Is Mass Society a Threat to Representative Democracy? Revisiting David Riesman’s “Other-Directed Character”

IF 1.1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
P. Sulkunen
{"title":"Is Mass Society a Threat to Representative Democracy? Revisiting David Riesman’s “Other-Directed Character”","authors":"P. Sulkunen","doi":"10.4471/RIMCIS.2012.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Normal 0 21 false false false FI ZH-CN X-NONE Representative democracy has been based on the idea that interest groups form parliaments through competitive elections, and legislate in favour of their supporters. Declining electoral participation, rise of populist right-wing parties, contingent coalitions, personalized electoral success and scandal-driven politics indicate a crisis in representative democracy. Mass society theories after the Second World War predicted a decline of democracy on the basis of homogenisation of mass consumption societies. The threat was seen to involve totalitarian rule, combined with bureaucracy serving the interests of elites. This paper examines the underlying presuppositions of mass society theory, and argues that the homogeneity argument is insufficient to fit the realities. Following David Riesman, it is argued that the other-directed character grows from unstable interest group identities, but its determinant is not sameness but agency and therefore difference. To have agency is to orient oneself to others as a self, as unique, separate and autonomous subject. This is vindicated by trends in public administration since the 1980s, which stress citizens’ self-control, autonomy and partnership rather than conformity. Political disputes arise around contradictions between difference and autonomy in societies where agency is a principle of justification. Universal autonomy requires homogeneity but agency stresses difference and uniqueness.","PeriodicalId":43006,"journal":{"name":"International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences-RIMCIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences-RIMCIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4471/RIMCIS.2012.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Normal 0 21 false false false FI ZH-CN X-NONE Representative democracy has been based on the idea that interest groups form parliaments through competitive elections, and legislate in favour of their supporters. Declining electoral participation, rise of populist right-wing parties, contingent coalitions, personalized electoral success and scandal-driven politics indicate a crisis in representative democracy. Mass society theories after the Second World War predicted a decline of democracy on the basis of homogenisation of mass consumption societies. The threat was seen to involve totalitarian rule, combined with bureaucracy serving the interests of elites. This paper examines the underlying presuppositions of mass society theory, and argues that the homogeneity argument is insufficient to fit the realities. Following David Riesman, it is argued that the other-directed character grows from unstable interest group identities, but its determinant is not sameness but agency and therefore difference. To have agency is to orient oneself to others as a self, as unique, separate and autonomous subject. This is vindicated by trends in public administration since the 1980s, which stress citizens’ self-control, autonomy and partnership rather than conformity. Political disputes arise around contradictions between difference and autonomy in societies where agency is a principle of justification. Universal autonomy requires homogeneity but agency stresses difference and uniqueness.
大众社会是代议制民主的威胁吗?重新审视David Riesman的“他人导向的角色”
代议制民主的基础是利益集团通过竞争性选举组成议会,并为其支持者制定有利于他们的立法。选举参与度的下降、民粹主义右翼政党的崛起、偶然的联盟、个性化的选举成功和丑闻驱动的政治表明,代议制民主出现了危机。第二次世界大战后的大众社会理论在大众消费社会同质化的基础上预测了民主的衰落。这种威胁被认为涉及到极权主义统治,以及为精英利益服务的官僚主义。本文考察了大众社会理论的基本前提,并认为同质性论点不足以适应现实。大卫·里斯曼(David Riesman)认为,他者导向的性格源于不稳定的利益集团认同,但其决定因素不是同一性,而是代理性,因此是差异性。拥有代理权就是把自己定位为一个自我,一个独特的、独立的、自主的主体。20世纪80年代以来的公共行政趋势证明了这一点,即强调公民的自我控制、自治和伙伴关系,而不是顺从。在以代理为正当性原则的社会中,政治纠纷是围绕差异与自治之间的矛盾而产生的。普遍自治要求同质性,而能动性则强调差异性和独特性。
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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
9
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信