Search results

Whether one studies them in the context of the crisis or evaluates them in relation to the dynamic of postmodernism, the pathologies affecting contemporary democracies are attracting more and more attention. The general opinion is that these pathologies, far from being inherent to democracy itself, are the result of a corruption of its principles. More serious observers go beyond immediate matters and interrogate the internal evolution of democracy itself, drawing attention to the more or less pronounced divergence between the current shape of democracy and what it ought to be on the basis of its foundational principles. The first crisis of democracy emerged in France in the 1880s and became more apparent with the "shock of 1900," but it only truly erupted after the First World War, culminating in the 1930s. To understand the foundation for the democracy crises, it is necessary to grasp the distinction between ancient democracy and modern democracy. Adapted from the source document.

A reply to John Milbank's article, "Liberality versus Liberalism," agrees with Milbank's reaction against neo-liberal materialism but questions his contention that politics must be guided by religion. It is argued that the idea that the absolute good is based on something super-human is adverse to a democracy that places the legitimacy of politics in the sovereign power of the people. Milbank's belief that truth must be transcendent exhibits confusion between metaphysics & ontology. Exception is also taken to Milbank's contention that womens equality stemmed from St. Paul; his claim that Christianity has made all objects sacred; & his identification of morality with religion. It is argued that political distinctions between the just & the unjust are not directly related to moral distinctions between good & evil. In addition, Milbank's concept of the economy as an exchange of gifts fails to consider the question of value. It is hopelessly utopian to expect the re-emergence of a philosophical culture based on religion to solve contemporary political & social problems. J. Lindroth

Eulogizes Piccone (1940-2004), senior editor of Telos, referring to him as the engine for the evolution of intellectual exchange following the collapse of the New Left.

Comments on the divide between the people & the elite & the people & their political parties revealed by the French rejection of the proposed European Constitution in 2005. This fracture is deemed social as well as political & is seen as evidence of the irrelevance of a left-right distinction as votes for & against were cast on both sides. In addition, the political-mediatic class shows no sign of having learned anything other than that it should not have resorted to the use of direct democracy when the people can be unpredictable. This evidences the failure of representation.

Argues that the "modernist" concept of politics is coming to an end. Politics, defined as "the art of decision-making concerning the common good," determines the distinction between public & private. Political objectives are said to hinge on ever changing, but concrete, situations. Issues explored include the historical relationship between politics & democracy; today's focus on "depolitization"; & the need to reassert the "primacy of politics." It is contended that politics in the era of modernity has been increasingly threatened by hegemonic tendencies of economy, law, morality, & technology, which have spawned a generalized commodification. In addition, the notion of equality shifted from the political to the juridical; politics became linked to the natural equality of rights rather than the institution of democracy; & all social relations were positioned within the private sphere while politics was delegated to the domain of the state. It is concluded that politics is reappearing in the age of postmodernity from the bottom up through local autonomy, participatory democracy, & community life. J. Lindroth

(Originally published in Krisis, 1999, 22, Mar, pp 2-34.) A biographical profile of political thinker Johannes Althusius (1557-1638) maintains that he has been unfairly neglected by historians. Although an 1880 biography by Otto von Gierke resparked interest in Althusius, a complete translation of his major work, Politica methodice digesta, has not yet appeared in any modern language. His early life in western Germany is described, noting that he studied history, theology, & logic; received a law degree; taught philosophy, theology, & law; & actively participated in politics, which served as the basis of his theoretical constructions. Althusius saw politics as the tool for achieving the conditions needed for human social life. He did not see man as self-sufficient, but as a social being within an ordained world. He emphasized that concepts must be defined before a subject can be logically organized or developed. He was against nominalism & modern natural law, focusing instead on "symbiotic community," an organic group composed of social beings. Althusius's theory of sovereignty is examined, & his political philosophy is compared to that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau & Martin Buber. J. Lindroth

Explores the nature of sovereignty. A review of Jean Bodin's (1576) treatment of sovereignty emphasizes his understanding of sovereignty as totally exclusive to the state & his preference for a monarchical state. Bodin's conceptualization is contrasted with that of Thomas Hobbes. The French Revolution reaffirmed the contention that sovereignty was embodied in the monarchical state; however, the political liberals' attempt to establish ethical & juridical notions of sovereignty are deemed problematic. Johannes Althusius's (1603) conceptualization of sovereignty is contrasted with Bodin's understanding, highlighting Althusius's assertion that sovereignty emanates from the general population. In addition, the incompatibility of Bodin's notion of sovereignty with the concept of subsidiarity is discussed in terms of contemporary federalism. J. W. Parker

Considers the proper definition of racism, drawing on the secondary literature. It is suggested that there is not one definition of racism, but two. There is a racism that seeks to absolutize the Other in a way that prevents one group from having anything to do with another group. Another kind of racism absolutizes the Same, & in the name of the Same, destroys the Other's difference or denies that there is an Other. Both forms of racism are taken to have a similar result: the eradication of difference. However, neither is brought into being by a fear of difference. Rather, both forms of racism are produced by a feeling of the disintegration of identities, which leads to the re-creation of these identities in pathological ways. In this context, antiracism should struggle to protect difference. This can be achieved by learning to respect difference, opening dialogue across different social groups, & developing strategies that foster interethnic relations. D. Ryfe

Analyzes the erosion of the Left-Right split in France & discusses the roots of its origination. Using data from Sofres opinion polls, it is indicated that the % of French people who consider the notions of Right & Left to be outdated has increased from 33% in 1981 to 56% in 1993. The speed & envelopment of all political sectors in this erosion is attributed to the end of the three great debates that have characterized the Right-Left dichotomy in France: the dissolution of the monarchy ended the debate over political institutions; the question of religion lost its relevance with the progressive dissociation of the Church from the counterrevolution; & the trend against class identification has diminished the class struggle. The implications of this destructuring the electorate has led to a centralizing of thought among the political parties & a perilous attraction to the "consensus.". M. Greenberg