Totalitarizmo inversijos samprata Sheldono S. Wolino politinėje filosofijoje

The main task of this article is to analyze the relationship between totalitarianism and democracy in relation with the concept of inverted totalitarianism by Sheldon S. Wolin. The article argues that the possibilities of inverted totalitarianism are inherent within democracy itself. The tendencies of inverted totalitarianism are not only the trait of concrete political regime, but also intrinsic to global political and economic structure. The article asserts that the disciplinary tendencies in contemporary societies are radically changing the classical idea of „rule by the people“. The main conclusion is that we are witnessing not only the inversions of totalitarianism, but also the inversions of democracy. This new form of democracy can be called a total democracy without demos.Šio straipsnio tikslas – išnagrinėti problemines sąveikas tarp totalitarizmo ir demokratijos, analizuojant ir išplečiant Sheldono S. Wolino totalitarizmo inversijos sampratą. Teigiama, kad totalitarizmo inversijų galimybės slypi pačioje demokratijoje. Inversinio totalitarizmo tendencijos gali formuotis tiek konkretaus politinio režimo rėmuose, tiek ir globalios politinės ir ekonominės struktūros lygmenyje. Straipsnyje pabrėžiama, kad demokratijos teorijos turi atsižvelgti į šiuolaikinėms visuomenėms būdingas disciplinarinės tvarkos tendencijas, kurios radikaliai keičia klasikinę „liaudies valdžios“ idėją. Daroma išvada, kad kartu su totalitarizmu apverčiama ir demokratija, kuri įgauna totalios demokratijos be demoso formą

LIBERALIZMO IR DEMOKRATIJOS SANTYKIS POLITINĖS FILOSOFIJOS POŽIŪRIU

The main strategy of this article is to consider liberalism in contrast withdemocracy. Many critics of liberal democracy argue that there is no necessaryrelation between two distinct traditions but only a contingent historicalarticulation. The main ideas of liberalism are the rule of law, the defense ofhuman rights and the respect of individual liberty. Democracy, by contrast,relies on substantial equality, identity between governing and governed, andpopular sovereignty. In other words there is a tension between democratichomogeneity and liberal heterogeneity or pluralism.Mainly because of liberal assumption of an autonomous rights bearingindividual, liberalism is very skeptical on the issue of democracy. Liberalsstress the protection of freedom against potential oppressive democraticmajorities. Equality in the liberal tradition is reduced to equal liberty. Theabstract liberal conception of equality postulates that every person is, as aperson, morally equal to every other person. The substantial democratic conception of equality, however, requires the possibility of inequality, i.e. thepossibility of distinguishing who belongs to the demos and who is exterior toit. Equality is only valuable politically so long as it has substance or concretepolitical context.John Rawls’s theory of political liberalism accents formal and proceduralaspects of liberal democracy. The main cause is that Rawls’s theory is deontological.He draws the distinction between the “right” and the “good” – between a framework of basic rights and liberties, and the conceptions of the good that people may choose to pursue within this framework. Rawls’s priority of the right over the good is presented as the principle of neutrality.But the problem is that political liberalism can provide a consensus onlyamong reasonable persons who are persons who accept the principles ofpolitical liberalism. Thus Rawls’s allegedly neutral public reason is derivedfrom the fundamentals of liberalism or the specific concept of good.Communitarian political philosophy criticizes liberalism for itsatomism, concept of negative liberty and the priority of human rights. Deontological liberalism, it is said, is excessively individualistic, abstract and universalistic. Challenging the liberal commitment to individualism and to human rights, communitarians insist that democratic community cannot be justified without reference to common purposes and ends. To be a citizen is to interpret oneself as a member of the polity. Democratic homogeneity requires the identity between governing and governed. So, democracy rests not on individual rights, but essentially on the general will of the community.The model of deliberative democracy argues that the essence of democracy is deliberation itself, as opposed to voting, interest aggregation, constitutional rights, or self-government. Deliberative democracy concerns the degree to which democratic control is substantive and engaged by competent citizens. The influence of informal public opinion formation, it is claimed, has to be transformed into “communicative power” and accordingly into “administrative power”. But in essence deliberative theory accepts the key tenets of political liberalism. Some deliberative theorists argue that the priority of liberal rights is necessary for deliberative democracy itself.The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights.In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed.Straipsnio tikslas – parodyti, kaip skirtingos politinės filosofijos koncepcijosapibūdina įtampą tarp demokratijos ir liberalizmo. Teigiama, kad politinioliberalizmo koncepcijoje pabrėžiami formos, o ne turinio aspektai. Liberalizmoraida, teikianti pirmenybę liberalizmo, o ne demokratijos idealams, atskleidžiavienpusišką tendenciją. Pirmenybę teikiant individo teisėms, įtampa tarp liberalaus laisvės ir demokratinio lygybės idealų redukuojama į abstraktų lygių laisvių postulatą. Norint aiškiai skirti liberalizmo ir demokratijos įtakos sritis, svarbu grįžti prie filosofinių diskusijų prielaidų lygmeniu. Čia svarstomi klausimai lyginamuoju aspektu tęsia Alvydo Jokubaičio nagrinėtą liberalizmo ir demokratijos santykį kaip gilų konfliktą tarp dviejų skirtingų filosofijų bei raginimą skirti liberalizmo ir demokratijos įtakos sritis

Kultūra kaip ekonominė galia

Review: Rubavičius, Vytautas. 2010. Postmodernusis kapitalizmas. Kaunas: Kitos knygos.Recenzija: Rubavičius, Vytautas. 2010. Postmodernusis kapitalizmas. Kaunas: Kitos knygos

Postkomunizmo transformacija: tarp liberalaus pliuralizmo ir demokratinės bendruomenės

The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and plu­ralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of com­munism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberaliza­tion, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.Santrauka. Šio straipsnio tikslas – atskleisti ir išnagrinėti problemines sąveikas tarp postkomunizmo ir demokratijos; reflektuoti vidines politiškumo formos perskyras, kurios formuojasi komunizmo ir libera­lizmo idėjų ir skirtingų visuomenės formų, holistinės ir pliuralistinės, susidūrimo momentu. Teigiama, kad postkomunizmo politiškumo forma yra mišri, apimanti tris – komunizmo, liberalizmo ir postmoderniz­mo – alter ego. Kiek postkomunizmo transformacijos fenomenas yra autonomiškas, t.y. siekia apibrėžti savo ribas ir neištirpti kitame, tiek reflektuoja santykius a) komunizmo, b) liberalizmo ir c) postmodernizmo atžvilgiais. Pirmasis santykis nagrinėtinas kaip posttotalitarizmo, antrasis – kaip demokratijos liberali­zavimo, trečiasis – kaip pliuralumo pliuralizacijos problema. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: postkomunizmas, liberalus pliuralizmas, demokratinis pliuralizmas, diferen­cinė politiškumo prigimtis. Key words: post-communism, liberal pluralism, democratic pluralism, differential nature of the po­litical. ABSTRACT THE TRANSFORMATION OF POST-COMMUNISM: BETWEEN LIBERAL PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACTIC COMMUNITY The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and plu­ralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of com­munism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberaliza­tion, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism

