In the foregoing, it was argued that the rights discourse actually can and indeed should be regarded as a crisis discourse. It was not merely devoted to the collective consideration of the typically modern problem of the creation of society and of the mutual compatibility, reconciliation and consolidation of the different dimensions of society, as one would have expected given that it is an instance of the discourse of modernity. Instead it turned out to be a discourse about a problem that not only assumed crisis proportions but also called forth a solution that perpetuated the crisis. The birth of modern society in early modern times took place in and through a societal crisis that, rather than having been resolved, placed a stumbling block in the way of the development of society. Its persistent effects throughout the course of modern society suggest that this impediment is a stubborn one with which we still have to reckon. The question is what the precise nature of this crisis is.

Starting from phenomena of the twentieth century such as, for example, National Socialism, the Holocaust, the Cold War and the persistence of imperialism, various authors have proposed diagnoses of the pathogenesis of modern society. Among them are Reinhart Koselleck, Jürgen Habermas and Klaus Eder, all of whom assume that the pathogenesis and persistent crisis of modern society can be led back to the early modern period. The interesting point is that the discursive construction of Enlightenment sociology sheds light on the nature of this crisis. This is due to the fact that it represented from the start a critique of modern society. Crisis is always accompanied by critique, and by considering the critique, therefore, one is able to learn and become clearer about the nature of the corresponding crisis. Let us review the diagnoses of these authors against the foil of the critique of early modern society by Enlightenment sociology.