Latest news with #FrankfurtSchool
Bloomberg
20-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Are Central Banks Ready for AI to Rewrite the Rules of the Economy?
How will artificial intelligence reshape the global economy, central banking and financial forecasting? Larry Summers explains that AI could raise the neutral interest rate and productivity, while also introducing more uncertainty into economic modeling. Sascha Steffen of the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management adds that AI can dramatically improve forecasting accuracy and data frequency, but introduce new risks like systemic amplification, model bias and lack of transparency. (Source: Bloomberg)
Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Support for war shows our alienation and longing for meaning
Written by Shibashis Chatterjee We claim to value peace, prosperity, and rational dialogue, so why does war continue to hold sway? The romanticisation, justification, and even mild appreciation of war in the public imagination, protests, and media appear to be on the rise globally — why? To resolve this apparent paradox, we must reconsider both the geopolitical and security contexts, as well as the fundamental principles involved. Examining Hegel, Carl Schmitt, and the Frankfurt School reveals the philosophical roots of a paradox: Rapid societal change is frequently accompanied by war despite its horrors. The destructive power draws many to it. Hegel viewed history not as a tranquil progression but as a dialectical process of contradiction and resolution leading to human freedom. War, for Hegel, was not merely destruction; it was a crucible. Hegel, in his 'Philosophy of Right', argued that war was necessary for a nation's ethical health, a moment where the nation's ethical core is strengthened and the state's sovereignty over mere materialism is proven. War is perceived as the ultimate solution in cultures experiencing prolonged economic, moral, or existential stagnation. It vows to shatter the numbness of liberal modernity. In a political culture that prizes technocratic control, turning citizens into consumers and politics into management, war appears as the violent yet necessary reconfiguration of history as a moment of negation with the promise of renewal. The attractiveness of war in certain areas is, in part, due to a penchant for dialectical change. For the disheartened worker in a decaying rustbelt town, the post-colonial youth yearning for redemption, and the ideologue craving purpose, war symbolises not only destruction but potentially rebirth. While bombs are falling, there is an illusion of becoming, of overcoming inertia through rupture. Prominent Weimar jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt famously asserted that the core of politics lies in the differentiation between friend and enemy. He argued that liberal democracies attempt to manage political conflict by prioritising existing norms, procedures, and negotiations above fundamental challenges to their survival. He cautioned, however, that such stringent measures are unsustainable in the long term. Sooner or later, the political returns with a vengeance. This action is not merely a moral compromise that communities make with the state. It speaks to our yearning for community in today's isolated world. The ascension of ethnonationalism, the glorification of military sacrifice, and the acceptance of aggressive foreign policy all demonstrate a widespread yearning for decisive action in high-stakes political situations. It is becoming increasingly clear that liberalism suffers from a lack of political coherence and an incapacitating fear of conflict. Liberal democracies, while ostensibly committed to these principles, are now engaging in a form of illiberal militarism justified by appeals to national renewal. Hence, it turns out that war is not just a matter of geopolitics; it is a psycho-political performance in which fragmented societies attempt to reunite by targeting other conflicted societies. The Frankfurt School, particularly figures such as Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse, offered a radical critique of the psychological and cultural functioning of late capitalism. What capitalist societies, in the end, managed to do was not resolve this discontent but sublimate it in the form of entertainment, commodification, and some form of superficial mass political participation. In advanced capitalism, war is then a spectacle experienced not through conscription but through consumption. Social media, Hollywood blockbusters, live-streamed combat, and video games make war a readily consumed commodity. It is not a sense of emotional shutdown but an unsettling and heightened sensitivity to feelings. Aestheticising war, pulling away to get caught up in the idea of it, paradoxically stirs up intense, if disturbing, feelings. The Frankfurt School would argue that war substitutes for the revolutionary energies that modernism suppresses. Only war can truly shatter a society that hides deep-seated inequalities behind a façade of consumerism and democracy. It is the negative dialectic let loose that roots not for freedom but for destruction. The significance of war as a moral economy cannot be understated; it provides purpose, engagement, and strength in an increasingly isolated and lost world. One of the things that makes war so seductive is the illusion of moral clarity. Even in times of peace, we face complex moral challenges, including systemic injustice, exclusion, and environmental damage. War, by contrast, simplifies. It reduces ambiguity in performance. It converts misdirected resentments into focused rage. Hegel's understanding of history was a battle of spirits. Schmitt insisted we ignore distractions to concentrate on pure, unadulterated politics and accept sovereignty in its fullness. The Frankfurt School warned us long ago that modern society would eventually gag on its dreams. Amongst them, they help us understand why more and more people in the world today are not simply willing to tolerate war but have come to support it. In different ways, these perspectives remind us that violence is not an innate human trait. Their frustration is rooted