For Ricoeur, the notion ofagapein particular gives his treatment of
recognition a Christian dimension. For both Hénaff and Ricoeur, the
notions of grace andagaperemain, however, associative rather than
strictly argumentative.
The political theorists have received Hénaff and Ricoeur in diffe-
rent ways. Honneth is not convinced that the anthropological practice
of gift exchange serves the purpose of recognition. The gift exchange
can be better explained in structuralist and ritualist terms. Unilateral
acts of recognition in which the giver exposes himself to the risk of
not receiving a similar response are exceptional occurrences rather
than basic forms of recognition.^50
Thomas Bedorf offers original insights that move between political
theory and anthropology. He reads Hénaff positively, arguing that
recognition can start unilaterally. Bedorf thinks that a comparison
between gifts and recognition is helpful, as both have a three-place
structure of giver, gift, and recipient. Both gift and recognition can be
understood in either a unilateral or reciprocal manner. Bedorf wants
to achieve a critical concept of recognition that avoids what he calls
‘social romanticism’. While romantically uncritical views claim to
achieve a full reconciliation, Bedorf wants to construct a model that
retains the elements of critical difference.^51
In developing a critical notion of recognition, Bedorf claims that
the processes of recognition inevitably contain a degree of misrecog-
nition. This follows necessarily from the three-place structure of
recognition in that when A recognizes B‘as something’, this‘some-
thing’ascribes a new aspect to B, changing its previous status. Bedorf
illustrates this with the phrase‘to recognize Israel as a Jewish state’.
Israel wants this recognition in order to change its factually multi-
cultural status towards a monocultural status. If other states perform
this recognition, they redefine Israel. Bedorf wants to show that all
acts of‘recognizing as’change the status of the object to be recog-
nized. Thus, recognition inevitably contains an aspect of misrecogni-
tion or a‘recognitive difference’.^52
Feminists and postmodern thinkers who claim that the process of
recognition is a power game that imposes problematic identities on
the persons and groups to be recognized have put similar argu-
ments.^53 Fraser’s position comes close to these views. Bedorf himself
(^50) Honneth 2010; cf. Hoffmann 2013, 259–63. (^51) Bedorf 2010, 172–88.
(^52) Bedorf 2010, 118–26. (^53) McNay 2008; Bankovsky & Le Goff 2012.
16 Recognition and Religion