not known until the end, which led the leftist Paktofonika (especially the guys are totally indyferentni politically, which I checked with my own ears in Kalisz meeting with the characters and the author of the book), but the next (chronologically earlier) "Guide to Political Criticism," by Chantal Mouffe Fri "The political" in the translation Joanna Erbel leads quite clear ideas, transmits a clear message, though, and his left-wing is in some parts of the text is not quite obvious. But from the beginning.
Mouffe is one of the expressions of apology leftist political conflict, which - in the minds of its adherents - has the power of reanimation of democracy, wypłukiwanej effectively by dominant today (also in Poland in the implementation of the OP) model of doing politics. It is characterized by blurring of ideological differences - a classic blurring the division between left and right - and the establishment in that place of power technokratyczno-governance expert. Politics always has its "biased" dimension - people will not be interested in politics, if there is no choice between parties offering a real alternative. This is what is missing in contemporary praise for the democratic "impartiality". (p. 44)
symptom (and perhaps also the condition of possibility) and utechnokratycznienia odideologicznienia power is the precipitating element fundującego emotionality of her discourse. Meanwhile well-functioning democracy requires a clash of legitimate, democratic political positions. This is what has to rely confrontation between the left and right. It should be a source of collective forms of identification are able to mobilize political passions. (p. 45) There is no democracy without conflict, and the latter without the involvement of emotions for intersubjective exchange of ideas fundujących social attitudes. And that's why we Serenity prevailing "politics of love" is an effective tool of cynical disposition gained power, but at the same time, in a broader context, destabilizing the democratic project, fundujący power. Why destabilizes? Because blurring ideological differences in the entities internalized it (authority) as. A blurring of these differences is taking politics out of emotion. And choosing it from the emotional - takes its social attractiveness. And receiving the appeal - limited, rather than expanding, the strength of the mandate to exercise power on behalf of the sovereign.
As between the parties there is no fundamental difference, will try to sell their products invented by marketing and advertising agencies. The result will be the growing disenchantment with politics and the dramatic fall in participation in elections. How long will it be before people completely lose faith in the democratic process? (P. 79)disturbed and disturbing the prospect of Mouffe calls the conflict, polarized positions, the return of ideology and the appeal of technology from the office of the First Practice wielding Designer.
idea of \u200b\u200bhow this conflict effectively yet safely return to the bosom of the policy is a key theme of the orange book. Safely - ie without getting naked violence (for which insisted strongly inspiring Mouffe and its Polish publisher of Carl Schmitt).
This idea is relatively simple and clear (thanks to the orange book is the booklet is rather bulky tomiszczem):
If we accept the irreducible stability of the antagonistic dimension of the conflict on the one hand, with the possibility of "tame" on the other hand, we must introduce tzreci type of relationship, which I propose to call "agonism". While antagonism is a type of relationship we / they, characterized in that the sides are enemies who do not share their points of reference, agonism is a relationship we / they, in turn, part of which, being aware of the impossibility of the existence of a rational solution to the conflict that divides them, they also legitimacy of their opponents. They're for themselves "enemies" and not enemies. This also means that despite the conflict parties perceive themselves as belonging to the same political association, as sharing the same symbolic universe. (P. 35)Antagonistic distinguish us / them creates enemies (and hostility), agniczne distinguish us / them and creates enemies. The opponent is someone who is impossible to agree on the ideas for the design of a common world (because the ideological differences that we are different, they have no rational basis, involving emotions reinforce an irrational policy of the leg), but who can (and therefore need to) get along as to the conditions in which leads to dispute about the shape of the world. And if you can get along with him, it means that it recognizes its subjectivity. Recognition of the distinction as the enemy opponent and the opponent (I have a feeling that Mouffe, Schmitt was inspiring about a completely different idea, but let this one). Do you have something important to say in this matter? can say that democracy is the task of transforming the antagonistic relationship agoniczne. (p. 36)
Mouffe then deals with academics who are not aware of the democratic core antagonistic regulation order, or seeing them in working towards its destruction, thus unwittingly working for the destruction of democracy itself. It gets mostly Giddensowi a "third way" and Beck as "subpolitykę, the Hardt / Negriemu for" Empire "and the multitude .
goes even further with morality as a tool of politics. Specifically: to replace the ideology of the registry records of morality in the practice of political debate. This, according to Mouffe, along with strategies to blur the ideological differences and replacing them with expert discourse, the most serious threat to democracy. What is it? In short, it's about all measure of "men of honor" and "little people", "civilization of life" and "axis of evil", a stigmatizing moral opponents (and signed by their political projects), significantly contributing to push them beyond the pale of public discourse.
