超越民主理论的政治认识论——无知权力研讨会导论

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Critical Review Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125
P. Gunn
{"title":"超越民主理论的政治认识论——无知权力研讨会导论","authors":"P. Gunn","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman’s Power Without Knowledge builds a critical epistemology of technocracy, rather than a democratic argument against it. For its democratic critics, technocracy is illegitimate because it amounts to the rule of cognitive elites, violating principles of mutual respect and collective self-determination. For its proponents, technocracy’s legitimacy depends on its ability to use reliable knowledge to solve social and economic problems. But Friedman demonstrates that to meet the proponents' “internal,” epistemic standard of legitimacy, technocrats would have to reckon with the heterogeneity of people’s ideas, which he presents as one of two aspects of a political anthropology of ideational beings. The other aspect is ideational determinism: the shaping of our conscious actions by our interpretations, and of our interpretations by “ideational exposures” (which are, to some extent, heterogeneous). For the most part, our symposiasts agree with this anthropology or leave it uncontested, but they fall back on democratic theory to point toward alternatives to technocracy. This raises the question, which Friedman does not ask, of whether his political anthropology undermines a certain brand of democratic theory: the liberal brand that attaches respect to people’s opinions as products of “free reflection,” i.e., as underdetermined.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"1 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political Epistemology Beyond Democratic Theory: Introduction to Symposium on Power Without Knowledge\",\"authors\":\"P. Gunn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman’s Power Without Knowledge builds a critical epistemology of technocracy, rather than a democratic argument against it. For its democratic critics, technocracy is illegitimate because it amounts to the rule of cognitive elites, violating principles of mutual respect and collective self-determination. For its proponents, technocracy’s legitimacy depends on its ability to use reliable knowledge to solve social and economic problems. But Friedman demonstrates that to meet the proponents' “internal,” epistemic standard of legitimacy, technocrats would have to reckon with the heterogeneity of people’s ideas, which he presents as one of two aspects of a political anthropology of ideational beings. The other aspect is ideational determinism: the shaping of our conscious actions by our interpretations, and of our interpretations by “ideational exposures” (which are, to some extent, heterogeneous). For the most part, our symposiasts agree with this anthropology or leave it uncontested, but they fall back on democratic theory to point toward alternatives to technocracy. This raises the question, which Friedman does not ask, of whether his political anthropology undermines a certain brand of democratic theory: the liberal brand that attaches respect to people’s opinions as products of “free reflection,” i.e., as underdetermined.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Review\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2020.1889125","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:杰弗里·弗里德曼的《无知识的力量》建立了一种对技术官僚的批判认识论,而不是反对它的民主论点。对其民主批评者来说,技术官僚是非法的,因为它相当于认知精英的统治,违反了相互尊重和集体自决的原则。对其支持者来说,技术官僚的合法性取决于其利用可靠知识解决社会和经济问题的能力。但弗里德曼证明,为了满足支持者的“内部”合法性认识标准,技术官僚必须考虑人们思想的异质性,他将其作为概念存在的政治人类学的两个方面之一。另一个方面是概念决定论:通过我们的解释来塑造我们的意识行为,并通过“概念暴露”(在某种程度上,这是异质的)来形成我们的解释。在大多数情况下,我们的专题讨论会同意这一人类学,或者让它没有争议,但他们回到民主理论,指向技术官僚的替代方案。这提出了一个弗里德曼没有问的问题,即他的政治人类学是否破坏了民主理论的某种品牌:自由主义品牌将尊重人们的意见视为“自由反思”的产物,即不确定。
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
Political Epistemology Beyond Democratic Theory: Introduction to Symposium on Power Without Knowledge
ABSTRACT Jeffrey Friedman’s Power Without Knowledge builds a critical epistemology of technocracy, rather than a democratic argument against it. For its democratic critics, technocracy is illegitimate because it amounts to the rule of cognitive elites, violating principles of mutual respect and collective self-determination. For its proponents, technocracy’s legitimacy depends on its ability to use reliable knowledge to solve social and economic problems. But Friedman demonstrates that to meet the proponents' “internal,” epistemic standard of legitimacy, technocrats would have to reckon with the heterogeneity of people’s ideas, which he presents as one of two aspects of a political anthropology of ideational beings. The other aspect is ideational determinism: the shaping of our conscious actions by our interpretations, and of our interpretations by “ideational exposures” (which are, to some extent, heterogeneous). For the most part, our symposiasts agree with this anthropology or leave it uncontested, but they fall back on democratic theory to point toward alternatives to technocracy. This raises the question, which Friedman does not ask, of whether his political anthropology undermines a certain brand of democratic theory: the liberal brand that attaches respect to people’s opinions as products of “free reflection,” i.e., as underdetermined.
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
Critical Review
Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Depolarization Without Reconciliation Education and the Epistemological Crisis in the Age of ChatGPT Republicanizing Leviathan: Kant’s Cosmopolitan Synthesis of Hobbes and Rousseau Who Is Haunted by the Shadow Of God? Dialectical Notes on Michael Rosen’s Narrative of (Failed) Secularization Six Variations on Michael Rosen’s The Shadow of God
×
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