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

David Ingram
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Can Groups Have Rights? What Postmodern Theory Tells Us About Participatory Democracy in the Era of Identity Politics
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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