When politics is played in the register of morality, antagonism can not take the form agonicznej. Just as the opponents are not defined on the basis of political, but moral, can not be seen as "enemies", but only as "enemies." "Bad" they are not suitable for agonicznej debate and must be exterminated. (P. 92)Such recognition in Poland is quite recent date, has taken place during the so-called glory. Fourth Republic, and his voice came from the various perspectives of interpretation, which rub up nicely today, breaking the ideological hegemony of neo-liberal economic and cultural superstructure.
last part of the text relates to translate the ideas of Mouffe agonism in global politics. The author recognizes postpolityczny cosmopolitan nature of the perspective and subjected her to criticism:
Implementation of cosmopolitan right, no matter in what form it occurs, will end up applying to the whole world one, the liberal-democratic model. In essence, this means subjecting more people under the control of the West, supporting the statement that this model is best suited for the implementation of human rights and universal values. (...) And this will be the emergence of strong resistance and dangerous antagonisms. (P. 121)Not much is known from reading, from the author's knowledge about the cosmopolitan city of determinism, a view in one direction in the shackles of "one, the liberal-democratic model." Nor do we know too much, what's wrong with the universality of the processes of emancipation, aimed to "the implementation of human rights and universal values." Apparently, in the words of Mouffe once again give voice to some form of ethnocentrism and cultural diversity, favoring the happy due to us (still only) regionally basic rights. Maybe my questions are not covered in the views of Mouffe, this is your problem that can not be regarded as unfounded by the reading of "politics," too many easily expressed opinions critical of the courts and the universalist cosmopolitanism strategy, too superficial treatment by the author lansowanego alternative model. (...) It is essential dispense with the illusion of a united world and work toward the establishment of a multipolar world order . (P. 134). But exactly what is going on? Does the "illusion of a united world" includes, according to Mouffe, globally universal education, the emancipation of those different types of chauvinism? Secularism is part of the illusion? And animal rights? Do you enjoy can (if ever be fought), only the European cows and pigs? Is a "multipolar world order" is the idea of \u200b\u200b"respect for cultural differences," even if certain aspects of those cultures - in the name of universal values - In any respect does not deserve? This is a paragraph "imaginary God" , who fits me like nothing else here:
constantly encounter (...) [with] a tendency to a fascination with the difference of ethnic beliefs and customs, and this includes the justification committed crimes on their behalf . The attitude of many otherwise enlightened liberals and good happens at that point truly schizophrenic. On one hand, we can not accept the suffering and violence, on the other, postmodern and relativistic beliefs dictate respect for other cultures no less than his own. Treatment kliteroktomii is, there is no doubt horribly painful and makes a woman ceases to feel sexual pleasure (in fact mainly in the matter). I think with half of the enlightened, decent people with liberal views would prohibit these practices. The second half however, with "respect" for other cultures believe that we should not interfere, when "they" want to mutilate "their" girls. But the problem is that we forget that these "their" girls are actually "own" the girls, whose own desires, we should not ignore. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Switch. Szwajcer PJ, ed. CiS, Warsaw 2007, p. 439)That is, it is! Mouffe does not buy the reason for the defense of liberal democracy, human rights, universal values \u200b\u200bthat stand out, spokesmen for the transmission of hen, in the wide world. The point is that it is not because liberal democracy or human rights are cool, because they are ours, but because they constitute a set of tools in the heap to rectify the theoretical foundations of social life for the various abominations of this world, the type of physical violence, discrimination, chauvinism, rape , poverty, slavery. Every vote would undermine the meaningfulness of globalization and universalization of Western liberal ideological gains, even the most subtle (and Mouffe voice and it is unlikely such, it is difficult for subtlety when its concept is as the proverbial łebkach), pregnancy toward a relativistic idea of \u200b\u200brównofajność all, without exception, the concept of social life. I do not know whether it is specifically leftist. If so, I have at this point, the lack of an obvious left-wing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment