sign in sign up
<<
Home , Institution, Political sociology

Political Jörn Lamla

Abstract: By focusing on the differencebetween and the political as well as on current trends towards post-,this paper attemptsanassessment of German- languagecontributions to contemporary . Even though the subject is still searchingfor its native disciplinary territory and its disciplinary boundaries, scholars in German-speaking countries have onlyrecentlybegun to engagewith new approachesthat have arisen from science and technology studies (STS) or other fields that have pursuedinnovative and theories of the political.This argument is underpinned in some detail by comparingthreecontributions from German-speaking sociologists to the debate on post-democracy.Given the far-reaching events and transformations in recent thathaveput politics in flux and exerted strain on democracy,political sociologyhas appeared to be rather hesitant to veer from its established ways of thinking and explore new territory.

Keywords: Politics, the political, democratic experimentalism, post-democracy,social movements

1Introduction

Much workremains to be done in defining the boundaries of political sociology. In Germany, for instance, political subjectmatter is addressed in two disciplines: soci- ologyand . Both have sections for political sociologyintheirpro- fessional that claim to define its scope while pursuing different but overlapping research. Another point of contention arisesfrom the much-debated re- lationship between science and politics, which is crucial for political sociologyasa discipline.Positioningpolitical sociologybetween science and politics has been an issue throughout its history in German-languagesociology. Starting with ’s scientificclaim concerning value judgements(Werturteilsfreiheitspostulat)and the later dispute between the Frankfurt of and the proponents of scientificpositivism and continuinguptocurrent debates on , the battle around facts and values in so-called evidence-based politics or the ongoing professional segmentation of sociologyand its imminent separation into different methodological have had aparticularbearingonpolitical sociology. However, the that has been done on determiningthe boundaries of political sociologyhas so far failed to yield sustainable solutions for these wider problems of the field’sself- conception. Theprofessional of political sociologists is still much too disparate to form acoherent and guiding voice thatwould help to overcome these disciplinary crises.

OpenAccess. ©2021 Jörn Lamla, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110627275-020 288 Jörn Lamla

The heterogeneity of sociological voices is impressively demonstrated by are- centlypublished symposium in the journal Soziologie that addresses these identity and boundary questions of political sociology(Brichzin et al., 2019). Thesesinthis vein extend from the inevitability of political value judgements in sociological work and the need to reflect on them to aplea for scientific self-restriction and aconcen- tration on evidence-based empirical research. Somecontributions speak of an in- creased relevance of political sociologyatatime whendemocracy is in crisis, whereas others see sociologyitself as beingincrisis because it has not been able to getagrasp on the ambiguous political changes drivenbydigitization, de- and re-nationalization, or climate change. However,the conclusionsregularlyexhibit the same pattern of argumentation, which ultimatelyresultsinthe simple promotion of one’sown favored approach as asolution to the problem, be it critical theory,social theory, political , actor–network theory,orthe sociologyofknowledge.Thus, the impression one gains when readingthis collection is an absenceofany real debate. However,without anyclear focus and mutualpoint of reference, the search for boundaries becomes endless. Identifyinganeed for clarification is at most astarting point but does not provide anydirection for amuch-needed discussion. One attempt to overcome this of professional weakness and diffuseness— indicating acertain awarenessofthe problem in both disciplines—is the widespread publication of introductions and textbooks on political sociologyinrecent decades (Bottomore, 1981;Frevel, 1995;Böhnisch, 2006;Kißler,2007; Rattinger,2009;Kaina and Römmele, 2012; Holzer,2015;Pickel, 2020). There is no lack of propositions as to how to define the field of political sociology. However,the topics found in the tables of contents differ significantlydepending on the authors’ affiliations with sociologyor political science. The political scientists focus more on established political and democratic likeparties, elections, associations, movements, or citizen- ship. These institutions depend to some degreeon, and thereforevary accordingto, social and culturalconditions such as value commitments,, knowledge, means of communication, and , which thereforehavetobetaken into account.The sociologists,bycontrast,are more inclined to look for the political in through the lens of conceptssuch as power relations,societal or functional differentiation, or historicaldynamics like gender strugglesorpost-colonialism. An- other notable observation is the revival of the classics in the current German literature on political sociology, for example, the publication of an earlymanuscriptonpolitical sociologybyNiklas Luhmann (2010), written in the 1960s, which starts with one of the aforementioned boundary issues―namely,the boundary between sociologyand po- litical science―and argues for achangeinperspective towards systems theory.Onthe other hand, writingsand lectures by Theodor W. Adorno (2019a;b)are frequentlycited in order to understand current shifts towards populism and right-wingradicalism in the political landscape. Thus, political sociologyseems to perpetuate disciplinary cleavagesinstead of overcoming themand providingnew ways of thinking and re- searchingthe political. Andthe scope of work in political sociologyseems broad Political Sociology 289

enough for everyone to find their own definition of what political sociology is actually about. Away out of this unsatisfying situation in political sociologymay be achievedby focusing on two issues, which are—in my view—specific to a sociological wayofap- proachingthe matter of politics. Oneissue concerns democracy,but not as an established of institutions. Rather,political sociologyshould studythe way democracy comes into being, how it is performed and renewed under societal con- ditionsofstrain and crisis. Thus, astarting point for apolitical sociologycould be the ever-changingcommon issuesofasociety to which that society must react politically by improving—or better still, improvising—democracy in one direction or the other (e.g., by tendingtowards more inclusion or exclusion). The second issue is closely related to the first: political sociologymust focus much more on researching the po- litical thanonresearching politics. Politics—its routines, institutions, and conditions— is or should be mainlythe remit of political scientists. The task of sociology, by con- trast,might be sought in the realm of the political whereweencounter,and can in- vestigate, thosestruggles,practices,and thatlie outside the conventional understanding of politics and the state and which challengethe boundaries of this understanding.Thus, the political is the matterofpolitics in flux and thereforeputs democracy under strain. Regarding this proposed sociologyofthe political, German scholars are not leading the debate. However,German-languagepolitical sociology has made some significant contributions thatIwould like to discuss in the following sections. After ashort consideration of the historical context thathas influenced aturn towards a “subpolitical” (Beck, 1993: 154–171) perspective,followed by an examina- tion of other political boundary issues in the next section (2), the article will focus mainlyontwo strands of discussion: the diagnosis of post-democracy(3) and today’s theoretical in researching the political (4).

2Politics in Flux, Democracy Under Strain

Twodecades ago, the Green Party assumedresponsibility in the German federal government for the first time.With that,ahistoric transformation of the political landscape in Germanycame to an end, one that had commenced with the strengthening of new social movements in the 1970s.Yetpolitical sociologists disagree about the direction of this transformation. Some have highlighted the assimilation of the Greens into the institutions of liberal democracy, whereas others have pointed to the “greening” of the entire political landscape in recent decades. Herewemust consider the influenceoftwo major theoretical schools in Germany. Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s(2000) theory of social systems, some of these scholars have highlighted the reproduction of an internal logic of the political , which necessarilyaffects and shapes Green politics. Othershaveargued in line with JürgenHabermas’s(1992) idea of acivil society,which translatesand amplifies conflicts from the citizens’ lifeworlds.Inthis intellectual context,questions arose as to what extent protest 290 Jörn Lamla

movements, subpolitical processes in society (e.g., the struggle for genderequality or the emergence of environmentallyconscious lifestyles), and moral claims in public have to be taken into account in the sociological analysis of the political landscape. If we takethis as astarting point for the discussion and recognition of German- languagecontributions to the debates on the political (as distinct from politics) and (post‐)democracy,aunique German journalinthe field of political sociologyshould be recognized: The Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen (Social Movements Re- search Journal;foundedin1988 under the name Forschungsjournal Neue SozialeBe- wegungen (FJNSB) and renamed in 2011) has not just contributed to the current and future research on social and political movements (Kern, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, this volume). It has become averitable of German-languagepolitical sociology and offers ample forum for debate. It not onlycouples the disciplines of sociologyand political science but alsocloses the gapbetween theoretical debate and public dis- course. Thus, it represents an earlyiteration of what is now called publicsociology. Focusing on selected issues from different angles, it movesbetween conceptual elaboration and capturingnew phenomena of political articulation in its analyses of democracy and ,always with akeen eyefor upcomingpolitical move- ments, practices,and challenges. While thereare surelyother important journals in German political sociologyaswell (e.g., Leviathan – Berliner Zeitschrift fürSozial- wissenschaft [Leviathan – Berlin Journal for Social Sciences]),noother journalhas succeeded in such adifficultbalancing act for over thirty years as the Forschungsjournal has. Since it publishes thoroughly curated but not peer-reviewed articles, some scholars maybeinclined to ignore it under today’spublishing regime. Yetthe Forschungsjournal has oftenbeen the place whereissues like post-democracy or emerging phenomena such as political consumption werebroadlydiscussed for the first time among the German-languageacademicand political community (e.g., FJNSB, 4/2005;4/2006;2/2015). Beyond social movements, the political transformation in Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germanyhaveprovided further for disciplinary self-reflection. Since political sociologywas not able to predict―or did not even reckon with―these developments, it was compelled to question its assumptions and conceptual frame- works.Indeed, the events of this political turn occurred three decades ago(Offe, 1994). However,they remind us not to think of states and democracy as stable and self- stabilizingsystems but as political configurations that are constantlyinflux and under varyingdegrees of strain. Thus, after aperiod of postwarprosperity and reor- ganization, the fundamental questions of democracy itself (Rödel, Frankenberg, and Dubiel, 1989) and its robustness and resilience (Rampp, Endreß, and Naumann, 2019) are now back on the agenda. Today, the dynamics of European political (dis)inte- gration are more prominent when it comes to discussions about the reproduction of democracy and its social or societal conditions (Lahusen, 2019;Eigmüller,EUROPE, this volume). In particular,the spread of right-wing populism in Europe and other countries is todaychallengingpolitical sociology’sunderstandingofEuropean as well PoliticalSociology 291

