Political Theory

H09(b) - Democracy and Liberalism in the History of Political Thought

Date: Jun 4 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Lauchlan Munro (University of Ottawa)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Matthew Hamilton (University of Winnipeg)

Kant on the Right to Vote : From Epistocracy to Servitude: Fabien Tremblay (Université Laval), Sylvie Loriaux (Université Laval)
Abstract: While being a fierce defender of the ideal of individual freedom, Immanuel Kant paradoxically denied the right to vote to those he perceived as lacking the attribute of ‘civil self-sufficiency’. These ‘passive citizens’ included children, women and adult males of various occupations, such as woodchoppers, private tutors or merchants’ apprentices. Scholars have traditionally attempted to explain this tension by linking the lack of civil self-sufficiency to a (perceived) lack of some sort of individual competence. Implicitly, these interpretations thus categorize Kant as a defender of some form of epistocracy, a political regime in which individuals deemed more qualified to govern are formally given more political power than the rest of the population. This paper challenges these epistocratic readings, and mobilizes historical research on servitude in early modern Europe to contextualize Kant’s position. Alternatively, it argues that his defense of restricted voting should be situated in a tradition of philosophers and governments who denied the status of political citizenship to individuals possessing the social standing of ‘servant’. These servants, whose occupation or social position placed them under the subjection of the will of another, were perceived as lacking a free will, which appears to have been seen as a sufficient reason for their political exclusion in numerous instances. It also discusses the relevance of this interpretation for two contemporary philosophical debates over (i) the nature of the concept of autonomy, as discussed in feminist literature on oppression, and (ii) the (in)compatibility of modern employment relations with the democratic ideal of self-governance.

Complicating French Political Theory: Interpreting Lefort’s Ambiguities: Samuel de Brouwer (York University)
Abstract: French political theory experienced a revival in the 1970s with the critique of totalitarianism. At the forefront of this movement, Claude Lefort contributed significantly to the intelligence of the democratic experience. However, throughout his life, he has maintained an ambiguous stance regarding the status of liberal democracy. Does liberal democracy signal the “end of history,” or is it merely an ephemeral configuration poised to evolve into a more libertarian and emancipatory political experience? Despite Lefort’s strong critiques of Marxist teleological philosophies of history, no democratic theorist may ever entirely evade a speculative discourse on our future as a democracy is inherently concerned with the creation and becoming. To refine the parameters of this inquiry, this presentation will examine three essential elements in Lefort’s work: the libertarian idea of democracy, human rights, and State power. This analysis will focus on the polemic on “revoltism” between Lefort’s two former protégés, Marcel Gauchet and Miguel Abensour. In 2003, Gauchet accused Lefort and Abensour of lacking consistency as democrats, labelling them as “revoltists” who envision democracy as an eternal elsewhere while dismissing its present reality. In response, Abensour argued that there is no contradiction between democracy and revolt, positing that modern democracy is inherently a revolutionary process. Denying democracy's unruly essence risks confining it to the formal rule of law. This analysis presentation aims to illuminate the dynamic and evolving nature of democracy as envisioned by Lefort, highlighting the tensions between present realities and revolutionary aspirations that continue to shape political thought today.

George Grant’s Reflections on the Canadian Left (and What the Left Can Learn From Them Today): Scott Staring (Georgian College)
Abstract: To some of his readers, the political philosopher George Grant is something of an ideological paradox: a self-proclaimed “conservative” and “Christian-Platonist,” who also expressed admiration for the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation as a young man, supported the New Democratic Party during its founding, and later became a darling of the New Left-inspired Waffle movement. Grant himself, though, saw no contradiction between these commitments. Socialism, he argued, was in fact a more conservative doctrine than the prevailing liberal-capitalist ideology. Whereas the latter was guided by a vision of progress that sought the limitless expansion of individual freedom, socialism carried within it the traces of an older Christian universalism that inevitably, if unintentionally, moderated individualism in the name of a broader social equality. This reading of Grant’s thought, I argue, helps to explain why Grant supported the nationalist Waffle movement in their conflict with the more liberal centre of the NDP. It can also provide lessons for the present-day Canadian left, which has strayed from its universalist roots and now struggles to distinguish its politics from those of the contemporary Liberal Party.

Self-Determining Identity and Collectivism: The Tension within Rousseau's Contestation with Liberal Modernity: Taylor Green (University of Victoria)
Abstract: It is well known that Rousseau writes paradoxical political theories. As Gregory Dart (2003) notes, the best criticism of Rousseau is to find two Rousseaus, without looking to solve the paradox between them or without finding the resolution to unify them. With discussion of identity so prevalent in the western world, worth examining is Jean-Jacques, author of the self expressive freedom in Emile. Contrasted with the text on education is a different Rousseau, one that opens the doorway for political theories of increasingly illiberal politics. My aim in this paper is to juxtapose two Rousseaus, while at the same time attempting not to mitigate the one at the expense of the other in Rousseau’s complex analysis of nature and society. Rousseau sensed a tension in the very fabric of modernity itself, and it is through diagnosing modernity that Rousseau comes to polarity within his own thinking. One part of this tension is from his Emile for a notion of the particular in one’s own self-expressive identity, and the other is derived from his Social Contract for a remedy to the alienated and divided self, where the individual is submerged into Rousseau’s political collectivism. Both stem from the same source of a dissatisfaction with bourgeois self-interest. Where some have contended that Rousseau’s writings cannot be unified, others take narrow parts of Rousseau without examining the parts in relation to others, missing the lesson of Rousseau's political thinking. What to conclude from this is my aim of a contribution to transcendence of the paradoxes, to apprehend the true human tension inherent in Rousseau’s thinking, revealing further our inheritance of liberal modernity. While not magnifying one aspect at the expense of another, asserting the tension of the individual’s freedom within collective politics comes with an ambiguity that can edify liberalism today. While Rousseau is not the best representative of a liberal thinker, from examining these polarities, we can learn how to bolster our liberalism through this tension.