حال و روز دموکراسی

by Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou, Daniel Bensaïd

واژه «دموکراسی» از جمله مفاهیم فراگیر، بدیهی و درعین‌حال بغرنج و چند وجهی است. با این وجود در دنیایی که ما به سر می‌بریم کم و بیش ارزشی مثبت تلقی می­شود و این روزها به ظاهر اتفاق نظر بسیار گسترده‌ای پدید آورده است.

مقالات این کتاب پاسخ هشت اندیشمند چپ­گرای معاصر است به این پرسش که «آیا دموکرات نامیدن خود، معنایی دارد و شما این کلمه را چگونه تفسیر می‌کنید؟» پاسخ‌هایی که خواهیم خواند از یکدیگر واگرا هستند و گاهی همدیگر را نقض می‌کنند. بنابراین این کتاب هیچ تعریف معیاری از دموکراسی، و همچنین راهنمایی برای دموکرات­ها فراهم نمی‌کند و به هیچ خط فکری رأی موافق یا مخالف نمی‌هد.

«جورجو آگامبن» فیلسوف و نویسنده ایتالیایی، آغازگر مواجهه با پرسش اصلی این کتاب است. به زعم او، ما امروزه شاهد برتری غالب حکومت و اقتصاد بر هر چیزی هستیم که بتوان آن را حاکمیت مردم نامید. اصطلاحی که اکنون دیگر از هر معنایی تهی شده است.

دیگر فیلسوف نامداری که نظریات و مقالاتش در این کتاب مورد توجه قرار گرفته «آلن بدیو» فرانسوی است. او بر این باور است که دموکراسی، نشان غالب جامعه سیاسی معاصر باقی خواهد ماند. اما تنها راه بیرون کشیدن حقیقت از دل جهان امروز، زدودن هاله کلمه دموکراسی و تن دادن به خطر دموکرات نبودن است.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory

195 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Giorgio Agamben is one of the leading figures in Italian and contemporary continental philosophy. He is the author of Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life; Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive; Profanations; The Signature of All Things: On Method, and other books. Through the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s he treated a wide range of topics, including aesthetics, literature, language, ontology, nihilism, and radical political thought.

In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.

He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.

Reviews

[Amin]

ترجمه ناامیدکننده؛ بسیار غیرروان و سخت که موجب شد به ترجمه انگلیسی مراجعه کنم و متاسفانه به غیردقیق و غیرحرفه ای بودن ترجمه پی ببرم که معنی اش چیزی جز خیانت در حق مخاطب نیست. وقتی شخصی از درک معنای متن و محتوای فلسفی آن عاجز است، چطور به خود اجازه ترجمه آن را میدهد؟

[Iman Rouhipour · Rating 3 out of 5]

سرمایه‌داری واژه‌ی «دموکراسی» رو مصادره کرد و به نفع خودش تغییر داد و از دموکراسی به عنوان پتکی در برابر بلوک شرق در طی جنگ سرد بهره برد.
چیزی که هر هشت عزیز حاضر در مجموعه سعی دارند بگن اینه که آقا اصلاً دموکراسی این نبوده که رأی‌گیری کنیم و کسی که پنجاه ‌و یک درصد آرا رو کسب کنه بشه نماینده و رئیس‌جمهور و ... که در نهایت هرکی هم منتخب بشه قراره طبق مقررات نظام سرمایه عمل کنه و امنیت بازار و سرمایه‌دار رو حفظ کنه. پس در عمل دو جا خطا شده، یکی خود صندوق آرایی که اصلاً دموکراسی نیست، یکی هم قدرتی که اصلاً دست اون نماینده و رئیس‌جمهور و فلان نیست. در دموکراسی هر یک فرد تعیین‌کننده ست، نه به عنوان یک عدد که مجبوره با میلیون‌ها جمع بشه.
مثلاً تو انتخابات سال ۲۰۱۶ آمریکا - بماند که تعداد آرا کلینتون سه میلیون بالاتر از ترامپ بود - چهل و پنج درصد مردم کلاً رأی ندادن! یعنی یه تعدادی حول و حوش صد میلیون نفر. این کجاش حکومت مردم بر مردمه؟ به قول ژیژک دموکراسی امروز انتخاب بین پپسی و کوکاکولاست.

