Critiques. You are required to participate in one or more critique panels during Critique Week each semester, unless you teach in an exempt department that holds classes during critique week.
Critiques. Xxxxxxxx is criticised for generalising its occidental rational behaviour and being insensitive to cultural contexts (Xxxxxxx 1997, Benhabib 1992, Flyvbjerg 1998). Xxxxxxxx, presupposes that human social life is based upon rational processes for establishing reciprocal understanding ; constitutions is all it takes for uniting citizens in a pluralist society (Flyvbjerg, 1998). In 1998, Xxxxxxxx clarified his position by stating that his model refers to societies free from religious or metaphysical thinking: A fundamentalist self-understanding often privileges value choices that subordinate individual rights to collective goals and thus favour non- egalitarian regulations. Only under the conditions of post metaphysical thinking do ethical-political discourses lead to regulations that lie per se in the equal interest of all members (Xxxxxxxx, 1998, p167). XxXxxxx (1997) critiques Xxxxxxxx for his moral universalism. He observes that Xxxxxxxx‟ social theory universalises morality in the sense that it tries to provide a normative basis for “civilized humanity”: “Universal morality cannot be reduced to self-interest any more than it can be reduced to culture and identity” (XxXxxxx, 1997, p33). He argues that this occidental rationality is fostered through a comparison of modernity and the pre-modern tradition of Europe and is based on European enlightenment; hence cannot simply be applied elsewhere. Xxxxxxxx‟ model is also critiqued for its over emphasis on law as the cornerstone of democracy. Xxxxx (2002) argues that law can be double sided: “While people use it to resist and contest power, they are also subjugated by it” (p487). Another critique of Xxxxxxxx‟ rational communicative model is its absence of a practical aspect and its limited engagement with the dynamics of power. He is critiqued for being unrealistic in his modelling: He describes to us the utopia of communicative rationality but not how to get there…it is easy to point to constitution writing and institutional development as a solution; it is something else to implement specific constitutional and institutional changes (Flyvbjerg, 1998, p215 & 228). His focus on communicative power dismisses the fact that communication can be penetrated by power. Moreover, as XxXxxxx (1997) indicates, it is less possible for minorities to conceive a majority by the means of better argument. As Flyvbjerg (1998) rightly points out, communication can be power sensitive through non- rational rhetoric and be used to ...
