A Nietzschean Defence of Democracy?

[Cain]

Link for reading


Adventerous?  Bold?  Possibly futile?  I don't know yet, but this book was recommended via http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/ and I like the lad, so I'm willing to give it a shot:


There's a book I've wanted to mention for a while, and now is the opportunity. It's called A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy, and it's written by an ODU professor (whom I have yet to meet) by the name of Dr. Lawrence Hatab. I first read it by checking it out from the ODU Library, but you—lucky you—are able to read it online, for free, here! (Well, not all of it, but please enjoy what there is and bring your questions to me so that when I meet Dr. Hatab and ask him my own set of questions regarding his work, I can add yours as well.)

The book makes a convincing argument that conclusively shows Nietzsche would support democracy over, say... a tyrannical military regime. Because the book is centered around agonism—agonistic democracy is a big theme—I would imagine Dr. Hatab thinks Nietzsche would be an agonist in our modern age. Some aspects of the American government are already agonistic—the U.S. Congress certainly has some level of agonism to it, and the whole play of running for President is all about "who is the better man", or "woman", in a competitive manner.

On page 232, Dr. Hatab wrote the following: "Agonistic democracy allows for social change that is less likely to outstrip the capacity of a population to affirm and absorb that change. A democracy should allow any radical doctrine a full hearing in the political arena, but outcomes in a democracy will likely frustrate most radicals, since democracy tends to generate more measured and mixed paths of change, the results of more deliberative exchanges between multiple narratives, rather than revolutionary overhauls." Unlike the equal, all too equal kind of democracy that is idealized, agonistic democracy would be a solution to achieving at least some of the ideas Nietzsche has in mind.

[Cramulus]

Can you define Agonism a bit better for me?

My web research indicates
"In pharmacology an agonist is a substance that binds to a specific receptor and triggers a response in the cell." 

but also, an agonist is "one that is engaged in a struggle"

so what's an agonistic democracy? Is Congress more agnoist than the Senate? Is it an argument for higher levels of debate, checks, and balances? With all the focus on elections and public discourse, are we living in an agonistic state now?

[Cain]

I'm pretty unfamiliar with the term myself.  So here's what Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonism

Agonism is a political theory which emphasises the potentially positive aspects of certain (but not all) forms of political conflict. It accepts a permanent place for such conflict, but seeks to show how we might accept and channel this positively. For this reason, agonists are especially concerned to intervene in debates about democracy. The tradition is also referred to as agonistic pluralism.

Agonists are sceptical about the capacity of politics to eliminate, overcome or circumvent deep divisions within our society - of class, culture, gender, ideology and so on. As such, they find liberalism, communitarianism and multiculturalism wanting. These theories - which have been the backbone of political theory for the past thirty years - are essentially optimistic about the possibility of finding a harmonious and peaceful pattern of political and social cooperation. Agonists, then, both claim that this optimism is unjustified and, hence, re-orientate political theory to another question: how should we deal with irreducible difference? In the view of agonists, proponents of the aforementioned traditions, in keeping their eyes fixed on forms of utopian cooperation, have failed to respond usefully to the messiness of contemporary political practice.

Thus, agonism can be seen as a response to the perceived failures of strands of idealism and materialism to accord with reality, and to provide useful responses to contemporary problems. It can also, in some sense, be seen as a development of theories which emphasised, even celebrated conflict, in a potentially less sensitive and responsible manner than agonism. For examples, see Carl Schmitt's essay The Concept of the Political and certain readings of the work of Friedrich Nietzsche. In any case, it is clear that any conception of the political which involves a celebration of conflict may entail an endorsement of the domination of some portion of society over others. Agonism, in opposition to any such trend, is avowedly pluralist in its political outlook. It sees political tensions as having an essential place in society, but believes that they should be approached discursively, not in an attempt to eliminate 'the other'.

Agonists believe that we should design democracy so as to optimise the opportunity for people to express their disagreements. However, they also maintain, we should not assume that conflict can be eliminated given sufficient time for deliberation and rational agreement. In other words, conflict has a non-rational or emotional component. These two positions mean that they are opposed to aspects of consociational and deliberative theories of democracy. The former, because it wants to mute conflict through elite consensus, the latter because it gives a rationalist picture of the aspirations of democracy.

Chantal Mouffe says, 'I use the concept of agonistic pluralism to present a new way to think about democracy which is different from the traditional liberal conception of democracy as a negotiation among interests and is also different from the model which is currently being developed by people like Jurgen Habermas and John Rawls. While they have many differences, Rawls and Habermas have in common the idea that the aim of the democratic society is the creation of a consensus, and that consensus is possible if people are only able to leave aside their particular interests and think as rational beings. However, while we desire an end to conflict, if we want people to be free we must always allow for the possibility that conflict may appear and to provide an arena where differences can be confronted. The democratic process should supply that arena.'



Its quite Eristic in a sense, recognizing that there is no perfect order that can be created within politics, and its recognition of potential conflict.

[Cramulus]

Alright, I dig, but...

• The smaller the cause or interest-group, the less chance of it getting attention. This leads back to the tyranny of the majority, perhaps a necessary evil of Democracy. (for those of you who are unfamilliar with how the US Congress Works----) Right now, the US Congress is supposed to represent the, hm, rabble. That is to say, if you've got a state full of rednecks, they tend to elect redneck congressmen. Congress is supposed to represent the populace. But we all know that's not really how politics works. An 80%+ encumbancy rate is evidence of that.
• I tend to think that debate doesn't necessarily lead to the BEST solution, so much as it leads to solutions which satisfy the debate. When people argue, their "lower-circuits" kick in, and it leads to getting personally invested in debates where you're supposed to be arguing objectively for your constituency.

Sometimes you need a benevolent monarch to make decisions where the body politic will be paralyzed with arguments. There's an SNL sketch where Will Ferrell is playing the speaker of the house, and he's trying to get politicians to vote on bipartisan topics, and the numbers keep coming up in exactly the ratio of democrats to republicans. (at the time I think it was 46 to 54). As the sketch goes on, he says Fuck It, let's order lunch. And they vote on what kind of pizza they should get, and the vote keeps coming out 46 to 54.

Damnit people! Pizza is not a partisan issue!

[Cain]

Well I'll be honest, I don't know much about it, and that Wikipedia article is lightweight as fuck.  I've downloaded some papers though, and once I've read them I'll come to a conclusion.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

http://jelloul.blogspot.com/l

Here's an example of someone claiming this sort of political view, particularly aimed at Iraq and Israel/Pali.