Suchergebnisse

How plural, really, is pluralism today? In this book a prominent political theorist reworks the traditional pluralist imagination, rendering it more inclusive and responsive to new drives to pluralization.

Among the many scholarly attempts to reckon with the causes and consequences of Donald Trump's rise, few have attracted popular attention on the scale of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's How Democracies Die. Seldom do books by political scientists make it onto the New York Times best sellers list, but this one has, a testament to its broad influence. Levitsky and Ziblatt situate Trumpism within a broader comparative and historical context in order to assess its similarities to and differences from democratic breakdowns elsewhere, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Their broad argument is that modern slides into authoritarianism are not the result of revolutions or military coups, but rather the consequence of a steady erosion of political norms and the assault on such fundamental democratic institutions as an independent judiciary and a free press. In short, contemporary democracies die not as a result of men with guns attacking from outside the system, but rather because elected leaders from inside that system slowly undermine them. Judged from this standpoint, the authors argue that American democracy is now in real danger, and they offer a range of suggestions for saving it. How convincing is Levitsky and Ziblatt's analysis of democratic breakdown, and how well does it apply to the American case? How useful are the solutions that they offer for rescuing American democracy? We have asked a range of prominent scholars from across the discipline to consider these questions in the present symposium.

The Port Huron Statement was one of the most important manifestos of the New Left in the United States. A foundational statement of the theme of "participatory democracy," the text had an important influence on post-1960s politics and, arguably, on post-1960s political science. The recent publication of a new edition of the Statement is an occasion for reflection on its importance. And so we have invited a distinguished cast of political scientists shaped by the events of the sixties to comment on the impact of the Statement on their own way of envisioning and practicing political science.

I think of reasoning (or deliberation), arts of the self, and micropolitics as inter-involved modalities of private and public life that are not entirely reducible to one another. You reason, alone or with others, when you ask how to realize a set of goals or to modify them in new circumstances. You practice arts of the self after, say, you have acknowledged that some element in your faith promotes unnecessary suffering for others and/or is inconsonant with other prized elements. That element clings to you or you to it even though another part of you would like it go. An Augustinian might call this a will divided against itself.

When you transcend the reductionism of both genocentrism and cultural theories that bracket human being from its species origins and biological character, a reciprocal movement between the findings of refined experience and biological research becomes available. Drawing upon recent work in dynamic theories of evolution that respect the human achievements of meaning, freedom, consciousness, and creativity, this essay explores how those findings can inform our understandings and practices of freedom, and vice versa. Along the way, it criticizes the critique of genocentrism pursued by Thomas Nagel, contending that it ignores "teleodynamism" in favor of teleological finalism.

After presenting a critique of both negative and positive freedom this essay pursues the relation between creativity and freedom, drawing upon Foucault, Deleuze and Nietzsche to do so. Once you have understood Nietzsche's reading of a culturally infused nest of drives in a self, the task becomes easier. A drive is not merely a force pushing forward; it is also a simple mode of perception and intention that pushes forward and enters into creative relations with other drives when activated by an event. You can also understand more sharply how the Foucauldian tactics of the self work. We can now carry this insight into the Deleuzian territory of micropolitics and collective action by reviewing his work on flashbacks and "the powers of the false." If a flashback in film pulls us back to a bifurcation point where two paths were possible and one was taken, the powers of the false refer to the subliminal role the path not taken can play in the formation of creative action. As you pursue these themes you see that neither old, organic notions of belonging to the world nor do negative notions of detachment as such do the work needed. Deleuze's notion of freedom carries us to the idea of cultivating "belief" in a world of periodic punctuations. The latter are essential to creativity and incompatible with organic belonging. They are also indispensable supports of a positive politics today.

I share the view that biocultural connections should become more central to political inquiry. And I appreciate some of the themes Hibbing develops. The approach considered in this response is one in which variable degrees of agency are pushed deeply into simple organisms, into processes of embryological unfolding, and into subliminal elements of cultural relations. Such an approach appreciates the creative element in evolution as well as in subliminal processes in play within and between us. Several practitioners of complexity theory in biology have been exploring such routes. They may contribute to a more layered set of interfaces between biology and cultural interpretation that are even less reductionist in character. And they may carry import for explorations of how the media work on the visceral register of intersubjectivity, still to be developed.