kritik goodies

7/24/2019 Kritik Goodies

1/74


2/74

Critique Goodies Evazon 2013

Table of ContentsCritique Goodies Evazon 2013

Framework/EtOntology 1st


3/74

Epistemology 1st

Language 1st

Facts ad!" ad#$% &peci'c #lt (ey#$% &il)Epistemic *ragmatism

#$% &cience + $rut,#$% O-.ectivity /2 #ction#$% *redictions &olve Compleity)&cience is &elCorrecting#$% ig ords ad)!vory $o4er

!T !"onism#$% 5ietzsc,ean #gonism 2#CCritical #gonism Good#$% 6ou 7estroy 7e-ate#$% *ositivism)O-.ectivity

!T #eliberative #emora$7eli-erative 7emocracy adConsensus adConsensus ad 8 FundamentalismConsensus ad 9 *opulism

$,ird ay ad:!nequality$,ird ay ad:*o4er$opicality ad#$% "ules /2 7emocracy#$% Coalitions)(ris,na#$% a,/tin)7ialogical Ec,ange

%iolene &'#$% *in/er:General#$% *in/er:7emocratic *eace#$% *in/er:Foucault (

Generi (inksC,ina Lin/ 15CC,ina Lin/C,ina Frame4or/Glo-al arming Lin/Glo-al arming Frame4or/#$% arming;s -ad or t,e 3rd4orld


4/74

Framework/Et


5/74

)ntolo"$ 1st

)ntolo"$ determines t*e results of +olitial siene inquiries,tanle$ -12Liam &tanley< ="et,in/ing t,e 7e'nition and "ole o Ontology in

*olitical &cience *olitics< ?ol@ 32 A2B< p@ 3< 2012!n contrast< ontolo"$ in +olitial siene onerns t*e im+liit and sim+lif$in"assum+tions about +olitial .realit$- t*at under+in e+lanations of +olitial+*enomena@ $,e analysis and discussion o ontological assumptions s,ould t,ereore -e considered asecondorder endeavour@ Consequently< ontology s,ould not -e de'ned as Dt,e 4orld as it actually is; -ut instead as

Dt,e 4orld as political scientists assume it to -e;@ n order to e+lain t*e +olitial world it isneessar$ w*et*er im+liitl$ or e+liitl$ to ommit to a ertainontolo"ial view of w*at is +ossible in soial realit$4$,us


6/74

E+istemolo"$ 1st

E+istemi ommitments determine ontolo"ial outlooks and+reditive results9+rior ritique is neessar$ to stave o7 banal

instrumentalit$ and institutional bias,tanle$ -12Liam &tanley< ="et,in/ing t,e 7e'nition and "ole o Ontology in*olitical &cience *olitics< ?ol@ 32 A2B< p@ 3< 2012

$,e literature says very little directly on t,e su-.ect o ,o4 ontological assumptions emerge Aay< 200I< p@ J1B@ !nmany 4ays< t,is is unsurprising< particularly -ecause it is not possi-le to conduct suc, an analysis 4it,out 'rstcommitting to a series o ontological and epistemological assumptions A4,ic, !< o course< must also ma/e in t,eremainder o t,e articleB@ $,is inescapa-le irony is noted< -ut s,ould not prevent t,e endeavour altoget,er -ecauseot,er4ise suc, discussions 4ould not even -e possi-le@ 5evert,eless< in regard to ,o4 political scientists ma/eontological assumptions some preliminary ans4ers can -e gat,ered rom reading t,e literature rom in -et4een t,elines@ ,ile t,e literature oten rig,tly claims t,at ontological dualisms are perennial pro-lematiques 4it, nosolution Aay< 200K< p@ 2H Men/ins< 200I< p@ KB< t,ey also tend some4,at paradoically to oer conceptualre'nements to t,ese unsolva-le dic,otomies% e@g@ structureagency ANc#nulla< 2002B< material ideational Ae@g@

Nars,< 200B< mind-ody Ae@g@ Men/ins< 200IB@ &o< t,e question -ecomes< if ontolo"ial dualismsannot be solved t*en w*$ do +olitial sientists seek to o7er inreasin"l$

om+le one+tualisations: t is +resumabl$ beause su*+roblematiques allow +olitial sientists to re;et on t*eir ownassum+tions as well as t*e assum+tions of ot*ers and avoid makin" t*esim+listi struturalist or intentionalist mistakes of $ester$ear4 ,u*sim+listi under+innin"s s*ould indeed be ritiqued on t*e basis ofunrealistiall$ limitin" t*e +otential for *uman a"en$ or failin" toonsider *ow strutures favour ertain ators and strate"ies@ ut t,e value oincrementally more comple conceptualisations is rarely .usti'ed t,roug, t,is@ Furt,ermore< in tandem 4it, t,eidealtype o t,e directional dependence< t,is aspect o t,e literature also implies t,at ontological assumptionss,ould emerge rom engagement 4it, p,ilosop,ically oriented literature@ 6et t,ere is little reection on 4,et,er t,isidealtype accurately reects academic practice and< more importantly< 4,et,er t,is 4ould ,ave any implicationsor oundations o t,eir arguments@ # second reading o t,e directional dependence model could also imply t,atontological assumptions sometimes derive rom epistemological decisions Aay< 200K< p@ 2B@ $,is is 4,y t,e

directional dependence model outlined earlier is important< -ecause it demonstrates ,o4seemin"l$

innouous e+istemolo"ial or met*odolo"ial deisions an in;ueneassum+tions about soial realit$@ ! some ontological assumptions are inetrica-ly tied up 4it,epistemological decisions< t,en t,e net step s,ould involve t,e analysis o t,e process t,at< in part< gives rise to

epistemological assumptions@ $,is section aims to do .ust t,at@ E+istemolo"ial deisions anin;uene or "enerate ontolo"ial assum+tions@ Colin ay Aay< 200K< p@ 2B ,as s,o4nt,e adverse aects o searc,ing or generalisa-le /no4ledge Aan epistemological decisionB on t,e ontological

assumptions and resulting eplanations o rational c,oice t,eory@ 6et< t*e etent of e+istemolo"ialdeision6makin" etends be$ond t*e understandable ambition to t*eorise+olitis4 t is sometimes in;uened b$ aademi norms emer"in" from t*edisi+line as well as re"ulator$ and fundin" bodies4One possi-le criticism o t,eliterature on ontology is t,at it is irrelevant to t,e ma.ority o +olitial sientists4,oare driven b$a .mundane instrumentalit$- in w*i* .w*at ounts is w*at works-Aale< 200K to

stabilize debate alon" t*e lines of a stati resolution is to +utdebate-s a"onisti +otential to deat*,iemens .1 erman @ &iemens< 7epartment o *,ilosop,y at 5i.megenVniversity in $,e 5et,erlands< =5ietzs,ce;s agon 4it, ressentiment% to4ards at,erapeutic reading o critical transvaluation Continental *,ilosop,y "evie4 3J%K3< 2001< &pringerLin/5ietzs*ean transvaluation is devoted to ontestin" and overomin"+revailin" values in t*e name of life its aHrmation and elevation4 !s ana"onal ontest of values transvaluative disourse *allen"es a "ivenvalue or ideal b$ sta"in" a onfrontation wit* a re+resentative +ersona ort$+e w*ose various attitudes and +ostures are t*en interro"ated andevaluated from a stand+oint in life as t*e *i"*est value4$,e agon ,as important

consequences or t,e 4ay 4e understand 5ietzsc,e;s tetual conrontations< 4,ic, can -e used to introduce avia-le t,erapeutic reading@ !n t,e 'rst place< t*e a"on involves a s$mmetrial or"anisationor eonom$ of +ower +resu++osin" a +luralit$ of more6or6less equalanta"onisti fores 4 13 !"onal disourse is t*erefore ontin"ent on t*e+artii+ation of a +luralit$ of fores in a s$mmetrial ontestation ofvalues? transvaluation onl$ ours w*ere weD are drawn into ritialontests as an a"onal ommunit$D of readers w*o onsent to t*e rulesof +la$4 &nder t*ese onditions deferene to5ietzsc,e oran$ sin"le fore isruled out 4 5ietzs*e-s


