09 political thought democracy as practice final.pptx

# Introduction to Castoriadis and Mouffe This section introduces Cornelius Castoriadis and Chantal Mouffe, two influential figures in political thought, highlighting their backgrounds, major works, and core ideas concerning democracy. ## 1. Introduction to Castoriadis and Mouffe This topic provides an overview of the biographical and bibliographical details of Cornelius Castoriadis and Chantal Mouffe, focusing on their contributions to political theory, particularly regarding concepts of democracy. ### 1.1 Cornelius Castoriadis Cornelius Castoriadis was a Greek-French philosopher, sociologist, economist, and psychoanalyst, born in Constantinople in 1922 and passing away in Paris in 1997. He is renowned for his work on radical democracy. Castoriadis received his education in Athens and Paris and was employed at the OECD, later becoming a Professor at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS). He was also awarded honorary doctorates from Panteion University and Democritus University of Thrace. #### 1.1.1 Major Works by Castoriadis His significant publications include: * *May 68: La brèche* (The Breach; 1968, co-authored with Edgar Morin and Claude Lefort) * *La société bureaucratique* (Bureaucratic Society; 1973) * *L’Expérience du mouvement ouvrier* (The Experience of the Labor Movement; 1974) * *L’institution imaginaire de la société* (The Imaginary Institution of Society; 1975) * *Les carrefours du labyrinth* (Crossroads in the Labyrinth; 1978-1997) * *Le contenu du socialisme* (On the Content of Socialism; 1979) * *Capitalisme moderne et révolution* (Modern Capitalism and Revolution; 1979) * *De l’écologie à l’autonomie* (From Ecology to Autonomy; 1981, with Daniel Cohn-Bendit) * *Devant la guerre* (Facing the War; 1981) #### 1.1.2 Castoriadis on Democracy Castoriadis argued that democracy is not solely defined by formal institutions or periodic voting. The most crucial characteristic of a democratic society, in his view, is its **social-historical imaginary**. A democratic society is created by **democratic/autonomous individuals** who value living in such a society. He posited that since no external entity provides perfect laws, individuals must create their own laws, have an equal say in their formation, and acknowledge their role as the source of the meaning and values underpinning these laws. Democracy, for Castoriadis, necessitates the **obligation to publicly justify** why one law is preferable to another, as there is no inherent, pre-existing truth. The state, in this conception, functions as a tool for the people to create and implement their laws, without any inherent "us against them" dynamic. ### 1.2 Chantal Mouffe Chantal Mouffe is a Belgian political theorist, born in Charleroi in 1943. She is recognized for her work on radical democracy and her contributions to the Essex School of discourse analysis. Mouffe pursued her studies in Leuven, Paris, and Essex. She holds the title of Professor Emerita at the University of Westminster and has held academic positions at prestigious institutions including Harvard, Cornell, Berkeley, Princeton, and the CNRS in Paris. She has also received honorary doctorates from the University of Valparaíso, the University of Costa Rica, and KU Leuven. #### 1.2.1 Major Works by Mouffe Her notable publications, including works co-authored and edited, are: * *Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics* (1985, with E. Laclau) * *The Return of the Political* (1993) * *Le politique et ses enjeux : pour une démocratie plurielle* (The Political and its Stakes: For a Plural Democracy; 1994) * *The Democratic Paradox* (2000) * *On the Political* (2005) * *Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically* (2013) * *For a Left Populism* (2018) * *Towards a Green Democratic Revolution* (2022) #### 1.2.2 Mouffe's Critique of Liberal and Deliberative Democracy Mouffe contends that liberal democratic theory is fundamentally anti-political, tending to avoid or reduce the political to either the satisfaction of interests or grounding it in morality. Both approaches, she argues, neglect the inherently **agonal nature of the political**. This failure to recognize the political's agonistic dimension leads to an evasion of central philosophical concerns and fuels a quest for unattainable ideals of consensus. She critiques the limitations of aggregative conceptions of representative democracy, particularly their focus on voting and elections, which are deemed inadequate for fostering genuine involvement and exchange. Mouffe argues that democracy should entail discussion on an equal and inclusive basis, not merely reflect preferences through electoral procedures. She also addresses the limitations of deliberative democracy, a dominant trend since the 1990s. While deliberative democracy aims to deepen participant knowledge and transform