in the tediousness of the current system, which discourages innovation and critical thinking. The cruel irony is that the very war that holds out salvation causes despair. It consumes the same communities it claims to liberate, destroying the values it supposedly champions. Yet, reason is insufficient to combat resentment, alienation, and historical longing. To counteract the seductive power of war, societies need to address not just the material roots of discontent but also deeper philosophical and emotional voids. They need other ways to find meaning, purpose, and fulfilment, ways that do not depend on having an enemy on whom we can focus our collective fury. Until that happens, war will not only be championed by conflicted states but also celebrated in the depths of the popular mind. Ultimately, the return to war is not about the vengeance of geopolitics. It is profoundly about us, our alienation and longing for meaning, and our unhappiness with the world we inhabit. If war were solely Clausewitzian, we need not worry, but as Michel Foucault taught us, politics is war by different means. The writer teaches at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, and was the Eugenio Lopez Visiting Chair at the Department of International Studies and Political Science at Virginia Military Institute, US
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Instant Scholar: How Habermas' theory links democracy, power and ethics — and why it still matters
In his doctoral thesis 'Discourse Ethics, Power, and Legitimacy: The Ideal of Democracy and the Task of Critical Theory in Habermas,' scholar Abdollah Payrow Shabani delves deep into the philosophical framework of Jürgen Habermas — one of the most influential social theorists of the 20th century. At its core, the thesis attempts to understand how democratic legitimacy can be justified through ethical communication and how critical theory must confront the realities of power in modern political life. What is discourse ethics? Habermas' concept of discourse ethics is the cornerstone of the thesis. It is based on the idea that moral norms are valid only if they can win the acceptance of all affected in a rational discourse — one free from coercion or manipulation. In other words, decisions are legitimate not because they're voted on, enforced, or popular, but because they're arrived at through open, honest, and inclusive communication among free and equal individuals. Shabani uses this principle to interrogate how democracy ought to function, not just procedurally (as in elections or institutional design), but normatively — how people reason, deliberate, and reach understanding in the public sphere. The problem of power and legitimacy One of the key tensions Shabani explores is between democratic ideals and the realities of power. In any society, political decisions are influenced by structures of authority, historical inequality, and strategic interests. Shabani argues that if power is not subject to ethical scrutiny — if it dominates communication rather than emerges from it — then democratic legitimacy breaks down. He turns to Habermas' theory of communicative action to resolve this. According to Habermas, legitimate power arises when people participate in decision-making processes that are fair, inclusive, and free from domination. Thus, legitimacy is not just about legal authority, but moral acceptability — grounded in shared understanding rather than coercion. Why critical theory still matters Shabani argues that the role of critical theory — a philosophical approach developed by the Frankfurt School — is not to prescribe solutions from above but to enable democratic subjects to question unjust conditions and reclaim their voice in political life. He critiques earlier versions of critical theory, such as those by Adorno and Horkheimer, for their pessimism about mass democracy and public reason. In contrast, he sees Habermas as reviving the emancipatory potential of reason and dialogue. Shabani insists that critical theory should empower citizens to challenge distorted forms of communication — for example, those shaped by media monopolies, technocratic jargon, or corporate lobbying — and help build institutions that foster genuine deliberation. In this way, democracy is not a fixed system but a continuing project of ethical self-reflection and institutional reform. Democracy as an ideal, not just a structure A crucial part of Shabani's thesis is the idea that democracy must be seen as a normative ideal — a vision of how people ought to live together — rather than simply a set of political arrangements. Elections, parliaments, and courts matter, but they must be underpinned by a culture of reasoned debate, mutual respect, and openness to dissent. Habermas' discourse model provides a framework for this: it imagines a 'public sphere' where citizens can engage in rational discussion without being sidelined by power, ideology, or economic status. But Shabani warns that this ideal is constantly under threat in real-world democracies. Applications in today's world Although the thesis is philosophical, its relevance is sharply contemporary. From polarised social media platforms to political disinformation, the degradation of public discourse is evident across democracies. Shabani's interpretation of Habermas offers a reminder that democracy cannot survive without ethical communication — without people who are willing to listen, reflect, and justify their positions in ways that others can accept. Moreover, in an age of rising authoritarianism, surveillance, and populist manipulation, the demand for legitimacy based on rational agreement rather than brute force is more urgent than ever. Abdollah Payrow Shabani's work is both an exposition and defence of a democratic ideal — one that does not give up on reason, dialogue, or moral accountability. Drawing from Habermas, he reaffirms that legitimacy in politics comes not from who holds power, but from how that power is justified in conversation with the people it affects. At a time when democratic institutions are under strain worldwide, this thesis offers not just academic insight but a call to restore ethical reasoning at the heart of public life. Read full text of the PDF: 'Instant Scholar' is a Times of India initiative to make academic research accessible to a wider audience. If you are a Ph.D. scholar and would like to publish a summary of your research in this section, please share a summary and authorisation to publish it. For submission, and any question on this initiative, write to us at instantscholar@
