Symbolic representation and the paradox of responsive performativity

• Autorzy: Jan Bíba
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper deals with the paradox of the incommensurability of the demands of responsiveness and performativity in representative democracy. To solve this puzzle, the paper first analyzes Pitkin’s concept of symbolic representation. Pitkin sees symbolic representation as a caricature of democracy because of its performativity, non-rationality and vagueness. The paper argues that these are indeed the key characteristics of every single representative act and that their presence does not make representation undemocratic. Using the work of Claude Lefort, the second part of the paper attempts to set out the conditions that would enable us to differentiate between the performativity of representation appropriate in a democratic society and the sheer falsification of the popular will. The paper claims that such a distinction would demand that we extend our understanding of representation to go beyond the relation between the representative and the represented and focus instead on the contestability of governmental claims to represent

Słowa kluczowe

EN

representative turn; symbolic representation; Hanna Pitkin; performativity; responsiveness; Claude Lefort

• Wydawca: Sciendo
• Czasopismo: Human Affairs
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 25
• Numer: 2
• Strony: 153-163

Daty

wydano

2015-04-01

online

2015-04-07

Twórcy

autor

Jan Bíba

• Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, U Kříže 8, 158 00 Prague, Czech Republic,

Bibliografia

• Ankersmit, F. (2002). Political representation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
• Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 100-114.[WoS][Crossref]
• Disch, L. (2012). The impurity of representation and the vitality of democracy. Cultural Studies, 26(2-3), 207-222.[Crossref][WoS]
• Garsten, B. (2009). Representative government and popular sovereignty. In I. Shapiro (Ed.), Political representation (pp. 90-110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014).Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581.
• Laclau, E. (1996). Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
• Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.
• Lefort, C. (1988). Democracy and political theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97, 515-528.
• Näsström, S. (2006). Representative democracy as tautology: Ankersmit and Lefort on representation. European Journal of Political Theory, 59(3), 321-342.[Crossref]
• Näsström, S. (2011). Where is the representative turn going? European Journal of Political Theory, 10(4), 501-510.[Crossref]
• Pitkin, H. (1972). The concept of representation. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
• Plotke, D. (1997). Representation is democracy. Constellations, 4(1), 19-34.
• Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disfigured: Opinion, truth, and the people. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/humaff-2015-0014