28/74

t*erefore resist t*e lure of =nalit$ and t*e e+edient of destro$in" itso++onents4 T*is does not elude on;it alto"et*er4 T*e interests of"rowin" stru""lin" lifeD require t*at 5ietzs*e-s +*iloso+*$ +ratiseon;it or stru""le in a form t*at AaB em+owers its o++onents 1I andA-Bremains o+en6ended or inonlusiveH t,at is< it must practice agonal conict@


29/74

!T? Pou #estro$ #ebate

#ebate is ontinuall$ bein" destro$ed> t*at-s +reisel$ t*enature of a"onisti ommunit$ t*at we s*ould aHrm4

,iemens .1 erman @ &iemens< 7epartment o *,ilosop,y at 5i.megenVniversity in $,e 5et,erlands< =5ietzsc,e;s agon 4it, ressentiment% to4ards at,erapeutic reading o critical transvaluation Continental *,ilosop,y "evie4 3J%K3< 2001< &pringerLin/! understood correctly< t*e o+en6ended d$nami qualities of t*e a"on alsoaddress t*e +roblem of losure at its most intratable? t*e demand t*att*era+euti disourse be non6diretional or anti6teleolo"ial in t*einterests of asendin" life4 @e+eatabilit$ in t*e a"on annot be +ro+erl$understood if we restrit ourselves to a *istorial +ers+etive or t*e+ers+etive of t*e anta"onists4 !t issue is not w*et*er t*e a"on is in fatre+eated and t*e kinds of institutional and =nanial infrastruture t*isrequires@ $,ese ,istorical)empirical questions presuppose t,at t,e agon is to -e repeated< and t,is is a eature

intrinsic to t,e agon as a dynamic ordering o orces< a matter o its temporal c,aracter as a estival and a orm oplay@ #s Gadamer ,as argued< +la$ annot be adequatel$ understood from t*e+la$ers- +ers+etives beause it *as its bein" inde+endentl$ of t*eironsiousness attitudes and intentions? t*e mode of bein" of +la$ is notsu* t*at t*ere must be a sub rat*er it renews itself in onstantre+etitionDAp@ 103B@ $,is t,oug,t is es,ed out -y Gadamer 4it, reerence to t,e puzzling temporality oAperiodicB estivals@ 1 T*e festival annot be +ro+erl$ "ras+ed from t*e usual+ers+etive in suessive time as a *istorial event t*at was ori"inall$ soand t*en ame to be re+eated wit* small variations at +eriodi intervals @"at,er< repetition or return is intrinsi to estivals including a"onal festivals in t*eir*arater as elebration4 ,ine it belon"s to t*e establis*ment of afestival at its ver$ ori"ins t*at it s*ould be re"ularl$ elebrated t*efestival is somet*in" t*at onl$ is insofar as it is alwa$s di7erentQ@ @ @R t *asits bein" onl$ in beomin" and reurrin"DAp@ 120B@ !n t,is lig,t< t*e o+en6endedre+eatabilit$ of a"onal disourse is not ontin"ent on t*e self6restraint of

anta"onists able to *old bak fromdestructionor absolute vitor$4 Contestantsannot be relied on to avoid eessin t,e agon 4,ic,< -y its very nature< allo4s t,e temptationo ,u-ris to compete 4it, t,e 4arning o selrestraint 4it, uncertain results@ $,is goes or 5ietzsc,e as 4ell< 4,o

is notoriously unrestrained at times@ #ccording to Gadamer< ,o4ever< t,e anta"onists must beclearlydistin"uis*ed from t*e a"onitsel


30/74

5ietzs*e-s tetual onfrontations t*en4e can say%a"onal disourse is aradiall$ im+ersonal non6diretional and re+eatable medium of t*ou"*t>somet*in" t*at onl$ is insofar as it is beomin"4 ndividual teleolo"ies areembedded in t*e anti6teleolo"ial medium of a"onal e*an"e to w*i*t*e$ "ive t*emselves> an$ bids for +ower an$ attem+ts at losure are*eked or undone b$ t*e viissitudes of em+owerment6disem+owerment

to w*i* t*e$ are sub


31/74

!T? ositivism/)b AlondelB@ $,is can ta/e dierent orms% as an alternation o appropriation and alienation< 1 odominating and reeing t,e ot,er in turn< or 5ietzsc,e;s tendency to limit ,is negations o t,e ot,er t,roug,su-sequent aUrmation to name a e4@ Common to all is a dou-lemovement o =#-solutsetzung> and =5ic,t#-solutsetzung> 20 4,ere-y 5ietzsc,e contests a position and t,en retracts ,is contention< or opposes a claim onlyto undo ,is counterclaim@ From a discursive point o vie4< all t,is is ,ard to ma/e sense o< or simply inco,erent@

From a dynamic perspective in agonal contention< ,o4ever< it -egins to ma/e sense@ T*e a"on as we*ave seen +reludes destrution of t*e o++onent in favor of a +ratie oflimited a""ressionAmutual disempo4ermentB+rediated on mutual em+owerment4!< as ! am suggest ing< 5ietzsc,e;s tetual conrontations are regulated -y an agonal regime< t,en t,ey are -oundto unold t,roug, a dynamic o mutual empo4ermentdisempo4erment@ it,in t,is dynamic< =saying and

unsaying> constitutes a co,erent practice o limited aggression@ #t sta/e ,ere is ,o4 4e read 5ietzsc,e% instead oisolating ,is .udgements or interpretations rom one anot,er and identiying t,em 4it, =contradictory> positions< 4eneed to place t,em 4it,in an agonal =play o orces> t,at implicates us as readers< not .ust ,is c,osen adversary< ina collective contestation o values@


