Suchergebnisse

Arguing that the hegemony of the neoliberal/capitalist nexus must be challenged if we are to address the proliferating challenges facing our world, this inspiring book explains how democracy can revive the political fortunes of the left. Explores issues central to the civil uprisings that swept the world in 2011, drawing profound connections between democracy and neoliberalism in an urban contextFeatures in-depth analysis of key political theorists such as Gramsci; Lefebvre; Rancière; Deleuze and Guattari; and Hardt and Negri

Arguing that the hegemony of the neoliberal/capitalist nexus must be challenged if we are to address the proliferating challenges facing our world, this inspiring book explains how democracy can revive the political fortunes of the left. Explores issues central to the civil uprisings that swept the world in 2011, drawing profound connections between democracy and neoliberalism in an urban contextFeatures in-depth analysis of key political theorists such as Gramsci; Lefebvre; Rancière; Deleuze and Guattari; and Hardt and Negri.

Arguing that the hegemony of the neoliberal/capitalist nexus must be challenged if we are to address the proliferating challenges facing our world, this inspiring book explains how democracy can revive the political fortunes of the left. Explores issues central to the civil uprisings that swept the world in 2011, drawing profound connections between democracy and neoliberalism in an urban context Features in-depth analysis of key political theorists such as Gramsci; Lefebvre; Rancière; Deleuze and Guattari; and Hardt and Negri Advocates the reframing of democracy as a personal and collective struggle to discover the best in ourselves and others Includes empirical analysis of recent instances of collective action.

This article asks whether Laclau and Mouffe are the right theoretical partners for thinking about the project of democracy today. It concludes that they still have quite a lot to offer that project, but it also suggests we should be wary of embracing their thought too wholeheartedly, specifically because of their fondness for Gramsci and hegemony, and perhaps also, as a result, their willingness to engage the state and its institutions in the struggle for democracy.

This article argues that planning should develop a robust conception of "publics without the State." We should do so because the State is a necessarily oligarchical arrangement that prevents us from achieving real democracy. We should explore publics without the State in both theory and practice.

This paper explores what role Ranciere's work can play in the struggle for a more democratic world. It highlights the strength of Ranciere's conception of democracy, which clearly identifies democracy as a popular disruption of the prevailing police order. This order claims to have assigned a proper role to all parts of society. Democracy for Ranciere is when an element emerges that has not been taken account of and demonstrates the police order's claim to be false. Among the many benefits of this way of understanding democracy, it upsets any easy association between hegemony and democracy - as in Laclau & Mouffe - and it refuses utterly the ideological fusing of democracy, capitalism, and the state offered by the liberal-democratic-capitalist consensus. However, Ranciere's approach also introduces significant limits on democracy because it denies that democracy can ever do more than disrupt the prevailing order. It does not allow for the possibility that democracy can grow and spread to the point that it becomes pervasive in the polity. This paper uses the case of the Egyptian uprising to show how this limitation closes off important political possibilities. The paper argues that Deleuze & Guattari's theorisation of revolution, when used carefully, is a necessary corrective to Ranciere's too-restricted concept of democracy. Adapted from the source document.

This paper aims to contribute to contemporary debates on governance change in the local public realm by undertaking a close analysis of Henri Lefebvre's concept of the right to the city. I argue that when it is fully appreciated, Lefebvre's idea imagines a thoroughgoing transformation of the city as a political community. It involves a radical democratization of cities, which Lefebvre understands to mean an ongoing and collective struggle by urban inhabitants to manage the city for themselves, without the state and without capitalism.