Politics of Difference lecture notes and readings
summary
Lecture 1
Introduction
The politics of difference
- Refers to “how power and political institutions categorize people into
groups and how this generates inequality”
- Not all differences are political, so we’re interested in how and why some
differences become and remain political
- Defining what is "normal" and what is "different" is political
- Political scientists study differences between interests AND identities
- Political theorists have often seen equality as best protected by respecting
difference in the private sphere, while treating difference as irrelevant in
the public sphere
- Critical theorists question the possibility of a "neutral" public sphere and
argue that equality requires confronting differences rather than ignoring
them
- Describing difference – through statistics or otherwise – is political
Lecture 2
The Public Sphere
What is the Public Sphere?
- The Public Sphere is:
a communicative ‘realm’;
o Both physical spaces and mediated discourse
to discuss and debate the common interest and government;
o Who is part of the ‘Common’ and What is the ‘Government’?
o Migrants and future generations have nothing to say
where the ‘force of the better argument wins’
o Coercion is absent
and where participants leave their status and identities behind;
o A Veil of Ignorance
A hypothetical state, in which decisions about social
justice and the allocation of resources would be made
fairly, as if by a person who must decide on society’s rules
and economic structures without knowing what position
they will occupy in that society.
What sort of Public Sphere is the University
- Intent and framing matters
All theory is for someone and some purpose
o How can we create world peace? UN
o How can you deter a potential aggressor? military industry
o How can we reduce number of civilian casualties? civilians
- Positionality matters
Gender, race, nationality, language
- Does this mean that all ideas deserve equal respect in the academy?
In social science no greater objectivity or greater contingency
, Academic freedom/inquiry is not the same as freedom of speech
o E.g. freedom of speech: lying is allowed, academic freedom: lying
is fraud
University is public sphere with a set of rules
Two arguments about the public sphere
- Bennett & Livingston
In public sphere not one truth or source
o How are we supposed to have a democratic debate when people
can’t even agree on basic facts?
Disinformation and lies by politicians
1. Confirmation bias
o We like information confirming our beliefs and we dislike
information denying our beliefs
2. Social media
o Provides mechanisms for confirmation bias
Algorithms
Meeting groups with same opinions
3. State interference
o Government use more and more disinformation
o They do this to influence people’s opinions
o They also use disinformation to destabilize other countries
4. Erosion of liberal institutions
o Erosion of trust in political actors
- Young
What type of speech is valued/excluded in the public sphere?
Speech in the public sphere is valued when:
o It has a practical purpose
This excludes positions of caution to gather more
information
o Arguments are based on logic
This excludes arguments that are not based on logic
o The speaker has good manners (e.g. being calm)
This excludes people who speak and act in different ways
Advantages of communicative over deliberative democracy
o Instead of encouraging pure objectivity, encourages participants
to reflect on their positionality
o Instead of privileging the good of the (re)public, admits that the
good of certain groups may require unique solutions that go
against the public interest
Take-aways
- The public sphere is a realm of political debate where the better argument
wins
- Political scientists debate how political truths are but rarely whether truth
is possible
- Disinformation is the product of individual bias, social media, state
interference and the erosion of institutions
- Communicative democracy places difference at the centre of democratic
debate
Young: Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy
- Interest-based democracy models
, Expressing preferences and demands voting about it
Current practice in Western democracies
- Deliberative democracy model
Citizens coming together to discuss about collective problems
Problem: doesn’t make speakers equal, is elitist and exclusive, has
agonistic norms
Assumes unity
- Communicative democracy model
Some unity needed, but difference also has use: listening across
differences of position and perspectives causes changes in preference
Needed elements for plurality:
o Greeting trust, respect, politeness, deference
o (besides rational also) situatedness and link to desire rhetoric
relation to audience and appealing to attributes or experience of
audience
o Storytelling/narratives understandings across differences
Bennet and Livingston: A Brief History of the Disinformation Age:
Information Wars and the Decline of Institutional Authority
- Growing levels of disinformation undermine processes of democracy
- Conventional explanations
Social media
Confirmation bias: people privilege information aligned with prior
beliefs
State interference: foreign disinformation
- Deeper institutional explanation
Systematic weakening of authoritative institutions of liberal democracy
o Lying, deception and spin from credible authorities erodes
public confidence in institutions less trust in press and
elections people search for emotionally affirming alternative
facts disinformation becomes more popular
Lecture 3
Religion
Religion in political science
- Secular people relate differently to religious books than religious people
‘Return’ of religion in politics
- Recent examples
Clash of Civilizations (Huntington)
9/11 religion driving force in politics?
