Can Groups Have Rights? What Postmodern Theory Tells Us About Participatory Democracy in the Era of Identity Politics

David Ingram
{"title":"Can Groups Have Rights? What Postmodern Theory Tells Us About Participatory Democracy in the Era of Identity Politics","authors":"David Ingram","doi":"10.1080/10855660123331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to draw out some implications of Jean-Francois Lyotard's account of democratic legitimation for current debates about 'identity politics'. I relate Lyotard's theory to struggles over global rights and global democracy, aboriginal rights, multiculturalism (Quebec's language laws), and proportional group representation (racial redistricting in the US). I then argue that Lyotard's own conception of postmodern democratic justice wavers between a Rawlsian model of 'overlapping consensus' and a Habermasian model of 'communicative consensus'. I conclude that, although each model has distinctive advantages and disadvantages, the latter model is better equipped to bring about broad participatory democracy in the long run.","PeriodicalId":201357,"journal":{"name":"Democracy & Nature","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democracy & Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10855660123331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The aim of this article is to draw out some implications of Jean-Francois Lyotard's account of democratic legitimation for current debates about 'identity politics'. I relate Lyotard's theory to struggles over global rights and global democracy, aboriginal rights, multiculturalism (Quebec's language laws), and proportional group representation (racial redistricting in the US). I then argue that Lyotard's own conception of postmodern democratic justice wavers between a Rawlsian model of 'overlapping consensus' and a Habermasian model of 'communicative consensus'. I conclude that, although each model has distinctive advantages and disadvantages, the latter model is better equipped to bring about broad participatory democracy in the long run.
团体有权利吗?后现代理论对身份政治时代参与式民主的启示
本文的目的是引出让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔关于“身份政治”的民主合法性的一些含义。我将利奥塔的理论与全球权利和全球民主、土著权利、多元文化主义(魁北克的语言法)和比例群体代表制(美国的种族重新划分)的斗争联系起来。然后,我认为利奥塔自己的后现代民主正义概念在罗尔斯的“重叠共识”模式和哈贝马斯的“沟通共识”模式之间摇摆不定。我的结论是,尽管每一种模式都有其独特的优点和缺点,但从长远来看,后一种模式更有能力实现广泛的参与式民主。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信