Meaning and Value of Democracy from a Philosophical Perspective

Currently, the concept of democracy is considered a universal point of reference to which nearly every social and political system may be compared and thereby assessed. Since it is so popular and yet ambiguous, philosophical inquiry is necessary for achieving a critical understanding of this phenomenon. Therefore, philosophical reflection on democracy does not make any assumptions. It accepts the challenge of justifying it “from scratch” and begins by posing elemental questions concerning human nature, the nature of justice and equality and the specificity of society as a collective entity. It should be clearly emphasized that such in-depth reflection on democracy does not focus on the historically determined social and political systems. Instead it combines anthropological, ethical and socio-political approaches (among many others) in an effort to achieve a generally valid, although not necessarily universal, explication of this unique theoretical and practical project. The central purpose of this seminar is to demonstrate the multifaceted character of philosophical reflection on democracy. Democracy is conceived as a never-ending project that consists in bringing together the individual and collective levels of society. The democratic method for decision-making should secure a dynamic balance between the varying interests of different individuals and social groups. Furthermore, as allegedly the most fair and most efficient way of organizing society, this balance constitutes an ideal, which in the face of a changing historical context still requires critical reinterpretation. Critical reflection makes the practical struggle for democracy well-oriented. Since it is an open-ended project, no final definition of democracy can be formulated. Instead primary emphasis should be placed on the very dynamism of this idea and its ability to modify and to adapt itself to every social, political and historical situation.

Class 1: Introduction: Individual and Society. Democracy as an art of keeping a balance.

This introductory lecture is devoted to the presentation of the methodological tools used to analyze the concept of democracy. An outline of the conceptual scheme in which the problem of democracy can be localized will be also presented. The crucial reference points that determine this scheme are the individual and society. From this perspective, democracy may be considered as a super-structure, which can bring opposing sides into balance. Such a scheme also makes clear that reflection on democracy is deeply embedded in the anthropological assumptions about human nature. An answer to the question of what is a human being has a direct impact on the conception of what kind of society he or she should live in. What is very important, as far as the philosophical meaning of democracy is concerned, is the normative aspect of democracy, or its postulational character. Democracy, as an ideal and model of the social constitution that should be implemented, is still being redefined throughout the history of European philosophical, social and political thought since its very beginning. From this point of view, democracy is an idea that dynamically develops parallel to the changing political and social situation.

The essays of two pragmatists, John Dewey and Richard Rorty, will be presented in order to discuss the above-mentioned ideas. The latter author sketches the relationship between philosophy and democracy, while formulating a provocative thesis on the irrelevance of philosophy to democracy. Rorty is against any philosophical theory of democracy because he assumes that any such philosophy would aim for a universal justification of a democratic order. According to him, democracy does not need any universal justification and thereby also any philosophical support. In order to defend the significance of philosophical reflection on democracy, it is necessary to ask about the method of philosophical thinking and its function in a broader scope of the whole society. In what sense is philosophical (and thus also critical and open-minded) thinking important for the development of a democratic society and for the education of democratically oriented citizens? When discussing these questions it seems helpful to refer to the philosophy of John Dewey. According to Dewey, the crucial role in building and sustaining a democratic order is to be ascribed to education.

Class 2: Social contract theory

The idea of modern democracy can be traced back to the theory of the social contract. It explains the foundation of society, the origin of the legalization of political authorities and the range of their power. Though the first formulation of this theory is to be found in Plato’s writings (Crito), the epoch that witnessed its development up to its apex of theoretical perfection is the 17th and 18th century. Three different theories of the social contract were formulated within approx. one hundred years. Their authors – in a chronological order – are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean J. Rousseau. The social contract will be discussed primarily on the basis of excerpts from their writings. Special emphasis will be put on various anthropological assumptions that support these theories.

In order to provide a complete review of social contract theory, it is also important to pay attention to the contemporary approach to this idea presented by John Rawls. What is worth mentioning is the Kantian understanding of man that is the foundation of this theory. From this perspective, Rawls formulates two principles of justice that should be also briefly discussed as a very particular – one could even say a marginal – version of social contract theory.

At the end, some contemporary arguments against the social contract theory will be discussed. The most interesting of them is the feminist argument that calls into question the universal character of the contract and reveals its historical and social background.

Class 3: Theory of Human Rights

Along with social contract theory, another important conception is interwoven, namely the theory of rights that all people possess irrespective of any particular characteristics. The importance of the concept of human rights consists in the fact that it defines the limits of the democratic debate. It reveals that not everything can be put up for discussion: there are values and rights democracy upholds.

