Poli 363 Midterm Flashcards
Course Overview
What is radical democracy?
- It is a tradition of democracy that:
1) Understands democracy as a form of society defined in terms of indeterminacy.
2) Emphasizes the transgressive and transformative aspects of democratic politics
Course Overview
What is constitutional democracy?
- Conflicts and the collective (exercise of) power are threats to democratic life when not regulated.
Course Overview
How does constitutional democracy differ from radical democracy?
- Radical democracy suggests that conflicts and the collective (exercise of power) as essential to democratic life.
- Consitutional democracy suggests that conflict and collective (exercise of power) is not essential.
Course Overview
What is radical democracy not?
Two propositions
1) Democratic politics is about managing social conflicts (and achieving social harmony)
2)Democratic politics is about protecting individuals and minorities from the collective (exercise of) power.
Course Overview
What are the main points of proposition one?
Proposition 1 (of what radical democracy is not): Democratic politics is about managing social conflicts (and achieving social harmony)
- Democracy against conflict
- Democratic politics as a mechanism for resolving social conflicts
- The escalation of a conflict leading to violation of equal participation
- Polarization
Course Overview
What are the main points of proposition two?
Proposition 2: Democratic politics is about protecting individuals and minorities from the collective (exercise of) power.
- Democracy against collective power
- Unlimited exercise of collective power stifles individuals’ freedom to express their views and opinions
- Democratic politics reconceived as constraining the collective power (of the people)
- Right wing populism
Course Overview
What are two propositions about “what radical democracy” is about?
Proposition 1: Democratic politics is about creating the scenes of social and political conflicts
Proposition 2: Democratic politics is about constructing a collective agent to fight against existing oppressions, exclusions, and injustices
Course Overview
What is ‘radical’ about radical democracy?
- It is radical in two senses
1) Philosophical sense: Understanding society as having a normative order that is a product of contingency and power.
2) Political sense: Realizing the rule of the people meaningfully
Course Overview
How can radical democracy be characterized?
- A tradition of democratic theory that:
1) Understands democracy as a form of society defined in terms of indeterminacy
2) Emphasizes the transgressive and transformative aspects of democratic politics
Constance on Liberal Democracy
How can we institutionalize popular sovereignty under the ‘modern’ context?
- If we want to institutionalize popular sovereignty, we must radically redefine its meaning and scope
- You require a revolution in order to get a new polity
- Here Constance was comparing ancient liberty and modern
Constance on Liberal Democracy
What is popular sovereignty?
- Popular sovereignty as “an active and constant participation in collective power” is both unfeasible and undesirable under the ‘modern’ context.
- Involves non-subjection = new liberty
Constance on Liberal Democracy
What is the difference between ancient and modern popular sovereignty?
- Ancient = collective self-determination
- Modern = non-subjection to arbitrary power
Constance on Liberal Democracy
What is modern democracy?
- A particular form of society that has emerged out of a democratic revolution
- Social turmoil -> no social order -> reinvent society
- It involves going from non-subjection to arbitrary power
- The government and representatives are the law, and the people are outside of the law
- The people are the constitution, the constitution is what limits the power of the president
- Bottom up process: people -> sovereign (lower less power…)
Constance on Liberal Democracy
Why is collective self-determination undesirable?
- It is invisible
- There are three main reasons:
1) No pleasure in exercising rights for moderns (no reward for participation)
2) Highly ineffective: - People have material resources, it is constantly for the government to manage it
Private property -> individuals deal with business
3) Individual independence: - When people collectively act it harms individuals freedoms, people should be able to do what’s best for them
- Radical faction: rousseau (people can go beyond the law)
Constance on Liberal Democracy
Is there space for political participation in liberal democracy?
- Constance is not saying that there is no room for political participation he is saying that it does play a role
- Modern liberty needs participation but individual liberty is more important
- Political liberty is meant to secure individuals rights, it guarantees rights
Constance on Liberal Democracy
How can politics and individuality be characterized in society?
- Political= passive
- Individual= active
Constance on Liberal Democracy
What is political liberty?
- It is indispensable, it is a guarantee of political liberty
Constance on Liberal Democracy
What is the ultimate difference between ancient and modern democracy?
- In ancient democracy there was no meaningful domain, all lines of life were politicized
- In modern democracy we need to have a bigger private domain, politics are marginally important.
Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What question does Marx ask himself?
- Why do social discriminations and inequalities persist in a modern democratic society? Can democracy redress them?
Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
Why do social discriminations and inequalities persist in a modern democratic society? Can democracy redress them?
- Discriminations and inequalities persist because modern democracy is instituted with the private-public division.
- It cannot as long as democracy is constituted by this division.
