Abstract

This dissertation offers a comparative analysis of the theories of Habermas and Giddens. It focuses on their reformulations of praxis philosophy's conception of the social and its cognates. It is argued that praxis philosophy distinctively considers the 'social' as constituted by the intersection between the subject and history and that the Marxian tradition of critical theory seeks to promote a realignment in this nexus. The relevance of the general orientation of praxis philosophy and it models of the social have been placed in question by contemporary theoretical and political developments. The thesis explores why in Habermas' and Giddens' theories the initial phases of the incorporation and reconstruction of the original perspective of praxis philosophy give way to stages of distanciation and replacement. At the same time, these reformulations do not alvays refer to the same components of praxis philosophy and this lays the ground for the identification of substantial differences between these two theories. The argument discloses the limitations of Habermas' approach through its immanent critique and the problems uncovered here frame the inquiry into Giddens' theoretical alternatives. The comparison underscores how the internal coherence of Habermas' theory derives from his understanding of the intersubjective constitution of social identity, and of communicative practice as the mediation between the universal and the particular. This insight into Habermas' conception of the social explains why his theory diminishes certain problems and cannot encompass others which were integral to praxis philosophy. Respectively, Giddens grounds the social in categories Habermas subordinates. Yet, the synthesis at the core of Giddens' theory is prised apart by the tensions present in his fusing a generative account of social constitution with a notion of conjunctural transformation. The result is oscillations in Giddens' arguments, however, his applications of the nations of power and risk dissemble these problems. New images of the social are elaborated by both theorists, but neither of them satisfies fully the intentions of their own perspective. The comparison delineates the prospects of critical social theory in light of the constructive achievements and paradoxical consequences of Habermas' and Giddens' modifications to the relation between the subject and history