Abstract:
This article aims to discuss the category of reconstruction at two different periods in Habermas' work, first in "Knowledge and Interest" and second in The Theory of Communicative Action. To do this, we make use of the typology of the understandings of reconstruction proposed by Robin Celikates. We intend to show that this typology lacks important elements that allow the identification of commonalities in both of Habermas' reconstructive projects, and then argue that the second understanding of reconstruction does not imply, as Celikates claims, a separation between theory and critique.
keywords:
Reconstruction; Critical theory; Social theory; Psychoanalysis; Pathology