I think one of the most important components of Mouffe's
article is that, we are incapable of freeing ourselves from power. As we have
discussed previously, power is one of the fundamental sources of inequality
among the sexes (and among varying races). I think it is important to analyze the definition of the word "democracy" or "democratic". The definition of democratic is
"a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule
either directly or through freely elected representatives." Who are the “people”? If there is a power dynamic within a democracy, then how do all "people" have the right to voice their opinion? Are women or people of color considered "people" within this composition? This takes us back to the notion of "humanness". Who is considered a "human" within our society? Males? Females? Anglo-Saxon males? How can a democracy materialize if "people" are excluded? Mouffe mentions that differences should be irrelevant and that "this is why the type of pluralism that I am advocating
gives a positive status to differences and that it refuses the objective of
unanimity and homogeneity which is always revealed as fictitious and based on
acts of exclusion”. Acknowledging difference allows for us to acknowledge varying struggles. However, if we allow for all humans to be regarded as humans, would that be eliminating "difference"? Is it possible to eliminate differences?
Malaika, I like the way you address the fundaments of defining certain terms that appear to be "natural" or "understood" by the public, such as the word "people." Although, I think the word in itself has a stable and apt definition, I also think it has a stable definition in the legal ways it is used within the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The issue is how do we the "people" subconsciously fight to get the most of our DNA into the next generation disregarding others that also fit the definition and rights granted to the "people." Most importantly, how is such a fight outdated? Perhaps we need to work actively against our biological drive towards evolution (naturally drifting towards exclusion through homogeneity), which could be accomplished through what you describe as "acknowledging difference" and "acknowledging various struggles." I read Young and she describes such an effort as well, although she does not determine how to go about such a form of communication and I think she did this because she recognizes that to do so would also be exclusionary in some way or another. Fully accomplishing such a task as full inclusion may take something our cultures have not ever seen or heard of before.
ReplyDelete