- The division between political and social inequality is intentional and meant to happen in a democratic society.
- Democracy is based upon division between political and social, the division between public and private emerges from this (socioeconomic inequality)
Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What does Marx think about democratic revolutions?
- He does not think that political emancipation leads to liberty, equality or fraternity
- He thinks that democratic revolutions create a division of the human being into a public man and a private man
Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
How does this division lead to inequality, unfreedom, and separation of individuals?
- There are two steps to answering this question:
1) Examining the logic behind the emergence of the private-public division
2) Comparing the views of Marx and Constant on ‘modern liberty
Marx Versus Constance
What is the ultimate difference between Marx and Constance?
- For Marx political/private division and liberal democracy does not lead to freedom, for Constance it does.
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What is the Jewish question about?
- Emancipation
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What is political emancipation?
- It was a result of revolution to the institutions of inequality.
- Political emancipation was:
1) “the emancipation of the state from […] the religion in general” - Religion represents particularities liberating the state from the private sphere
2) “the emancipation of civil society from politics” - Liberating people from politics
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What are key notions that Marx interrogates?
1) Civil society:
- The market. Satisfying one’s needs through market exchange.
2) State:
- The public domain. Individuals recognizing one another as fellow citizens.
3) Species-being:
- A full realization of oneself.
**Civil society and state are the most important
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What was the Jewish question?
- How can we free the Jews?
- A letter written by Bauer
- However, Marx criticizes Bauer
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What is Bauer’s answer to the Jewish Question?
- You achieve emancipation through constructing a secular state.
- State becomes neutral and people participate as citizens that would solve discrimination.
- Secular (universal) state “the man frees himself though the medium of the state, that […] he raises himself above [a] limitation”
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
Does Marx think that the construction of a secular state undo religious privileges?
- No it does not because religion represents the particular that generates inequality.
- The secular state is pushing social distinctions to the private domain, but the issue is private people are also public
- Abolishing the property qualification for election is NOT the same as abolishing private property.
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What does Marx think about the secular state?
- He thinks it is ridiculous that in order to build a secular society you need a private domain.
- The secular state affirms social distinctions (civil society) in the process of constructing itself as the universal domain devoid of particularities.
- The secular state rejects the possibility that social distinctions can exist publicly
- It through affirming that social distinctions are private makes them public, it acknowledges there existence while not acknowledging they exist publicly
Overall:
Civil society: the realm of factual distinction
State: The realm of normative equality
Step 1: Marx’s Critique of Liberal Democracy
What happened to politics according to Marx?
- The ‘political’ nature of the feudal order = economic activities were tied to political obligations (economic life directed by the person of the lord)
- Democratic revolutions severed the link between economic and political life by abolishing judicial distinctions.
- “The political revolution […] freed [the political spirit] from its intermixture with civil life, and established it as the [independent] sphere of the community.”
- There is no gap between economic activities and political duty
- Economic life was political in nature during the feudal time.
- Democratic revolutions severed the tie, they no longer define each other.
Step 2: Marx Versus Constance
What do Marx and Constance agree on?
- They agree on the need for political life, and the division between private and public exists
Step 2: Marx Versus Constance
What do Marx and Constance disagree about in regard to individual independence?
- Constance believes that political liberty is the most powerful because it promotes self-development, it helps develop characters
- Marx believed that individual independence is the source of inequality and unfreedom.
Step 2: Marx Versus Constance
Why is individual independence a source of inequality?
- He believed that Constance was being unrealistic in regard to expectations
- Given he is a materialist argues that you can not separate the person and the self
- Political revolutions make private life part of politics
Step 2: Marx Versus Constance
What is the ultimate difference between Constance and Marx?
- Constance: The private and public domain are separate
- Marx: The public domain is overshadowed by the private domain, there is no gap between the two when you participate in politics yourself and are criticized.
Step 2: Marx Versus Constance
What is wrong with modern democracy and democratic politics?
- Modern democracy affirms and upholds social distinctions as the source of discriminations and inequalities in everyday life.
- Democratic politics cannot do anything to redress those discriminations and inequalities.
Step 2: Marx Versus Constance
What does Marx ultimately think about modern democracy?
- He thinks that modern democracy is doomed because it affirms and holds societal distinctions
- State can not be not private, there will always be social inequalities
- There is no freedom in modern democracy, even though Constance thinks so
Summary of Marx’s View on Democracy
What is Marx’s view on democracy?
- Modern democracy affirms social distinctions as the source of inequality and discrimination in everyday life.
- The advent of modern democracy involves the institution of civil society as an independent domain (from the state).
- It may be natural that people may be equal in terms of their citizenship but not outside the political realm.