Universality, Conflict, and Social Critique in Jean-Francois Lyotard and the Frankfurt School

ended

The project examines the tension between social heterogeneity and universal principles for political action and judgment through a comparative reading of the work of Jean-Francois Lyotard and the Frankfurt School tradition of critical theory. Frankfurt School critical theory and agonistic political theory influenced by French philosophy are predominantly read as two separate and mutually exclusive perspectives in political philosophy. This project traces a series of explicit and implicit discussions between Lyotard and the Frankfurt School in order to read both perspectives as different yet interrelated. The connections and contrasts between both perspectives are then used to develop a new framework to address three central issues within critical theory and political philosophy more broadly. Specifically, the project pursues three specific objectives: 1) To assess the possibilities and limitation of consensus and dissensus as grounds of universal political action and judgment, by means of a contrast between Lyotard and Habermas; 2) To understand the causes of social conflict as well as the role of critical theory is their articulation, by means of a contrast between Lyotard and Honneth; 3) To explain the sources of ideological extremism and determine the capacity of critical theory to respond to it, by means of a contrast between Lyotard and Adorno. Relying on a comparative methodology that involves intertextual reading, genealogical analysis, and intellectual history, the research will illuminate and generate dialogues between perspectives that are often considered separately from one another, thus improving our understanding of universality, conflict, and critique in heterogeneous societies.