of critique. second of pathologies of critical is an of reflexive where an to an a between an and is this pathology in the that one's experiences of are from as in where the idea that experiences are own or do not a structural cause to the of a this reflexive of the of that is, an that will on This can be about by the of or the of the absence of a The of both is in the of but theory can pathologies of critical in ways to the for the of the two of pathologies of critical The question what a of assistance of social would like first-order pathologies of I that critical theory can the of those The same theoretical by experiences of can of those also function as a critique of those from the of the In critical theory, which is an within the broader practice of critique and its has a theory as a does not merely an of a structural also and a of critical and in critically that is, the a pathological 2019, The of critical theory thus not only in critique but is a of critique. Although critical theory can the critique more it is to the of a for 2011, The of second-order social pathologies of critical an to the for the of second-order of critical as methods the same of diagnosis a within the reflexive Nevertheless, I would like to briefly on the possibility of a rhetorical distortion in the relationship between critique and This is not a common with one's reflexive as the of is to the of in the of of second-order of the critical is such theory, in its diagnosis of second-order disorders, as an of reflexive and those are thus rhetorical an of In this a very of second-order that is, a rhetorical disconnect between the of second-order and social theory is, to it and from the common in such a rhetorical disconnects are pervasive in contemporary and this of from practice has been as a of a of the is to outline a to this and in critical theory in this but for can be on the framework is that the second-order pathology is of a broader which is in critical theory's to an in in first-order pathologies of This is a that is partially of the of the of critical theory as a and The from social that critical theory its should not be taken as a of a it indicates the to the methods to such a to the social pathologies of critique are to be that would a on the of rhetorical critical theory is not only in and and but also in more forms of in and within the of emancipatory In order to understand what critical theory is and could it is to understand the it and the it as “the fact that an or does not the possibility of its this does not the critical theorist from the needs that could be through theoretical 2019, The aim of this paper to that a to such a is by a framework of social pathologies of critique, rather than of social pathologies of should not be as a of the but rather as an to the of analysis of critical theory and its such a is if we the of which an of as Its goal is from to for his on of this to all of the Social in especially and to the for and

Appeal · Critical theory · Criticism · Essentialism · Normative · Social change · Social structure · Social theory · Transformative learning · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Critical Theory and Philosophy · Economic and Social Issues

• Diagnosing Social Pathology

  Open Access•Frederick Neuhouser•Diagnosing Social Pathology•2022

  Add to list

• Solitary Confinement

  Lisa Guenther•Solitary Confinement: Social…•2013

  Add to list

• Freedom's Right

  A Honneth•Freedom's Right•2014

  Add to list

• Agential Epistemic Injustice and Collective Epistemic Resistance in the Criminal Justice System

  José Medina•Social Epistemology•2021

  Add to list

• Introduction

  Open Access•Doug Mcadam, John D Mccarthy et al.•Comparative Perspectives on…•1996

  Add to list

• Critical theory and social pathology

  N Harris, Darrow Schecter et al.•Critical Theory and Social…•2022

  Add to list

• Domestication of Critical Theory

  Michael J Thompson•Domestication of Critical Theory•2016

  Add to list

• Critique as Social Practice

  Robin Celikates, Naomi Van Steenbergen•Critique As Social Practice•2018

  Add to list

• Pathologies of Reason

  A Honneth•Pathologies of reason•2009

  Add to list

• Solitary Confinement

  Lars Guenther, Lisa Guenther•Solitary Confinement•2010

  Add to list

• Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements

  Open Access•Sidney Tarrow, Donatella Della Porta et al.•Comparative Perspectives on…•1996

  Add to list

• Honneth on Social Pathologies

  Open Access•Fabian Freyenhagen•Critical Horizons•2015

  Add to list

• Critical Theory, Social Critique and Knowledge

  Emmanuel Renault•Critical Horizons•2020

  Add to list

• Recovering the critical potential of social pathology diagnosis

  Open Access•N Harris•European Journal of Social Theory•2018

  Add to list

• Central Problems in Social Theory

  Open Access•Anthony Giddens•Central Problems In Social Theory…•1979

  Add to list

• The Sociology of Critical Capacity

  Luc Boltanski, Laurent Thévenot•European Journal of Social Theory•1999

  Add to list

• Four conceptions of social pathology

  Open Access•Arto Laitinen, Arvi Särkelä•European Journal of Social Theory•2019

  Add to list

• Rhetoric as Critique

  Open Access•Gerald Posselt, Andreas Hetzel•Theory Culture & Society•2023

  Add to list