preferences through open discussion, Mouffe points to its potential shortcomings. The ideal of deliberative democracy, which emphasizes reasoned discussion among equals and decisions grounded in commonly accepted values, faces challenges in societies characterized by extensive disagreement. The principle of reasonableness, where citizens propose only what other reasonable citizens can accept, and the necessity of public justification to all citizens based on free and reasoned debate, are ideals that may be difficult to fully realize. While a weaker form of consensus on general reasons, rather than particularities, might be sufficient for public justification, the capacity of democracy to deliver significant equality and freedom under the governance of rationality in political discussion remains a question. #### 1.2.3 Mouffe's Agonistic Model of Democracy Mouffe proposes a radicalization of modern democracy through an **agonistic approach**. This model embraces the **ineliminable place of conflict** in the constitution of the political and rejects the pursuit of unattainable ideals of consensus. She distinguishes conflict from **antagonism**, where the latter involves an "us versus them" dynamic where the opponent is seen as an enemy. In contrast, an agonistic model views the adversary as a **legitimate opponent**. Her proposal for an agonistic model of democracy favors **agonistic pluralism**, which she sees as a necessary solution to social fragmentation, individual apathy, and a lack of civil sentiment. Politics, from this perspective, is an ongoing search for non-antagonistic resolutions to political issues, rather than a quest for a final state of perfect consensus. Mouffe suggests that the failure to grasp the agonistic nature of politics leads to an unsustainable pursuit of total inclusion and an ideal of perfect harmony, which is unattainable. Consequently, democratic contestation needs to be nurtured, responsibility for actions accepted, and institutions fostered that allow political action, with its inherent limitations, to be pursued. > **Tip:** Understand the distinction Mouffe makes between conflict and antagonism. Agonism focuses on the latter, where opponents are recognized as legitimate, unlike in outright antagonism where they are treated as enemies. > **Example:** In a political debate, an agonistic approach would involve acknowledging the legitimacy of opposing viewpoints and engaging in reasoned debate with a political opponent, rather than seeking to eliminate them as an enemy. --- # Critiques of Liberal and Deliberative Democracy This section examines the limitations of traditional liberal representative democracy and the dominant trend of deliberative democracy, focusing on issues of procedure, participation, and consensus. ### 2.1 Limitations of liberal representative democracy Traditional liberal representative democracy is critiqued for its focus on procedural mechanisms like voting and elections, which are deemed inadequate for genuine citizen involvement and exchange. This approach tends to merely reflect pre-existing preferences rather than fostering a deeper understanding or transformation of them. ### 2.2 Deliberative democracy: a dominant new trend Deliberative democracy emerged as a dominant trend, aiming to deepen participants' knowledge of issues and awareness of others' interests. It posits that democracy should involve discussion on an equal and inclusive basis, transforming preferences through open dialogue. The core idea is that citizens freely engage in reasoned discussion and deliberation on an equal footing. #### 2.2.1 Core normative principles of deliberative democracy * **Reasonableness:** Citizens are expected to make propositions that other reasonable citizens can accept, avoiding proposals based on controversial principles. * **Public justification:** Laws and policies are considered legitimate to the extent that they have been publicly justified to citizens through free and reasoned debate among equals. > **Tip:** The ideal of public justification in deliberative democracy relies on citizens being able to justify laws and policies based on mutually acceptable reasons, not on pre-existing, unchallengeable truths. ### 2.3 Critiques of deliberative democracy Despite its aspirations, deliberative democracy faces several significant critiques: #### 2.3.1 Limits of consensus and reasonableness * **Extensive disagreement:** Societies are often characterized by extensive disagreement, making full consensus an unattainable ideal. * **Partial consensus:** A weaker, partial consensus on general reasons, rather than full agreement on particulars, might be sufficient for public justification. * **Standards of rationality:** Questions arise about the extent to which standards of rationality can and should govern political discussion, especially in deeply divided societies. #### 2.3.2 Castoriadis's critique: