In the name of democracy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

What do people mean when they use the word 'democracy' From a survey of usage, we discover that democracy is a highly contestable notion. It is spoken of simultaneously as a moral principle, a state of being, and a system of government. But if democracy is a vigorously contested notion, it is not a hopelessly contested notion. Certain regular distinctions begin to emerge, with the most important being that between 'liberal democracy' and 'popular democracy'. Democracy today exists as a concept at war with itself. The resultant crisis for democrats is that they are forced to defend liberal values against popular reform. My own view is that democracy is best understood as pharmakon as both poison and cure. My overall ambition in this paper, however, is not necessarily to defend one definition against another, but only to ask how we might proceed. In this sense, I want to address Jacques Derrida's question of : 'can one and/or must one speak democratically of democracy?'
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)139-151
Number of pages13
JournalInternational Journal of Applied Philosophy
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Democracy
Jacques Derrida
Liberal Democracy
Moral Principles
Regular
Ambition
Poison
Pharmakon
Government

Cite this

@article{5db69f87b6f24f829c08acefdb0a38ec,
title = "In the name of democracy",
abstract = "What do people mean when they use the word 'democracy' From a survey of usage, we discover that democracy is a highly contestable notion. It is spoken of simultaneously as a moral principle, a state of being, and a system of government. But if democracy is a vigorously contested notion, it is not a hopelessly contested notion. Certain regular distinctions begin to emerge, with the most important being that between 'liberal democracy' and 'popular democracy'. Democracy today exists as a concept at war with itself. The resultant crisis for democrats is that they are forced to defend liberal values against popular reform. My own view is that democracy is best understood as pharmakon as both poison and cure. My overall ambition in this paper, however, is not necessarily to defend one definition against another, but only to ask how we might proceed. In this sense, I want to address Jacques Derrida's question of : 'can one and/or must one speak democratically of democracy?'",
keywords = "Democracy, Saussure, language, citizen, Derrida",
author = "Russell Daylight",
note = "Includes bibliographical references.",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.5840/ijap201562544",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "139--151",
journal = "International Journal of Applied Philosophy",
issn = "0739-098X",
publisher = "Philosophy Documentation Center",
number = "1",

}

In the name of democracy. / Daylight, Russell.

In: International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2015, p. 139-151.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - In the name of democracy

AU - Daylight, Russell

N1 - Includes bibliographical references.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - What do people mean when they use the word 'democracy' From a survey of usage, we discover that democracy is a highly contestable notion. It is spoken of simultaneously as a moral principle, a state of being, and a system of government. But if democracy is a vigorously contested notion, it is not a hopelessly contested notion. Certain regular distinctions begin to emerge, with the most important being that between 'liberal democracy' and 'popular democracy'. Democracy today exists as a concept at war with itself. The resultant crisis for democrats is that they are forced to defend liberal values against popular reform. My own view is that democracy is best understood as pharmakon as both poison and cure. My overall ambition in this paper, however, is not necessarily to defend one definition against another, but only to ask how we might proceed. In this sense, I want to address Jacques Derrida's question of : 'can one and/or must one speak democratically of democracy?'

AB - What do people mean when they use the word 'democracy' From a survey of usage, we discover that democracy is a highly contestable notion. It is spoken of simultaneously as a moral principle, a state of being, and a system of government. But if democracy is a vigorously contested notion, it is not a hopelessly contested notion. Certain regular distinctions begin to emerge, with the most important being that between 'liberal democracy' and 'popular democracy'. Democracy today exists as a concept at war with itself. The resultant crisis for democrats is that they are forced to defend liberal values against popular reform. My own view is that democracy is best understood as pharmakon as both poison and cure. My overall ambition in this paper, however, is not necessarily to defend one definition against another, but only to ask how we might proceed. In this sense, I want to address Jacques Derrida's question of : 'can one and/or must one speak democratically of democracy?'

KW - Democracy

KW - Saussure

KW - language

KW - citizen

KW - Derrida

U2 - 10.5840/ijap201562544

DO - 10.5840/ijap201562544

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 139

EP - 151

JO - International Journal of Applied Philosophy

JF - International Journal of Applied Philosophy

SN - 0739-098X

IS - 1

ER -