32/74

!T #eliberative #emora$


33/74

#eliberative #emora$ 8ad

#eliberative demora$ solves none of our ritiism9its+resum+tion of a neutral +ubli s+*ere erases t*e wa$ t*e

terms of t*e debate are onstituted b$ ontin"ent and non6neessar$ +ower relationsAou7e 2k C,antal Noue< proessor in t,e 7epartment o *olitics and!nternational "elations at t,e Vniversity o estminster< =7eli-erative 7emocracy or#gonistic *luralism "ei,e *oliti/4issensc,at *olitical &cience &eries 2< 7ecem-er2000< pro-a-ly ound on google sc,olaresides putting t,e emp,asis on practices and language games< an alternative to t,e rationalist rame4or/ alsorequires coming to terms 4it, t,e act t,at po4er is constitutive o social relations@ One o t,e s,ortcomings o t,e

deli-erative approac, is t,at< b$ +ostulatin" t*e availabilit$ of a +ubli s+*ere w*ere+ower would *ave been eliminated and w*ere a rational onsensus ouldbe realized t*is modelo democratic politics is unable to aknowled"e t*edimension of anta"onism t*at t*e +luralism of values entailsand its ineradica-le

c,aracter@ T*is is w*$ it is bound to miss t*e s+ei=it$ of t*e +olitial w*i*it an onl$ envisa"e as a s+ei= domain of moralit$@ 7eli-erative democracy providesa very good illustration o 4,at Carl &c,mitt ,ad said a-out li-eral t,oug,t% =n a ver$ s$stematifas*ion liberal t*ou"*t evades or i"noresstate and+olitis and moves insteadin a t$+ial alwa$s reurrin" +olarit$ of t4o ,eterogeneous sp,ere< namely et*is andeonomisD430 !ndeed< to t,e aggregative model< inspired -y economics< t,e only alternative deli-erativedemocrats can put or4ard is one t,at collapses politics into et,ics@ !n order to remedy t,is serious de'ciency< 4eneed a democratic model a-le to grasp t,e nature o t,e political@ $,is requires developing an approac,< 4,ic,places t,e question o po4er and antagonism at its very center@ !t is suc, an approac, t,at ! 4ant to advocate and4,ose t,eoretical -ases ,ave -een delineated in egemony and &ocialist &trategy@31 $,e central t,esis o t,e -oo/

is t,at soial ob


34/74

of soial relations =nds its om+lement in t*e +urel$ +ra"mati "rounds oft*e laims to +ower le"itima$4$,is implies t,at t,ere is no un-ridgea-le gap -et4een po4er andlegitimacy not o-viously in t,e sense t,at all po4er is automatically legitimate< -ut in t,e sense t,at% aB if an$+ower *as been able to im+ose itself it is beause it *as been reo"nizedas le"itimate in some quarters> and-Bif le"itima$ is not based on aa+rioristi "round it is beause it is based on some form of suessful

+ower4 T*is link between le"itima$ and +ower and t*e *e"emoni ordert*at t*is entails is +reisel$ w*at t*e deliberative a++roa* foreloses b$+ositin" t*e +ossibilit$ of a t$+e of rational ar"umentation w*ere +ower*as been eliminated and w*ere le"itima$ is "rounded on +ure rationalit$4

T*e drive for onsensus re+rodues violent ideolo"$ and s*utsdown substantive debate makin" ea* a re*earsal of w*atame before9innovation and reativit$ is +ossible not onl$w*en debate ours over +artiular issues but t*e one+tualframeworks under"irdin" t*emAou7e 2k C,antal Noue< proessor in t,e 7epartment o *olitics and

!nternational "elations at t,e Vniversity o estminster< =7eli-erative 7emocracy or#gonistic *luralism "ei,e *oliti/4issensc,at *olitical &cience &eries 2< 7ecem-er2000< pro-a-ly ound on google sc,olarOne o t,e /ey t,esis o agonistic pluralism is t,at< far from


35/74

+luralist demora$ annot be to rea* a rational onsensus in t*e +ublis+*ere4 ,u* a onsensus annot eist4 Be *ave to ae+t t*at ever$onsensus eists as a tem+orar$ result of a +rovisional *e"emon$ as astabilization of +ower and t*at it alwa$s entails some form of elusion4T*e idea t*at +ower ould be dissolved t*rou"* a rational debate and t*atle"itima$ ould be based on +ure rationalit$ are illusions w*i* an

endan"er demorati institutions4 B*at t*e deliberative demora$ modelis den$in" is t*e dimension of undeidabilit$ and t*e ineradiabilit$ ofanta"onism w*i* are onstitutive of t*e +olitial4 8$ +ostulatin" t*eavailabilit$ of a non elusive +ubli s+*ere of deliberation w*ere arational onsensus ould be obtained t*e$ ne"ate t*e in*erentl$on;itual nature of modern +luralism4 T*e$ are unable to reo"nize t*atbrin"in" a deliberation to a lose alwa$s results from a deision w*i*eludes ot*er +ossibilities and for w*i* one s*ould never refuse to bearres+onsibilit$ b$ invokin" t*e ommands of "eneral rules or +rini+les@ $,isis 4,y a perspective li/e =agonistic pluralism> 4,ic, reveals t,e impossi-ility o esta-lis,ing a consensus 4it,outeclusion is o undamental importance or democratic politics@ y 4arning us again o t,e illusion t,at a ully

ac,ieved democracy could ever -e instantiated< it orces us to /eep t,e democratic contestation alive@ To make

room for dissent and to foster t*e institutions in w*i* it an bemanifested is vital for a +luralist demora$ and one s*ould abandon t*ever$ idea t*at t*ere ould ever be a time in w*i* it would ease to beneessar$ beause t*e soiet$ is now well orderedD4 !n a"onistiDa++roa* aknowled"es t*e real nature of its frontiers and t*e forms ofelusion t*at t*e$ entail instead of tr$in" to dis"uise t*em under t*eveil of rationalit$ or moralit$4

#eliberative demora$ is ina+able of resolvin"inommensurate soial onernsAou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@JIJKOne o t,e implications o t,e argument presented a-ove is t*e im+ossibilit$ of establis*in" arational onsensus wit*out elusion@ $,is raises several +roblems fort,e modelo democratic politics< 4,ic, ,as -een receiving quite a lot o attention recently under t,e name Kdeliberativedemora$K45o dou-t< t,e aim o t,e t,eorists 4,o advocate t,e dierent versions o suc, a model iscommenda-le@ #gainst t,e interest-ased conception o democracy< inspired -y economics and sceptical a-out t,evirtues o political participation< t,ey 4ant to introduce questions o morality and .ustice into politics< and envisage

democratic citizens,ip in a dierent 4ay@ o4ever< b$ +ro+osin" to view reason and rationalar"umentation rat*er t*an interest and a""re"ation of +referenes ast*e entral issue of +olitis t*e$ sim+l$ re+lae t*e eonomi model wit*a moral one w*i* al-eit in a dierent 4ay also misses t*e s+ei=it$ of t*e+olitial@ !n t,eir attempt to overcome t,e limitations o interestgroup pluralism< deliberativedemorats +rovide a tellin" illustration of ,*mittKs +oint t*at Kn a ver$

s$stemati fas*ion liberal t*ou"*t evades or i"nores state and +olitis andmoves instead in atypical< al4aysreurrin" +olarit$ of two *etero"eneouss+*eres namel$ et*is and eonomis intellet and trade eduation and+ro+ert$ 4W13


36/74

#eliberation-s +resum+tion of a neutral disursive s+*ereoneals t*e work of +ower in le"itimatin" +olitial identit$and t*e +ubli/+rivate distintion9we s*ould instead aHrm t*eneessit$ of violene wit*in +olitisAou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@