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Navigating modernity's crises: Habermas vs Taylor in Nicholas H Smith's 1992 PhD thesis
Nicholas H. Smith 's 1992 doctoral dissertation, Modernity , Crisis and Critique: An Examination of Rival Philosophical Conceptions in the Work of Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor , offers a profound comparative analysis of two leading thinkers in contemporary philosophy. Submitted to the University of Glasgow, this work delves into the contrasting approaches of Habermas and Taylor concerning modernity, its inherent crises, and the role of critique . Setting the stage: Modernity and its discontents Smith begins by situating his study within the broader discourse on modernity, particularly the debates between modernist and postmodernist perspectives. He notes that while both Habermas and Taylor engage deeply with the challenges of modernity, they offer divergent solutions rooted in their distinct philosophical traditions. Habermas: Rational discourse and communicative action Jürgen Habermas, a prominent figure in the Frankfurt School, emphasizes the centrality of rational discourse in addressing the pathologies of modernity. He argues that the colonization of the lifeworld by systemic mechanisms—such as the market and bureaucracy—leads to social fragmentation. To counteract this, Habermas proposes the theory of communicative action, wherein individuals engage in rational dialogue to reach mutual understanding and consensus. Habermas's commitment to a universalist framework is evident in his discourse ethics, which posits that normative validity arises from the ideal speech situation. In this context, participants are free from coercion and can deliberate on moral issues, leading to legitimate norms and laws. This approach seeks to reconcile the demands of modern pluralistic societies with the need for shared rational foundations. Taylor: The embedded self and the quest for authenticity In contrast, Charles Taylor offers a communitarian perspective that underscores the importance of cultural and historical contexts in shaping individual identities. He critiques the atomistic view of the self prevalent in liberal thought, arguing that individuals are inherently embedded within communities and traditions. Taylor's exploration of modernity focuses on the "malaise" stemming from the loss of shared moral frameworks. He contends that the modern emphasis on individual autonomy has led to a fragmented sense of self and a decline in communal values. To address this, Taylor advocates for a politics of recognition, where diverse cultural identities are acknowledged and respected within the public sphere. Contrasting approaches to secularism and pluralism A significant point of divergence between Habermas and Taylor lies in their treatment of secularism and pluralism . Habermas envisions a secular public sphere where rational discourse prevails, and religious arguments are translated into universally accessible language. This model aims to ensure inclusivity and prevent the imposition of particularistic worldviews. Taylor, however, challenges this notion by highlighting the limitations of a strictly secular framework. He argues that such an approach can marginalize religious perspectives and fail to accommodate the full spectrum of moral and cultural diversity. Instead, Taylor proposes a "model of diversity" that recognizes the legitimacy of multiple worldviews, both secular and religious, in shaping public discourse. MDPI The role of critique in modern societies Smith delves into the differing conceptions of critique offered by Habermas and Taylor. For Habermas, critique is rooted in the rational examination of societal structures, aiming to identify and rectify systemic distortions. His approach is grounded in the Enlightenment tradition, emphasizing reason as the tool for emancipation. Taylor, conversely, views critique as an interpretive endeavor that seeks to understand the underlying values and meanings within cultural practices. He emphasizes the importance of engaging with the moral frameworks that individuals and communities hold, advocating for a hermeneutic approach that respects the depth and complexity of human experiences. Synthesizing insights: Towards a balanced perspective While Smith acknowledges the strengths of both philosophical approaches, he also highlights their respective limitations. Habermas's emphasis on rational discourse may overlook the significance of cultural particularities, while Taylor's focus on communal values might risk relativism. Smith suggests that a more comprehensive understanding of modernity and its challenges requires integrating the universalist aspirations of Habermas with the contextual sensitivity of Taylor. Such a synthesis would allow for a public sphere that upholds rational deliberation while also honoring the diverse moral landscapes that individuals inhabit. Nicholas H. Smith's dissertation offers a nuanced exploration of the philosophical tensions inherent in modernity. By juxtaposing the theories of Habermas and Taylor, he illuminates the multifaceted nature of modern crises and the varied pathways to critique and resolution. Smith's work underscores the importance of fostering dialogues that bridge universal principles with particularistic understandings, paving the way for more inclusive and reflective democratic societies. Here is the full PDF of the thesis: 'Instant Scholar' is a Times of India initiative to make academic research accessible to a wider audience. If you are a Ph.D. scholar and would like to publish a summary of your research in this section, please share a summary and authorisation to publish it. For submission, and any question on this initiative, write to us at instantscholar@ For real-time updates, follow our AP SSC 10th Result 2025 Live Blog.
