Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Stewart Clegg
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Clegg, Flyvbjerg and Haugaard debate the strengths and weaknesses of a Foucauldian–Nietzschean critique of power compared to a tradition exemplified by Lukes and Habermas. Flyvbjerg and Clegg argue that the pursuit of universal normative principles and of rationality without power may lead to oppressive utopian thinking. Drawing on the Aristotelian tradition of phronesis, they propose a contextualist form of critique that situates itself in analysis of local practices to render domination transparent and open to change. While Haugaard accepts there cannot be a universal view that transcends the particularities of context, he argues that the phronetic approach is crypto-normative because it implicitly presupposes unacknowledged liberal normative premises; moreover, any use of ‘truth’ as a criterion follows Enlightenment principles of verification.
Author(s): Clegg SR, Flyvbjerg B, Haugaard M
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Political Power
Print publication date: 01/05/2014
Online publication date: 20/06/2013
ISSN (print): 2158-379X
ISSN (electronic): 2158-3803
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric