[PEN-L:28092] democracy, language, and power

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: democracy, language, and power

A few days ago, Ian wrote:>Are you saying there are no collective action problems common to all democracy and hence, by induction, invariant features of democratic systems and thus are represented in democratic theory?<

I said: >>No way. But it's important to distinguish different levels of abstraction. The real-world "democracy" of the US and other self-styled "democratic" states is different from abstract democratic principles. The issue of how to implement the latter - to try to minimize collective-action problems - is different from the specific problems of US and other self-styled democracies.<<

>How so? Doesn't every democracy try to implement some set of abstract principles-and just what those principles shall be are themselves endlessly contested?<

The principles are contested, yes, but more important is the contest between various interests. Interests shape the interpretations of democracy and its role. Of course, in practice what counts is how these principles are applied. The working-class, especially when well-organized and developing class consciousness, leans heavily toward increasing democratization. You could say that the capitalists have a different conception of democracy, but I think it would be more accurate to say that they want a republic of the rich, one that allows them to settle their differences which excluding the plebeian classes. (Most of the issues settled in a "democratic" way in the U.S. really follow this kind of republicanism.)

>>There are collective action problems common to all democracy. They are mitigated in different ways. For example, capitalist democracy tends to solve the problem by replacing the "one person/one vote" principle with "one dollar/one vote." A move toward more profound and real democracy would do it a different way.<<

>Cool, now we're getting somewhere. What would that different way consist of and what happens when collective action by well organized minorities thwarts the very formation of a majority?<

Instead of getting off the topic of this thread while offending Louis with "utopianism," use a concrete but unfortunately over-simplified empirical example. The US Federalists (who represented the economically privileged) wanted a top-down representative government which checks and balances to limit the "tyranny of the majority" (i.e., the power of the poorer folks to cancel debts, etc.), while the anti-Federalists (who represented debtors, small farmers, urban populations, and the like) pushed for the Bill of Rights.

When there's thwarting of the collective action by well-organized minorities (i.e., the capitalists), it encourages conflict, though that doesn't mean that the majority will always win.

(Question: is any discussion of democracy "utopian"?)

Ian:>>>Who are you to demand that I should have a solution?<<<

>>Well, you seemed to reject democracy as a way of making the unavoidable collective decisions.<<

>Again, no I didn't.<

Okay.

Ian writes: >Like you and probably every one else on the list with the possible exception of Justin, I have serious issues with the constitution/institution[s] of US democracy. I think they are seriously failing the US citizenry and causing enormous harms across our planet. That's why I'm interested forms of collective action that get us beyond one $ one vote and yet are not reducible to the voting paradigm. I'm not against voting by any means; I'm for voting away some US institutions even more than the policies that flow from those institutions only because any other way of trying to get rid of those institutions by means of those institutions is doomed to failure or violence or both. It's the "can the House of Lords abolish itself" problem times ten.<

The way to change or get rid of the current institutions is not via those institutions themselves (which are not very democratic, BTW). Rather, it is through pressure to the institutions from below (from "civil society"), by such things as the US Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 1960s. The House of Lords will only abolish itself when there's a threat from the outside, so that the self-styled "Lords" collectively see the benefits of the abolition of their house to be larger than the costs. (Or the House of Commons will figure out how to do it.)

>>The obvious question concerns your alternative. If there's no alternative, why did you start arguing with me on this issue in the first place? I never said that democracy is or could be perfect. Nothing in life is or will be. Rather, democracy seems to be the only legitimate political principle for making the unavoidable collective decisions - or for deciding which decisions are unavoidable.<<

>Gee dad can we go get some ice cream now? You did nothing to specify the institution/constitution of democracy. In the absence of those specifications how can I not inquire into the shortcomings of democratic theory? Or is there only one possible set of primary institutions for collective choice in a democracy?<

The question was very abstract: how should society make the necessary collective decisions? (should Joanna be allowed to make the decision?) so my answer was abstract.

>>Your picking up on the issue that democracy isn't perfect and stressing it suggests that you're looking for perfection. If you want perfection, religion is the answer.<<

>I have no idea as to what perfection is. If I want a democracy that's got a different set of institutions and constitutions than the ones we want now how is that a desire for perfection? Hell every thing your saying could be used to stop all criticisms of the IMF/WB/WTO.<

no, since the IMF, for example, is an actually-existing institution, so that's a completely different issue. In any event, the question "what is your alternative to the IMF - or should we simply abolish it?" seems to make a lot of sense. That's the question I asked about democracy. In the case of democracy, I think the answer is completely different than for the IMF: there's no better system than democracy that I know of.

Ian wrote: >>>I think we should accept that the free-rider problem is insoluble and simply try to mitigate it's effects in various organizational contexts. When I have ever suggested giving up?<<<

me: >>You really think the FR problem is insoluble? the structure of individual pay-offs is _always_ such that free-riders benefit, undermining collective efforts to attain common goals? But this seems to contradict the idea of trying to mitigate the effects of the FR problem. What is mitigation but changing the structure of individual pay-offs, creating incentives for people to not free-ride (or changing their preferences).<<

Ian writes:>Ah back to economistic metaphors eh?<

I see nothing wrong with "economic metaphors" (i.e., trying to understand things using economic reasoning). What makes the metaphor "economistic" in this context is when one is reductionist, ignoring the other (sociological, psychological, political, etc.) dimensions of human existence. Besides, you're the one who brought up the "economistic metaphor" of the FR problem. Why can't I reply in kind? or is economistic ideology something that only other people besides yourself engage in?

me:>>The way I would try to mitigate the FR problem, to change the structure of individual pay-offs is to follow democratic principles, to strengthen the community organizations of "civil society" (society outside the state) and to subordinate the state to civil society as much as possible, eventually to end the separation betweens state and society. (BTW, by civil society, I do not use the term in the currently-popular neo-liberal way, to refer to businesspeople and the like. Rather, it refers to a society struggling to _get rid of_ class divisions and the like.)<<

By the way, the ideal of "strengthen[ing] the community organizations is hardly "economistic."

>> You never suggested giving up, but it seemed to be implied by what you were saying (criticizing democracy, praising the RCC, etc.)<<

>Let me get this straight; I mention the pope isn't a dictator and the RCC is a form of collective choice that's seems to avert the problems associated with Arrows theorem and now I'm Thomas Aquinas?<

I doubt that you are that saintly...

I had written: >>>>Power must come from below [as in subordinating the state to civil society], rather than from some "condescending saviors."<<<<

Ian objected to the "from above/from below" metaphor, seemingly because acknowledging the existence of hierarchy and subordination in the real world allowed it to persist.

Ian says:>>> If we all stop talking about astrology will it go away? ...........Well, yes. We talked our way into hierarchy and it's organizational/material effects; we can either collectively talk/act our way out them or we can't. Same with racism and sexism. They are modes of thought too. Saying that is not idealism.<<<

I wrote:>>"we talked our way into hierarchy"? Whether or not this is "idealism," I profoundly disagree. Talking is secondary to the origin of hierarchy. Consider the state, which is either the basic form of subordination & hierarchy, surviving over several millennia, or one of the few basic ones. See Robert L. Carneiro's 1970 article in SCIENCE (169(3947) August 21: 733-8), "A Theory of the Origin of the State." In desperate brevity, he argues that the state - defined in the usual Weberian way - arose because of conquest. The talking involved someone with more military power saying "I've got more military power than you do," which says that the power is more important than the talk. (If you say you have the power and you don't, you're in trouble.) It's only after the establishment of the state that talk becomes really crucial as one way to _legitimate_ the state. Then they start telling us that the rulers are gods, etc.<<

Ian:> And the weapons were built using theories made of......................................................<

theories may be "made of words," but if they have no objective basis, they're just hot air.

>The constitution is made of................<

constitutions may be "made of words," but it they don't reflect the actual balance of power in society, they are unstable and don't last or end up being ignored, so that they aren't the "real" constitution: look at the 19th century effort in many Latin American countries to impose a US-style constitution. Most of them didn't last. Also, remember that the UK has no written constitution. But, as Walter Bageot pointed out, it has an informal one that reflects the actual balance of power. Finally, many laws are not enforced or are enforced in a partial or discriminatory way (so that those with the least money to hire lawyers lose). Which is more important, the laws or the enforcement? Of course, Ashcroft is making a big effort to prove that it's the latter that counts by ignoring the latter.

>Note how you said talking is secondary yet what we all do in life more than we eat, walk or have sex is talk.<

Just because we do a lot of something doesn't mean that it isn't futile. In fact, one reason we talk so much is _because_ it's futile, in hopes that repetition will work.

Ian: >And yet this is denigrated. Don't underestimate the injunctive dimensions of social communication just because there's a social tradition that says talk is cheap. It's not cheap, in fact some talk is quite expensive when it's done from within institutional roles those institutional roles themselves being the product of talk/theory/discourse.<

The "institutional roles" are not simply "products" of talk/theory/discourse. The Founding Fathers didn't establish the US constitution simply by talking and coming to an agreement. It was based on having won a war against England (with French help), on the prior existence of the states, on the power of the Continental Army. Even then, they had to compromise - bringing in the Bill of Rights - because the constitution faced resistance.

me: >>Now, obviously talk and action are hard to separate, but most people outside of academia know that "actions speak louder than words." If I simply say that I don't like subordination (refusing to accept hierarchical principles) or that I don't want to talk about it, that hardly gets rid of it. In order for collective action to occur, I have to talk to others (and they to me), but in the end it's only the action that matters.<<

>Right the processes of persuasion to get people to act have *nothing* to do with collective action at all. Ghandi and MLK would love to hear that one.<

I didn't say that persuasion had *nothing* to do with collective action. That's silly. In fact, I say "In order for collective action to occur, I have to talk to others (and they to me)..."

Me: >>I have to convince others (or they, me) to try to get act to get rid of hierarchy. Part of this is to recognize that hierarchy exists and try to end it. Simply avoiding hierarchical language won't do.<<

>Where did I say to avoid it? Talking to people about how to challenge and change it is 90% of getting collective action going or do you believe in telepathy?<

you criticized me for using hierarchal language when I said "Power must come from below..." That told me that I should avoid that type of language, because somehow recognizing the existence of hierarchy leads to its being stronger. (BTW, just because I use a certain vocabulary doesn't mean that I morally approve of the objective reality it describes.)

>>Racism and sexism are modes of thought, but they reflect and help reproduce objective societal institutions (of racial supremacy and patriarchy) over time. As somebody said, there's a subject/object dialectic, so it's a mistake to wed subjective and objective by merging them into "talk/act."<<

>The notion of object in the context above is a misnomer, plain and simple. If you want I'll give you references that deal with this. I'm not going to write a monograph to "defend" my first sentence. Just send me a note off list.<

Are you saying that institutions such as racism have no existence at all independent of our perception of them? By "objective" in the sentence above, I don't mean value-free or something like that. Instead, I am referring to societal institutions (in this case) that have taken on "a life of their own," limiting and shaping people's  perceptions and language and thus affecting their actions -- and thus (in many cases) persisting over time.

>> This is especially true when talk and action don't correspond, as is typical with politicians. To my mind, what they do is more important than what they say.<<

>What they say is what they do.<

I don't understand this. The governor calls in the National Guard to support the corporation and its scabs -- to break a strike. He says he's supporting "freedom" and the like. How is what he says (supporting freedom) the same as what he did? Or is there a meaning to the word "is" that I am not familiar with?

>We just go ballistic -and rightfully so- when they something else that serves interests other than our own. When they say one thing and "do" another, usually that another is a bunch of writing in a piece of legislation, an executive order or the like. All politicians do is talk and get others to write out what they want in the service of the interests of some individuals or groups as against other groups. You don't think Christopher Dodd does anything more than eat, sleep bathe, have sex -maybe, I don't know or care- take a cab to various places in DC or a plane somewhere in the US or other countries and *talk.* Now the contents of that talk is what get's people either rip roaring mad or happy as a CEO but all he does is talk; same for all the other 434 citizens that make up Congress. Same with Rhenquist and Scalia. I could go on. Al this is consistent with any form of materialism you like.<

The case I was thinking of was where a politician promises one thing and does another. Both of these involve talk (as you say), but what really counts is the latter. The contrast between them also has an effect (as people object to hypocrisy), which is why the pols try to keep their promise-breaking hidden.

Me:>>>> Of course power is complex (though I wouldn't say "capillary," since it seems meaningless in this context). But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist - and that it can't be fought.<<<<

Ian:>>>"Fighting" power does not get rid of power, it merely shifts it from one group of agents to another. The problem is power itself and the modes of communication/material effects that induce and reproduce it in multiple social contexts.<<<

me: >> If you don't fight against the structures of power, how do they go away? just changing your mind about them doesn't make them go away. BTW, there are other ways to fight power than to set up an alternative military hierarchy. Gandhi fought power in another way.<<

Ian:>Ghandi precisely *did not fight* his actions were at the apogee of fighting. Non-violent resistance is not fighting, thus exposing the moral and economic and political depravity of those who sought to dominate him and his "followers."<

this is quibbling over words, since the word the meaning of "fight" often does not involve violence. Many of his followers argue that his form of fighting was more successful than violent fighting.

Ian:>>>The pope ain't no dictator.<<< getting rid of class systems. Both figuring out ways to improve democratic forms and efforts to get rid of societal barriers to democracy seem important.<<

>Ok and this will take lots of talk and writing, no?<

yeah, but unless it's backed by actual collective action, that talking and writing is simply a waste. In academia, I see a lot of talk and writing that has no effect, positive or negative, except perhaps for getting the talker/writer tenure and promotion.

me:>> I'd see "the right to define with authority" as a _symptom_ of power, not the essence. At least for the state, the monopolization of force (or the rules for others to apply force) within a specific geographical area defines the basis of its power. Without its actual forceful apparatus, the state wouldn't be able define the terms.<<

>What's that saying by Hume that Chomsky always quotes? I'm an anti-essentialist - oops a buzzword -when it comes to the polysemy of power [highly recommended: The Circular Structure of Power by Torben Dyrberg, Verso, 1997]. But I'm comfy with the Weberian definition too.<

I don't know. I'm "anti-essentialist" too, in the sense that I'm against reductionism. Talk and writing are important, but we also have to realize that some aspects of empirical reality (i.e., action) are more important.

me:>>>> ... _Of course_ we have to be conscious of the problem of the old bosses [e.g., the Tsar] being replaced by new bosses [e.g., Stalin]. That's why democratic principles are so important.<<<<

>> democratic principles, if applied well, subordinate the bosses to the non-bosses, and therefore get rid of true subordination.<<

Ian: >Lordy lordy consensus at last! :-).........Almost..................Time for a beer.<

it's always time for a beer.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine