Thesis Eleven

This article discusses the work of Cornelius Castoriadis, an important political thinker and theorist of democracy. Castoriadis developed not one but two theories of democracy based on two distinct understandings of autonomy. The first is compatible with the key features of representative government; the second is not. Unfortunately, Castoriadis models his interpretation of the idea of popular sovereignty on the second view, thereby concluding, like Rousseau before him, that it is incompatible with representative government. This article discusses both approaches and presents a reinterpretation of political representation and of the idea of popular sovereignty in order to show how they can be made compatible. I argue that the discourse of popular sovereignty and the modern principles of representative government entail one another.

This article discusses aesthetic counter-politics in the early 20th century through an examination of the idea of tragedy in culture and metaphysics.

European integration needs to be analyzed in terms that address the normative self-understanding of the emerging polity or, in other words, the self-understanding of European modernity. While it is often argued that such European self-understanding is either entirely indistinct from the general self-understanding of the West, i.e. a commitment to human rights and liberal democracy, or highly problematic, because it makes overly ‘thick’ presuppositions, which are untenable against the background of European cultural diversity and risk to revive non-liberal European political traditions, the attempt here to reconstruct European political modernity suggests that the general, universalist commitment to liberal democracy is insufficient to understand Western polities, and it aims to propose this argument by elaborating a more complex concept of political modernity than can usually be found in political theory. The struggles about European political modernity across history are interpreted with a view to understanding how the self-understanding of a modern polity evolved and changed.

Socialism is dead and Christianity, at least in the modern West, is not feeling too good either. What remains of the substantive goals, ethics, and ideals of socialism in an epoch of political defeat and in the aftermath of a century of tragic experiments? Are ‘still existing’ socialists simply nostalgic, seeking consolation in an opiate of lost dreams, or are there fragments of ideas and policies that constitute a still living politics of hope for humanity? Christian socialism is one socialist tradition well-suited to address these meta-questions of faith, meaning and goal, not least because it has no unitary political ideology, party or even movement. It is argued here that Christian socialism’s best legacy and use-value today is in its historic failure to be anything other than a modest discourse and practice of a social ethic of free association, political pluralism and a gift economy. To these ends, I use a case study of a clash between two rival versions of contemporary Christian socialism. I then explicate the more difficult and radical version to be found in the work of its leading representative. I outline Milbank’s arguments for Christian socialism as a counter ontology to the secular politics of the modern nation state, an alternative complex space that conceives of community as ‘nomadic city’, and a free market economy based on the poetic practice of gift-giving. This is an agenda, a discourse and a poetic practice bound to failure. Therein is its use value to socialism.

The work of Slavoj Žižek has become an essential reference point for debates concerning the future of left radical thought and practice. His attacks on identity politics, multiculturalism and ‘radical democracy’ have established him as a leading figure amongst those looking to renew the link between socialist discourse and a transformative politics. However, we contend that despite the undeniable radicality of Žižek’s theoretical approach, his politics offers little in the way of inspiration for the progressive left. On the contrary, his commitment to Lacanian categories reasserts the primordial character of alienation, hierarchy and domination, and his proposed schema for confronting the status quo, the model of the Act, serves to reaffirm rather than contest the given. We suggest that a genuinely transformative politics should (contra Žižek) stress the necessity for the prefiguration of alternatives, of linking and radicalizing ‘petty’ resistances, of encouraging critical and utopian forms of thought and activity.