101esides putting t,e emp,asis on practices and languagegames< an alternative to t*e rationalistframework also requires omin" to terms wit* t*e fat t*at +ower isonstitutive of soial relations4 )ne of t*e s*ortomin"s of t*edeliberative a++roa* is t*at b$ +ostulatin" t*e availabilit$ of a +ublis+*ere w*ere +ower would *ave been eliminated and w*ere a rationalonsensus ould be realized t*is model of demorati +olitis is unable toaknowled"e t*e dimension of anta"onism t*at t*e +luralism of valuesentails and its ineradiable *arater4 T*is is w*$ it is bound to miss t*es+ei=it$ of t*e +olitial w*i* it an onl$ envisa"e as a s+ei= domainof moralit$@ 7eli-erative democracy provides a very good illustration o 4,at Carl &c,mitt ,ad said a-outli-eral t,oug,t% W!n a very systematic as,ion li-eral t,oug,t evades or ignores state and politics and moves instead

in a typical al4ays recurring polarity o t4o ,eterogeneous sp,eres< namely et,ics and economics@Wll !ndeed< to t,eaggregative model< inspired -y economics< t,e only alternative deli-erative democrats can oppose is one t,at

collapses politics into et,ics@ !n order to remedy t,is serious de'ciency< we need a demorati modelable to "ras+ t*e nature of t*e +olitial4 T*is requires develo+in" ana++roa* w*i* +laes t*e question of +ower and anta"onism at its ver$entre4 !t is suc, an approac, t,at ! 4ant to advocate and 4,ose t,eoretical -ases ,ave -een delineated inegemony and &ocialist &trategy@2 $,e central t,esis o t,e -oo/ is t,at soial ob


37/74

all po4er is automatically legitimate< -ut in t,e sense t,at% AaB if an$ +ower *as been able toim+ose itself it is beause it *as been reo"nized as le"itimate in somequarters? andA-Bif le"itima$ is not based in an a+rioristi "round it isbeause it is based in some form of suessful +ower4 T*is link betweenle"itima$ and +ower and t*e *e"emoni orderin" t*at t*is entails is+reisel$ w*at t*e deliberative a++roa* foreloses b$ +ositin" t*e

+ossibilit$ of a t$+e of rational ar"umentation w*ere +ower *as beeneliminated and w*ere le"itima$ is "rounded on +ure rationalit$@

#eliverative demora$-s dream of a +olitis wit*outdisa"reement requires a soial *omo"eneit$ w*i* loses t*es+ae of t*e +olitial and eludes t*ose w*o annot =t wit*int*e re"ulative ideal of rationalit$Aou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@10J10I,at t*e deliberative6demora$ model is den$in"ist*e dimension ofundeidabilit$ and t*e ineradiabilit$ of anta"onism w*i* are onstitutive

of t*e +olitial4 8$ +ostulatin" t*e availabilit$ of a non6elusive +ublis+*ere of deliberation w*ere a rational onsensus ould obtain t*e$ne"ate t*e in*erentl$ on;itual nature of modern +luralism4 T*e$ areunable to reo"nize t*at brin"in" a deliberation to a lose alwa$s resultsfrom a deision w*i* eludes ot*er +ossibilities and for w*i* ones*ould never refuse to bear res+onsibilit$ b$ invokin" t*e ommands of"eneral rules or +rini+les4 T*is is w*$a perspective li/eKa"onisti +luralismKw*i* reveals t*e im+ossibilit$ of establis*in" a onsensus wit*outelusion is of fundamental im+ortane for demorati +olitis4 8$warnin" us a"ainst t*e illusion t*at a full$ a*ieved demora$ ould everbe instantiated it fores us to kee+ t*e demorati ontestation alive4 Tomake room for dissent and to foster t*e institutions in w*i* it an be

manifested is viral for a +luralist demora$ and one s*ould abandon t*ever$ idea t*at t*ere ould ever be a time in w*i* it would ease to beneessar$ beause t*e soiet$ is now Kwell6orderedK4 !n Ka"onistiKa++roa* aknowled"es t*e real nature of its frontiers and t*e forms ofelusion t*at t*e$ entail instead of tr$in" to dis"uise t*em under t*eveil of rationalit$ or moralit$4 Comin" to terms wit* t*e *e"emoni natureof soial relations and identities it an ontribute to subvertin" t*e ever6+resent tem+tation eistin" in demorati soieties to naturalize itsfrontiers and essentialize its identities@ For t,is reason it is mu* more ree+tivet*an t*e deliberative model to t*e multi+liit$ of voies t*at ontem+orar$+luralist soieties enom+ass and to t*e om+leit$ of t*eir +owerstruture@


38/74

Consensus 8ad

#en$in" t*e +arado between unit$ and di7erene +roduesonsensuses of im+erialism9instead we s*ould ne"otiate t*is

+arado deonstrutivel$Aou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@23

$,e second issue is anot,er question t,at concerns t,e relation -et4een private autonomy and political autonomy@#s 4e ,ave seen< -ot, aut,ors aim at reconciling t,e Wli-erties o t,e ancientsW 4it, t,e Wli-erties o t,e modernsWand t,ey argue t,at t,e t4o types o autonomy necessarily go toget,er@ o4ever< a-ermas considers t,at only ,isapproac, manages to esta-lis, t,e cooriginality o individual rig,ts and democratic participation@ e aUrms t,at"a4ls su-ordinates democratic sovereignty to li-eral rig,ts -ecause ,e envisages pu-lic autonomy as a means toaut,orize private autonomy@ ut as C,arles Larmore ,as pointed out< a-ermas< or ,is part< privileges t,edemocratic aspect< since ,e asserts t,at t,e importance o individual rig,ts lies in t,eir ma/ing democratic selgovernment possi-le@1 &o 4e ,ave to conclude t,at< in t,is case again< neit,er o t,em is a-le to deliver 4,at t,ey

announce@ B*at t*e$ want to den$ is t*e +aradoial nature of moderndemora$ and t*e fundamental tension between t*e lo"i of demora$and t*e lo"i of liberalism4$,ey are una-le to ac/no4ledge t,at


39/74

Consensus 8ad Fundamentalism

#emora$ is meanin"less wit*out dissent9absolutistonsensus s*ifts anta"onisms into ot*er more brutal s+*eres

of di7erene reatin" fundamentalism and +ubli a+at*$Aou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@11311Iut t,is is to miss a crucial point< not only a-out t,e primary reality o strie in social lie< -ut also a-out t,e

integrative role t,at conict plays in modern democracy@ #s ! ,ave argued t,roug, t,ese essays< t*es+ei=it$ of modern demora$ lies in t*e reo"nition and t*ele"itimation of on;it and t*e refusal to su++ress it t*rou"* t*eim+osition of an aut*oritarian order4 ! well6funtionin" demora$ allsfor a onfrontation between demorati +olitial +ositions and t*isrequires a real debate about +ossible alternatives4 Consensusis indeed necessary-ut it must be aom+anied b$ dissent@ $,ere is no contradiction in saying t,at< as some 4ouldpretend@ Consensus is needed on t,e institutions 4,ic, are constitutive o democracy@ ut t*ere will

alwa$s be disa"reement onernin" t*e wa$ soial


40/74

reli"ious fundamentalism are too often t*e onsequene of t*e voidreated in +olitial life b$ t*e absene of demorati forms ofidenti=ation informed b$ om+etin" +olitial values4 Clearly t,e pro-lem is notlimited to t,e Vnited &tates@ # loo/ at ot,er countries 4,ere< -ecause o dierent traditions< t,e seual card cannot

-e played in t,e same 4ay as in t,e #nglo#merican 4orld s,o4s t,at t*e rusade a"ainstorru+tion and s*abb$ deals an +la$ a similar role in re+lain" t*e

missin" +olitial line of demaration between adversaries4!n ot,er circumstancesyet< t*e +olitial frontier mi"*t be drawn around reli"ious identities oraround non6ne"otiable moral valuesas in t,e case o a-ortion< -ut in all ases w*att*is reveals is a demorati de=it reated b$ t*e blurrin" of t*e left/ri"*tdivide and t*e trivialization of t*e +olitial disourse4