as national politics and political institutions. Scholarscarry out researchand seek explanations for these phenomena by investigatingthe social or class structure of society and,for instance,pointing to the uncertaintythat stems from culturaltrends towards singularity (Reckwitz, 2017:394–423). It is not onlytheoretical approaches but also empirical research that has highlighted the impact of culturalconflict in times of increasingsocietal complexity and differentiation, whereas social deprivation has been determined to be aless importantfactor in these political polarizations (Lengfeld and Dilger, 2018:196). Global interdependencies thus constantlychallengethe exist- ing boundaries and conventions of democracy.Other important examples of con- temporary challenges are climate changeand conflicts around ecological re- sources―now constant items on the political agenda as aresultofthe newlyemerging Fridays for Future movement,global ,and migration―as wellasthe highspeed of digital transformation alongsidenewlyevolving power relations,for instance, between states and Silicon Valley’sITcompanies.Moreover,war,terror,and violence are once again prominent topics in apolitical sociologythat is conducting research on democracy’suncertain future. This makes it clear thatresearch on political shifts basedonsocial movements, protest events, or new political practices and articulations (e.g., populism or the strategic use of social-media communication) as well as thosedrivenbyinstitutional contradictions (e.g., de-nationalization) or societal and material interdependenciesis still in need of more theoretical elaboration. German-(political) sociologyis no longer in the lead in this regard. Luhmann’stheory of social systems and German critical theory are surelyimportant contributions.However,they have increasingly become boggeddown in scholastic exercises and inclined to take their theoretical assumptions as givenfacts withoutsubjecting them to regular (also empirical) scrutinyinlight of changingconditions.Innovations in political sociology, which came under the banners of the practice turn, the performative turn, the ontological turn, the material turn, or poststructuralism in abroader sense, all originated else- where. Certainly,there are sources of conceptual in German-language sociologythat should not be forgotten. While the theories and methodsofinterpre- tative sociologyare well known and widelyused in different areas,and while socio- logical research on all manner of politics and politicians began making use of such tools at an earlystage, approaching the political with elaborate interpretative methods and concepts in political science onlybegan in the 1990s (Nullmeier,1997; Lamla, 2003), indicating acertain shift in how political sociologyviewed its subject.The terms and definitions of the political had long been much too restrictiveregardingthe scope and variety of the phenomena under consideration. Having become aware of this, political sociologists in Germanystarted to deconstruct theirnarrow perspectives (Nassehi and Schroer,2003). The well-known critique of methodological nationalism by Ulrich Beck (2003) was onlyone very prominent contribution to these wider dis- cussions.What we can derivefrom these debates is that qualitative approaches ought to grasp the political by probinginto its depths through analyzingthe doing of politics 292 Jörn Lamla

(at both the micro and macro level). And what these conceptual and methodological reflections have accomplished is to help widen the scope of political sociology. The main challengeremains to combine the necessary theoretical innovations in research on democracy with continuingand focused debate within the discipline. Twenty years ago, ahandful of German professors of political science and sociology from Marburgand Jena made astart in this direction by editing abook series titled Studienzur Demokratieforschung (Studies in Democracy Research;Berg-Schlosser and Giegel, 1999)that claimed to address these different changes and challenges con- cerningdemocracy.The series has produced approximatelyadozen books in twenty years. One for this modest success, beyond limited resourcesoftime and money,could be the lack of conceptual innovations and theoretical tools that was identifiedatthe beginning of this paper.Once again it must be stated here that the most effective advances came from outside (German-language) political sociology. It was not onlythe international debate on post-democracy (Crouch, 2004;Rancière 1995;Wolin, 2001) and the associated French discussion on the political (e.g., Mouffe, 2005) thatwas influential in this regard. The theoretical debate—mainlywithin sci- ence and technology studies (STS) and post-colonial studies—on political ecologies and political ontologies (Latour,1999;Blaser 2013) had an important impact as well. That said, the following sections of this paper take acloserlook at the contributions that German-languagepolitical sociologyhas been able to make to the international developments in this field.

