对抗性民主与选择的扁平化:对森的能力理论依赖普遍民主作为克服不平等手段的马尔库斯式分析

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY Open Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1515/opphil-2022-0222
Danelle Fourie, Justin Sands
{"title":"对抗性民主与选择的扁平化:对森的能力理论依赖普遍民主作为克服不平等手段的马尔库斯式分析","authors":"Danelle Fourie, Justin Sands","doi":"10.1515/opphil-2022-0222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article critically examines the competitive, adversarial nature of the Western neoliberal style of democracy. Specifically, this article focuses on Amartya Sen’s notion of a “universal democracy” as a means of addressing socio-economic inequalities through Sen’s capability approach. Sen’s capability theory has become an acclaimed and widely used theory to evaluate and understand development and inequalities. However, we employ a distinctive critique by engaging Amartya Sen through Herbert Marcuse’s analysis of one dimensionality and the adversarial nature of Western democracy. We further highlight how contemporary neoliberal society employ a particular, adversarial form of public participation. Through this, we underline the various neoliberal problemata, such as Western idealism, political passivity, and a “flattening of choice,” within contemporary democracies and locate how their competitive, winner-take-all nature has become essential to contemporary, Western democratic models. Consequently, we argue that democracy, as a functional concept and form of public engagement, should be fundamentally re-examined in order to address inequalities.","PeriodicalId":36288,"journal":{"name":"Open Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adversarial Democracy and the Flattening of Choice: A Marcusian Analysis of Sen’s Capability Theory’s Reliance Upon Universal Democracy as a Means for Overcoming Inequality\",\"authors\":\"Danelle Fourie, Justin Sands\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opphil-2022-0222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article critically examines the competitive, adversarial nature of the Western neoliberal style of democracy. Specifically, this article focuses on Amartya Sen’s notion of a “universal democracy” as a means of addressing socio-economic inequalities through Sen’s capability approach. Sen’s capability theory has become an acclaimed and widely used theory to evaluate and understand development and inequalities. However, we employ a distinctive critique by engaging Amartya Sen through Herbert Marcuse’s analysis of one dimensionality and the adversarial nature of Western democracy. We further highlight how contemporary neoliberal society employ a particular, adversarial form of public participation. Through this, we underline the various neoliberal problemata, such as Western idealism, political passivity, and a “flattening of choice,” within contemporary democracies and locate how their competitive, winner-take-all nature has become essential to contemporary, Western democratic models. Consequently, we argue that democracy, as a functional concept and form of public engagement, should be fundamentally re-examined in order to address inequalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2022-0222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2022-0222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批判性地考察了西方新自由主义民主的竞争性和对抗性。具体来说,本文主要关注阿马蒂亚·森的“普遍民主”概念,通过森的能力方法来解决社会经济不平等问题。森的能力理论已经成为评价和理解发展与不平等的一个广受好评和广泛应用的理论。然而,我们采用了一种独特的批评,通过赫伯特·马尔库塞对西方民主的单向度和对抗性本质的分析,让阿马蒂亚·森参与其中。我们进一步强调当代新自由主义社会如何采用一种特殊的、对抗性的公众参与形式。通过这一点,我们强调了当代民主国家的各种新自由主义问题,如西方理想主义、政治被动性和“选择的扁平化”,并确定了它们的竞争、赢者通吃的性质如何成为当代西方民主模式的关键。因此,我们认为,民主作为一种功能概念和公众参与的形式,应该从根本上重新审视,以解决不平等问题。
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
Adversarial Democracy and the Flattening of Choice: A Marcusian Analysis of Sen’s Capability Theory’s Reliance Upon Universal Democracy as a Means for Overcoming Inequality
Abstract This article critically examines the competitive, adversarial nature of the Western neoliberal style of democracy. Specifically, this article focuses on Amartya Sen’s notion of a “universal democracy” as a means of addressing socio-economic inequalities through Sen’s capability approach. Sen’s capability theory has become an acclaimed and widely used theory to evaluate and understand development and inequalities. However, we employ a distinctive critique by engaging Amartya Sen through Herbert Marcuse’s analysis of one dimensionality and the adversarial nature of Western democracy. We further highlight how contemporary neoliberal society employ a particular, adversarial form of public participation. Through this, we underline the various neoliberal problemata, such as Western idealism, political passivity, and a “flattening of choice,” within contemporary democracies and locate how their competitive, winner-take-all nature has become essential to contemporary, Western democratic models. Consequently, we argue that democracy, as a functional concept and form of public engagement, should be fundamentally re-examined in order to address inequalities.
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
Open Philosophy
Open Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Relational or Object-Oriented? A Dialogue between Two Contemporary Ontologies On the “How” and the “Why”: Nietzsche on Happiness and the Meaningful Life Knowing Holbein’s Objects: An Object-Oriented-Ontology Analysis of The Ambassadors Calling and Responding: An Ethical-Existential Framework for Conceptualising Interactions “in-between” Self and Other Non-Existence: The Nuclear Option
×
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