c. pateman - criticising empirical thoerists of democracy

7/30/2019 C. Pateman - Criticising Empirical Thoerists of Democracy

1/5

Criticising Empirical Theorists of Democracy: A Comment on SkinnerAuthor(s): Carole PatemanReviewed work(s):Source: Political Theory, Vol. 2, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 215-218Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/190674 .

Accessed: 24/12/2012 16:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:13:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/190674?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/190674?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/5

CRITICISINGEMPIRICALTHEORISTS OF DEMOCRACY:A Comment on Skinner

CAROLE PA TEMANUniversity of Sydney

T IS NOT CLEARfrom QuentinSkinner'sarticle PT, Vol. 1,No. 3) what kind of democratic theory he regards as relevant orappropriate,having wished a plague on the houses of empiricaltheoristsand their critics alike. Are we to accept the empiricaltheory despite itsideological nature-or are the critics right in regarding hat as a goodreasonto reject it?

While I agree with Skinner that the critics that he cites have notsubstantiatedtheir claims against the empirical theorists, the aspect oftheir argument hat he has taken up does not get us very far. Even thoughSkinner may have placed the claim that the empirical theorists haveproduceda conservative, deological defense of the status quo, on a firmerfooting (albeit by a somewhat tortuous route), he still remains inessentially the same place in the argumentas the critics that he attacks.Neitherthese critics nor Skinnerhas shown that the empirical heorists aremistaken in their revision, given the empirical data-referred to bySkinner-on which the empirical theorists base their claim that the'classical'theory of democracy needs revision, and the present systemmeets the necessaryrequirements or a 'democracy.'

That is to say, the really crucial argument between the empiricaltheoristsand their criticsis not over the question of the ideologicalnatureof the empirical heory in the sense in which Skinnerdeals with it, but onPolitical Theory, Vol. 2 No. 2, May 1974, ? 1974 Sage Publications, Inc.

[215]

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:13:54 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

[216] POLITICALTHEORY /MAY 1974the question of whetherit is empiricallyfeasible in the latter partof thetwentieth centuryto have a 'democracy'characterizedby anythingotherthan the social basis and competing leaders in periodic, free electionsdescribedby Dahlet al. If the empiricalrequirementsor the realizationofthe 'classical' heory of democracyare not realizableundercontemporarysocial and economic conditions, then there seems little point, irrespectiveof whetherthe empirical heoryis or is not conservative ndideological, nthese criticscontinuing o defend it (although t shouldbe addedthat theyare often unclear about the exact nature of the ideal that the empiricaltheorists arebetraying).

It is significantthat the criticsdiscussedby Skinnerareveryselectivelychosen. Those who go further and make a strongercase against theempiricaltheoristsarecarefullyomitted; thereis no mention, for example,of Peter Bachrach(1967) or of my own Participationand DemocraticTheory(1970), in which the empirical heoristsaretackled on their ownground-the empiricalone. Their own interpretation of the evidence isopen to question, and it can be argued on the basis of a differentinterpretationhat the 'classical'deal of a democracybasedon widespreadparticipation,ncludingsomedirectparticipation,s a feasibleone. Indeed,althoughSkinnerrefers to Dahl'sAfter theRevolution?,he appearsnot tohave noticed that Dahl has, in that book, introduced industrial self-management nto democratictheory as 'one solution too obvious to beignored' o some of the problemsof 'polyarchy' Dahl, 1970: 134).This radicalmodification of the empiricaltheorists' 'democracy' s asignificant concession to the argumentsof the critics whom Skinnerignores. It is the strongest,not the weakest,part of the critics'case thatSkinnermustmeet if he is to dismissthemas well as theiropponents.Skinner'sselectivityin the choice of critics also helps himto makethekind of case he does for the ideologicalnatureof the empirical heory.Hesuggeststhat it is only recentlythat the meaningof 'democracy'hasbeenin dispute. On the contrary,in its modernform at least,therehavealwaysbeen two fairlywell-definedtraditionsof argumentaboutproper ormfora 'democratic' system. As I have argued (Pateman, 1970), the idea,accepted alike by almost all the writers on the subject,of one 'classical'theoryof democracy hat is to be opposedto the new empirical heory is amyth. In fact, the empiricaltheorists aremerelythe latest, 'operational-ized,' version of the liberaldemocratictradition;that is, the theory of(ideology of?) the actual political institutional arrangements hat havebeen part and parcel of the development of the capitalist, liberal,'democratic'West, especially the United States and GreatBritain,whichhas always stressed the role of leaders and seen participationas a