3Varieties of Post-Democracy

One importantexplanation of whydemocracy is under enormous strain in the 21st centuryhas been provided by WolfgangStreeck. In his book Gekaufte Zeit (2013; publishedinEnglish as Buying Time,2014), this formerdirector of the Max Planck Institute for the StudyofSocieties describes the continuity of aliberal project that aims to overcomethe limitations that have arisen from the postwarframework of democratic . However,the crisis that such amarket-and finance-driven transformation of society would inevitably inducehas been actively postponed by excessive state indebtedness. While accepting the risk of future dependencies, huge societal investments in mass consumption and the wealth of the middle classes have been made to effectively buy the loyalties of consumers.Nevertheless, the deep structural contradiction of democratic capitalism could not be transcended within the neoliberal regime. This led to steadilyheightened pressuretoderegulate markets and apolicy of pushing back against labor organizations.The result, he argues, has been to reduce democracy to ade-democratized constitutional state with superficial public entertainment of privatecitizen-consumers (Streeck, 2013:28, 164). The neoliberal state has forced its citizens into increased economic dependencies by motivatingthem to increase privatedebt in order to finance its mandatory tax revenues (Streeck, 2013: 64). Although Streeck makes ageneral theoretical argument for societalcreativity and PoliticalSociology 293

experimentalism in history at the outset (Streeck, 2013:15), his diagnosis of post- democracy is disenchanting in this respect.For him, the disempowerment of mass democracy has been extraordinary successful. Capital, on the contrary, has been able to strengthen its position by rebuilding the political system into anetwork of con- tractual relations in which the lawofthe marketand privateproperty could rule without political restrictions. The result is aset of European political institutions in which national governments are externallyforced (and empowered) to establish a regime of fiscal consolidation. Publicdebate and democratic decision-making are left behindinthis version of post-democracy.But this does not mean that democratic procedures are left without anypolitical function in this new post-democratic regime. Indeed, they mayhavetoassume important new functions. This argument is made by Ingolfur Blühdorn in his book Simulative Demokratie. Neue Politik nachder postdemokratischen Wende (2013; Simulative Democracy.New Politics after the Post-Democratic Turn). Streeck (2013:215–223) paints apicture of a disorganized and powerless population in today’sdemocracy and searches in some desperation for astrongsocial movement that might be able to react with popular outragetotheir economic plight.Since no such movement appears to be in sight,he finallyretreats to the remnants of the sovereign state and defends its remaining capacities to act collectively (Streeck, 2013:255–256). In contrast to Streeck’sversion of democratic decline,Blühdorn elaboratesonthe active of democracyinthe pro- duction and stabilization of the regimeofeconomic dependency and growth that he calls “post-ecologist” (Blühdorn, 2013:244). He unmistakablybuildsonLuhmann’s theory of social systems and the related understanding of sociological enlightenment (Blühdorn, 2013:280). His explanation thereforedraws less on the economicallybased power relations in aMarxian vein towardwhich Streeck has seemed to gravitate since his Adorno lecturesin2012.Rather,Blühdorn(2013:182–183) sees the roots of this development in societal complexity resulting from functional differentiation and its systemic imperatives. Yetwhat wasonce an insuperable ideological theoretical dif- ferencebetween the two approaches no longer seems to be of anyreal significance: these two diagnoses of post-democracy are apposite even though Blühdorn provides an important addition to the discussion with his idea of simulative practices.These practices allow for experiencing democracy while legitimizing afar-reaching trans- formationthat onlyserves to gutitofits very essence in the long run. In Blühdorn’s version, post-democracy takes amoreparadoxical form(2013:158–166): consumer- citizensinlate increasinglyaccept and enforcethe decline of politics that is drivenbysocietal complexity while simultaneouslystrengthening the normative claims of democratic participation and self-government.The simulation of democratic symbols and practices thereforebecomes crucial for stabilizingsocietal order.Atyp- ical expression of simulative democracyisthe diversity of individualized styles of political or sustainable consumption (Blühdorn, 2013:190–192) as well as the idea of liquid democracy.The Pirate Party (Bieber and Leggewie, 2012), which has espoused this idea, is in Blühdorn’sperspective (2013:169–170) the incarnation of the new kind of superficial politics—even though it was not very successful in this particular case. 294 Jörn Lamla