At the very beginning a disturbing question must be asked: are there any natural rights? Herbert Hart – the author of a title posing this very question – considers them to be a mere philosophical trend of the European Enlightenment. Others postulate the objective existence of human rights. To this group belongs Amartya Sen whose substantive essay will be the subject of discussion at the seminar. We will focus on such points as: (1) ethical and legal aspects of human rights, (2) the relationship between human freedoms and rights, (3) the significance of the idea of “capability” for an adequate understanding of the nature of freedom, (4) the difference between “perfect” and “imperfect” obligations, (5) various ways of implementing human rights, and finally (6) the controversial status of the “second generational” human rights, as for instance some social and economic rights.

No matter what our opinion is about the source of human rights – whether it is culture, tradition or nature – there is still the question: on what basis do we accept this source as providing us with human rights? What argument may give us an answer to this question? Following Amartya Sen, one might say that consent is forged during an unobstructed public discussion and the public accepts the definition of rights as such. Yet, shouldn’t human rights be defined as something substantially different, i.e. that they provide the proper foundation for public debate, rather than being an after effect of it? This question will be also addressed during the seminar.

The final part of our discussion will be devoted to the quite controversial but theoretically very inspiring problem of the status of animal rights. This question will be approached using Martha Nussbaum’s application of the theory of “capabilities” to the question of rights. According to Nussbaum, when adopting the conception of human rights, we are forced – by logical consequence – to ascribe the most elemental rights to all nonhuman animals as well.

Class 4: Liberal democracy according to Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill

Immanuel Kant distinguishes two branches of anthropology: the physiological one and the pragmatic one. The former examines what nature makes of the human being, whereas the latter considers what the human being as a “free-acting being makes of himself, or can and ought [to] make of himself”. This differentiation corresponds directly to other conceptual juxtapositions we have already encountered in previous seminars. The gap between the state of nature and society as well as between the human rights of the first and second generation are based on the very same distinction. The subject of this seminar is Kant’s conception of man and his history that began when he forsaked the state of nature, which then led him to the pursuit of the cosmopolitan state. The whole process of the development is dictated by the internal potentiality of human reason that is continually improving and struggling to achieve the state of full moralization (juxtaposed in the Kant’s philosophy to the state of civilization). So, the prima facie political project of “perpetual peace” in fact reveals itself to be a moral project, the final purpose of which is to bring reason (by force of nature) to the state of full rationality and with it, development of all natural human capacities. Democracy in the framework of Kant’s anthropology comes into view as the moral ideal that strictly corresponds to human rational nature.

When discussing the concept of the Enlightenment, Kant emphasizes that there is only one condition required to achieve this exceptional state of reason: it is freedom. This concept is also pivotal for John Stuart Mill’s vision of society presented in the essay On Liberty (1859). The main subject of this work is the question of the limits of society’s authority over an individual. In other words: where is the line between individual freedom and the state of law to be drawn? In order to answer this question, Mill applies “one very simple principle” which he calls the “Liberty Principle”. According to it, every action that does not harm others, in any way, should be protected. Since this principle is based on a very strict differentiation between the private and the public sphere, one of its most fundamental functions is to protect human individuality. Therefore, it is very important to pay attention to such personal values as “spontaneity of individual development” and its “autonomy”. The latter embraces the capacity and the freedom of an individual to develop in compliance with his or her own decisions. To accept this value is the equivalent of rejecting any kind of paternalism, even if it leads to seemingly beneficial effects. In order to grasp the social dimension of the Liberty Principle it is necessary to consider the Principle of Liberty of Expression, for it is the open expression of someone’s opinions that lets an individual influence, enrich and improve the common good. But what is especially important in the case of the Principle of Liberty of Speech is that it allows the confrontation of different opinions and thereby to forge the best, that is the most balanced opinion. So, besides the universal right to express one’s opinion Mill emphasizes also the importance of dialogue as being the crucial factor in the process of the constituting of society. The efficiency of the social discourse directly influences the quality of a particular democracy and determines the extent to which the liberty of citizens is secured.

Class 5: Deliberative approach to democracy and its critics

The pursuit of deeper participation in a democratic law-making process induced some thinkers to shift the democratic center of gravity from voting to deliberation. Deliberative democrats postulate that citizens do not possess a preconceived will, but rather they emphasize the dynamic process of its formation and expression, namely that people do not know what they stand for prior to reflection on certain issues within an open debate. This view seems very Kantian as it requires a substantial upgrade of the quality of citizenship. According to this conception, to be a citizen is not a question of will but, first and foremost, reason, which is continuously shaped during the on-going process of the confrontation with a multiplicity of viewpoints (rationality in this model is equivalent to the idea of justification to others). The deliberative approach to decision making emphasizes a non-instrumental, holistic and socially-oriented use of reason. Nevertheless, the question concerning the implementation of such a dynamic and inclusive concept of democracy appears. So, the institutional structure necessary to bring the results of social deliberation to a political agenda should be also discussed.