پ.ن : نسخه‌ی نشرچشمه رو داشتم و سعی کردم بخونم که ترجمه‌ش به‌شدت بد بود؛ در نتیجه نسخه‌ی PDF نشر منجنیق با نام «دموکراسی در کدام وضعیت؟» رو خوندم که خیلی خیلی خوب بود و دمشون گرم.

[Corvus Corax · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nettes kleines Buch mit einigen interessanten Beiträgen.
Bensaïd kannte ich vorher gar nicht - der Beitrag war für mich eine positive Überraschung.

[Eleni · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an interesting attempt to explore the conceptualisation and implementation of democracy starting from its roots in ancient Greece up to our own time, in order to identify, through theoretical scrutiny, why it’s still relevant today.

Why and how. Despite its mishaps, despite being a key word here, because a quick read (aka the pointless type of read) could mislead the reader to suggest that democracy might as well be ditched altogether for something else. Why not! Don’t all self-proclaimed democratic governments abuse it all the time anyway?

Well no, this is so not what the book is suggesting, even though the authors’ criticism on contemporary western democracies is unsurprisingly very harsh (and rightly so). Indeed, the book places heavy emphasis on the fact that paradoxically, democratic abuse tends to be the very way democracy is practiced today, but this is certainly not because there’s something fundamentally wrong with the theoretical framework of democracy itself. On the contrary, the theoretical framework of democracy is so perfect, from a philosophical point of view anyway, that it’s become the world administration’s favourite excuse for all political malpractice under the one-fits-all “democracy” umbrella.

So perfect and so intentionally overlooked. And this is where the authors intervene to suggest that because democracy’s theoretical framework is so perfect, democracy is always relevant and therefore there is scope in going back to its essence; to understanding what it really stands for, as today the term seems to be entirely up for grabs! Because, let’s face it: nobody can really accurately define democracy, and yet everybody agrees it’s “something good”.

In this respect, Democracy in What State? gathers the views of some of the greatest (and most hyped these days it seems, but I’m pretending this isn't the case) minds of our time on the de-democratising effects of the neoliberal status quo dominating modern societies (to the contrary of the egalitarian presupposition of democracy), as well as on the essential elements of meaningful practice of democracy.

Obviously, gathering Badiou, Bensaïd, Brown, Nancy, Rancière, Ross and Zizek together with a delightful preface by Agamben in a single book is an achievement enough. Also, of the authors present in this book, Wendy Brown and Kristin Ross are the two that I had not read before at all, so I’m grateful for their excellent contributions as well. Moreover, the authors make extensive and extremely interesting references to Plato, Marx, Mao, Rousseau etc, which provide the necessary context to their theses.

Nevertheless, I found there isn't enough closure here, because these – otherwise extremely intriguing – thoughts read like a bit of a potpourri lacking a specific focus on today. Not that this is a big surprise and you can’t really condense the minds of seven theorists into some 150 pages; I knew that to begin with. But I couldn't imagine how much this book would make me want to go back to other relevant essays I've read, by Cornelius Castoriades, by Raoul Vaneigem or by the very authors in this book indeed!

Warning: Greek speaking readers only
If you don’t want to start questioning your basic comprehension capabilities, do not try the translated version in Greek. Patakis may be a fine choice of a publisher for fiction, but philosophy works completely differently. I thought I was being bold by ignoring this rule (of which I was perfectly aware, mind you), but it turns out I was simply mistaken. The translation is just incoherent and I had to turn to the English version in the end.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

These essays left me understanding even less about what democracy really is - a good book.

[Mehrnaz]

ترجمه خیلی بد!