POSTKOMUNIZMAS KAIP IDEOLOGINĖ KONSTRUKCIJA

The main task of this article is the conceptualization of post-communism. The article seeks to challenge the persistence tendency to describe post-communism only as a political and geographical phenomenon. Post-communism is shown to be a complex process that fits uneasily into pre-given categories. Ideology as a complex of theories, convictions, beliefs, argumentative procedures is one of the most important dimen­sions of post-communism. This article insists on the importance of ideology without falling into the traps of either determinism or historicism.The article challenges the dominant universal discourse of political liberalism, which sees post-communist change as a one-way process of transition to liberal de­mocracy and free market. This universal politics of post-communism produces new hierarchies and forms of exclusion between ‘postmodern’ West and ‘post-communist’ East. Thus we need to employ the tools of post-colonialism and postmodernism to explore and deconstruct the operation of the concept of post-communism through language, culture and institutions.The article argues that so called neutral ‘post-ideological consensus’ is actually ideological and contradictory. Post-communism is not the objective ‘transitional’ re­ality, rather it is the subjective (mis)perception of ideological representations. The ar­ticle also challenges the myths of ‘the end of ideology’, ‘the end of communism’ and ‘the end of modernity’. Post-communism is not the transitional condition from ideo­logy of communism to ‘post-ideological’ liberal democracy, but rather the complex, ambivalent and long historical norm, or, in other words, specific type of modernity.Straipsnio tikslas – apibrėžti postkomunizmo politinės filosofijos analizės prielaidas naujai artikuliuojant postkomunizmo, ideologijos, postideologijos ir diskurso sampratas. Postkomunizmas yra tęstinė hibridinė būklė, kuri atsiranda sąveikaujant dekolonizacijos, modernizacijos, postmodernizacijos, globalizacijos procesams. Postkomunizmo kaip būklės apibrėžimas reikalauja nagrinėti šį reiškinį kompleksiškai, įtraukiant į analizę prieštaringų ideologinių diskursų reprezentacijas, atsižvelgiant į postkomunizmo demokratijos problemas, atsirandančias posttotalitarizmo laikotarpiu. Straipsnyje, remiantis postideologijos tezės kritika, teigiama, kad santykio tarp postkomunizmo ir ideologinių diskursų bei santykio tarp postkomunizmo ir postkolonializmo problemų artikuliavimas padeda geriau suprasti postkomunizmo fenomeną

Kultūra kaip ekonominė galia : recenzija

Vytauto Rubavičiaus knygos „Postmodernusis kapitalizmas“ recenzijoje aptariamos šiame veikale nagrinėjamos temos, vėlyvojo kapitalizmo raiškos būdai ir postmodernaus būvio bruožai. Kultūra kaip ekonominė galia – tai pagrindinė tema, persmelkianti Rubavičiaus knygą. Recenzijoje pabrėžiama, kad ši tema iš dalies pakeičia politikos filosofijoje dažnai keliamą politikos ir etikos santykio klausimą. Vertinga knygos pusė – kultūros ir simbolinio lauko tyrimas, susietas su ekonomika ir politika. Joje daug dėmesio skiriama klausimams, susijusiems su kultūros, o vėliau – gyvybės, suprekinimu ir suišteklinimu. Tai atskleidžia dabartinės būklės ir galimų pokyčių specifiką. Recenzijoje atskleidžiami knygos autoriaus siekiai analitiškai prasiskverbti į vėlyvojo kapitalizmo logiką, pažvelgti į šiuolaikines gyvenimo sąlygas būtent kaip į sistemos raišką. Teoriniai tokio tyrimo atskaitos taškai – Karlo Marxo ir Martino Heideggerio įžvalgos. Pastebima, kad knygoje atskleidžiami rinkos, popkultūros, masmedijų ir mokslinio diskurso artimi ryšiai. Autorius ne kartą priartėja prie esminio tikrovės ir tikrovės iliuzijų, slepiančių realybės stoką, santykio. Paskutinis knygos skyrius susijęs su lietuvišku kontekstu, kelia klausimus, susijusius su kontekstinėmis dvejopos krizės pokomunistinėje Lietuvos visuomenėje – sisteminės kapitalizmo ir pereinamųjų visuomenių – problemomis. Baigiant recenziją atkreipiamas dėmesys į tam tikrą tęstinumą, kuriuo pasižymi nagrinėto autoriaus darbai. Reikšminiai žodžiai: Kapitalizmas; Kultūra; Kultūra, kapitalizmas; Moralė; Postmodernizmas; Rubavičius; V. Rubavičius; Capitalism; Culture; Kapitalizm; Morality; Postmodernism; Rubavičius; V. RubaviciusThe review of the book “Postmodern Capitalism” by Vytautas Rubavičius discusses the themes analysed in this book, i.e. expression of the late capitalism and peculiarities of postmodern existence. Culture as an economic power is the main theme of the book by Rubavičius. The review emphasises that this theme partially deals with the issue of relations of politics and ethics usually discussed in philosophy. The book is valuable for its research of culture and symbolic field related to economics and politics. A great deal of attention of the book is devoted to issues related to the commercialisation of culture and life and using thereof as resources. All this reveals the specifics of the current situation and possible changes. The review reveals the author’s aspirations to analytically penetrate into the logics of the late capitalism, observe modern conditions of life as an expression of the system. The theoretical starting point of such a research is insights by Karl Marx and Martin Heidegger. It is noted that the book reveals the close relations of the market, pop culture, mass media and scientific discourse. The author more than once approaches the fundamental relation of the reality and illusions of the reality. The last section of the book related with the Lithuanian context encourages questions related to contextual problems of the dual crisis in the post-communist Lithuanian society, i.e. systemic capitalism and transitional societies. At the end of the review the author pays attention to a certain succession characteristic to the works of the author analysed in the review