democracy as social-historical imaginary Cornelius Castoriadis argued that democracy is not primarily defined by formal institutions or periodic voting. Instead, its most crucial feature is its **social-historical imaginary**. A democratic society is one made by democratic and autonomous individuals who value living in such a society. Since there is no external authority to provide perfect laws, individuals must create their own laws, have an equal say in their creation, and acknowledge their own role in establishing the meaning and values that motivate them. Democracy, for Castoriadis, entails an obligation to publicly justify laws, explaining why one law is better than another, as there is no given truth. The state is a tool for the people to create and implement their laws, not an instrument of division. #### 2.3.3 Mouffe's critique: the agonal nature of the political Chantal Mouffe critiques liberal and deliberative democracy for their "anti-political" nature, which tends to evade the inherent political dimension of human relations. * **Evasion of the political:** Liberal democratic theory often reduces politics to the satisfaction of interests or attempts to ground it in morality, thereby ignoring its fundamentally **agonal nature**. * **Agonism:** Mouffe proposes an **agonistic model of democracy**, emphasizing the willingness to embrace the ineliminable place of conflict in the constitution of the political. This contrasts with the pursuit of unattainable ideals of consensus. * **Agonism vs. Antagonism:** It is crucial to distinguish between conflict (agonism), where there is a willingness to engage with an adversary, and antagonism, where the opponent is seen as an enemy to be destroyed. The agonistic model recognizes an adversary as a legitimate opponent. * **Radicalization of democracy:** Mouffe advocates for a radicalization of modern democracy that acknowledges the final undecidability and ineradicable antagonism present in political life. * **Agonistic pluralism:** This approach is presented as a necessary solution to social fragmentation, individual apathy, and a lack of civil sentiment. Politics is viewed as an endless search for non-antagonistic resolutions, rather than a quest for perfect consensus. * **Consequences of neglecting agonism:** Failure to grasp the agonistic nature of politics can lead to an overemphasis on unattainable ideals of total inclusion in response to societal pluralism, ultimately hindering effective political action. > **Tip:** Mouffe's concept of agonistic pluralism suggests that true democratic functioning requires acknowledging and managing inherent conflict, rather than trying to eliminate it in favor of an elusive consensus. * **Nurturing democratic contestation:** The agonistic model calls for fostering democratic contestation and accepting responsibility for political actions within institutions that allow for the pursuit of political action, despite its inherent limitations. --- # Castoriadis on Democracy and Social-Historical Imagination This section explores Cornelius Castoriadis's radical conception of democracy, emphasizing the crucial role of the social-historical imaginary and the autonomous creation of laws and values by individuals. ### 3.1 Castoriadis's core understanding of democracy Castoriadis posited that democracy is not primarily defined by formal institutions or periodic electoral processes. Instead, its most vital characteristic lies in its "social-historical imaginary." A democratic society, in his view, is one populated by democratic and autonomous individuals who are genuinely invested in living within such a society. #### 3.1.1 The creation of laws and values A central tenet of Castoriadis's philosophy is that no external, extra-social entity exists to provide perfect laws for society. Consequently, individuals bear the responsibility of creating their own laws. This creation process must be egalitarian, with all individuals having an equal say. Crucially, this entails an acknowledgment that individuals themselves are the origin of the meaning and values that underpin these laws. #### 3.1.2 The obligation of public justification Democracy, for Castoriadis, imposes an obligation to explain why one law is preferable to another. This arises from the absence of a pre-ordained truth. Therefore, there is an inherent obligation for public justification, as there is no inherent, given truth to rely upon. The state is conceptualized as a tool wielded by the people to create and implement their laws, operating without a fundamental dichotomy of "us against them." > **Tip:** Castoriadis's view challenges traditional political thought by grounding democracy not in abstract principles or procedural mechanisms, but in the active, creative capacity of individuals to shape their collective existence. > **Example:** Imagine a community needing to decide on water usage policies during a drought. According