Situating the geographies of injustice in democratic theory
Highlights
► Contestation is central to post-Habermasian democratic theory. ► This concern derives from a focus on different rationalities of action. ► This focus informs a distinctive understanding of the phenomenologies of injustice. ► This highlights the situations in which injustice is recognised and collective action generated.
Section snippets
Introduction: who’s afraid of ‘the political’?
Engagement with democratic theory in human geography and related spatial disciplines such as urban studies and urban planning remains faithful to the terms of a contrast between theories of deliberative democracy on the one hand, and post-structuralist theories of radical democracy and agonistic pluralism on the other. In this framing, the consensual orientations of deliberative democrats, personified in the avuncular figures of Jürgen Habermas or perhaps John Rawls, are off-set against the
Against ontology
The post-Marxist ontologization of ‘the political’ stands in a longer tradition of political interpretations of Heidegger’s analysis of ontological difference. In this tradition, Heidegger’s distinction between the ontic and the ontological is mapped onto a distinction between politics and ‘the political’ (Barnett, 2004a). The critical authority of ontologies of ‘the political’ depends on two related conceptual moves. First, they consistently misconstrue ontological difference as a difference
From ontologies of ‘the political’ to moral grammars of conflict
Ontologies of the political have an easy affinity with accounts of the social in which the rationalities of action, interaction and coordination are reduced to the dynamics of subjectification, governmentalized direction, or affective priming of actors (Barnett, 2008a). This affinity between ontologies of the political and reductionist accounts of action is an index of a more fundamental fault-line running across the field of critical social theory regarding the possibilities of theorising
Extending democratic agency
The central problem of democratic theory from a critical-theoretic perspective is how to render the exercise of coercion legitimate and rational, a concern which acknowledges the necessarily double-sided quality of democracy as a form of rule. In the Critical Theory tradition of conceptualising radical democracy, it is presumed that it is possible to acknowledge the ineradicability of ‘power’ in politics while also distinguishing ‘the use of force by a powerful actor’ from ‘the legitimate use
Situating democratic agency
The previous section traced how the reformulation of the all affected principle in contemporary Critical Theories renders the spaces of democratic action contingent on patterns of inclusion and participation in effective communicative practices. There are two consequences of this conceptual translation. First, the translation of the all affected principle into a deliberative norm implies a methodological focus on the variable enactment of affectedness as a register of claims-making, reflected
Conclusion: contestation is ordinary
I have argued here that ontological conceptualisations of ‘the political’ have only a remote engagement with empirical processes, which are too readily regarded as merely ontic residues of more fundamental structures of existence. The most serious deficit that arises from this ontologization of political theory is the difficulty that these styles of thought have in acknowledging the determinative role that practices of justification have in coordinating and ordering social practice (e.g.
Acknowledgements
An earlier draft of the argument presented here was presented at the Workshop on Space, Contestation and the Political, at the University of Zurich in February 2009, organised by the ESRC Spaces of Democracy/Democracy of Space Network and Working Group on Geography and Decision-making Processes of German Society of Geographers. Thanks to the participants in that event, to three anonymous referees, and to Michael Samers for their critical responses to earlier versions, which have helped me to
References (101)
Deconstructing radical democracy
Political Geography
(2004)Temporality and the paradoxes of democracy
Political Geography
(2005)Theorising democracy geographically
Geoforum
(2008)The Way We Argue Now
(2005)Deep democracy: urban governmentality and the horizon of politics
Environment and Urbanization
(2001)The Human Condition
(1958)The Promise of Politics
(2005)Media, democracy and representation: disembodying the public
Political affects in public space
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
(2008)Violence and publicity: constructions of political responsibility after 9/11
Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy
(2009)
Situating the Self
The Rights of Others
Another Cosmopolitanism
Reflexive action in international politics
British Journal of International Relations
Democracy across Borders
The New Spirit of Capitalism
On Justification: Economies of Worth
Making new political spaces
Environment and Planning A
Reason in the City of Difference
Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account
Nations Matter: Culture, History and the Cosmopolitan Dream
A democratic critique of cosmopolitan democracy: pragmatism from the bottom-up
European Journal of International Relations
Changing paradigms of citizenship and the exclusiveness of the demos
International Sociology
The radical-democratic project
Swiss Political Science Review
Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox
Re-Presenting the Good Life
In Defence of Politics
Infinitely Demanding: Ethics of Commitment, Politics of Resistance
French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States
Unthinking subjects: Alain Badiou and the event of thought in thinking politics
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
Cities in the world: local civil society and global issues in Britain
Badlands of the Republic: Space, Politics and Urban Policy
Empire of Meaning: The Humanization of the Social Sciences
Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratization
American Political Science Review
Deliberative Democracy and Beyond
Deliberative democracy in divided societies: alternatives to agonism and Analgesia
Political Theory
Deliberative Global Politics
Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals
American Journal of Political Science
Discursive representation
American Political Science Review
Political community, identity and cosmopolitan place
International Sociology
Bringing democracy home: post-katrina New Orleans
Antipode
Justice Interruptus
Scales of Justice
Redistribution or Recognition? A Political–Philosophical Exchange
What should the ‘political’ in political theory explore?
Journal of Political Philosophy
A Postcapitalist Politics
Cited by (58)
The civic legacies of disaster for youth political agency
2023, Political GeographyThe war in Ukraine, the American far-right and the “other” critique of geopolitics
2022, Political GeographyStruggling against land loss: Environmental (in)justice and the geography of emerging rights
2020, GeoforumCitation Excerpt :However, they are not – and herein lies the crucial difference to Schmitt́s idea of the earthly nomos – fixed and located in space (Korf and Schetter, 2012). In sum, these two examples urge us to abandon any idealized understanding of justice that is being negotiated and struggled for within self-contained political spaces, but rather to adopt a ‘distinctively “topological” sense of political space which follows from thinking of political action as emerging from worldly situations of injustice’ (Barnett, 2012, 677 [emphasis in original]). Such a perspective can provide us with an understanding of why and how new rights evolve, how they are positioned to each other, and in what way they are related to the structures and forces that have initially led to their emergence.
Where are the people? Refocusing political geography on populism
2019, Political GeographyThe meta-geography of the open society: An Auto-CM ANN approach
2018, Expert Systems with ApplicationsCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, the hegemonic vision maintains that the social, political and economic gaps that characterize the global status quo are not due to developmental failures of (the majority of) non-Western countries, but are the intentional consequence of the asymmetry in political, economic and military power through which Western countries maintain their global supremacy, which secures them a considerable positive differential in resourcefulness and well-being – which is, in turn, the basis of the political consensus through which they politically reproduce themselves. By setting their own socio-political-economic model as the gold standard, and by orchestrating a full range of trans-national institutions which are entitled to the monitoring and implementation of its various aspects, hegemonic countries thereby define the rules of the game to which all other countries have to abide by (Agnantopoulos & Lambiri, 2015), securing an ample level of control upon their political and economic governance, in exchange of a modest if not detrimental effect on their socio-economic performance, with a consequent stabilization, or even a strengthening, of global inequality (Barnett, 2012). The extant cultural differences between the Western and non-Western worlds, which provide in principle a rich pool of developmental opportunities along different trajectories, are accordingly neutralized by the maintenance, at the global scale, of a cultural space where the mainstream is entirely defined by Western discourses and the local non-Western variations are accommodated as side elements of coloeur locale (Martel, 2011).