| Abstrakt: |
Abstract: Article confronts genealogies of power-asymmetries with communicative ethics as a critique of power. Foucault’s three genealogies of disciplinary power are discussed: panoptical prison; modern state and police; and a sexual control of desire. Habermas’s communicative ethics decentres the two dogmas of monological philosophizing: the dogma of atomistic, legalistic, collectivist or decisionistically-liberal identity; the postmodern dogma of totalizing critique of identity and community. Habermas develops the post-Hegelian-Marxist and post-liberal, but not neo-Aristotelian paradigm of communication with the concretely operative regulative ideal of reciprocal conditions of discourse. The conclusion argues a necessity, but insufficiency of horizontal communicative ethics and proposes a critique of power in a vertical-existential mode of identity-formation. |
