#19664 - 4.C.Ii. Critical Theories Democracy Radical Democracy - Jurisprudence

Radical Democracy

LECTURE(s)

• The focus today is radical democracy (RD)

• Habermas is closest to SC tradition

• Thinks of history in broadly progressive terms, but is faced with e.g., populism, IRRAT

Radical Democracy

• LIB and DEM AREN’T reconcilable

• Idea itself is wrong – “RAT consensus”

  • Problematic in suggesting that hegemony can be overcome

  • Some voices DOM over others in discussion

• It’s therefore necessary to refocus on “people” and “power”

  • DEM shouldn’t be limited to a procedural framework – must be EXPANDED

• Point of RD – recovering the ROOTS of DEM

• Demos - claim for power from those who lacked power; propertyless

• Kratos - more than formal legal EQ; exercise of power in PD; participation in law-making

Taking Democracy Seriously

• DEM must be WITHOUT qualifiers

  • LIBs qualify DEM – “constitutional”, “well-ordered”

    • There is an elitism in many LIB theories

  • Rejection of philosopher-jurist or CONST court as “guardian” (a la Rawls)

• AUT to make/remake laws; EQ stake in power; giving voice to plurality of views

• RD is a bit more suspicious of existing structures, both by how they influence SOC and how they CONCEAL themselves

Critique of Neoliberal Centrism

• Idea of “end of history” (Fukuyama)

  • RD is suspicious of this homogenizing of political thinking

    • But this is also something characteristic of LIBs – they think of SOC as a restaurant = some eat, some serve, and there’s a manager above

Why Not Revolutionary Marxism?

• ECON power can indeed DOM, but there are other forms of DOM – some issues:

  • Rejection of materialist philosophy and class analysis

  • Rejection of universal emancipation from alienation

    • No utopia

    • No historical determinism

  • Faith in DEM

• HOWEVER, “relative AUT of political”

Chantal Mouffe

• “DEM is only post-metaphysical form of LEGIT”

  • But also – DEM is a structured a thing = e.g., “LIB DEM”, “RAT consensus”, etc.

• Sympathetic to revitalizing a DEM theory, BUT LEGIT is always based on a power grab

  • You can’t eradicate that via discourse – some parties will always manipulate debates

    • This can never be eliminated (power) – you must MANAGE IT

• DD takes us beyond LIB view of DEM (important) – from market-based (aggregating preferences) to intersubjective view of RAT

• Habermas goes wrong by saying that the end goal is a RAT AGR

  • Unlikely he says, but only due to empirical constrains

    • This misses the SOCIAL DIMENSION of the political

      • Procedure always implies substantive commitments

        • E.g., who sets the agenda for the meeting?

      • The very activity of dialogue assumes disparities

        • Ideal speech is impossible

• There’ll always be conflict among us – ECON, cultural, national, etc.

  • This takes MANY frameworks, however

    • We can think of this of AGONISM, not ANTAGONISM

      • RELAT between adversaries, not enemies

        • Game-like condition, but not as mortal enemies

      • When you’re arguing, you not only use reason, but passion

• Acknowledge existence of RELAT of power, BUT free ourselves of the illusion we’ll free ourselves of it = RD

  • Agonistic approach acknowledges there’ll always be exclusion – it doesn’t disguise it under veil of RAT of morality

• “Whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat” (Schmitt)

  • When appealing to something universal = sleight of hand – veil for unequal power

Cornelius Castoriadis

• Relies on our capacity to imagine things

• One of dividing lines between RD and Marxism is change without REV

• Collective freedom is critical – critical of LIB individualism, but also of totalitarianism in USSR

• AUT based on capacity for CREATIVITY

  • Not about identifying a universal law which we would follow – AUT in the more radical sense of it being creative

• Several features which constrain our AUT – e.g., superstition, natural laws, tradition, and any HETERONOMOUS belief system (SOC where norms are unquestioned)

• That “break” from existing constrains occurs at various moments; BUT no moment where SOC starts from scratch (i.e., SoN) = always working with existing materials

• LIB idea of “individual” is absurd – we are born into SOC, family, culture, etc.