to Castoriadis, a democratic approach would involve all community members debating and agreeing on the rules, understanding that they are the authors of these rules and the values (e.g., fairness, sustainability) that inform them, rather than relying on an external authority or pre-existing legal code to dictate the policy. --- # Mouffe's Agonistic Model of Democracy This topic explores Chantal Mouffe's critique of liberal and deliberative democracy, advocating for an agonistic model that embraces conflict and agonistic pluralism as a response to social fragmentation. ### 4.1 Critiques of liberal and deliberative democracy Liberal representative democracy faces limitations, particularly with aggregative conceptions that focus solely on voting and elections. This approach is deemed inadequate as it lacks sufficient involvement and exchange. Mouffe argues that democracy should foster discussion on an equal and inclusive basis, rather than merely reflecting pre-existing preferences through electoral procedures. Deliberative democracy, a prominent trend since the 1990s, attempts to deepen participant knowledge of issues and awareness of others' interests through open and inclusive discussion. It posits democracy as a context where individuals freely engage in reasoned deliberation as equals, making decisions grounded in commonly accepted values. The key normative principle is reasonableness, suggesting citizens will propose laws and policies based on reasons that other reasonable citizens can accept, avoiding controversial principles. Legitimacy, in this view, derives from public justification through free and reasoned debate among equals. However, Mouffe identifies limitations in deliberative democracy, especially in societies marked by extensive disagreement. The pursuit of full consensus is seen as an unattainable ideal. While a weaker consensus might suffice for public justification, the capacity of deliberative democracy to deliver significant equality and freedom is questioned. The extent to which standards of rationality should govern political discussion is also a point of contention. ### 4.2 The political and antagonism Mouffe critiques liberal democratic theory for being inherently "anti-political," often evading the political by reducing it to the satisfaction of interests or attempting to ground it in morality. These approaches, she contends, ignore the fundamentally "agonal" nature of the political, which is characterized by final undecidability and ineradicable antagonism. ### 4.3 Agonistic pluralism Mouffe proposes a radicalization of modern democracy, advocating for an "agonistic" approach. Agonism signifies a willingness to embrace the ineliminable place of conflict in the constitution of the political and to abandon the quest for unattainable ideals of consensus. This is distinct from conflict as antagonism; not all human relations necessarily entail antagonism. The distinction is made between an "adversary" or legitimate opponent and an "enemy." The agonistic model of democracy favors "agonistic pluralism," which is presented as a necessary solution to social fragmentation, individual apathy, and a lack of civil sentiment. Politics, in this model, is understood as an endless search for non-antagonistic resolutions of the political, rather than a pursuit of perfect, final consensus. The failure to grasp the agonistic nature of politics leads to an undesirable tendency to pursue unattainable ideals of total inclusion in response to the plural character of contemporary Western democracies. Agonistic pluralism acknowledges the impossibility of establishing consensus without exclusion. A perfectly harmonious form of democracy is deemed unattainable. Therefore, the focus shifts to nurturing democratic contestation, accepting responsibility for actions, and fostering institutions where political action, despite its limitations, can be pursued. > **Tip:** Understanding the distinction Mouffe makes between "conflict" and "antagonism" is crucial. Agonism accepts and frames conflict as a fundamental aspect of politics, distinguishing it from the destructive nature of antagonism where opponents are viewed as enemies to be eradicated. > **Example:** In a healthy democracy, political parties might fiercely debate policies and present opposing viewpoints (agonism). However, they still recognize each other's legitimacy within the democratic framework and do not seek to destroy the other party (avoiding antagonism). --- # Writing Exercises and Future Tasks This section outlines practical exercises for students to engage with the course material, including discussions and reflections on chosen texts, and sets out tasks for the following week focusing on the concept of power. ### 5.1 Writing exercises The writing exercises are designed to facilitate deeper engagement with the course material through peer discussion and personal reflection. Students