Hamas
Trump
- Only in Europe a big decline in religious people
- Modern technology and social media in religions
Religion as the ‘medium’ of Western political thought
- Religion is origin of modern political thought
Hobbes, Gandhi, MLK
Religious tolerance as the foundation of the state system
- Peace of Westphalia
summary
Lecture 1
Introduction
The politics of difference
- Refers to “how power and political institutions categorize people into
groups and how this generates inequality”
- Not all differences are political, so we’re interested in how and why some
differences become and remain political
- Defining what is "normal" and what is "different" is political
- Political scientists study differences between interests AND identities
- Political theorists have often seen equality as best protected by respecting
difference in the private sphere, while treating difference as irrelevant in
the public sphere
- Critical theorists question the possibility of a "neutral" public sphere and
argue that equality requires confronting differences rather than ignoring
them
- Describing difference – through statistics or otherwise – is political
Lecture 2
The Public Sphere
What is the Public Sphere?
- The Public Sphere is:
a communicative ‘realm’;
o Both physical spaces and mediated discourse
to discuss and debate the common interest and government;
o Who is part of the ‘Common’ and What is the ‘Government’?
o Migrants and future generations have nothing to say
where the ‘force of the better argument wins’
o Coercion is absent
and where participants leave their status and identities behind;
o A Veil of Ignorance
A hypothetical state, in which decisions about social
justice and the allocation of resources would be made
fairly, as if by a person who must decide on society’s rules
and economic structures without knowing what position
they will occupy in that society.
What sort of Public Sphere is the University
- Intent and framing matters
All theory is for someone and some purpose
o How can we create world peace? UN
o How can you deter a potential aggressor? military industry
o How can we reduce number of civilian casualties? civilians
- Positionality matters
Gender, race, nationality, language
- Does this mean that all ideas deserve equal respect in the academy?
In social science no greater objectivity or greater contingency
, Academic freedom/inquiry is not the same as freedom of speech
o E.g. freedom of speech: lying is allowed, academic freedom: lying
is fraud
University is public sphere with a set of rules
Two arguments about the public sphere
- Bennett & Livingston
In public sphere not one truth or source
o How are we supposed to have a democratic debate when people
can’t even agree on basic facts?
Disinformation and lies by politicians
1. Confirmation bias
o We like information confirming our beliefs and we dislike
information denying our beliefs
2. Social media
o Provides mechanisms for confirmation bias
Algorithms
Meeting groups with same opinions
3. State interference
o Government use more and more disinformation
o They do this to influence people’s opinions
o They also use disinformation to destabilize other countries
4. Erosion of liberal institutions
o Erosion of trust in political actors
- Young
What type of speech is valued/excluded in the public sphere?
Speech in the public sphere is valued when:
o It has a practical purpose
This excludes positions of caution to gather more
information
o Arguments are based on logic
This excludes arguments that are not based on logic
o The speaker has good manners (e.g. being calm)
This excludes people who speak and act in different ways
Advantages of communicative over deliberative democracy
o Instead of encouraging pure objectivity, encourages participants
to reflect on their positionality
o Instead of privileging the good of the (re)public, admits that the
good of certain groups may require unique solutions that go
against the public interest
Take-aways
- The public sphere is a realm of political debate where the better argument
wins
- Political scientists debate how political truths are but rarely whether truth
is possible
- Disinformation is the product of individual bias, social media, state
interference and the erosion of institutions
- Communicative democracy places difference at the centre of democratic
debate
Young: Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy
- Interest-based democracy models
, Expressing preferences and demands voting about it
Current practice in Western democracies
- Deliberative democracy model
Citizens coming together to discuss about collective problems
Problem: doesn’t make speakers equal, is elitist and exclusive, has
agonistic norms
Assumes unity
- Communicative democracy model
Some unity needed, but difference also has use: listening across
differences of position and perspectives causes changes in preference
Needed elements for plurality:
o Greeting trust, respect, politeness, deference
o (besides rational also) situatedness and link to desire rhetoric
relation to audience and appealing to attributes or experience of
audience
o Storytelling/narratives understandings across differences
Bennet and Livingston: A Brief History of the Disinformation Age:
Information Wars and the Decline of Institutional Authority
- Growing levels of disinformation undermine processes of democracy
- Conventional explanations
Social media
Confirmation bias: people privilege information aligned with prior
beliefs
State interference: foreign disinformation
- Deeper institutional explanation
Systematic weakening of authoritative institutions of liberal democracy
o Lying, deception and spin from credible authorities erodes
public confidence in institutions less trust in press and
elections people search for emotionally affirming alternative
facts disinformation becomes more popular
Lecture 3
Religion
Religion in political science
- Secular people relate differently to religious books than religious people
‘Return’ of religion in politics
- Recent examples
Clash of Civilizations (Huntington)
9/11 religion driving force in politics?
Hamas
Trump
- Only in Europe a big decline in religious people
- Modern technology and social media in religions
Religion as the ‘medium’ of Western political thought
- Religion is origin of modern political thought
Hobbes, Gandhi, MLK
Religious tolerance as the foundation of the state system
- Peace of Westphalia
