Kevin Olson, Imagined Sovereignties: The Power of the People and Other Myths of the Modern Age (Cambridge University Press, 2016), 230 pp., ISBN: 9781107113237
{"title":"Book Review","authors":"Anna-Mara Schön","doi":"10.3167/dt.2018.050211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2018.050211","url":null,"abstract":"Kevin Olson, Imagined Sovereignties: The Power of the People and Other\u0000Myths of the Modern Age (Cambridge University Press, 2016), 230 pp.,\u0000ISBN: 9781107113237","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/dt.2018.050211","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49231919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston
Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined terms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and popular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian confusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs within and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe); time periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/ right, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains that muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic feminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have been made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain of populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying proliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding as to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual fragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of populism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy (e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).
{"title":"What is populism? Who is the populist?","authors":"J. Gagnon, E. Beausoleil, Kyong-Min Son, C. Arguelles, Pierrick Chalaye, Callum N. Johnston","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050201","url":null,"abstract":"Both “populism” and “populist” have long been considered ill-defined\u0000terms, and therefore are regularly misapplied in both scholarly and\u0000popular discourses.1 This definitional difficulty is exacerbated by the Babelian\u0000confusion of voices on populism, where the term’s meaning differs\u0000within and between global regions (e.g. Latin America versus Western Europe);\u0000time periods (e.g. 1930s versus the present), and classifications (e.g. left/\u0000right, authoritarian/libertarian, pluralist/antipluralist, as well as strains\u0000that muddy these distinctions such as homonationalism, xenophobic\u0000feminism and multicultural neonationalism). While useful efforts have\u0000been made to navigate the vast and heterogeneous conceptual terrain\u0000of populism,2 they rarely engage with each other. The result is a dizzying\u0000proliferation of different definitions unaccompanied by an understanding\u0000as to how they might speak to each other. And this conceptual\u0000fragmentation reinforces, and is reinforced by, diverging assessments of\u0000populism which tend to cast it as either “good” or “bad” for democracy\u0000(e.g. Dzur and Hendriks 2018; Müller 2015).","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050201","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46276145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While the rise of populism in Western Europe over the past three decades has received a great deal of attention in the academic and popular literature, less attention has been paid to the rise of its opposite— anti-populism. This short article examines the discursive and stylistic dimensions of the construction and maintenance of the populism/anti-populism divide in Western Europe, paying particular attention to how anti-populists seek to discredit populist leaders, parties and followers. It argues that this divide is increasingly antagonistic, with both sides of the divide putting forward extremely different conceptions of how democracy should operate in the Western European political landscape: one radical and popular, the other liberal. It closes by suggesting that what is subsumed and feared under the label of the “populist threat” to democracy in Western Europe today is less about populism than nationalism and nativism.
{"title":"The Populism/Anti-Populism Divide in Western Europe","authors":"B. Moffitt","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050202","url":null,"abstract":"While the rise of populism in Western Europe over the past\u0000three decades has received a great deal of attention in the academic and\u0000popular literature, less attention has been paid to the rise of its opposite—\u0000anti-populism. This short article examines the discursive and stylistic dimensions\u0000of the construction and maintenance of the populism/anti-populism\u0000divide in Western Europe, paying particular attention to how anti-populists\u0000seek to discredit populist leaders, parties and followers. It argues that this\u0000divide is increasingly antagonistic, with both sides of the divide putting forward\u0000extremely different conceptions of how democracy should operate\u0000in the Western European political landscape: one radical and popular, the\u0000other liberal. It closes by suggesting that what is subsumed and feared under\u0000the label of the “populist threat” to democracy in Western Europe today is\u0000less about populism than nationalism and nativism.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050202","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41361974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What does a democratically-productive form of mourning look like in America? David McIvor’s Mourning in America and Simon Stow’s American Mourning argue that it entails the embrace of ambivalence about self and other. Democratically-productive mourning pushes against the tendencies toward idealization and demonization. Embracing ambivalence enables us to move to more effective political engagement in the context of both collaboration and conflict. It allows us to understand that the process of mourning must be ongoing both to protect us from political excesses to which we are prone and to push society toward justice.
{"title":"Unambivalent about Ambivalence in the Politics of Mourning","authors":"G. Snyder","doi":"10.3167/dt.2018.050210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2018.050210","url":null,"abstract":"What does a democratically-productive form of mourning\u0000look like in America? David McIvor’s Mourning in America and Simon Stow’s\u0000American Mourning argue that it entails the embrace of ambivalence about\u0000self and other. Democratically-productive mourning pushes against the tendencies\u0000toward idealization and demonization. Embracing ambivalence enables\u0000us to move to more effective political engagement in the context of\u0000both collaboration and conflict. It allows us to understand that the process\u0000of mourning must be ongoing both to protect us from political excesses to\u0000which we are prone and to push society toward justice.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/dt.2018.050210","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45731646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While Wood and Flinders’ work to broaden the scope of what counts as “politics” in political science is a needed adjustment to conventional theory, it skirts an important relationship between society, the protopolitical sphere, and arena politics. We contend, in particular, that the language of everyday people articulates tensions in society, that such tensions are particularly observable online, and that this language can constitute the beginning of political action. Language can be protopolitical and should, therefore, be included in the authors’ revised theory of what counts as political participation.
{"title":"Between the Social and the Political","authors":"Pia Rowe, D. Marsh","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050207","url":null,"abstract":"While Wood and Flinders’ work to broaden the scope of\u0000what counts as “politics” in political science is a needed adjustment to conventional\u0000theory, it skirts an important relationship between society, the\u0000protopolitical sphere, and arena politics. We contend, in particular, that the\u0000language of everyday people articulates tensions in society, that such tensions\u0000are particularly observable online, and that this language can constitute\u0000the beginning of political action. Language can be protopolitical and\u0000should, therefore, be included in the authors’ revised theory of what counts\u0000as political participation.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43086076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies or reference panels, are one institutionalization of deliberative democracy that has become increasingly commonplace in recent years. MASS LBP is a pioneer in designing and facilitating such long-form deliberative processes in Canada. This article provides an overview of the company’s civic lottery and reference panel process, notes several distinctive features of MASS LBP that are relevant to addressing challenges to democratic deliberation, and outlines possible areas for future research in deliberative democracy applied in both private and public settings.
{"title":"Practitioner’s Note","authors":"Spencer McKay, P. Macleod","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050209","url":null,"abstract":"Deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies or reference\u0000panels, are one institutionalization of deliberative democracy that has become\u0000increasingly commonplace in recent years. MASS LBP is a pioneer in\u0000designing and facilitating such long-form deliberative processes in Canada.\u0000This article provides an overview of the company’s civic lottery and reference\u0000panel process, notes several distinctive features of MASS LBP that are\u0000relevant to addressing challenges to democratic deliberation, and outlines\u0000possible areas for future research in deliberative democracy applied in both\u0000private and public settings.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050209","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43008952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation are critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should be made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both the intention behind an actor’s act, for example, what motivates the action, must be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet, intentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than the authors make them out to be—especially online.
{"title":"On Intentionality and Motivation in Digital Spaces","authors":"Max Halupka","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050206","url":null,"abstract":"Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation\u0000are critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should\u0000be made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both\u0000the intention behind an actor’s act, for example, what motivates the action,\u0000must be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet,\u0000intentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than\u0000the authors make them out to be—especially online.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050206","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69573961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates civic-political and cognitive participation as they play out in democratic theory. Its core purpose is to develop a conceptual-normative critique of the presupposition in liberal democratic theory that these logics are mutually reinforcing and complementary. This misunderstanding of a theoretical ambivalence contributes to inhibiting constructive assessment of epistocratic*technocratic frameworks of democratic interpretation and theory. I demonstrate that these logics circulate contrasting views of democratic power and legitimacy and should be disentangled to make sense of liberal democratic theoretical and political spaces. This critique is then fed into a political-epistemological interrogation of post-truth and alt-facts rhetorical registers in contemporary liberal democratic life, concluding that neither logic of participation can harbor this unanticipated and fundamentally nonaligned way of doing liberal democratic democracy.
{"title":"Epistocracy and Democratic Participation in a Post-Truth World","authors":"Peter Standbrink","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050102","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates civic-political and cognitive participation\u0000as they play out in democratic theory. Its core purpose is to develop\u0000a conceptual-normative critique of the presupposition in liberal democratic\u0000theory that these logics are mutually reinforcing and complementary. This\u0000misunderstanding of a theoretical ambivalence contributes to inhibiting constructive\u0000assessment of epistocratic*technocratic frameworks of democratic\u0000interpretation and theory. I demonstrate that these logics circulate contrasting\u0000views of democratic power and legitimacy and should be disentangled\u0000to make sense of liberal democratic theoretical and political spaces. This critique\u0000is then fed into a political-epistemological interrogation of post-truth\u0000and alt-facts rhetorical registers in contemporary liberal democratic life, concluding\u0000that neither logic of participation can harbor this unanticipated and\u0000fundamentally nonaligned way of doing liberal democratic democracy.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42430014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contestation over war memorialization can help democratic theory respond to the current attenuation of citizenship in war in liberal democratic states, especially the United States. As war involves more advanced technologies and fewer soldiers, the relation of citizenship to war changes. In this context war memorialization plays a particular role in refiguring the relation. Current practices of remembering and memorializing war in contemporary neoliberal states respond to a dilemma: the state needs to justify and garner support for continual wars while distancing citizenship from participation. The result is a consumer culture of memorialization that seeks to effect a unity of the political community while it fights wars with few citizens and devalues the public. Neoliberal wars fought with few soldiers and an economic logic reveals the vulnerability to otherness that leads to more active and critical democratic citizenship.
{"title":"War without Citizens","authors":"Stephen J. Rosow","doi":"10.3167/dt.2018.050103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2018.050103","url":null,"abstract":"Contestation over war memorialization can help democratic\u0000theory respond to the current attenuation of citizenship in war in liberal\u0000democratic states, especially the United States. As war involves more advanced\u0000technologies and fewer soldiers, the relation of citizenship to war\u0000changes. In this context war memorialization plays a particular role in refiguring\u0000the relation. Current practices of remembering and memorializing war\u0000in contemporary neoliberal states respond to a dilemma: the state needs to\u0000justify and garner support for continual wars while distancing citizenship\u0000from participation. The result is a consumer culture of memorialization that\u0000seeks to effect a unity of the political community while it fights wars with\u0000few citizens and devalues the public. Neoliberal wars fought with few soldiers\u0000and an economic logic reveals the vulnerability to otherness that leads\u0000to more active and critical democratic citizenship.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/dt.2018.050103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48349748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：