41/74

Consensus 8ad U o+ulism

Em+t$in" t*e +olitial leads to violent +o+ulist outbursts liket*e Tea art$

Aou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@11K!not*er< even more 4orrying onsequene of t*e demorati de=it linked to t*eobsession wit* entrist +olitis is t*e inreasin" role +la$ed b$ +o+ulistri"*t6win" +arties4!ndeed< ! su-mit t,at t,e rise ot*is t$+e of +art$ s*ould beunderstood in t*e ontet of t*e Konsensus at t*e entreK form of +olitisw*i* allows +o+ulist +arties *allen"in" t*e dominant onsensus toa++ear as t*e onl$ anti6Establis*ment fores re+resentin" t*e will of t*e+eo+le4 T*anks to a lever +o+ulist r*etori t*e$ are able to artiulateman$ demands of t*e +o+ular setors sorned as retro"rade b$ t*emodernizin" elites and to +resent t*emselves as t*e onl$ "uarantors oft*e soverei"nt$ of t*e +eo+le4 ,u* a situation< ! -elieve< would not *ave been

+ossible *ad more real +olitial *oies been available wit*in t*etraditional demorati s+etrum4


42/74

T*ird Ba$ 8ad9nequalit$

T*ird6wa$ reformism naturalizes soial *ierar*ies anddeimates radial +olitial will

Aou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@1J1IOn t,e political level a similar p,enomenon is to -e ound in t,e case o t*e Kt*ird wa$Kdiscussed in C,apterI@ ! argue t,at it is a K+olitis wit*out adversar$K w*i* +retends t*at allinterests an be reoniled and t*at ever$bod$ 6 +rovided< o course< t*at t*e$identif$ wit* Kt*e +ro


43/74

T*ird Ba$ 8ad9ower

Pou an-t wis* awa$ inommensurabilit$9t*ird wa$ +olitisaedes to *ierar*ies of +ower makin" t*em invisible and

more ri"idAou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@110112B*at is reall$ t*e +roblem wit* t*e advoates of t*e Kradial entreK is < !-elieve< t*eir laim t*at a left/ri"*t divide< a ,eritage o Wsimple modernizationW< is notrelevant an$ more in times of Kre;eive modernizationK4 8$ assertin" t*ata radial +olitistodays*ould transend t*is divide and oneive demoratilife as a dialo"ue t*e$ im+l$ t*at we now live in a soiet$ w*i* is nolon"er strutured b$ soial division45o4adays+olitis o+erates su++osedl$ ona neutral terrain and solutions are available t*at ould satisf$ ever$bod$4@elations of +ower and t*eir onstitutive role in soiet$ are obliteratedand t*e on;its t*at t*e$ entail redued to a sim+le om+etition of

interests t*at an be *armonized t*rou"* dialo"ue4 T*is is t*e t$+ialliberal +ers+etive t*at envisa"es demora$ as a om+etition amon"elites makin" adversar$ fores invisible and reduin" +olitis to ane*an"e of ar"uments and t*e ne"otiation of om+romises4 ! su-mit t,at to+resent su* a view of +olitis as KradialK is reall$ disin"enuous< and t,atinstead of bein" onduive to more demora$ t,eradial entrismadvocated-y 5e4 La-our is in fat a renuniation of t*e basi tenets of radial +olitis4$,ecentral a4 o t,e attempt to modernize social democracy -y t,ird 4ay t,eorists is t,at it is based on t*eillusion t*at b$ not de=nin" an adversar$ one an side6ste+ fundamentalon;its of interests@ &ocial democrats never made t,at mista/e@ #s Ni/e "ustin points out< socialdemocracy< in -ot, its rig,t and let4ing variants< al4ays ,ad capitalism as one o its antagonists@ and its tas/ 4as

to conront ,olistically t,e systemic pro-lems o inequality and insta-ility generated -y capitalism@2 T*e t*ird

wa$ a++roa*< on t,e contrary is unable to "ras+ t*e s$stemi onnetionseistin" between "lobal market fores and t*e variet$ of +roblems 6 fromelusion to environmental risks 6 t*at it +retends to takle4 !ndeed< t,e mains,ortcoming o GiddensWs analysis is t,at ,e appears to -e una4are o t,e drastic measures t,at 4ould -e required

to put most o ,is proposals into practice4 t is all ver$ nie to announe t*at t*eres*ould be Kno ri"*ts wit*out res+onsibilitiesK or Kno aut*orit$ wit*outdemora$K but *ow is one "oin" to +ut su* +ro"rammes into +ratiewit*out +rofoundl$ *allen"in" t*e eistin" strutures of +ower andaut*orit$: Bit*out allin" for t*e sort of total overt*row of a+italismadvoated b$ some Aarists one an surel$ aknowled"e t*at some formof anti6a+italist stru""le annot be eliminated from a radial +olitisaimin" at t*e demoratization of soiet$ and t*at wit*out t*e

transformation of t*e +revalent *e"emoni on="uration little *an"e willbe +ossible4


44/74

To+ialit$ 8ad

@ational lin"uisti a"reement is im+ossible9


45/74

+*iloso+*ial senses@ !n ,is vie4< WOur agreements in t,ese .udgements constitute t*e lan"ua"eof our +olitis4!tisa languagearrived at and ontinuousl$ modi=ed t*rou"* noless t*an a *istor$ of disourse a *istor$ in w*i* we *ave t*ou"*t aboutas we beame able to t*ink in t*at lan"ua"e@\10

Com+etin" lin"uisti inter+retations is insuHient for

onstrutin" inlusive debates9+olitis must be o+ened u+ toreartiulation on be*alf of ot*er forms of life9demoratiet*os is a +rior question to t*e a++liation of a ruleAou7e 2kC,antal Noue< $,e 7emocratic *arado< ?erso% 5e4 6or/< 2000< p@KK

$,e crucial idea provided -y ittgenstein in t,is 'eld is 4,en ,e asserts t,at to *ave a"reements ino+inions t*ere must =rst be a"reement on t*e lan"ua"e used4#nd t,e act t,at,e stresses t,at t*ose a"reements in o+inions are a"reements in forms of life4#s,e says% &o you are saying t,at ,uman agreement decides 4,at is true and 4,at is alse@ t is w*at *umanbein"s sa$ t*at is true and false> and t*e$ a"ree in t*e lan"ua"e t*e$ use4T*at is not a"reement in o+inions but in forms of life412 it, respect to t,e question

o WproceduresW< 4,ic, is t,e one t,at ! 4ant to ,ig,lig,t ,ere< t*is +oints to t*e neessit$ for aonsiderable number of Ka"reements in


46/74

discourse t,eory o democracy cannot -e -ased only on t,e ormal pragmatic conditions o communication and t,atit must ta/e account o legal< moral< et,ical and pragmatic argumentation@

T*e ob but *ow far do t*e$ "o: !t t*e end of reasons omes+ersuasion41J ! ta/e t,is emp,asis on t,e limits o giving reasons to constitute an important starting point orela-orating an alternative to t,e current model o Wdeli-erative democracyW 4it, its rationalistic conception ocommunication and its misguided searc, or a consensus t,at 4ould -e ully inclusive@ !ndeed< ! see t,e WagonisticpluralismW t,at ! ,ave -een advocating1I as inspired -y a ittgensteinian mode o t,eorizing and as attempting todevelop 4,at ! ta/e to -e one o ,is undamental insig,ts% grasping 4,at it means to ollo4 a rule@ #t t,is point inmy argumentation< it is useul to -ring in t,e reading o ittgenstein proposed -y Mames $ully -ecause it c,imes4it, my approac,@ $ully is interested in s,o4ing ,o4 ittgensteinWs p,ilosop,y represents an alternative 4orldvie4to t,e one t,at inorms modern constitutionalism< so ,is concerns are not eactly t,e same as mine@ ut t,ere areseveral points o contact and many o ,is reections are directly relevant or my purpose@ O particular importanceis t,e 4ay ,e eamines ,o4 in t,e *,ilosop,ical lnvestigations< ittgenstein envisages t,e correct 4ay tounderstand general terms@ #ccording to $ully< 4e can 'nd t4o lines o argument@ $,e 'rst consists in s,o4ing t,at

Kunderstandin" a "eneral term is not a t*eoretial ativit$ of inter+retin"

and a++l$in" a "eneral t*eor$ or rule in +artiular asesK@1K ittgenstein indicates w*et*er in t*e diretion of its=n"er orAe@g@Bin t*e o++osite one:1 #s a consequence< notes $ully< a "eneral ruleannot Kaount for +reisel$ t*e +*enomenon we assoiate wit*understandin" t*e meanin" of a "eneral term? t*e abilit$ to use a "eneral


47/74

term as well as to question its ae+ted use in various irumstaneswit*out reursive doubtsK@1T*is s*ould lead us to abandon t*e idea t*att*e rule and its inter+retation Kdetermine meanin"K and to reo"nize t*atunderstandin" a "eneral term does not onsist in "ras+in" a t*eor$ butoinides wit* t*e abilit$ of usin" it in di7erent irumstanes4For ittgenstein@32 # 'rst distinction isneeded in order to clariy t,e ne4 perspective t,at ! am putting or4ard< t,e distinction -et4een =politics> and =t,e

political>@ 8$ t*e +olitialD refer to t*e dimension of anta"onism t*at isin*erent in *uman relations anta"onism t*at an take man$ forms and

emer"e in di7erent t$+e of soial relations4 olitisD on t*e ot*er *andindiates t*e ensemble of +raties disourses and institutions w*i*seek to establis* a ertain order and or"anize *uman oeistene inonditions t*at are alwa$s +otentiall$ on;itual beause t*e$ area7eted b$ t*e dimension of t*e +olitialD4! consider t,atit is onl$ w*en weaknowled"e t*e dimension of t*e +olitialD and understand t*at+olitisD onsists in domestiatin" *ostilit$ and in tr$in" to defuse t*e+otential anta"onism t*at eists in *uman relations t*at we an +ose4,at !ta/e to -e t*e entral question for demorati +olitis4 T*is question< pace t,erationalists< is not *ow to arrive at a onsensus wit*out elusion sine t*iswould im+l$ t*e eradiation of t*e +olitial4 olitis aims at t*e reation ofunit$ in a ontet of on;it and diversit$> it is alwa$s onerned wit* t*e

reation of an usD b$ t*e determination of a t*emD4 T*e novelt$ ofdemorati +olitis is not t*e overomin" of t*is us/t*em o++osition w*i* is an im+ossibilit$ but t*e di7erent wa$ in w*i* it is establis*ed4T*e ruial issue is to establis* t*is us/t*em disrimination in a wa$ t*at isom+atible wit* +luralist demora$4 Envisa"ed from t*e +oint of view ofa"onisti +luralismD t*e aim of demorati +olitis is to onstrut t*et*emD in su* a wa$ t*at it is no lon"er +ereived as an enem$ to bedestro$ed but an adversar$Di@e@somebod$ w*ose ideas we ombat butw*ose ri"*t to defend t*ose ideas we do not +ut into question4$,is is t,e realmeaning o li-eral democratic tolerance< 4,ic, does not entail condoning ideas t,at 4e oppose or -eing indierent

to standpoints t,at 4e disagree 4it,< -ut treating t,ose 4,o deend t,em as legitimate opponents@ T*isate"or$ of t*e adversar$D does not eliminate anta"onism< t,oug,< andits*ould be distin"uis*ed from t*e liberal notion of t*e om+etitor4it, 4,ic, it issometimes identi'ed@ !n adversar$ is an enem$ but a le"itimate enem$ one wit*w*om we *ave some ommon "round beause we *ave a s*ared ad*esionto t*e et*io6+olitial +rini+les of liberal demora$% li-erty and equality@ ut wedisa"ree on t*e meanin" and im+lementation of t*ose +rini+les and su*a disa"reement is not one t*at ould be resolved t*rou"* deliberation andrational disussion4 !ndeed< given t,e ineradica-le pluralism o value< t,ere is not rational resolution ot,e conict< ,ence its antagonistic dimension@33 $,is does not mean o course t,at adversaries can never cease todisagree -ut t,at does not prove t,at antagonism ,as -een eradicated@ $o accept t,e vie4 o t,e adversary is toundergo a radical c,ange in political identity@ !t is more a sort o conversion t,an a process o rational persuasion Ain


50/74

t,e same 4ay as $,omas (u,n ,as argued t,at ad,erence to a ne4 scienti'c paradigm is a conversionB@

Com+romises are< o course< also +ossible> t*e$ are +art and +arel of +olitis>but t*e$ s*ould be seen as tem+orar$ res+ites in an on"oin"onfrontation@ !ntroducing t,e category o t,e =adversary> requires compleiying t,e notion o antagonismand distinguis,ing it rom agonism@ #ntagonism is struggle -et4een enemies< 4,ile agonism is struggle -et4eenadversaries@ e can t,ereore reormulate our pro-lem -y saying t,at envisaged rom t,e perspective o =agonistic

pluralism>t*e aim of demorati +olitis is to transform anta"onism intoa"onism@ $,is requires providing c,annels t,roug, 4,ic, collective passions 4ill -e given 4ays to epresst,emselves over issues< 4,ic,< 4,ile allo4ing enoug, possi-ility or identi'cation< 4ill not construct t,e opponentas an enemy -ut as an adversary@ #n important dierence 4it, t,e model o =deli-erative democracy>< is t,at or=agonistic pluralism>< t,e prime tas/ o democratic politics is not to eliminate passions rom t,e sp,ere o t,epu-lic< in order to render a rational consensus possi-le< -ut to mo-ilize t,ose passions to4ards democratic designs@


51/74

!T? Coalitions/Jris*na

olitial viabilit$ is a seondar$ issue be*ind t*e +ro


52/74

!T? 8a*ktin/#ialo"ial E*an"e

#ialo"ial e*an"e i"nores t*e anta"onisti nature of soialrelations w*i* makes +ro"ressive e*an"e +ossible9t*is

results in a uto+ian +ro


53/74

of t*eir anta"onism4 @ivalr$ and violene far from bein" t*e eterior ofe*an"e are t*erefore its ever6+resent +ossibilit$4 @ei+roit$ and*ostilit$ annot be dissoiated and we *ave to realize t*at t*e soial orderwill alwa$s be t*reatened b$ violene4 8$ refusin" to aknowled"e t*eanta"onisti dimension of imitation t*e *iloso+*es failed to "ras+ t*eom+le nature of *uman rei+roit$4 T*e$ denied t*e ne"ative side of

e*an"e its dissoiatin" im+ulse4 T*is denial was t*e ver$ ondition fort*e =tion of a soial ontrat from w*i* violene and *ostilit$ would*ave been eliminated and w*ere rei+roit$ ould take t*e form of atrans+arent ommuniation amon" +artii+ants4 !lt*ou"*in t,eir 4ritingsman$o t,em ould not om+letel$ elude t*e ne"ative +ossibilities of imitationt*e$ were unable to formulate one+tuall$ its ambivalent *arater4 t ist*e ver$ nature of t*eir *umanisti +ro


