Rescinding Rancière
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2018 Rescinding Rancière: An Investigation Into the Conservative Tendencies of a Leading Proponent of Radical Democracy, and a Reconstruction of the Participatory Democracy of Ancient Athens Tyler J. Olsen The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2552 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] RESCINDING RANCIÈRE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONSERVATIVE TENDENCIES OF A LEADING PROPONENT OF RADICAL DEMOCRACY, AND A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY OF ANCIENT ATHENS. by Tyler J Olsen A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 Tyler J Olsen All Rights Reserved ii Rescinding Rancière: an investigation into the conservative tendencies of a leading proponent of radical democracy, and a reconstruction of the participatory democracy of ancient Athens. by Tyler J Olsen This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Date Leonard Feldman Thesis Advisor Date Alyson Cole Executive Officer iii THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ABSTRACT Rescinding Rancière: an investigation into the conservative tendencies of a leading proponent of radical democracy, and a reconstruction of the participatory democracy of ancient Athens. by Tyler J Olsen Advisor: Leonard Feldman This thesis advances a critique of the political theory of Jacques Rancière, focusing on the problems that arise as a result of its rigid form combined with its narrow content. I argue that Rancière gets caught in a practice of immanent critique that merely presupposes bourgeois abstract right; and that his ontological and pragmatic commitments prohibit him from projecting a norm that would transcend the liberal order. I trace these ontological and pragmatic commitments in detail by examining the intellectual milieu from which Rancière’s project emerged, the post-foundational political philosophy of the 1980s, with particular attention given to Claude Lefort. After demonstrating Rancière’s debt to that movement, I argue that he transforms certain ontological presuppositions of the post-foundational perspective in ways that are politically demobilizing. Specifically, he transforms the typical post-foundationalist thesis that society is necessarily riven by conflict. Rather than focusing on the conflict as such, and imagining how we could construct new political institutions (participatory or otherwise) that iv would favor the oppressed and downtrodden, I argue that Rancière abstracts two principals away from the conflict and posits them as universal structures of any possible society. For Rancière, there is the principal of the strong (inequality, oligarchy), which animates every possible “police order.” There is also the principal of the weak (equality, emancipation), which is the pragmatic presupposition of every political action. Political actions are only those actions that presuppose equality and disrupt the inequality of the social order. The possibility that we might construct a society that is predominantly animated by equality is ruled out in advance by Rancière, stunting his perception of history and vastly constricting his emancipatory imagination. By hypostatizing the universality of the reign of oligarchy with his thesis of the necessity of (material/social) inequality, he occludes from view political and social institutions from both the past and the present that are not animated by an oligarchic impulse (e.g. the Athenian democracy, the democratic confederalism of contemporary Rojava, practices of municipal participatory budgeting, and radical agrarian reform achieved by movements for Food Sovereignty such as the Landless Rural Workers Movement in Brazil). On the other hand, by hypostatizing the universality of (immaterial/intellectual) equality, he occludes the processes through which persons in disadvantages positions are able to slowly build their capacities for achieving political equality. I argue that this dual hypostatization of both inequality and equality has politically demobilizing effects on Rancière’s readership. I offer a defense and reconstruction of one portion of Rancière’s theory, his conception of “singularity,” which I believe to be an important tool for understanding how political transformation occurs. After reconstructing his notion of singularity through an engagement with the phenomenological theory of “play” offered by Eugen Fink, I conclude this work with a critique of Rancière’s representation of the Athenian democracy. Drawing on the work of Cornelius Castoriadis, Josiah Ober, and Martin Oswald, I offer my own v representation of the Athenian democracy with a focus on the transformations of both political institutions and egalitarian norms. My goal is to encourage political action in the present that aims to move beyond liberal equality and to construct participatory institutions of radical democracy. vi Acknowledgments: I would like to express my deep gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Leonard Feldman, whose patient guidance over the course of the past two and a half years has made this project possible. In my first semester at the CUNY Graduate Center I enrolled in Lennie’s seminar; and the discussions that ensued sowed the seeds that have developed into this thesis. In Lennie’s seminar, my classmates and I were given both the structure and the freedom required to excel, and we delved into the texts vigorously. It was there that I was first introduced to the work of Jacques Rancière, with which I was initially quite enamored. I wrote a short paper on his theory of politics that advanced some reserved criticisms. Lennie’s handwritten comments read: “I think there is a sharper critique of Rancière lurking in here.” It seems that he was right about that, and I’m thankful that he encouraged me to keep digging deeper. His constructive criticisms have improved my ability to put together my arguments in a more cohesive manner, to eliminate unnecessary arguments, and to better separate the various distinct perspectives (mine included) that appear in my writing. Lennie also guided me during my first semester of teaching discussion sections at Hunter College. He was available throughout each week to discuss both the subject matter we were teaching and the pedagogical strategies I was trying out. From my first semester in graduate school, to my first semester teaching, to my final frantic months of writing and editing this thesis, Lennie has been supportive, kind, and generous every step of the way. Lennie is the kind of professor who teaches by casually and carefully encouraging the student down their own path, setting them at ease with his relaxed demeanor, but pushing them beyond themselves with his targeted attention; he has enabled me to grow through an activity that appears passive, but which is in fact incredibly attentive to my unique strengths and weaknesses. This is true teaching. Thank you. I would also like to thank Dr. Susan Buck-Morss, who has been incredibly supportive of my various intellectual endeavors, whose classes have been invigorating, and whose feedback on vii my writing has been a big help. The first part of Chapter Four originated with a short paper I wrote in her seminar during my second semester at the Graduate Center (Spring 2016). Chapter Four as a whole was presented at the Radical Democracy Conference hosted by the New School’s Department of Politics in May of 2017, and was workshopped in the Politics and Protest Workshop hosted by the Political Science department at the Graduate Center in October of 2017. The feedback from the participants of both venues was invaluable. I would like to thank Dr. Jack Crittenden and Dr. Albert Celoza from my days as an undergraduate. Without the growth they facilitated, this work would not have been possible. With the help of Albert I first learned about international political economy, became involved in local political organizing, and was able to visualize the connection between the two. With the guidance of Jack, I slowly honed my writing ability thanks to the weekly task of workshopping two student papers in each seminar he taught, and thanks to his incredibly detailed feedback on our work. I can also thank Jack for my deep appreciation of Plato, whose Republic I read no less than six times in Jack’s classes alone. I would also like to thank my classmates and friends at the Graduate Center for the great conversations and collaborations that we’ve shared. The atmosphere of the university played no small part in my intellectual development these last two and a half years. In particular, I would like to thank Jennifer Cruz-Marulanda, with whom I have shared many conversations about various aspects of Rancière’s work, and whose keen insights have significantly influenced the trajectory of this thesis, especially Chapters Two and Three, where I elaborate and critique Rancière’s ontological assumptions. When I was at my wit’s end with this project, Jenn was there to help me through the maze… and also to remind me to take a break when I needed to. B Lee Aultman has also been a huge help in the development of this thesis. In particular, our viii conversations about Heidegger and Hegel have nourished my thinking for the past two years. My experience at the Graduate Center would not have been the same without Jenn and B. I also owe a huge thanks to Cameron Keys, whose conversations and feedback have been helpful throughout the project, and whose proof-reading was invaluable in clarifying and strengthening certain arguments throughout the thesis.