4/5

Pateman / CRITICISING EMPIRICALTHEORISTS [217]protectivedevice, and a cost that, ideally, the citizen should haveonly topay very seldom. This view of democracy has never been universallyacceptedamong theorists,althoughthe alternative,participatory raditionhas, until very recently, beenvirtuallycompletely ignoredby most writerson democratic heory: includingSkinner n this presentarticle.I would argue that democracy itself, and the other key terms ofdemocratictheory, always were 'evaluative-descriptive'erms.' Thustheargumentabout democracyalwayshas been 'ideological' n the sense thatthose who 'commended' t have neverbeenagreedabout its meaning.Theargument goes beyond the question whether 'oligarchy'or 'democracy'best characterizes he presentsystem, to the questionof what otherform,if any, of democracycan be reasonablyheld to be feasible.Afterall, if thepresentsystemis 'oligarchical,' hen whatexactly is a democracy?Part of the claim of the empiricaltheorists, as Skinner notes in hisdiscussion of Dahl, is that the set of institutionalarrangementshat theyspecifyas 'democratic' s also characterized s involving politicalequality,''politicalfreedom,' 'popularsovereignty,' control' and'responsiveness'fleaders, and so on. The crucial question here is how it is to be decided ifthe characterization s a correct one. Anothertheoristmay disagree hat itis correct,and arguethat (say) 'politicalequality'refersnot merelyto theperiodicelection of representativeshroughuniversal uffrage andperhapsthe existence of pressuregroups) but to a situation where citizens canactually take part in making politicaldecisions. That this is more than amatter of arbitrary tipulations can be seen if it is considered how theempiricaltheorists could defend their characterization. would suggestthat a complete argumentwould demandnot just referenceto the actualoperation of the existing system-control of leaders, protection ofindividualnterests-and the lack of feasibility of the alternativenterpreta-tion, but also reference o a 'realistic'conceptionof the citizen as a certainkind of (male) individual-see the discussionof homnoivicus (Dahl, 1961:223-225)-with certainkinds of interests (cf. Bachrach,1967: 38-39, 95).The empirical theorists' defense would appeal to the existingpoliticalsystem and its political culture and therefore is, as Skinner argues,conservative.But the conservatism ies not only, as Skinner'sanalysiswould suggest,in a linguistic sphere, n the realmof speech acts which theterm democracy is 'standardly' used to perform. It is precisely thosestandardsand the actual social and political relationshipsof which theyforma part,that lie at the heartof the critics' attack. The argument s oversomethingmuch wider than the 'application'of one term. Moreover, heempiricaltheoristswould hardly claim that the conditions necessaryforapplyingthe term have been drawn too narrowly;ratherthe argument s



5/5

[218] POLITICALTHEORY /MAY 1974

that in the 'classical' heory they arefar too wide, involvingan ideal of thecitizen and political participation that is unrealistic, even utopian.Skinner'sargumentdoes not advancethe critics' case much beyond thepoint where he took it up because he ignores the real strength of theirargument;hat they meet their opponentshead-onoverthe interpretationof empirical evidence and so move beyond oligarchy/democracyo openup the so long neglected theoretical and empirical questions aboutparticipatorydemocracy.

NOTE1. These remarks draw on Pateman (1971: ch. 2).

REFERENCESBACHRACH, P. (1967) The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Boston:Little, Brown.DAHL, R. A. (1970) After the Revolution?: Authority in a Good Society. NewHaven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.--- (1961) Who Governs? New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.PATEMAN, C. (1971) "Participation and recent theories of democracy." Ph.D.

dissertation. Oxford University.---(1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, Eng.: CambridgeUniv. Press.

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:13:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

c. pateman - criticising empirical thoerists of democracy

Documents