{"title":"政治不信任背后的政治理念:四种类型的反政治分析","authors":"Matthew Wood","doi":"10.1080/00344893.2021.1954076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Anti-politics has emerged as an important concept for analysing the effects of distrust on liberal democratic politics. However, it is unclear why democrats should trust individuals who distrust politics to help them in renewing democracy. This article addresses this puzzle by defining four types of anti-politics: technocratic, elitist, populist and participatory. It then compares the political thought of four democratic thinkers associated with each type, to discern the extent to which they are ‘productive’ or ‘unproductive’ for representative democracy. The article argues that participatory and technocratic types of anti-politics, illustrated by the thought of Carole Pateman and, to a lesser extent, Friedrich Hayek, are productive for representative democracy because they prompt reflexivity in how representative institutions work. By contrast, populist and elitist types of anti-politics, illustrated by the thought of Ernesto Laclau and Joseph Schumpeter, are less productive. The article concludes that scholars need to carefully discern the logic underlying populist and technocratic ‘solutions’ to our contemporary democratic crisis because those solutions can themselves be advocated by ‘false friends’ who are unreflexive about what should be considered ideal sources of ‘expert knowledge’ or ‘popular will’.","PeriodicalId":35158,"journal":{"name":"Representation","volume":"58 1","pages":"27 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Political Ideas Underpinning Political Distrust: Analysing Four Types of Anti-politics\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00344893.2021.1954076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Anti-politics has emerged as an important concept for analysing the effects of distrust on liberal democratic politics. However, it is unclear why democrats should trust individuals who distrust politics to help them in renewing democracy. This article addresses this puzzle by defining four types of anti-politics: technocratic, elitist, populist and participatory. It then compares the political thought of four democratic thinkers associated with each type, to discern the extent to which they are ‘productive’ or ‘unproductive’ for representative democracy. The article argues that participatory and technocratic types of anti-politics, illustrated by the thought of Carole Pateman and, to a lesser extent, Friedrich Hayek, are productive for representative democracy because they prompt reflexivity in how representative institutions work. By contrast, populist and elitist types of anti-politics, illustrated by the thought of Ernesto Laclau and Joseph Schumpeter, are less productive. The article concludes that scholars need to carefully discern the logic underlying populist and technocratic ‘solutions’ to our contemporary democratic crisis because those solutions can themselves be advocated by ‘false friends’ who are unreflexive about what should be considered ideal sources of ‘expert knowledge’ or ‘popular will’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Representation\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"27 - 48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Representation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.1954076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Representation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.1954076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Political Ideas Underpinning Political Distrust: Analysing Four Types of Anti-politics
ABSTRACT Anti-politics has emerged as an important concept for analysing the effects of distrust on liberal democratic politics. However, it is unclear why democrats should trust individuals who distrust politics to help them in renewing democracy. This article addresses this puzzle by defining four types of anti-politics: technocratic, elitist, populist and participatory. It then compares the political thought of four democratic thinkers associated with each type, to discern the extent to which they are ‘productive’ or ‘unproductive’ for representative democracy. The article argues that participatory and technocratic types of anti-politics, illustrated by the thought of Carole Pateman and, to a lesser extent, Friedrich Hayek, are productive for representative democracy because they prompt reflexivity in how representative institutions work. By contrast, populist and elitist types of anti-politics, illustrated by the thought of Ernesto Laclau and Joseph Schumpeter, are less productive. The article concludes that scholars need to carefully discern the logic underlying populist and technocratic ‘solutions’ to our contemporary democratic crisis because those solutions can themselves be advocated by ‘false friends’ who are unreflexive about what should be considered ideal sources of ‘expert knowledge’ or ‘popular will’.
RepresentationSocial Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍:
This change in scope follows two paths. Firstly, it seeks contributors who are interested in exploring the interface between democratic practice and theory. In particular, this focus seeks contributions that apply theoretical insights to actual examples of current practice. Secondly, while not neglecting the current focus of the journal, we would like to expand its international coverage so that the journal will offer our readers insights in the state of democracy worldwide.