Political Theory

H01 - Representation, Solidarity, Legitimacy

Date: May 30 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location: Classroom - CL 410 Room ID:15706

Chair/Président/Présidente : Paul Gray (Brock University)

Justice and Solidarity: Neil Hibbert (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: Political theorists have recently shown renewed interest in solidarity as a mechanism for stabilizing the requirements of social justice in political societies. This paper engages with this emerging literature, and presents an agnostic conception of the relationship between justice and solidarity. Solidarity concerns the capacity of group membership to affect the behaviour of members by imposing and enforcing obligations needed for successful production of the cooperative goods that are constitutive of the shared interests of members. While solidarity is normative, the relationship between solidarity and justice is agnostic and solidary groups need not be moral in the sense of necessarily aligning with justice. The morality of solidary groups depends on the content of the shared interest of the group. Politically, solidarity can often result in agonistic political struggles between solidarity groups in pursuit of often-conflicting interests. Solidarity and justice will run closest together in the case of smaller groups that possess a joint interest in contesting the legitimacy of institutionalized inequality and exclusion. Though over time, and with political success, the position of these groups can move away from being conducive to justice to undermining it. This conception of solidarity differs from some main trends in current theorizing of solidarity, in particular theories that: treat solidarity as inherently moral; theories of solidarity that emphasize the solidarity of large groups, specifically nations; and, approaches to solidarity that treat it as an element of relations between persons not sharing group membership.

Revisiting the Concept of Representation: A Morphology: Qinghua Yi (Simon Fraser University)
Abstract: Recent empirical findings contend that authoritarian regimes are responsive to and thus representing their citizens. Yet it is unclear whether current democracy-centric interpretation of the concept of representation could be extended to authoritarian contexts. As a normative response to this issue, I draw on Michael Freeden’s morphological analysis and propose a structural and contextual conceptualization of representation. It is structural in the sense that I take representation as the combination of core components and different adjacent components (e.g. actors, venues, etc.). The meaning of the components (mostly adjacent components, as the meaning of core components is largely stable) and the possible combinations of them are shaped by institutional and cultural contexts. Representation thus gains different meanings and forms in democratic and authoritarian regimes.

Ballot Measures in Political Theory: Spencer McKay (University of British Columbia)
Abstract: Competing normative conceptions of democracy have led theorists to assess ballot measures – such as referendums and citizens' initiatives – against a variety of different criteria. For instance, evaluations from the perspective of deliberative democracy raise concerns about the quality of public discourse, republican theories of democracy worry about ballot measures as tools of domination, and minimalist democrats contend that electing candidates is preferable to voting on policies. Widespread skepticism about the democratic potential of ballot measures appears to be the result of a diverse set of reasons. I contend that these apparently distinct dismissals of ballot measures are rooted in a common conception of ballot measures as devices of ‘direct democracy’ that are devoid of representation. Yet, there is a growing consensus that this view is untenable and that assessments of ballot measures need to consider how they interact with practices of representation. Following recent exhortations for political theorists to pay more attention to institutions, I argue that careful consideration of the differences between existing ballot measure institutions suggests the need for a more nuanced evaluation of the relationship between ballot measures and democracy.