The concept of inverted totalitarianism in political philosophy of Sheldon Wolin

Šio straipsnio tikslas – išnagrinėti problemines sąveikas tarp totalitarizmo ir demokratijos, analizuojant ir išplečiant Sheldono S. Wolino totalitarizmo inversijos sampratą. Teigiama, kad totalitarizmo inversijų galimybės slypi pačioje demokratijoje. Inversinio totalitarizmo tendencijos gali formuotis tiek konkretaus politinio režimo rėmuose, tiek ir globalios politinės ir ekonominės struktūros lygmenyje. Straipsnyje pabrėžiama, kad demokratijos teorijos turi atsižvelgti į šiuolaikinėms visuomenėms būdingas disciplinarinės tvarkos tendencijas, kurios radikaliai keičia klasikinę „liaudies valdžios“ idėją. Daroma išvada, kad kartu su totalitarizmu apverčiama ir demokratija, kuri įgauna totalios demokratijos be demoso formąThe main task of this article is to analyze the relationship between totalitarianism and democracy in relation with the concept of inverted totalitarianism by Sheldon S. Wolin. The article argues that the possibilities of inverted totalitarianism are inherent within democracy itself. The tendencies of inverted totalitarianism are not only the trait of concrete political regime, but also intrinsic to global political and economic structure. The article asserts that the disciplinary tendencies in contemporary societies are radically changing the classical idea of „rule by the people“. The main conclusion is that we are witnessing not only the inversions of totalitarianism, but also the inversions of democracy. This new form of democracy can be called a total democracy without demosVytauto Didžiojo universitetasŠvietimo akademij

Postkomunizmas kaip politiškumo forma

The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism

The implications of deliberative democracy for the politics of education: between ethics and politics

Straipsnyje analizuojamas svarstomosios demokratijos ir edukacijos proceso santykis. Siekiama išsiaiškinti, kaip svarstomosios demokratijos modelis derina etiką ir politiką bei kokios to implikacijos švietimo politikai. Svarstomosios demokratijos idėja apibrėžiama kaip ugdymas, kai skirtingos perspektyvos formuoja tęstinę komunikaciją. Argumentuojama, kad svarstomoji demokratija, nors ir suaktualindama bendrojo gėrio sampratą, vis dėlto teikia pirmenybę procedūrinei edukacijos puseiThe model of deliberative democracy and the theory of communicative action of Habermas offers a fresh look at interrelation between society and education. Although deliberative democracy encompasses the essential features of liberal democracy which is of modern value, at the same time it embraces fundamental change of understanding of liberal democracy and of attitude to education accordingly. First of all, deliberating process is valuable on its own, because mutual understanding in various social contexts can be achieved only by discussion, not by voting. Secondly, success of consensus might be of various reasons, because of pluralism of discourses. Thirdly, situation of ideal communication always indicates real local contexts. Thus situation of ideal communication is not just mental experiment but also has particular implications on educational theory. The idea of deliberative democracy can be described as education where different individual perspectives are forming continuous communication. So Habermas’ model is oriented to foster citizenship literacy and develop communicational competencies. Evolving open communication in particular could fortify institutions of deliberative democracyVytauto Didžiojo universitetasŠvietimo akademij