Political Philosophy

Mouffe’s book The Return of the Political puts forward a view of the self and of society that is fractured into many and shifting identities, and she argues that we can find common ground as citizens, not only in an agreement over the rules of the game of democracy, but also in our various experiences of subordination. Mouffe hopes that this possibility will lead to left coalitions that allow citizens in a radical pluralistic democracy to make progress for all (more real liberty and equality). But does this view of the self and of shifting identity groupings actually work at a practical level. Is the focus on even shifting identities as opposed to economic class concerns always a rightward move that has the potential to inspire more conflict rather than cooperation? I evaluate Mouffe’s teaching on intersectionality in light of contemporary Marx-inspired (but not dictated) thinkers like Zizek and Wark. Might we be better off concentrating on all the new ways in which people experience subordination and degradation at the economic level (and the common threat of environmental destruction–a point I hope to bring into upcoming videos)?Here’s the URL to the Political Philosophy Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/608141959786172/For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/

In this video I discuss Chantal Mouffe’s take on John Rawls’ version of liberal social contract theory. Mouffe is not impressed, ultimately, but she does want to take away the liberal respect for the dignity of the individual while strengthening the person as a citizen, member of community, embedded in the public context. Can she have both–and what dangers do we court when we try to have stronger citizenship and public participation. Can we escape what liberals feared–open conflict–when we try to have stronger democratic participation? The question hasn’t yet been answered by Mouffe, but her critique of Rawls lays the groundwork for her attempt to answer it.Here’s the URL to the Political Philosophy Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/608141959786172/For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/

This video covers chapter 2 of Chantal Mouffe’s The Return of the Political, where we learn how Mouffe agrees with Communitarians on some things, but ultimately wants to move beyond them and keep what is valuable about liberalism. Is Mouffe’s “thin community” good enough? Not sure, but we’ll see as we move through the rest of her argument. Some major Communitarians, Charles Taylor, Alasdaire MacIntyre, and Michael Sandel, are discussed in relation to Mouffe’s views. Here’s the URL to the Political Philosophy Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/608141959786172/For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/

In this second in a series on Chantal Mouffe’s ideas in The Return of the Political, I discuss her use of Carl Schmitt’s critique of liberalism and relate her ideas to authors she draws from, such as Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, Michael Oakeshott, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer and Hans Georg Gadamer. I try to get an initial handle on her preferred “agonistic pluralism” as an answer to the question–can we respect particular values and traditions enough to compete with them rather than seeking to destroy them? I relate her line of argument to my understanding of Carl Jung’s theory of political ideology as “ideological possession” — the projection of the shadow.For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/Here’s a link to my book, Ideological Possession and the Rise of the New Right: The Political Thought of Carl Jung: https://www.routledge.com/Ideological-Possession-and-the-Rise-of-the-New-Right-The-Political-Thought/Johnson/p/book/9781138082120

In this first in a series on her book The Return of the Political, I introduce political theorist Chantal Mouffe, briefly discussing her background and the broad outline of her perspective, with reference to McKenzie Wark’s treatment of it in General Intellects.For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/

Both classical conservative Edmund Burke and democratic socialist Eduard Bernstein were very skeptical about whether the “common man” of their time was up to the task of real political leadership. Even their reasons for being skeptical are similar. But, the differences are also stark, and they bring back the nature versus nurture debate. Bernstein thinks that the deficiencies of the working class that make them not yet ready for pure socialism have to do with their environment and they can be overcome. Burke is pretty sure that human nature expresses itself in a spectrum of ability and that some people will always be unfit to rule. Here’s a link to the next book, Chantelle Mouffe’s The Return of the Political:https://www.alibris.com/The-Return-of-the-Political-Chantal-Mouffe/book/5726004?matches=44For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/

I cover several points of agreement or near agreement between Edmund Burke (author of Reflections on the Revolution in France) and Eduard Bernstein (author of Evolutionary Socialism). Though a century apart and on supposedly opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, these two men thought in the same mode when it came to their dislike for revolution, sudden change, reform and the limitations of the masses. Chantalle Mouffe, The Return of the Political, will be my next book, which I will tackled 2 weeks from now. https://www.versobooks.com/books/3145-the-return-of-the-political

Edmund Burke, father of classical conservatism, and Eduard Bernstein, one of the foundational thinkers of democratic socialism, have a remarkable similarity in their approach to solving problems. Here I begin by showing that they share a disdain for dogmatic certainty. The books under consideration are Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Eduard Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism. Both are available for free on the internet and in e-book form various places.For more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/

Launching off the interplay between the Desert Manifesto and Eckersley’s Green State, I discuss the meaning and place of the anarchist value and strategy of mutual aid. I talk a bit about the origins of the concept of mutual aid, and some of the reasons why this idea is becoming popular now.

According to the anonymous author of Desert, even anarchists have been caught in the Enlightenment grand narrative of history as progress,and the “end of history” in some ideal future utopia. Though they disagree about the promise and value of state power, Desert and Robyn Eckersley (The Green State) both depart from “ideological possession.” Either explicitly (Desert) or implicitly (Eckersley), they reject the grand narrative and introduce a new openness to a pluralistic “good enough for now” perspective that may be more useful for actually making things better, incrementally. I continue to try to find areas of agreement as well as opposition between these two perspectives, because we need to compromise to survive. Can Desert find a place even within Eckersley’s vision–yes, because for both authors it’s not “all or nothing.”http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-deserthttps://mitpress.mit.edu/books/green-stateFor more from me:https://lauriemjohnson.com/https://politicalphilosophy.video.blog/