[Owlseyes]

"The case of China is exemplary of this deadlock of democracy.
...
Along these lines Fareed Zacaria points out how democracy can only "catch on" in economically developed countries....

no wonder today's most economically successful Third World countries (Taiwan, South Korea, Chile) embraced full democracy only after a period of authoritarian rule"
Slavoj Žižek

"All today's "advanced industrial democracies" are in fact oligarchic democracies: they represent the victory of a dynamic oligarchy...."
Kristin Ross

"We heard the same old line coming from people like Daniel Chon-Bendit: that democracy brought Hitler to power and so on.(...) Internally the democrat is an enemy. The Trilateral Commission was pushing this line thirty years ago: democracy."
Jacques Rancière






Democracy, in What State? In Russia.
Democracy in what state? Very poor state; pluralism lacking, in the sense that the main opponent to Putin---Alexei Anatolievich Navalny---was (put) off the presidential race; etc, etc,...to say the least.

The Truth About Putin
The March 18 elections are nothing but a sham—the Russian dictator will serve just as long as he pleases
by GARRY KASPAROV

in: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-tru...

[Ali Heidaritokaldani · Rating 2 out of 5]

ترجمه واقعا افتضاح است. کتاب در عین جذابیت موضوع بسیار سخت خوان و بشدت حوصله سر بر پیش می‌رود

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with any edited collection, a bit of a mixed bag. Also, occasionally feels a little hermetically sealed; all of these people are talking about the same issues, in more or less the same way, which means they are very much in conversation with each other but also that the range of opinion can be a little narrow. Still, worth a look, as a brief introduction to some of the issues that are front and center in democratic theory right now, from some of the key thinkers.

[Lynn · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book contained essays that were far too deans for me. I didn’t really got nothing from it.

[Reza Khabook · Rating 3 out of 5]

واقعا دموكراسى چيست؟
كتاب جواب اين سوال رو مستقيم يا با واسطه از طريق مقالاتي از زبان متفكرين چپ جواب ميده كه گاهى مخاطب رو به سمت حرف هاي ارزشمندي درباره رابطه حق و مصلحت هدايت مي كنه!
اما امان از ترجمه بد كتاب! اونقدر بد كه بايد گاهي رمزگشايي كنيد!

[Annie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't care if I haven't finished it, I love it already.

[Chris Nagel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I checked this out to see what the big deal is about Agamben, Badiou, and Rancière. I still don't know; in fact, I'm more perplexed.

[Ramón · Rating 3 out of 5]

Agamben: 4/5
Badiou: 3/5
Bensaïd: 3/5
Brown: 5/5
Nancy: 2/5
Rancière: 1/5
Ross: 5/5
Žižek: 4/5

[Dante · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite what I was expecting. With limited space given to each of the thinkers, nothing in particular shone through; thinkers like Ranciere need time and space in their writing to really excel, so there wasn't much new from his essay. Similarly, Badiou and Zizek's pieces were constitued with the expected and regular skeptical assaults on Democracy in practice, and rambling theoretical pokes at the history of Democratic theory. The other essays were interesting and nice introductions to theorists I've had limited engagement with, but nothing special.

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unfocused in a way that distracts from the essence of what is important to understand. Let’s get some stronger definitions of the words communism and democracy and then make a much stronger argument. The corporate socialism of democracy as it solidifies through capitalism into a totalitarian communism is the point. But this comes off at times like an indiscriminately government hating rant. Which Agamben and Badiou are too knowledgeable to be doing.

[Michel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Badiou'ya saygılar...

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Liked it, but didn't love it. Here's why: though it's interesting how the essayists draw upon the question of democracy (in terms of its historical context, but also in breaking down what "democracy" actually means), some of the essays are a bit too repetitive for me, and some are just a bit off the mark. Or, rather, I should say that though they offer a lot of theory, I read this through an educator's lens, and so I want applicable approaches to practice. And, honestly, more than a few left me thinking, "Just get to the point already," which I know is partially the nature of the beast, but after a while, it certainly takes away from the intended message.

