Disagreement and Debates in Political Theory

J.G.: „Learning from others“ and „coming together“ are different. The impasse in current American policy is not due to the fact that we do not agree; any contemporary democracy is marked by profound differences of opinion. I`m skeptical about the value of explaining the unique cause of America`s current political life, but I think one factor is the shared belief of many Democrats and Republicans that the other side is stupid, corrupt, and even bad. Many on the left see themselves as supporters of enlightenment and justice against superstitious republicans and plutocrats; many conservatives see themselves on the side of freedom and autonomy against the snobbish political correctness of cultural and political elites who are deeply repulsed by their own market society. If we see others this way, then a political war is all we can expect. Everyone moves forward in the right conviction that he protects the truth from the enemy. J.G.: Thinking about ideal lifestyles can be valuable; By painting these images of utopia, one comes to better understand one`s own values and principles and the type of social order it would express. And different theorists can learn ideal images from others. Concern arises when, after painting those paintings that we find so beautiful and enjoyable – at least for us and for some like-minded people – we embark on the grand project of reshaping our society in their image, or we condemn our societies as unjust because they lag behind them. One would have thought that after the 20th century and its ideal political catastrophes, political theorists would have embraced the diversity and imperfections inherent in the open society. Nevertheless, one of the most important currents of contemporary political philosophy today is the „ideal theory“. John Rawls` followers try to build „realistic utopias“, while still others reject the „realistic“ restriction as too accommodating to human nature! True justice could simply be beyond the limits of humanity`s capabilities. As we see today, those who have lost can become hostile and alienated from political life.

The main problem is: can we forge a basic framework of laws and guidelines with which different perspectives can live and support? If this can be achieved, we can freely question our views on the ideal while living together in a moral and political framework of cooperation that, at least broadly speaking, everyone supports – perhaps not as their ideal, but as worthy of their loyalty. „Is there such a thing as political philosophy?“ Thus begins this provocative book by one of the leading figures of continental thought. Jacques Rancière brings here a set of new and very useful terms to the vexing debate on political effectiveness and „the end of politics“. Despite the renewed academic interest in deliberative democracy, the type of moral reasoning it prescribes is not the predominant method in any of the relevant disciplines in universities today. The tendency in moral and political philosophy was to continue their research at the micro or macro level of politics, ignoring the vast territory in between. Most moral studies evaluate the interrelationships of individual actions, analytically isolated from any social context, while most theories of justice prescribe the basic structures of an ideal society that are morally distant from the recipes of any non-ideal society. G.G.: Are political philosophers part of the problem here? Starting with Plato, they seem to have been much more interested in describing ideal societies than in formulating a series of acceptable but not ideal societies. According to Rancière, the sentence also expresses the paradox of politics itself: the absence of an adequate basis. Politics, he argues, begins when the „demos“ (the „excessive“ or unrepresented part of society) attempts to disrupt the order of domination and distribution of „naturalized“ goods by the police and judicial institutions. Moreover, the concept of „equality“ functions as a challenge game, constantly replacing political and community action with litigation.

This game, according to Rancière, works according to a primary logic of „misunderstanding“. In turn, political philosophy has always tried to replace the politics of appearance with the „politics of truth.“ .