Towards Post-Democratic Resilience: From Political Institutions to the Spirit

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985955%3A_____%2F24%3A00603565" target="_blank" >RIV/67985955:_____/24:00603565 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Towards Post-Democratic Resilience: From Political Institutions to the Spirit

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The notion of democracy’s crisis has long been part and parcel of discussion both inside and outside academia. However, a group of scholars suggests, under the heading of democratic resilience scholarship (DRS), changing the debate’s tenor from questions of democracy’s demise to its survival. While the paper appreciates this discussion as necessary, it is also critical of some of its presuppositions. Hence, the present paper provides a revision of the concept of democratic resilience on two points: firstly, it suggests that DRS understands democracy’s resilience mainly as a mirror concept to already established political theory and science concepts used to describe democracy’s demise (e.g., backsliding, disfiguration, and autocratization) and by doing that it empties the resilience of its political and theoretical potential. Secondly, I suggest that DRS, as a result, focuses mainly on the role of democratic institutions and neglects the everyday experience of ordinary citizens, which is crucial for understanding contemporary democracies‘ malaises. The paper claims that the everyday democratic experience can be understood using the concept of post-democracy, and therefore, the paper suggests shifting the focus from democratic resilience to the study of post-democratic one. While there are various definitions of post-democracy (see, e.g., Crouch 2004, Rancière 1998, Habermas 2002), it is essential to emphasize that post-democracy is not non-democracy or a state simply following after democracy but a persistent condition of contemporary liberal democracies. This condition is characterized by the contradiction between democratic rhetoric and citizens’ self-understanding as a sovereign source of political power, on the one hand, and experienced citizens’ inability to influence major political decisions on the other, leading to the contradiction between an egalitarian, democratic political culture and the citizens‘ understanding of their de facto powerlessness. In an analysis of post-democracy, the paper draws on and develops the work of Sofia Näsström (2021). Näsström analyses democracy not only as a set of institutions providing the answer to the question of “who and how governs” but also focuses on what she - following Montesquieu - calls the spirit. According to Näsström and Montesquieu, each kind of political regime is defined not only by a specific set of institutions but also by a spirit that constitutes the condition of its possibility. Näsström, building on Lefort, identifies the spirit of democracy with emancipation. The paper follows Näsström’s emphasis on the crucial role of the spirit, however, - building on vast theoretical and ethnographic research (see, e.g. Cramer 2016, Illouz 2023) - identifies the spirit of post-democracy with resentment that results from the abovementioned contradiction between democratic political culture and the experienced powerlessness. It also suggests that the resentment has been the source of many of democracy’s pathological features. The paper, therefore, proposes to reorient the question of post-democratic resilience from the democratic institutions (without diminishing their importance) to citizens‘ ability to cope and prevent resentment. To analyze possible options for coping with resentment, the paper discusses various strategies, including extrapoliticism (Green, 2018), supplanting resentment with democratic passions (Mouffe, 2022), and the therapeutic approach (Miller, 2020).n

Název v anglickém jazyce

Towards Post-Democratic Resilience: From Political Institutions to the Spirit

Popis výsledku anglicky

The notion of democracy’s crisis has long been part and parcel of discussion both inside and outside academia. However, a group of scholars suggests, under the heading of democratic resilience scholarship (DRS), changing the debate’s tenor from questions of democracy’s demise to its survival. While the paper appreciates this discussion as necessary, it is also critical of some of its presuppositions. Hence, the present paper provides a revision of the concept of democratic resilience on two points: firstly, it suggests that DRS understands democracy’s resilience mainly as a mirror concept to already established political theory and science concepts used to describe democracy’s demise (e.g., backsliding, disfiguration, and autocratization) and by doing that it empties the resilience of its political and theoretical potential. Secondly, I suggest that DRS, as a result, focuses mainly on the role of democratic institutions and neglects the everyday experience of ordinary citizens, which is crucial for understanding contemporary democracies‘ malaises. The paper claims that the everyday democratic experience can be understood using the concept of post-democracy, and therefore, the paper suggests shifting the focus from democratic resilience to the study of post-democratic one. While there are various definitions of post-democracy (see, e.g., Crouch 2004, Rancière 1998, Habermas 2002), it is essential to emphasize that post-democracy is not non-democracy or a state simply following after democracy but a persistent condition of contemporary liberal democracies. This condition is characterized by the contradiction between democratic rhetoric and citizens’ self-understanding as a sovereign source of political power, on the one hand, and experienced citizens’ inability to influence major political decisions on the other, leading to the contradiction between an egalitarian, democratic political culture and the citizens‘ understanding of their de facto powerlessness. In an analysis of post-democracy, the paper draws on and develops the work of Sofia Näsström (2021). Näsström analyses democracy not only as a set of institutions providing the answer to the question of “who and how governs” but also focuses on what she - following Montesquieu - calls the spirit. According to Näsström and Montesquieu, each kind of political regime is defined not only by a specific set of institutions but also by a spirit that constitutes the condition of its possibility. Näsström, building on Lefort, identifies the spirit of democracy with emancipation. The paper follows Näsström’s emphasis on the crucial role of the spirit, however, - building on vast theoretical and ethnographic research (see, e.g. Cramer 2016, Illouz 2023) - identifies the spirit of post-democracy with resentment that results from the abovementioned contradiction between democratic political culture and the experienced powerlessness. It also suggests that the resentment has been the source of many of democracy’s pathological features. The paper, therefore, proposes to reorient the question of post-democratic resilience from the democratic institutions (without diminishing their importance) to citizens‘ ability to cope and prevent resentment. To analyze possible options for coping with resentment, the paper discusses various strategies, including extrapoliticism (Green, 2018), supplanting resentment with democratic passions (Mouffe, 2022), and the therapeutic approach (Miller, 2020).n

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/LX22NPO5101" target="_blank" >LX22NPO5101: Národní institut pro výzkum socioekonomických dopadů nemocí a systémových rizik</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů