User:DHTStudentUVA/sandbox

Plan posted on the talk page
- First of all, the most recent source is from 2005. Since this dates back to already 14 years ago the information stated at the sub-heading ¨re-interpretations¨ is a bit outdated. New (and relevant) intepretations have emerged and are thus important to include in the sub-heading. After all, without these new interpretations that emerged along with modern phenomena the page does not give an complete overview of the concept.

- Second, the sub-heading ¨challenges¨ is based on only one source and is thus not fully inclusive and one-sided. This sub-heading should be amended by adding new and more criticisms on the theory.

- Third, the sub-heading ¨theorists¨ refers only to the names of the theorist, but does not give any explanation why these theorists are associated with the theory of radical democracy. Also, more important theorists are associated with radical democracy, like Habermas and Foucault for example.

- Lastly, the existence of a distinction between post-marxist theory and radical democracy is not made clear in this article. The sentence ¨In other contexts, radical democracy is a term used to refer to the post-Marxist perspectives of Italian radicalism—especially Paolo Virno.¨ is vague and should therefore be amended and elaborated.

(DHTStudentUVA (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

= Radical democracy = Radical democracy can be defined as "a type of democracy that signals an ongoing concern with the radical extension of equality and liberty"[1]. Radical democracy in concerned with a radical extension of equality and freedom. Another feature is the idea that democracy is an un-finished, inclusive, continuous and reflexive process[1].

Theories
Within radical democracy there are three distinct strands, as articulated by Lincoln Dahlberg[1]. These strands can be labeled as deliberative, agonistic and autonomist.

The first and most noted strand of radical democracy is the agonistic perspective, which is associated with the work of Laclau and Mouffe. Radical democracy was articulated by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe in their book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, written in 1985. They argue that social movements which attempt to create social and political change need a strategy which challenges neoliberal and neoconservative concepts of democracy[2]. This strategy is to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference[2].

According to Laclau and Mouffe "Radical democracy" means "the root of democracy".[2] Laclau and Mouffe claim that liberal democracy and deliberative democracy, in their attempts to build consensus,oppress differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews.[2] In the world, in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus. Radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but is dependent on it.[2] Laclau and Mouffe argue based on the assumption that there are oppressive power relations that exist in society and that those oppressive relations should be made visible, re-negotiated and altered.[1] By building democracy around difference and dissent, oppressive power relations existing in societies are able to come to the forefront so that they can be challenged.[2]

The second strand, deliberative, is mostly associated with the work of Jürgen Habermas. This strand of radical democracy is opposed to the agonistic perspective of Laclau and Mouffe. Habermas argues that political problems surrounding the organization of life can be resolved by deliberation[3]. That is, people coming together and deliberating on the best possible solution. This type of radical democracy is in contrast with the agonistic perspective based on consenus and communicative means: there is a reflexive critical process of coming to the best solution[3]. Equality and freedom are at the root of Habermas´ deliberative theory. The deliberation is established through institutions that can ensure free and equal participation of all[3]. Habermas is aware of the fact that different cultures, world-views and and ethics can lead to difficulties in the deliberative process. Despite this fact he argues that the communicative reason can create a bridge between opposing views and interests[3].

The third strand of radical democracy is the autonomist strand, which is associated with the more left-communist and critical post-Marxists ideas. The difference between this type of radical democracy and the two noted above is the focus on ¨the community¨[1]. The community is seen as the pure constituted power instead of the deliberative rational individuals or the agonistic groups as in the first two strands. The community is resembles a ¨plural multitude¨ (of people) instead of the working class in traditional Marxist theory[1]. This plural multitude is the pure constituted power and reclaims this power by searching and creating mutual understandings within the community[1]. This strand of radical democracy challenges the traditional thinking about equality and freedom in liberal democracies by stating that individual equality can be found in the singularities within the multitude, equality overall is created by an all-inclusive multitude and freedom is created by restoring the multitude in it´s pure constituted power[1]. This strand of radical democracy is often a term used to refer to the post-Marxist perspectives of Italian radicalism - for example Paolo Virno.

Agonistic perspective

 * William E. Connolly - Connoly is associated with his promotion of an agonistic democracy. An agonistic democracy is focused on contestation rather than on rational consensus[4]. The discourse is not violence-based, but engages different aspects of political conflict. According to Connoly an agonistic democracy is based on a term he calls ¨agonistic respect¨, which allows people to honor different sources and conflicting opinions[4].
 * Ernesto Laclau - Associated with the agonistic strand of radical democracy as articulated in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.
 * Chantal Mouffe - Associated with the agonistic strand of radical democracy as articulated in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.
 * Roberto Mangabeira Unger - Roberto Mangabeira Unger argues that society does not emerge from consensus, compromising and looking for the best option, but from struggle and political contestation[5]. Unger is a proponent of the vision of an empowered democracy, which would involve radical changes at politics in the centre. These changes would involve more social institutions in which everyone can interact, discuss and effectively empower themselves to drastically change economic, political and social circumstances[5].
 * Sheldon S. Wolin - Wolin´s political thought clearly allignes with the ideal of an participatory democracy[6]. Wolin was the first in articulating the idea of a ¨fugitive democracy¨ in which democracy is a political experience and the ordinary people are the primary political actors. Wolin challenged consensus and can therefore be position within the agonistic perspective of radical democracy[6].

Deliberative perspective

 * Jürgen Habermas - As noted above, a proponent of a deliberative democracy and therefore positioned within the deliberative perspective.
 * John Rawls - Together with Habermas one of the most influential proponents of deliberative democracy. For Rawls, there is a need for certain conditions in democracy that can ensure the equal participation of all citizens[7]. Rawls advocated for the use of reason and self-interest to justify a fair political system. He also creates the term ¨overlapping consensus¨ which entails that although different multicultural groups in society have contrasting norms and values, there are always overlapping agreement on certain important social, economical and poltical topics[7].

Autonomist perspective

 * Cornel West - West describes himself as a radical democrat and a non-Marxist socialist, which positions him in the critical post-Marxist strand of radical democracy[8].
 * Raya Dunayevskaya - Associated with the critical post-Marxist strand of radical democracy

Criticism
Laclau and Mouffe have argued for radical democracy, where different opinions and worldviews are not opressed by the search for consensus in liberal and deliberative democracy. However, many theorists have criticism on the arguments being made by Laclau and Mouffe. Brockelman for example argues that the theory of radical democracy is an utopian idea. Political theory, he argues, should not be used as offering a vision of a desirable society.

Critique on the deliberative perspective
Habermas and Rawls have argued for radical deliberative democracy, where consensus and communicative means are at the root of politics. However, some scholars identify multiple tensions between participation and deliberation. Three of these tensions are identified by Joshua Cohen, a student of the philosopher John Rawls[11]:


 * 1) Wanting to improve the quality of deliberation can be at the expense of public participation. In this case, representatives and legislators are more focused on argumentation and deliberation than on seeking to advance the interests of their constituents. By focusing on reasonable deliberation the interests of particular constituents can be underrepresented[11].
 * 2) Conversely, seeking to maximize the public participation can be at the expense of the quality of deliberation. Maximize public participation can be accomplished by popular initiatives like referenda. Referena however allows people to decide on important topic with an yes/no vote. By using a yes/no vote people can be discouraged to engage in a reasoned discussion in creating legislation. Also, by creating a discussion with a wrong mix of people manipulation and suppression and become present forces[11].
 * 3) Deliberation depends on sufficient knowledge and interests from all participants as well as adequate and easy accessible information. On many important issues however, the number of participations with sufficient knowledge is rather limited and thus the quality of deliberation declines when more uninformed participants enter the discussion[11].