后真相世界中的君主政体与民主参与

IF 0.8 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI:10.3167/DT.2018.050102
Peter Standbrink
{"title":"后真相世界中的君主政体与民主参与","authors":"Peter Standbrink","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates civic-political and cognitive participation\nas they play out in democratic theory. Its core purpose is to develop\na conceptual-normative critique of the presupposition in liberal democratic\ntheory that these logics are mutually reinforcing and complementary. This\nmisunderstanding of a theoretical ambivalence contributes to inhibiting constructive\nassessment of epistocratic*technocratic frameworks of democratic\ninterpretation and theory. I demonstrate that these logics circulate contrasting\nviews of democratic power and legitimacy and should be disentangled\nto make sense of liberal democratic theoretical and political spaces. This critique\nis then fed into a political-epistemological interrogation of post-truth\nand alt-facts rhetorical registers in contemporary liberal democratic life, concluding\nthat neither logic of participation can harbor this unanticipated and\nfundamentally nonaligned way of doing liberal democratic democracy.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050102","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistocracy and Democratic Participation in a Post-Truth World\",\"authors\":\"Peter Standbrink\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/DT.2018.050102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates civic-political and cognitive participation\\nas they play out in democratic theory. Its core purpose is to develop\\na conceptual-normative critique of the presupposition in liberal democratic\\ntheory that these logics are mutually reinforcing and complementary. This\\nmisunderstanding of a theoretical ambivalence contributes to inhibiting constructive\\nassessment of epistocratic*technocratic frameworks of democratic\\ninterpretation and theory. I demonstrate that these logics circulate contrasting\\nviews of democratic power and legitimacy and should be disentangled\\nto make sense of liberal democratic theoretical and political spaces. This critique\\nis then fed into a political-epistemological interrogation of post-truth\\nand alt-facts rhetorical registers in contemporary liberal democratic life, concluding\\nthat neither logic of participation can harbor this unanticipated and\\nfundamentally nonaligned way of doing liberal democratic democracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050102\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文研究了公民政治参与和认知参与在民主理论中的作用。其核心目的是对自由民主理论中这些逻辑是相互加强和互补的前提进行概念规范批判。这种对理论矛盾心理的误解有助于抑制对民主解释和理论的官僚*技术官僚框架的建设性评估。我证明了这些逻辑循环着民主权力和合法性的对立观点,应该被解开,以理解自由民主的理论和政治空间。这一批评随后被纳入对当代自由民主生活中的后真相和另类事实修辞的政治认识论质疑,得出的结论是,参与的逻辑都不能容纳这种意想不到的、从根本上不结盟的自由民主民主方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Epistocracy and Democratic Participation in a Post-Truth World
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Democratic Theory is a peer-reviewed journal published and distributed by Berghahn. It encourages philosophical and interdisciplinary contributions that critically explore democratic theory—in all its forms. Spanning a range of views, the journal offers a cross-disciplinary forum for diverse theoretical questions to be put forward and systematically examined. It advances non-Western as well as Western ideas and is actively based on the premise that there are many forms of democracies and many types of democrats. As a forum for debate, the journal challenges theorists to ask and answer the perennial questions that plague the field of democratization studies: Why is democracy so prominent in the world today? What is the meaning of democracy? Will democracy continue to expand? Are current forms of democracy sufficient to give voice to “the people” in an increasingly fragmented and divided world? Who leads in democracy? What types of non-Western democratic theories are there? Should democrats always defend democracy? Should democrats be fearful of de-democratization, post-democracies, and the rise of hybridized regimes?
期刊最新文献
Chinese Contemplations on Utopian and Dystopian Democratic Governance Socialist Democracy Conceptualizing Difference West By Not West Democracies Across Cultures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1