are given two options to choose from, each requiring approximately 150 words (to be completed within 25 minutes). #### 5.1.1 Option 1: Textual engagement and reflection * **Task:** Explain to your colleagues the rationale behind your chosen text for discussion. * **Task:** Articulate how your chosen text aligns with the compulsory readings for the week. * **Task:** Summarize the key insights or lessons learned from this engagement with the compulsory reading. #### 5.1.2 Option 2: Personal background and influence * **Task:** Discuss with your colleagues how your personal background and position influenced your choice of text to bring to class. * **Task:** Summarize what this discussion revealed about the compulsory reading material. > **Tip:** Both options encourage students to connect their personal interpretation and selection of texts with the broader theoretical frameworks presented in the course. The word count and time limit emphasize concise and focused communication. ### 5.2 Future tasks: The concept of power For the following week, students are required to engage with two articles focused on the concept of power, specifically by Allen and Mansbridge. #### 5.2.1 Core tasks for next week * **Task:** Identify and analyze the points of agreement and disagreement between Allen and Mansbridge in their conceptualizations of power. * **Task:** Apply Allen’s framework of power to the readings from class 4. * **Task:** Examine how Allen's understandings of power are present in the texts of Locke and Bakunin, noting whether this presence is explicit or implicit. * **Task:** Evaluate the utility of Allen’s conceptualization of power for analyzing the texts by Locke and Bakunin. > **Example:** A student might consider how Allen's definition of power as the ability to affect the outcome of a situation, including against resistance, can be seen in Locke's arguments about political authority and Bakunin's critiques of state power. This would involve looking for instances where power is exerted, resisted, or implicitly assumed in their writings. Students are reminded to read the assigned texts thoroughly and to prepare notes on their reflections for the next class session. --- ## Common mistakes to avoid - Review all topics thoroughly before exams - Pay attention to formulas and key definitions - Practice with examples provided in each section - Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts

| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Radical democracy | A form of democracy that seeks to extend democratic principles and practices to all spheres of social and political life, emphasizing deep citizen participation and autonomy. | | Agonistic model of democracy | A theoretical framework for democracy that acknowledges and embraces the inherent conflict and antagonism within political life, distinguishing between legitimate adversaries and enemies, and seeking non-antagonistic resolutions. | | Social-historical imaginary | The collective set of meanings, symbols, and values that shape a society's understanding of itself and its possibilities; according to Castoriadis, this imaginary is the fundamental element of any society, democratic or not. | | Deliberative democracy | A model of democracy that emphasizes reasoned public discussion and deliberation among citizens as the primary basis for legitimate political decision-making, aiming to transform preferences through inclusive dialogue. | | Public justification | The process by which laws and policies are legitimized through reasoned debate among citizens on an equal footing, ensuring that decisions are based on mutually acceptable reasons rather than controversial principles. | | Agonistic pluralism | A concept proposed by Chantal Mouffe that recognizes the impossibility of establishing a complete consensus without exclusion, advocating for the nurturing of democratic contestation and the acceptance of inherent limitations in democratic pursuits. | | Anti-political nature | Refers to the tendency within liberal democratic theory to evade or minimize the core elements of the political by reducing it to the satisfaction of interests or grounding it in morality, thereby ignoring its essentially conflictual nature. | | Aggregative conceptions of democracy | Models of democracy that primarily focus on aggregating individual preferences, often through voting and electoral procedures, without necessarily engaging in deeper discussion or deliberation on the formation of those preferences. | | Autonomy | The capacity of individuals or societies to self-legislate and self-govern, creating their own laws and values without recourse to external or given authorities. | | Rationality | In the context of political discussion, refers to the standards and principles that guide reasoned debate and the acceptance of propositions, aiming for justifications that can be reasonably accepted by others. |