  • HOWEVER, those things are determined by social world – it’s not a given; product of SOC’s collective imaginary

    • How we imagine changing that SOC world is therefore crucial

• RD = INST in which any question can be asked/no position is guaranteed/given in advance

  • BUT this isn’t anarchy

    • There are limits, but those limits must be OUR OWN limits

• DEM isn’t merely procedure – for DEM to be effective, it must be a REGIME

• Education is therefore crucial – DEM SOC requires DEM individuals

• AUT as effective AUT – AUT in abstract is merely a word

  • Unless there is possibility to effectively exercise your voice = AUT is meaningless

    • Participation achieves freedom only if equally possible for all, not merely in letter of law, but social actuality

      • AUT as endless movement to create DEM SOC

Sheldon Wolin

• DIFF between him and Castoriadis – the latter sees things optimistically

• DEM as something that occurs sporadically (e.g., in REV moments)

  • People from excluded SOC strata take on RESP, deliberate goals, etc. = REVs activate demos and destroy boundaries that bar access to POL experiences

• Focus on equality; rejection of Habermas’ appeal to reason

  • DEM is not about stability – it’s about CONTESTING the existing order = the political moment when political is recreated/remembered

• Socio-economic EQ is part-and-parcel of those destabilizing moments – link between those who are POL excluded and those who are ECON

• Ordinary individuals can create new patterns of commonality at any moment

  • E.g., people fighting for safer water, or better healthcare = experience DEM moment

Democracy in 21^st Century

• For Wolin, DEM is about contesting boundaries; these are occasionally DISRUPTED

  • Huge resurgence of RD after 2008

• DEM expands after 1900 (almost all NATs today are DEMs), BUT DEM becomes more nebulous – rise of experts, strong agencies, low turnout, etc.

  • Sense that DEM has died

    • BUT then comes e.g., UKIP, Jobbik, Arab Spring, Occupy, etc.

      • Backlash against liberalism – seen as “populist”

READING(s)

Mouffe, ‘Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism’ pp 745 – 758

• Criticism of deliberative DEM (DD)

  • Alternative – “agnostic pluralism”

• Issue with DD – reason and rational argumentation, NOT interest and aggregation of preferences are seen as CENTRAL

  • Move from economic to moral model – nothing more

    • Since questions are moral, they can be decided rationally

• Something is missing = the POLITICAL

Deliberative Democracy

• Habermas reformulates classical DEM theory (notably popular SOV)

• Benhabib – main issue today = reconciling RAT with LEGIT

  • Basis = Habermasian discourse model (HDM) – three main premises:

    • Participation in this deliberation = governed by norms of equality/symmetry

    • All have right to question topics of discussion

    • Right to question the very procedure of discourse (e.g., agenda)

• To ground LEGIT on RAT – distinction between “mere AGR” and “RAT consensus”

• Values of the procedure (openness, no coercion, unanimity, equality) guide discussion towards generalizable interest = produces LEGIT outcomes

  • Process of public discussion will have R outcome INSOFAR as it realizes conditions of ideal discourse

    • The better the process, the more generalizable interests will be accepted

• Obviously, perfect conditions won’t ever exist + some issues are outside of public debates

• Habermas says his approach is better than Rawls’ – his is purely procedural

Deliberative Democracy: a Critique

• Wittgenstein – idea of RAT dialogue is FLAWED

  • Procedure is an “ensemble” of practices – those practices are specific forms of individuality and identity

  • Rules are abridgments of practices – inseparable from specific forms of life

  • “Procedural” vs “substantial”, or “moral” vs “ethical” – questionable distinctions

    • Procedures always assume ethical commitments

  • AGR is created not on significations, but on a form of life

    • When we reach AGR, we don’t all of a sudden “see” the solution – we “act”

    • When two people disagree, “persuasion” becomes critical

    • Rawls – those who express resentment must say why they do so = if not, we consider the matter done; BUT what if left out from the start?

      • E.g., Nora in “A Doll’s House”

        • Deprivation of a voice is the result of moral consensus itself

  • Point is – we cannot escape our human forms of life

• Lacan – “ideal speech situation” is a MYTH

  • Discourse itself is authoritarian – from free-floating signifiers, meaning only emerges once a “master” signifier intervenes

  • Discourse MUST be AUTHORITARIAN – idea of communication as free of constraint and where only RAT argumentation counts is WRONG

• These critiques are ONTOLOGICAL (i.e., fundamental)

  • Without impediments to free deliberation, no deliberation would occur

    • Conditions of deliberation = conditions of impossibility of free speech

An Alternative to Deliberative Democracy

• The dimension of power/antagonism must be acknowledged

• Social objectivity (SO) = constituted via acts of power; SO is political

  • Where objectivity and power converge = hegemony

• Power isn’t an external relation occurring between two pre-constituted identities (PI) = it constitutes the identities themselves

  • Political practice = not about defending rights of PI, but constituting those identities in a precarious terrain

• No unbridgeable gap between power and LEGIT

  • If power wants to impose itself, it must (at least somewhat) be seen as LEGIT

  • If LEGIT isn’t prioristic, it’s because it’s based on successful power

• DD can’t grasp RELAT between power and...