Satisfied with simulations of democratic procedures and participation, the Western consumer-citizens―or citizen-consumers,ifyou will―would ultimatelycontributeto the democratic resilienceand legitimation required to perpetuate a “politics of un- sustainability” under democratic conditions (Blühdorn, 2013:55). However,the assumptions and theses of this second diagnosis of post-democracy requiresome closerexamination. First,Blühdorn attributes strongnormative claims to those who profess theircommitment to democracy,especiallythe claim of being an autonomous political subject (Blühdorn, 2013:127–129). Second, he statesthat con- temporary citizensreinterpret their democratic values in line with aconsumer-driven third modernity and in ways to createscope for the enjoymentoftheir unac- knowledgedprivileges (Blühdorn, 2013:48–53). In this way, he reconstructs the po- litical practices and of citizensasbeing deeplycontradictory:they believe in democratic ideals while they contributetopermanently underminingthese ideals by consentingtothe limited political opportunities and social involvementsoffered them in the consumer role. The corefeature of post-democracy in this readingis preciselyits ability to obscure this cognitive dissonance (Blühdorn, 2013:125). It is this kind of functionality and problem-solving thatsimulative democracy fulfils. Despite the opacity of this post-democratic setting,the author claims for himself the position of adissociated observer who can see through the veil of this deception. Adopting this superior vantage point,heargues for the variability and ongoingchange of political and democratic configurations throughout history.Hedenies having any normative intention beyond deconstructing the misleading normativity of democracy (e.g., Blühdorn, 2013:47, 57).Yet, contrasting idealistic illusions of democracy(i.e., the view of the people and of the intellectuals who feed their beliefs in democracy with overblown expectations)with realism in analyzingthe political system from the viewpointofthe outside observeramounts to omitting important nuances.His diag- nosis identifies onlyone aspect of public and democratic creativity that is pragmatic in the narrow sense of adaptingbetter to the reproductive needsofthe societal system. This separation of the factual aspectsofdemocracy from the normative ones provides akind of fatalistic blueprint and entails ahidden normativity that must be disclosed. To strip democracy of anysubstantial influenceonpolitical decision-making by re- ducingittoamere simulation game means severing the very connection that some theorists as well as manycitizens still try to holdonto, even in the face of growing inconsistency and strained ideals. Instead of analyzingpolitical creativity in this pragmatist (not pragmatic) respect,Blühdorn (2013:140) dwells on the supposed claim to autonomyofall those who—despite Luhmann’scritique—still believethat some degreeoftruedemocracy does exist. Beyond theirimportant observations and thoughts,bothversions of post- democracy paint apicture of historical closure and thus do not take theirprofessed advocacy of democratic experimentalism (Lamla, 2013a) seriously.The reification of and cognitive fixation on power relations and systemic interdependencies is aprob- lem of as well as the theory of social systems: with their unwavering focus on realpolitik, they both participate in the performativestabilization of the societal and PoliticalSociology 295

political order (Latour,2005). Unsurprisingly,such apolitical sociologyhas nothing to offer thosewho are seriously searchingfor an alternative vision of future democracy. Adifferent possibilityhere is to recall the pragmatist methodologyofDewey (1927)and Latour (1999). It is when we look from this angle thatwecan discern athird version of post-democratic diagnosis.With such an approach, it is possibletoconceive of a development towards consumerdemocracy too. However,itisnecessary to analyze this reconfiguration of democracy openlyinorder to recognize its different tendencies, its weaknesses,aswell as its innovative propositions (Lamla,2013b). Democratic experimentalism in apragmatist sense meansrecognizing the ongoing changes of democratic state formation across history.Yet,with regard to the current strain on democracy,itisimportant not onlytopoint to the decline of democratic institutions but also to construct hypotheses on the advent of new creative solutions for the government of societal interdependencies and their consequences. Interestingly, consumer democracy is alreadypoliticizing those entities thatfor Streeck seem to be losing sight of democracy,particularlythe economyand its value chains (e.g., fair trade, sustainable investments). It is possiblethat this is all mere simulation. Yet, we cannot know if we do not subject such apost-democratic hypothesis to scrutiny. In my book Verbraucherdemokratie. Politische Soziologie der Konsumgesellschaft (2013b; ConsumerDemocracy.Political Sociology of the ConsumerSociety), Iattempt an outline of justsuch an examination. First,the book drawsonolder Americanand the newer French to take acloser look at the publicdiscourse on consumer democracy while analyzingits different propositions and justifications (Lamla, 2013b: 171). When one traces the various strands of critique (and affirmation) in consumer society’spublic discourse, the evidence ensuingfrom this exercise fails to plausibly support the diagnosis of ahistorical closure of democratic practices. At best,wemight discern apost-democratic tendencyinthe increasingfragmentation of the public. Second, the late-modern consumer citizen is indeedadifferent subject compared to his/her civic or bourgeois forerunners.Atthe sametime, the potential of the consumer citizen to gain some degree of political autonomyiseasilyunderestimated since he/ she mayhavearicher sensorium and more tactical knowledge and likewisegreater capacities to learn and to reflect on his/her position in the economic networks of society.Much depends here on the dynamics of public influence. Although not guaranteed, shifting involvementsfrom privatetopublicpolitical action are still possibleand depend on the constellation of public issues and otherconditions of democracy (Lamla,2013b: 260–269). Third,myanalysis reconstructs different dy- namics in what has been called “culturalcapitalism,” dynamics that mayhinder such are-politization of consumer society (Lamla, 2013b: 329). Thus, with regard to the different possibleinterchanges of and economyinadigitized consumer so- ciety,the technological options and conditions for governing the people by monitoring and manipulating theirbehavior are of crucial importance for the future path of democracy.Anessential democratic condition can consequentlybefound in sus- taining basic rights against these tendencies towards masssurveillance in its com- modified as wellasits administrative forms. 296 Jörn Lamla