Next the agonistic approach to democracy will be briefly presented and discussed. This position results from the critique of deliberative democracy conducted from the point of view of Carl Schmitt’s concept of “the political”. Special emphasis will be put on the character of the relationship between the social and the political sphere of human activity.

Class 6: Politics of identity: problems with multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is one of the most important challenges that modern democracy faces. This phenomenon invites the question, are there any universal principles that allow us to criticize or even ban particular cultural activities, beliefs and traditions? This question concerns also democracy itself as a particular value shaped in the bosom of Western culture. Therefore, is it reasonable to ascribe to democracy a universal value that we are by duty bound to proliferate across the world? Where can we look for an objective justification of such a “missionary democracy”?

In order to shed light on these questions, we will discuss Charles Taylor’s theory of recognition. The concept of recognition is strongly related to the idea of personal and group identity. Taylor posits that “our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence”. Though the origin of such a concept of identity can be traced back to Hegel’s idealism, it takes on a new light within the context of the politics of difference. The latter is clearly contrasted by Taylor to the politics of equal dignity; because beside, the universal acceptance of all people Taylor postulates that they should also be treated in ways adequate to their cultural identity. What will be put under discussion is Taylor’s thesis that “difference-blind society is not only inhuman but also (…) highly discriminatory”. The assumption that universal and difference-blind principles do not exist lies at the bottom of this thesis. Its far-reaching social consequences (for example, the struggle for human rights and cultural pluralism in education) will be also highlighted.

This theory requires a critical review since it seems to lead to two crucial problems: the problem of displacement and of reification. We will discuss them both, while referring to Nancy Frazer’s critique. On the one hand, she accuses Taylor’s theory of passing over the question of the economical conditions of the identity constitution. On the other hand, she criticizes the reification of groups that can lead to separatism, intolerance and authoritarianism.

Class 7: Post-Democracy

Democracy reaches its apex either in its initial phase or after great regime crisis, when enthusiasm for it is widespread and the political elite has not yet discovered how to manage it and manipulate it. Thereafter it seems to be inevitable a gradual process of corrupting the system and making of it a kind of spectacle. As Colin Crouch writes: “[g]iven the difficulty of sustaining anything approaching maximal democracy, declines from democratic moments must be accepted as inevitable (…). It then becomes important to understand the forces at work within this and to adjust our approach to political participation to it. Egalitarians cannot reverse the arrival of post-democracy, but we must learn to cope with it – softening, amending, sometimes challenging it – rather than simply accepting it” (Crouch 2004: 12). During the class we will answer the question what a post-democratic regime really is and what its impact on government and ordinary citizens could be.

Class 8: Social Media and Democracy

As far as wide participation is one of the most important conditions of well-functioning democracy it seems that social media give a unique opportunity to improve the quality of democracy, to monitor its progress and, finally, to make its idea more widespread. But, the fact that the Internet is a global phenomenon and that it is almost impossible to monitor it makes it a double-edged sword. Almost everyone can use it to influence public opinion and thereby to have an indirect impact on society and politics. Is the Internet – first invented to military purposes, but later associated with the perfect realization of a democratic society – now a battlefield where democracy is at stake? This problem can be discussed from different perspectives, involving various contexts in which the Internet can be used. Dynamic development of the Internet, and primarily of the social media, creates totally new opportunities to exchange and to influence opinions. These are challenges that face today equally governments, NGOs as well as individual citizens.

Class 9: Illiberal democracy

Democratic values and liberal values do not always go hand in hand. While democracy is about the procedures for selecting government, liberalism concerns rather goals such a government should pursue. In order to protect liberal values (human rights in the first place) some particular limitations must be imposed on a government (partition of powers, independent courts and tribunals, separation of church and state). Although most of the Western governments have embodied both democracy and constitutional liberalism, there are more and more countries where only the democratic component is accepted, while the liberal one fiercely criticized. Let’s take, for example, Victor Orban’s Hungary or Poland under the ruling of Jarosław Kaczynski’s party (not to mention such evident examples from beyond the EU as Russia or Belarus). It seems that today the most severe threat to democracy comes not from dictatorial or totalitarian countries (they still exist – epitomized, for example, by the North Korea – but only as a kind of anachronism not having much to do with the 21th Century political mentality). Much more dangerous, since deceitful, are democratic countries where liberal values are openly violated by a legally elected government. The international community often treats such countries very leniently since they seem to fully respect democratic procedural principles. But it is to be remembered that democracy cannot be reduced to sheer procedures. These procedures have been created for the sake of some much more fundamental values. Without them democracy seems to be empty, and in that sense not only inadequate, but dangerous.