54/74

%iolene &'


55/74

!T? inker9General

inker never s+ei=es w*at violene is(aws -12en La4s< =#gainst *in/erWs ?iolence C$,eory@net< 3)21)2012 we need to be subtle and sensitive to t*ese transitions forwe an be violent wit*out ausin" diret +*$sial +ain4 *in/er "esponds *in/erpu-lis,ed a list o responses to criticism targeted at ,is 4or/H t4o interesting and relevant questions)ans4ers aresetout -elo4% !s economic inequality a orm o violenceS 5oH t,e act t,at ill Gates ,as a -igger ,ouse t,an ! domay -e deplora-le< -ut to lump it toget,er 4it, rape and genocide is to conuse moralization 4it, understanding@7itto or underpaying 4or/ers< undermining cultural traditions< polluting t,e ecosystem< and ot,er practices t,atmoralists 4ant to stigmatize -y metap,orically etending t,e term violence to t,em@ !tWs not t,at t,ese arenWt -ad

t,ings< -ut you canWt 4rite a co,erent -oo/ on t,e topic o \-ad t,ings@\ QR ,at a-out metap,orical violence< li/ever-al aggressionS 5o< p,ysical violence is a -ig enoug, topic or one -oo/ Aas t,e lengt, o etter #ngels ma/esclearB@ Must as a -oo/ on cancer neednWt ,ave a c,apter on metap,orical cancer< a co,erent -oo/ on violence canWtlump toget,er genocide 4it, catty remar/s as i t,ey 4ere a single p,enomenon@ *in/er eecutes t,e sameprocesses in ,is response as ,is does in ,is -oo/< namely< reasserting a reductive vision o 4,at it means to -e

violent an eercise in circularity@ !ncidentally< a book ould not be written on non6+*$sialforms of aner beause aner diretl$ a7ets t*e bod$ 66 t*e ri+oste ist*at violene does not *ave to and it indeed o+erates quite indiretl$ int*is res+et@ ut t*ere is a +itfall in en"a"in" wit* inkerKs dialo"ue as ourand an$ ot*er res+onse will ultimatel$ fall6s*ort beause *e *as set t*e"uidelines and *as reated t*e validatin" onditions4 Be need to re


59/74

omits it arries a burden of are but b$ starin" too diretl$ it fails to seet*e vastness and enormit$ of t*e +roblem4


60/74

Generi (inks


61/74

C*ina (ink 15C

@ealist de+itions of a risin" C*inese t*reat freeze nationalidentit$ and "eo+olitial s+ae to enoura"e violene w*ile

disru+tin" tra A&par/e1%KB@ $,en again< t,is does not mean t,at states are necessarily =retreating> visvis pressures rom t,e glo-alsystem o capitalism Apace&trange 1KH c &assen 200B@ ,ile arvey and &cott A1%222< 22JB contend t,atdevelopments in political economy are undamentally reduci-le to a =stu--orn logic o capitalism> s,aped -y t,e=real universal qualities o capitalism>< t,e inuential role states underta/e to contour t,e orm o spaces o)orcapitalist accumulation t,roug, geoeconomic integration indicates t,e necessary im-rication o state po4er in t,is

=logic>@ Ca+italism< in ot,er 4ords< is not a *ermetiall$ sealed s$stem> its"eo"ra+*ial e+ressions are si"ni=antl$ onstituted b$ fusions of state6driven "eo+olitis and varie"ated de"rees of a+italist realismAc renner 200JH*ec/ and $,eodore 200B@ T*e +iture in East !sia iscertainlyblurred w*en a+italist


62/74

s$stemi +ressures overla+ state6entri "eo+olitial onerns@ #saorementioned< w*ile it a++ears t*at t*e &, "overnment inreasin"l$ needs toollaborate wit* its ounter+art in 8ei A"OCH ,ereater $ai4anB government t*at +ereive C*ina as an eistentialt*reatAt,is ,istorical circumstance is ela-orated in t,e t,ird sectionB@ $,e V&"OC ent4inement is i llustrated inone o t,e =&i #ssurances>1 t,e "eagan administration gave to t,e "OC government in Muly 12< 4,ic, statest,at t,e V& =4ould not consult 4it, C,ina in advance -eore ma/ing decisions a-out V@&@ arms sales to $ai4an>@

$,is stance represents a provocation to t,e C,inese government< as it considers arms sales rom oreign parties to$ai4an an intervention in its domestic aairs@ $,e dierence in vie4 -et4een C,ina and t,e V& over $ai4an t,usallo4s us to develop Co4en and &mit,Ws A200%3JB insig,t t,at% ,ere geopolitics can -e understood as a means oacquiring territory to4ards a goal o accumulating 4ealt,< geoeconomics reverses t,e procedure< aiming directly att,e accumulation o 4ealt, t,roug, mar/et control@ $,e acquisition or control o territory is not at all irrelevant -utis a tactical option rat,er t,an a strategic necessity@ $o -e sure< geopolitical calculation is al4ays availa-le 4,en

deemed necessary@ ,at< t,en< 'gures in t,e V& geopolitical calculations o C,ina todayS B*$ are t*esealulations deemed neessar$D in s+ite of t*e s$stemi im+eratives ofa+italism t*at s*a+e C*ina&, and C*ina re"ionD "eo6eonomiinte"ration:,ile ! do not claim to oer de'nitive ans4ers to t,ese questions< ! -elieve t,at t*e$ *aveto be ritiall$ assessed in order to obtain a more inisive understandin"of East !sian "eo+olitis and C*inaKs *an"in" +osition in t*e "lobal

+olitial eonom$ 4$,is 4ill no4 -e addressed in greater detail@


63/74

C*ina (ink

C*ina t*reat mon"erin" is dan"erous ounterfatual and*$+oritial9*ikes tensions and overw*elms +otential for

oo+eration(im -12(ean Fan Lim< =,at 6ou &ee !s A5otB ,at 6ou GetS $,e $ai4an [uestion it isoften e7eted on emotional rat*er t*an evidential "rounds4 Bit*in t*e &,a+an bas*in"D emer"ed durin" t*e 1W0s vis6X6vis domesti fears of t*ewanin" eonomi om+etitiveness of t*e &, and its seemin" inabilit$ toonfront a ;eibleD +ost6Fordist future@ Nore recently< t*e &, deision in 2003to attak raq on t*e +remise t*at it +ossessed wea+ons of massdestrution +roved ultimatel$ "roundless? no su* wea+ons were found