4The PoliticalRevisited

Patterns of consumer cultureaswellasother dispositions and political institutions certainlyexhibit strongpersistence. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the political should not be confounded with politics in its factual manifestations. Indiscriminately mixing politics and the political makes it difficult to detect important conditionsof political changeand democratic evolution. In this respect,the international discus- sions on this difference between politics and the political have significantlyinflu- enced the current debate in German-languagepolitical sociology. The critique of po- litical hegemonyinseveralapproachestothe political from apost-structuralist theoretical perspective has been crucial in this regard.Athorough overview is pro- vided in Das Politische denken. Zeitgenössische Positionen (2010;Thinking the Political. Contemporary Positions), an anthologyedited by Ulrich Bröcklingand Robert Feustel. Searchingfor the political momentum thatisable to transcend agiven order of pol- itics, the authorssummarize the works of Claude Lefort,Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau, Etienne Balibar, Jacques Rancière, Emmanuel Levinas, JacquesDerrida, Jean- LucNancy,Alain Badiou, Maurice Blanchot,GillesDeleuze and Félix Guattari, Mi- chael Hardtand Antonio Negri, ,Bruno Latour,and Jean Bau- drillard. However,what seems to be abroad discussion without anyGerman-language contribution turns out on closer inspection to be acompendium of thoughts from a theoreticallyand philosophicallyinspired,albeit narrow subcommunity of political sociology. It is of no minor import to try to systematize these approaches. The resemblanceofthese theories, for instance, is discussed at length in abook on po- litical difference written by OliverMarchart,appropriatelytitled Die politischeDif- ferenz (2010). In most post-structuralist approaches,the political is conceptualized as arevolt of the underdogs against the hegemonic frames of political discourse and action.The political thus becomes aphilosophicaland sociological concept thatis primarilydirected against thosesocial power relations and forms of domination that appear as second nature in asociety despite their historicalcontingency. Beyond this basic orientation, the (predominantlyFrench) approaches differ in wherethey see the sources with the potential to reopen the political space. Some focus on symbolic processes likesocietal imagination (e.g., Castoriadis) or the normative surplus in- herent in the validity claims of human rights and other normative claims such as unconditioned recognition, hospitality,orfraternalism and the impossiblecommunity (e.g., Levinas,Derrida, Nancy,Blanchot). Other theorists of the political argueinline with the practice or performative turn and highlightthe contemporary political situ- ation or apolitical event in order to identifyopportunities for political subjectification, civil disobedience, or the tactical articulation of suppressed groups (e.g., Deleuze and Guattari,Hardtand Negri). The concept of democracy itself combines these strands of discussion because it functionsasanemptysignifier (e.g., Lefort), which to some degree is suitable and helpful for building and sustaining apublic consciousness of the contingencies of established power relations. PoliticalSociology 297

At the same time, there seems to be ahidden competition between these different approachesinterms of which one is able to offer the most radical conception of democracy (Lamla, 2016:48). The bias of this whole ’sapproach to democracy appears to lie in its obsession with social agonismand antagonism (Mouffe,2005) and its constant search for arevolutionary subject who might articulate the unrepresented dimension of the political (Rancière, 1995); in this line of thinking, the political is still conceivedofasaconflict between different social actors, collec- tives, or subjects. In his interesting contribution to this theoretical debate, Marchart (2010) places greater emphasis on the contradictions of the political, since it still must be constituted somehow.Awareness of the contingencyofpower relations in modernity is not just an opportunity for the articulation of political difference. Paradoxically, he maintains, it also requires that this state of uncertainty be overcome. This entails setting political difference into operation by establishingaconstitutional foundation for society.Thus, his claim for post-foundationalism does not implythe absenceofany political foundation(as theorists of political anarchywould probably argue) but an awareness of its provisional state. In his approach, he differentiates between twostrands of foundational work: one highlightingthe freedom of associ- ation in the line of thoughtofHannah Arendt, the other stressing the dissociation that stems from political conflicts and antagonisms in the sense of Carl Schmitt (Mar- chardt, 2010:32–42). Although he is quite attentive to the ambiguitiesofthe political, Marchardt’s(2010:329–365) own ethical project of democracy still seems to be pre- dominatedbysocial power relations,which should be bounded by ageneralized awareness of one’sown foundational insufficiency and social interdependency.To conceptualize political difference more thoroughly, it could be necessary to widen the scope of analysis beyond social dimensions of power politics in order to detectother modes of historical and political contingency. Such modes might be found in the changingissues, or in the association of dif- ferent entities, that are bound togetherbymatters of common concern (Latour,2005). To broaden its discussion of the political, German-languagepolitical sociologycould learn from the international discussions on ,the material turn, and political ontology (Latour,1999;Blaser,2013). In these debates,political difference is not onlyidentifiedinthe social dimension of conflict between groups or human subjects. Rather it is seen as being present in relations between different kinds of actors or modes of existence(Latour,2013;Harman, 2014; Laux, 2016). These ap- proaches provide aricher analysis of problems of political articulation and negotia- tion, which allow the analyst to taketechnologicalrule-setting and ecological inter- ventions into account.These analyticaltools that stemfrom STS and related theoretical approachespromise new insights into current political constellations in the ageofdigitization and climate change. They are deeplyrooted in anthropological and sociological and provide athoroughlyempiricallygrounded ap- proach to the political that is very distant from those of political science or classical political theory.With reference to the fuzzy boundaries of the discipline thatwere identifiedatthe outset,they help to specify agenuinely sociological wayofdoing 298 Jörn Lamla