Class 10: Provoking democracy: social functions of modern art

If democracy is – by its very nature – anticonservative then the question arises: what pushes it forward and what factor does not allow it to stand still? Modern art could be considered as one such factor that provides incentives for a non-conformist way of thinking. During the seminar the pro-democratic and contra-conformist function of art will be discussed using examples of particular works of art (for example, Krzysztof Wodiczko’s social projects about homelessness, immigration and the war in Iraq). In this context, the problem of the presence of the stranger in a democratic debate will be raised. Does the stranger provide only a subject for debate (a problem that should be solved) or is he an indispensable part of it (a discussant, even if sometimes a tacit one)? Is democracy possible without a continuous presence of an uneasy and provoking strangeness and otherness?

Besides these questions, the importance of feminist and LGBT art in exposing the social structures of power and prejudice will be analyzed. What is worth emphasizing is the importance of the materials used in art (fibre, food, body) for pointing to particular spaces of exclusion. Namely, the content fades into the background, sometimes totally disappearing. Such methods come to the fore as shock and disgust, whose function is to break-through the dominating social schemes of reflection and to introduce new issues to the social debate.

Class 1

1. Richard Rorty, Democracy and Philosophy, Kritika & Kontext 33 (2007).

2. James Campbell, Democracy as Cooperative Inquiry, [in:] John J. Stuhr (ed.), Philosophy and the Reconstruction of Culture. Pragmatic Essays after Dewey, State University of New York Press, 1993, pp. 17-36.

Class 2

1. Plato, Crito, 50a-53a.

2. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII-XIV, Chapter XVII-XVIII.

3. John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter II; Chapter III: § 16-19; Chapter VIII: § 119; Chapter IX; Chapter XIX: § 222-227.

4. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract, Book I: Chapter I-VIII, Book II: Chapter III-IV, Book III: Chapter III-IV.

5. John Rawls, Justice as Fairness, [in:] Collin Farrelly (ed.), Contemporary Political Theory. A Reader, SAGE Publications 2004, pp. 13-21.

Class 3

1. Amartya Sen, Elements of a Theory of Human Rights, “Philosophy and Public Affairs”, Fall 2004; 32, 4, pp. 315-356.

Class 4

1. Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (full text)

2. Immanuel Kant, The Answer to the Question ‘What is Enlightenment?’ (full text)

3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapters 1-3.

4. Cass R. Sunstein, It’s for Your Own Good!, “New York Review of Books”, March 7, 2013.

Class 5

1. James Bohman, William Rehg, Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics, The MIT Press 1997 (esp.: Joshua Cohen, Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, pp. 67-92 [and] John Rawls, The Idea of Public Reason, pp. 93-141).

2. Mark E. Warren, Deliberative Democracy and Authority, American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 1 (March, 1996), pp. 46-60.

3. Chantal Mouffe, Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism, Political Science Series, Vol. 72.

Class 6

1. Charles Taylor, The Politics of Recognition, [in:] Amy Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism. Examining the Politics of Recognition, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1994, pp. 25-73.

2. Nancy Fraser, Rethinking Recognition, “New Left Review”, 3, May/June 2000, pp. 107-120.

Class 7

1. Colin Crouch, Post-Democracy, Polity Press 2004.

2. Colin Crouch, Coping with Post-Democracy, Internet link: http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Post-Democracy.pdf

Class 8

1. Brian D. Loader, Dan Mercea (ed.), Social Media and Democracy. Innovations in Participatory Politics, Routledge 2012.

Class 9

1. Fareed Zakaria, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, “Foreign Affairs”, Vol. 76, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1997), pp. 22-43.

2. Charles A. Kupchan, Democracy First, “Foreign Affairs”, Vol. 77, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1998), pp. 122-125.

Class 10

1. Caroline Levine, Democracy meets the Avant-Garde, [in:] idem, Provoking Democracy. Why We Need the Arts, Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 1-35.

2. Krzysztof Wodiczko, The City, Democracy, and Artistic Practice, SIGNUM Foundation, lecture on the occasion of presenting Krzysztof Wodiczko with the title of Doctor Honoris Causa of the Poznań Academy of Fine Arts.

3. Caroline Korsmeyer, Gender and Aesthetics. An Introduction, Routledge 2004, pp. 117-129.