In other words, it is absoultely essential to challenge the notion of democracy in our world and determine its effectiveness (both past and present); but the bigger question, in my opinion (which I didn't feel was fully realized and/or answered in any of the essays) is, what do we DO about it?

Agamben asks early on, "Of what do we speak when we speak of democracy?" and I agree 100% that this is a question we must all seek to answer--not just as professionals, but as citizens of the world. Whether we concern ourselves with the day to day workings of our government or not, what fascinates me is the idea that many of us haven't (or don't) distinguish between the language (the term "democracy" itself) and the processes (i.e. what democracy or any other form of "rule" does and should look like in a given society). The 2012 election serves as a stark reminder of just how far apart we are on this subject...so why isn't EVERYONE (not just some) looking closer? And, more importantly, given that (at least in the U.S.) we are so far apart, how will we possibly achieve a true democracy when we don't even agree on what that means?

That's what I liked most about this book--it provides the mirror with which we need to engage to look a little deeper, grapple with what's in front of us, ponder how to change it (if, in fact, we agree that things need to change). I just wished that it would have gone a bit further in offering some concrete ways in which we begin the work of doing.

That said, at least they've got us asking the right questions...

[Daniel Hammer · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this collection of essays, French and American thinkers question democracy’s global reign, producing some thought-provoking commentary along the way. It is a short, easy to read, and a window into the thoughts of writers on the self-proclaimed Western left. For Agamben, Badiou, Bensaid, and Nancy, our surest guides for understanding or overcoming the de-signification of democracy today lie in words of Plato, Rousseau, and Marx. Unfortunately, they do not intend to trace how the past led to the present, but to draw a direct line of critique from the ancient world to the modern. It is as if more than 2,000 years had not passed since the ancient Greek polity, or as if the world still took the shape of, and merited the same terms of analysis as, 19th century industrial London. I was hoping that the authors would engage why democracy, as a “living” idea, takes the forms that it does today—focusing on the social, political, and economic changes which have occurred, particularly since the end of the Cold War. Instead the picture that emerges is of democracy is an inert ideal from the past which we have somehow corrupted or forgotten. As Wittgenstein would advise, “Back to rough ground!” To meaningfully talk about democracy today, look at the world we actually live in.

[OSCAR · Rating 2 out of 5]

Salvo por los trabajos que abren y cierran el libro, los textos de Giorgio Agamben y de Slavoj Zizek, el resto pueden reducirse a un tufillo izquierdista que no pasa, a pesar de los constantes rodeos, de afirmar ese mantra de que "Los problemas de la democracia se resuelven con más democracia". El tono ampuloso de varios de los autores dificultó la lectura, pero fue una estrategia para encubrir en realidad la misma crítica contra el neoliberalismo de siempre.

[Farhan M · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good mix of original insight by authors like Badiou and Brown that tries to address current modes of political cynicism and fatigue. But then again, a good mix of bad writers, who frankly, are incomprehensible not because of unnecessary verbiage but of using common terms rather frivolously (law, politeia, representation), followed by their awakward constructions of Plato and Hobbes, Bensaid especially.

[Bookshark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like many anthologies, this one contains some essays that are excellent and others that are not so great. Still, it gets four stars because the chapter by Brown articulated the problem area so clearly that something just clicked, and I figured out what argument I want to make in a paper I'm working on. The introduction by Agamben was also quite good, and most of the chapters at least had their moments. It's a very quick, enjoyable read.

[Erik Sjöström · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just a load of shit. Every single one of the writers gave me the impression of an old man who came up with their political theories in the comfort of their home, somewhere out on country.
Slavoj comes out as the most grounded out of the bunch, though stuck in the past.

[Nouf · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read three chapters until now first , and last chapter and one more in the middle .. it's an awesome book .. small but very big in thoughts!



I do recommend that you give it a read :)

[Ziad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great insights towards a reformulation of the word, idea, and concept of Democracy. It's a quick read generally and will do you good to read on the road, in the subway, or just before bed.

[Annie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un recueil de contributions un peu inégales mais dans l'ensemble fructueuses.