political sociology. To analyze atechnological design process as aparliament of things (Latour,1999), for instance, involves the symmetrical inclusion of voicesother than politicians—for instance,professions such as economists, natural scientists, or even moralists—into the empirical reconstruction of politics. However,the relationship between science and politics indicatedhere is not simplyanaspect of sociological analysis.This approach additionallyprovides guidelinesastohow to bridge the gap between theory and political practice by offering tools for amappingand public understanding of controversies (Venturini, 2010;Laser and Ochs, 2019). Some German-languagecontributions to these questions and discussions have alreadybeen published in articles, books, and special issues (Gießmann et al., 2009; Lamla, 2016;Gertenbach et al., 2016;Gertenbach and Laux, 2019:197–251; Veyetal., 2019). Compared to the earlyreadings of Latour’spolitical sociology(e.g., Lemke in Bröcklingand Feustel, 2010:273–293; Lindemann, 2009), which tend to oversimplify his arguments, latercontributions have provided aquite sophisticated portrayal of his approach. They clearlyshow thatthe prior understanding of the postulate of sym- metry—whereby all differencesofpower and competence are ignored, for instance—is just as misleading as the earlycriticism leveled at Latour for his equatingofnonhu- man with human actors.Contrary to this (sometimesvery convenient) misunder- standing,the political needstobeconceptuallyand methodologicallyopen to dif- ferent kinds of actors and influences if it is to allow for an unbiased analysis of unequal power relations.Ofcourse, such asymmetries do exist.Todate, the literature has dealt predominantlywith these kinds of theoretical or conceptual clarifications and explanations. However,anestablished school of empirical STS research is still lacking in German-languagesociology. Political sociologycould and should do more research in this direction, especiallybystudying material political issues and applying the recommended theoretical discussion to the political instead of justconceptually debatingit. If this were to happen, the ever-shifting boundaries of the political would likelybecome alittle moretangible.

References

Adorno, T. W. Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus. Ein Vortrag; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2019a. Adorno, T. W. Bemerkungen zu “The AuthoritarianPersonality”–und weitere Texte; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2019b. Beck, U. Die Erfindung des Politischen. Zu einerTheorie reflexiver Modernisierung;Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., 1993. Beck, U. DasMeta-Machtspiel der Weltpolitik. Kritik des methodologischen Nationalismus. In Der Begriffdes Politischen.Soziale Welt,Sonderband 14; Nassehi, A.;Schroer,M., Eds.; : Baden-Baden, 2003; pp 45–70. Berg-Schlosser,D.; Giegel, H.-J., Eds. Perspektiven der Demokratie. Probleme und Chancen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Studien zur Demokratieforschung, Bd. 1; Campus:Frankfurt a.M./New York, 1999. Political Sociology 299

