La reduplicación de la ontología social posfrankfurtiana

The article diagnoses a disconcerting situation regarding what it calls the post-Frankfurtian tradition of critical theory, that is, the one inaugurated with Habermas' break with the first Frankfurtians: it is remarkable and demands some kind of explanation that all the most prominent post-Frankfurtian representatives have, consciously or not, always had two parallel and contradictory social ontologies. We seek to show how this occurs in the cases of Habermas, Honneth and Jaeggi. The condition common to all three is attributed, in different degrees, to the absence of the recognition of the real contradiction of capitalist society, which enters through the back door of their theories again, like a symptom in a psychoanalytic sense. Resumen: El artículo diagnostica una situación desconcertante acerca de lo que llama la tradición posfrankfurtiana de la teoría crítica, o sea, aquella que se inaugura con la ruptura de Habermas con los primeros frankfurtianos: es notable y exige algún tipo de explicación que los representantes posfrankfurtianos más destacados tengan, conscientemente o no, siempre dos ontologías sociales paralelas y en contradicción. Buscase mostrar como eso se da en los casos de Habermas, Honneth e Jaeggi. La condición común a los tres es atribuida, en distintos grados, a la ausencia de reconocimiento de la contradicción real de la sociedad capitalista, que vuelve, como un síntoma en un sentido psicoanalítico, por la porta trasera de sus teorías. Abstract: The article diagnoses a disconcerting situation regarding what it calls the post-Frankfurtian tradition of critical theory, that is, the one inaugurated with Habermas' break with the first Frankfurtians: it is remarkable and demands some kind of explanation that all the most prominent post-Frankfurtian representatives have, consciously or not, always had two parallel and contradictory social ontologies. We seek to show how this occurs in the cases of Habermas, Honneth and Jaeggi. The condition common to all three is attributed, in different degrees, to the absence of the recognition of the real contradiction of capitalist society, which enters through the back door of their theories again, like a symptom in a psychoanalytic sense.