w*ile raq sli++ed into anar*$ and ar"uabl$ beame a *otbed of terroristativities onl$ sineAsee Fallo4s 200KH Gregory 200JH $uat,ail 200JB@ Nandel A200%J0B t,us rig,tlycautions ,o4 =QtR,e +olitial mani+ulation of enem$ ima"es b$ bot* "overnmentoHials and members of t*e mass +ubli louds over t*e stark realitiessurroundin" an$ international enem$ +rediament@ $oget,er< t*ese +atternsreate bot* ambi"uit$ and onfusion in dealin" wit* t*e enem$om+onent of "lobal t*reatD4!n t,e contet o t,is paper and also

inserted a secret memo in t,e 5ational &ecurity Files noting t,at $ai4anWs deensive capa-ilities must -e maintainedat a level relative to C,inaWs@ "eaganWs legacy o =little trust> seems to ,ave permeated su-sequent policyconsiderations@ !n 1< t,e *entagon presented several scenarios in its =#sia 202I> study t,at portrayed C,ina ast,e most signi'cant t,reat to #merican interests in t,e #sia*aci'c -y 202I@ # decade on< t,e V& 7eense &ecretary"o-ert Gates oers t,is analysis o C,ina% !n act< 4,en considering t,e militarymodernization programs ocountries li/e C,ina< 4e s,ould -e concerned less 4it, t,eir potential a-ility to c,allenge t,e V& symmetrically:'g,ter to 'g,ter or s,ip to s,ip:and more 4it, t,eir a-ility to disrupt our reedom o movement and narro4 ourstrategic options T !nvestments in cy-er and antisatellite 4arare< antiair and antis,ip 4eaponry< and -allisticmissiles could t,reaten #mericaWs primary 4ay to pro.ect po4er and ,elp allies in t,e *aci'c:in particular our

or4ard air -ases and carrier stri/e groups AV& 7epartment o 7eense 1K &eptem-er 200B@ Gates-"eo"ra+*ial ima"ination of C*ina in t,is speec, is +rediated on two inter6related assum+tions t*at eem+lif$ a +olitial realist wa$ of seein"D4First designed to suppress not only t,e &oviet t,reat< -ut also% toconstrain anticommunist allies in t,e region t,at mig,t engage in aggressive -e,avior against adversaries t,atcould entrap t,e Vnited &tates in an un4anted larger 4ar@ Vnderscoring t,e V@&@ desire to avoid suc, an outcome4as a -elie in t,e domino t,eory:t,at t,e all o one small country in #sia could trigger a c,ain o countries allingto communism@ $,is strategy argua-ly applies in t,e present day< despite t,e demise o t,e &oviet Vnion andC,inaWs peaceul integration into t,e glo-al political economy@ For instance< C,ristensen A1%I0B sees V& militarypresence in East #sia as resolving a =security dilemma> triggered -y a tendency or one country< aectedprooundly -y =,istorically -ased mistrust>< to overreact to anot,er countryWs acquisition o ostensi-ly deensive

military equipment@ ,at C,ristensen A1B does not emp,asize< ,o4ever< is t,at t,e V& is also a ma.or eportero suc, equipment< 4,ic, ma/es t,e =po4erplay> logic a dou-let,in/ ratiocination@ $,is ec,oes Co4en and &mit,WsA200%J2B aorementioned caveat t,at =geopolitical calculation is al4ays availa-le 4,en deemed necessary>@ Event,oug, t,e Cold ar is oUcially over< Mo,nsonWs analysis A200I< in #sia $imes OnlineB strongly suggests t,at t,e=po4erplay> approac, remains in ull s4ing% &ince t,e end o t,e Cold ar in 11< t,e Vnited &tates ,asrepeatedly pressured Mapan to revise #rticle o its constitution Arenouncing t,e use o orce ecept as a matter oseldeenseB and -ecome 4,at V& oUcials call a =normal nation>T #mericaWs intention is to turn Mapan into 4,atas,ington neoconservatives li/e to call t,e =ritain o t,e Far East>:and t,en use it as a proy in c,ec/mating5ort, (orea and -alancing C,ina@ C,aWs A2010B=po4erplay> t,esis t,us illustrates ,o4 colla-orating 4it, t,e V&t,roug, -ilateral alliances already implies su-.ugation to -roader V& interests< alt,oug, t,e V& need notnecessarily vie4 su-.ugation as nont,reatening@ #symmetrical -ilateral alliances A-et4een a large po4er and asmaller =ally>B< as C,a A2010%1KJB puts it< are actually =po4er instruments o control> t,roug, 4,ic, =t,e largerpatron en.oys a great deal o leverage>@ &uc, alliances are preerred 4,en larger po4ers do not 4ant to lose po4ervisvis smaller =allies>< 4,ic, ,ig,lig,t t,e implicit distrust prior to alliance ormation@ #ter all< as artelson

A1I%1KJB 4rites< =QsIeurit$ is not +rimaril$ an ob strategy in t,e net section -y ocusing on ,o4 t,e geopoliticalcalculations o t,e V&:eempli'ed t,roug, t,e unilaterally crated $"# and sustained arms sales to $ai4an:couldindirectly desta-ilize t,e =C,ina region> and possi-ly even &inoV& geoeconomic ormations@


66/74

C*ina Framework

#isourse about C*ina s*a+es +ere+tions of future ationsand onstrains +oli$ res+onses

o*nston -13#lastair !ain Mo,nston< $,e Governor Mames #l-ert 5oe and Linda5oe Laine *roessor o C,ina in orld #airs at arvard< =o4 5e4 and #ssertive !sC,ina;s 5e4 #ssertivenessS> !nternational &ecurity< ?ol@ 3< 5o@ J A&pring 2013B< pp@J,y s,ould policyma/ers and sc,olars 4orry a-out a pro-lematic c,aracterization o C,inese oreign policyS*utting aside t,e intellectual importance o accurately measuring t,e dependent varia-le in t,e study o a ma.or

po4er;s oreign policy< t,ere are t4o good reasons@ First< i it persists< t*e new assertiveness memeould ontribute to an emer"in" seurit$ dilemma in t*e &4,46C*inarelations*i+4 TalkD is onsequential for bot* interstate and intrastate+olitis durin" intensif$in" seurit$ dilemmas and strate"i rivalries4 Mowadversaries are desribed reverberates in t*e domesti +olitis of bot*sides43 T*e e7et isotent*e narrowin" of +ubli disourse@ #s pu-lic discoursenarro4s and as onventional wisdoms beome *abituated it beomes more

diHult for ot*er voies to *allen"e +oli$ ort*odoies@J &imilar to t,e=containment> meme in C,ina


67/74

Global Barmin" (ink

Climate siene +resu++oses a meta+*$sial divide between*umanit$ and nature t*at distorts its e+istemi validit$ and

+olitial eHa$Mead and Gibson -12Lesley ead< Vniversity o ollongong< #ustralia< andC,ris Gi-son< Vniversity o ollongong< #ustralia< =ecoming dierently modern%Geograp,ic contri-utions to a generative climate politics *rogress in umanGeograp,y< 7ecem-er 2012 vol@ 3K no@ K K1JT*ere are a number of interonneted im+liations *ere for *ow we mi"*tt*ink di7erentl$ about limate *an"e@ First< em+*asis on t*e moment ofollision between two se+arate entitiesAt,e Dimpact; o D,umans; on Dclimate;B *asfavoured *istorial e+lanations t*at de+end on orrelation in time ands+ae to t*e detriment of t*e sear* for me*anisms of onnetion rat*ert*an sim+le orrelationAead< 200B@ $,is is particularly important to ,o4 4e t,in/ a-out t,e uture

kritik goodies

Documents