Bieber,C.; Leggewie, C., Eds. Unter Piraten. Erkundungen in einerneuen politischen Arena; transcript: Bielefeld, 2012. Blaser,M.Ontological Conflicts and the Stories of Peoples in SpiteofEurope. Toward a Conversation on PoliticalOntology. CurrentAnthropology 2013, 54,547–559. Blühdorn, I. Simulative Demokratie. Neue Politik nach der postdemokratischen Wende; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2013. Böhnisch, L. Politische Soziologie. Eine problemorientierte Einführung; Budrich: Opladen, 2006. Bottomore, T. Politische Soziologie; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, 1981. Brichzin, J.; Kern, T.;Laux, T.;Ringel, L.; Siri, S. SymposionPolitik undSoziologie. Soziologie 2019, 48,401–449. Bröckling, U.; Feustel, R., Eds. Das Politische denken. ZeitgenössischePositionen; transcript: Bielefeld, 2010. Crouch, C. Post-Democracy; Polity: Cambridge, 2004. Dewey,J.The Public and itsProblems; Holt: New York, 1927. Frevel, B. Kleines Studienbuch politische Soziologie; Brockmeyer: Bochum, 1995. Gertenbach, L.; Laux, H. ZurAktualität von Bruno Latour.Einführung in sein Werk;Springer VS: Wiesbaden, 2019. Gertenbach, L.; Opitz, S.; Tellmann,U., Eds. Bruno Latours neue politischeSoziologie. Themenheft der Zeitschrift Soziale Welt. Zeitschrift für sozialwissenschaftlicheForschung und Praxis; Nomos: Baden-Baden, 2016. Gießmann, S.; Brunotte, U.; Mauelshagen, F.;Böhme, H.; Wulf,C., Eds. Politische Ökologie. Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften;transcript: Bielefeld, 2009. Habermas,J.Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., 1992. Harman, G. Bruno Latour.Reassembling the Political; PlutoPress: London, 2014. Holzer,B.Politsche Soziologie; Nomos: Baden-Baden, 2015. Kaina, V.;Römmele, A.,Eds. Politische Soziologie: Ein Studienbuch; Springer VS:Wiesbaden, 2012. Kißler,L.Politische Soziologie: Grundlagen einerDemokratiewissenschaft; UVK: Constance, 2007. Lahusen, C. Das gespaltene Europa. Eine politische Soziologieder Europäischen Union; Campus: Frankfurt a.M./New York, 2019. Lamla, J. Politische Konstruktionen in rekonstruktiver Perspektive. Drei Modelle interpretativer Politikforschung. In Die Ironie der Politik. Über die Konstruktion politischer Wirklichkeiten; Bonacker,T.; Brodocz, A.;Noetzel, T.,Eds.; Campus:Frankfurt a.M./New York, 2003; pp 310–330. Lamla, J. Arenen des Demokratischen Experimentalismus. ZurKonvergenz vonnordamerikanischem undfranzösischem Pragmatismus. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 2013a, 23,345–365. Lamla, J. Verbraucherdemokratie. Politische Soziologie der Konsumgesellschaft; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2013b. Lamla, J. Repression, Konstitution undTransformation: DasPolitische als Neuversammlung gesellschaftlicher Macht. Soziologische Revue 2016, 39,41–59. Laser,S.; Ochs, C. Kontroversen bewertbar machen. Über die Methode des “Mapping of Controversies”.InDigitale Bewertungspraktiken. Für eineBewertungssoziologie des Digitalen; Kropf, J.; Laser,S., Eds.; Springer VS:Wiesbaden, 2019; pp 97–125. Latour,B.Politiques de la nature. Commentfaire entrer les sciences en démocratie; Éditions La Découverte &Syros: Paris, 1999. Latour,B.Vonder “Realpolitik” zur “Dingpolitik” oder wie man Dinge öffentlich macht; Merve: Berlin, 2005. Latour,B.An Inquiry into ModesofExistence.AnAnthropologyofthe Moderns;Harvard Press: Cambridge, MA, 2013. 300 Jörn Lamla

Laux, H., Ed. Bruno Latours Soziologie der “Existenzweisen”.Einführung und Diskussion;transcript: Bielefeld, 2016. Lengfeld, H.; Dilger,C.Kulturelle undökonomische Bedrohung. Eine Analyse der Ursachen der Parteiidentifikation mit der “Alternativefür Deutschland” mit dem Sozio-oekonomischen Panel 2016. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 2018, 47,181–199. Lindemann, G. Bruno Latour – vonder Wissenschaftsforschungzur Expertokratie. Politische Ökologie. Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 2009, 2,113–118. Luhmann, N. Die Politik der Gesellschaft; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., 2000. Luhmann, N. Politische Soziologie; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2010. Marchart,O.Die politische Differenz. ZumDenken des Politischen bei Nancy,Lefort, Badiou, Laclau und Agamben; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2010. Mouffe, C. On the Political; Routledge: London/New York, 2005. Nassehi, A.;Schroer,M., Eds. Der Begriffdes Politischen. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 14; Nomos: Baden-Baden, 2003. Nullmeier,F.Interpretative Ansätze in der Politikwissenschaft. In Theorieentwicklunginder Politikwissenschaft – eine Zwischenbilanz; Benz, A.;Seibel, W.,Eds.; Nomos: Baden-Baden, 1997; pp 101–144. Offe, C. Der Tunnel am Ende des Lichts.Erkundungen der politischen Transformation im Neuen Osten; Campus: Frankfurt a.M./New York, 1994. Pickel, G. Politische Soziologie. Eine Einführung; Springer VS:Wiesbaden, 2020. Rampp, B.; Endreß, M.; Naumann,M., Eds. ResilienceinSocial, Cultural and Political Spheres; Springer VS:Wiesbaden, 2019. Rancière, J. La Mésentente. Politique et philosophie; Galilée: Paris 1995. Rattinger,H.Einführung in die Politische Soziologie; Oldenbourg: Munich, 2009. Reckwitz, A. Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. ZumStrukturwandelder Moderne;Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2017 [Society of Singularities;Cambridge/Medford:Polity Press, 2020]. Rödel, U.; Frankenberg, G.; Dubiel, H. Die demokratische Frage; Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M., 1989. Streeck, W. Gekaufte Zeit. Die vertagte Krise des demokratischen Kapitalismus; Suhrkamp: Berlin, 2013 [Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism;Verso: London, New York, 2014]. Venturini, T. Diving in Magma: How to ExploreControversies With Actor-Network-Theory. Public Understanding of Science 2010, 19,258–273. Vey, J.; Leinius, J.; Hagemann, I., Eds. Handbuch Poststrukturalistische Perspektiven auf soziale Bewegungen; transcript: Bielefeld 2019. Wolin, S. S. Toqueville between TwoWorlds; Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2001.