Representing Consensus and Dissent: On the (Anti-)Representational Politics of the Occupy Movement

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
Gerald Posselt
{"title":"Representing Consensus and Dissent: On the (Anti-)Representational Politics of the Occupy Movement","authors":"Gerald Posselt","doi":"10.7408/EPKN.V7I1-2.159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The political strategies of the Occupy Movement are often described in terms of free deliberation and consensus. This becomes especially manifest in the rejection of any representational politics in the General Assemblies . Here, processes of decision-making are organized, as it seems, strictly horizontally and are consensus-oriented. However, this does not necessarily mean that the Occupy movement endorses a notion of rational consensus or of an ideal speech situation. Such a position runs the risk of imagining a community without conflict and division, while at the same time jeopardizing political agency and the possibility of social transformation. Against this position I will argue that the Occupy movement offers an opportunity to rethink and reformulate the concepts of consensus and representation. For it can be shown that the slogan “We are the 99 percent” not only claims but performs and politicizes the antagonistic split between “we” and “they” as well as “I” and “we” that is constitutive of the political. Thus, Occupy helps us to envisage new forms of representation and building consensus that do not eliminate dissensus, but rather consider it an essential moment of democracy.","PeriodicalId":40097,"journal":{"name":"Epekeina-International Journal of Ontology History and Critics","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epekeina-International Journal of Ontology History and Critics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7408/EPKN.V7I1-2.159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The political strategies of the Occupy Movement are often described in terms of free deliberation and consensus. This becomes especially manifest in the rejection of any representational politics in the General Assemblies . Here, processes of decision-making are organized, as it seems, strictly horizontally and are consensus-oriented. However, this does not necessarily mean that the Occupy movement endorses a notion of rational consensus or of an ideal speech situation. Such a position runs the risk of imagining a community without conflict and division, while at the same time jeopardizing political agency and the possibility of social transformation. Against this position I will argue that the Occupy movement offers an opportunity to rethink and reformulate the concepts of consensus and representation. For it can be shown that the slogan “We are the 99 percent” not only claims but performs and politicizes the antagonistic split between “we” and “they” as well as “I” and “we” that is constitutive of the political. Thus, Occupy helps us to envisage new forms of representation and building consensus that do not eliminate dissensus, but rather consider it an essential moment of democracy.
代表共识与异议:论占领运动的(反)代表政治
占领运动的政治策略经常被描述为自由审议和共识。这一点在大会中拒绝任何代议制政治方面表现得尤为明显。在这里,决策过程似乎是严格横向组织的,并以协商一致为导向。然而,这并不一定意味着占领运动赞同理性共识的概念或理想的言论环境。这种立场的风险是想象一个没有冲突和分裂的社区,同时危及政治机构和社会转型的可能性。针对这一立场,我认为占领运动提供了一个重新思考和重新制定共识和代表概念的机会。因为可以证明,“我们是99%”的口号不仅宣称,而且表现和政治化了“我们”和“他们”之间的对立分裂,以及构成政治的“我”和“我们”之间的对立分裂。因此,占领运动帮助我们设想新的代表形式,并建立共识,而不是消除分歧,而是将其视为民主的重要时刻。
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
8
×
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
小红书