To present Habermas's critique of Wittgenstein and subsequent elaboration of his own theories of communicative action and deliberative democracy I will use the extracts from his works On the Pragmatics of Social Interactions, Theory of Communicative Action and Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. To illustrate Chantal Mouffe's views I will examine her articles Wittgenstein, Political Theory and Democracy, Deliberative Democracy and Agnostic Pluralism? and Wittgenstein and the Ethos of Democracy. Some secondary literature will be also
The claim that rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would choose the greatest possible equality has been challenged as arbitrary and unverifiable. Rational individuals might well choose a social structure with large rewards for the majority of people and small rewards for the minority on the grounds that one is more likely to end up as part of a majority than a minority. Moreover, the veil of ignorance of where one will be in a society also takes away all knowledge of what one will do. Legal justice is generally considered a matter of appropriate responses to actions: In the version offered by Rawls, justice is detached from anything that anyone has done and thus may have nothing to do with any idea of what people
Second, because even if democracy can be considered as the best political system, to become it in a dead dogma and not see it just an option will weaken it. Perhaps, it is even more disturbing the way democracy can be imported and imposed as a facade when the mentality remains averse to it. What is Facade Democracy? As several especialized sources explain, facade democracy implies a political system where although electoral institutions exist, they actaully do not represent a significant force for power; in other words, these are systems where democratic rules simply serve to legitimate an existing autocratic leadership. As experts put it, this is precisely a result of seeing democracy as inevitable; therefore, it has been established as a political system in different countries and people lacking a democratic mindset have been force to accept democratic rules beyond their control.
The purpose of this essay is to assess both sides of the argument and further evaluate the concept of limiting freedom of expression in a democratic society. One of the arguments used against freedom of expression is the damage it has on public perception. David Edgar documents this point of view stating, “Cornelia Oddie, deputy
Roland H. Stromberg (1990) emphasized that Burke considered the revolutionary ideas as philosophes’ mistakes. Political rationalists whose method was unrealistic, and plenty of abstraction (p. 36). Therefore, Burke not only adopted a counter-revolutionary attitude, but a counter-enlightenment one. The contrast between Burke’s favourable attitude to the American Revolution and his direct rejection of the French Revolution is unusual. That is why there is a desire to understand the reason behind this radical change.
Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990) and Bodies that Matter (1993) works are fundamental texts of study for this thesis. Both works are deeply influenced specially by French structuralism and post-structuralism schools of thought. In Gender Trouble, Butler deconstructs the established, normative, Western construction of the Gay/Straight and hetero/homosexual binaries to discuss the lack of perspective regarding the heterogeneity of sexual identity and diversity as it is present in twentieth century society. Her arguments focus not only on the production of binaries and their rigidity from a sociological standpoint, but also on how the use of these binary structures can affect us in processes of sexual identity construction because of interpretations and constraints coming from various fields such as: the economic, the philosophical, the medical and the psychological and the use of language. Butler focuses repeatedly on the production of language.
Both of these two theories separate the thinkers from the rest of the citizens, and both of these theories seemingly create an aristocracy, since even though Arendt defends democracy, it seems that those without the capacity or will to deliberate are the class with less rights. Of course Plato’s and Arendt’s “ideal state” are very different, especially because Plato is not a defender of democracy, and especially because Arendt herself never truly wrote a systematic work about democracy, however certain similarities are evident. If it is true that Arendt’s form of democracy suggests a ruling class of the citizens who deliberate over those that refuse to, or do not want to, it is relevant to question whether it is still a democracy or
They appear too restrictive in terms of the theme of isolation. Considerable evidence, however suggests the probability that politics was a motivating factor in the genesis of the novel. The theme but also to the tight construction McCullers claimed and reviewers have so often questioned in that the parable is a key not to broader implications. The situation and setting and dramatized through character and action in the thematic patterns are delineated. The parable’s theme is an affirmation of the democratic process, but its implications are the universal problems of illusion versus reality and the nature of man himself.
The existence of the others is crucial in defining what is “normal” and in locating one’s own place in the world. The other is perceived as lacking the essential characteristics possessed by a group and hence is considered to be a lesser or inferior being and therefore is treated accordingly. This novel revolves around ideas on colonialism, issues of identity and torture. The given passage for this assignment serves as a representation of one of the key concepts in the novel – that of the portrayal of power play. The happenings before and after the scene in the extract that was given confirm the importance of power that is used as a weapon to humiliate and transform the ‘powerful’ into the
Cultural variation will be detected, on the one hand, in the way, say, a working class supporter of the British Labor Party and a Conservative British government minister argue and, on the other hand, in the way speakers of different languages use persuasive strategy. Furthermore, whether within the same language or between languages, cultural differences in argumentative style have been found to reflect deep divisions within society (Scollon and Scollon 1995). Texts may thus be seen as carriers of ideological meaning, a factor which makes them particularly vulnerable to changing socio-cultural norms. The question will be pursued first by