In the contemporary world of neoliberalism, efficiency is treated as the vehicle of political and economic health. State bureaucracy, but not corporate bureaucracy, is seen as inefficient, and privatization is seen as a magic cure for social ills. In Public Things: Democracy in Disrepair , Bonnie Honig asks whether democracy is possible in the absence of public services, spaces, and utilities. In other words, if neoliberalism leaves to democracy merely electoral majoritarianism and procedures of deliberation while divesting democratic states of their ownership of public things, what will the impact be?
Following Tocqueville, who extolled the virtues of “pursuing in common the objects of common desires,” Honig focuses not on the demos but on the objects of democratic life. Democracy, as she points out, postulates public things―infrastructure, monuments, libraries―that citizens use, care for, repair, and are gathered up by. To be “gathered up” refers to the work of D. W. Winnicott, the object relations psychoanalyst who popularized the idea of “transitional objects”―the toys, teddy bears, or favorite blankets by way of which infants come to understand themselves as unified selves with an inside and an outside in relation to others. The wager of Public Things is that the work transitional objects do for infants is analogously performed for democratic citizens by public things, which press us into object relations with others and with ourselves.
Public Things attends also to the historically racial character of public things: public lands taken from indigenous peoples, access to public goods restricted to white majorities. Drawing on Hannah Arendt, who saw how things fabricated by humans lend stability to the human world, Honig shows how Arendt and Winnicott―both theorists of livenesss―underline the material and psychological conditions necessary for object permanence and the reparative work needed for a more egalitarian democracy.
Bonnie Honig is a political and legal theorist specialized in democratic and feminist theory. She is Sarah Rebecca Roland Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University and Senior Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation. She received her PhD from Johns Hopkins University.
Prior to moving to Northwestern University, Prof. Honig taught at Harvard University for several years. The 1997 decision by then-President of Harvard Neil Rudenstine not to offer Honig tenure was highly controversial, and attracted harsh criticism from a number of prominent Harvard professors as a violation of Rudenstine's stated commitment to increasing the number of tenured female professors.
To speak of democracy, so the story goes, is to speak of the demos - the people - for whom and by which politics takes place. But what of the people’s Things? The ‘things’ of the public around which we coalesce, and through which our worlds are constructed? Monuments, roads, rivers, and light - shared things, public things. Do these have a life simply incidental to democracy, or do they stand instead among it's necessary conditions, a landscape through which its vital powers are channeled, challenged, and cherished? To just this second alternative is what, in a beautiful triptych of essays, is affirmed here by Bonnie Honig, who with this book rightly cements her place as one of the most important democratic thinkers of the present day. Reflecting less on the bright-light topics of freedom, equality, subjectivity or biopolitics, it’s instead to the unsung dignity of infrastructure, land, food, and space that Honig turns her attention, bringing out, in a way few others can or have, the tangible stakes of what it would mean to live in a democratic world.
Indeed the question of Things and the 'world' which they inaugurate and sustain lies at the heart of this lovely tract, precisely to the extent that their power seems ever waning under the drive - now everywhere present - to privatization and economic 'efficiency'. Drawing on the unlikely pairing of Hannah Arendt and D. W. Winnicott (political philosopher and psychoanalytic writer respectively), Honig wields them both to analyse a range of cases, from the public dimensions of Marian Anderson's legendary 1939 Lincoln Memorial performance, to present day efforts of the Unist'ot'en Camp in Canada to fend off intrusions from commercial oil interests, as well as the travails of the Crow Nation in sustaining their future in the face of massive social and cultural upheaval. In its astute blend of both philosophy and concrete analysis, Public Things makes for not only cutting edge political theorizing, but just great reading as well. As part of the 'Thinking Out Loud' Sydney Lectures in Philosophy and Society, Honig's conversational and, well, 'public' tone carries over too, making this an exemplary and relevant instance of just that 'public thing' so celebrated within.
Interessante gedachten over de verhouding van burgers tot publieke dingen. Hoopvol perspectief voor het we-doen-het-samen-gevoel in democratieën. Verder wel erg Amerika-gericht met veel voorbeelden die weinig aansprekend zijn. Ook jammer dat het uit verschillende, eerder geschreven, essays bestaat in plaats van dat het één betoog is. Maakt het minder vloeiend en leest daardoor moeilijker weg.
This slim book is a series of essays based on three lectures (plus an epilogue), exploring "public things" through the dual lens of Hannah Arendt and her book "The Human Condition," and and D.W. Winnicott, known for his development of the idea of the "holding environment" in child development theory. Honig takes Winnicott's theory to the political and civic realm. My enthusiasm for the book is not because of Honig's success in applying the theory--it does seem forced at times--but because of all the ideas and connections that she is able to spark along the way. It makes for an exciting history of ideas, one applicable to studies of democracy and cultural history.
This is not exactly the Tragedy of the Commons, but the tragedy of things--objects and infrastructure--that were either created or adapted for the public realm. And she includes in her broad category those things that can be considered "civic infrastructure" such as parks, universities and libraries. As far as the writing style, she has kept the pep of a lecture (I assume; I haven't seen the lectures) and includes interesting asides and references to poets, protests, and politics.
Honig's text goes many places, however, most eye-catching when looking at her conversation about Attention Deficit Disorder to American people in how they never find satisfaction with a thing or can relish in it, without wanting more. This turn to an efficiency of a thing is a bit concerning in how people are normally forgotten about when making a thing more efficient. Honig asserts a common claim that is made when the public becomes privatized it is too increase efficiency, however, this alleged increase often does not consider people when trying to be productive. The text begs the question of when is productivity no longer effective from an empathetic perspective? Are things still more effective if jobs and land is being lost for efficiency? Also to what extent can this need for efficiency last before individuals start caring for their environment over efficiency or are their no limit?
Overall it looks like a great project, however I can't help but ask why the author needs to combine Arendt with Winnicott. It seems counterintuitive and problematic. There are great insights in this book, but at the same time some of the most interesting discussions on speculative realism and object oriented ontology in relation to political theory are just dimissed to mantain a fidelity to psychoanalysis and subjectivity. I think the book is interesting but the theoretical choices are odd. Why not Huizinga's Homo Ludens Instead of Winnicott? Why not focus on Arendt's Crisis of Culture? Finally, I really liked Honig's analysis of Lars von Trier's Melancholia.
They clutch everything but hold nothing fast, and so lose grip as they hurry after some new delight.
So, in Arendt’s terms, the American love of the world becomes a love of home. Instead of Parisian minimization, we have gone for maximization. Energies that might have been spent on community work find their outlets in new kitchens, new houses, new paint colors, and so on.
Arendt knows that people who are deprived of worldly things that situate them among others are forced to find inner resources for moral and political orientation, and that not all succeed. Most do not.
Melancholics are good at handling catastrophes, because they are more prepared for it than are other people.
I appreciate the psychoanalytic-materialist insight that public things can gather together the democratic people. There are also some clever moments, such as the reading of the issue of Big Bird in the 2012 Presidential debate as involving the infantilization of public goods. Yet, I find myself far more drawn to the notion of the commons that Honig contrasts with her "public things" in the epilogue. Moreover, I am skeptical of some of the examples of public things, and since there is no definition beyond these examples, it is hard to buy the theoretical approach here in whole.