multinational companies, can detract from the democratic control citizens are able to exert from within any single state over the social and economic forces to which they are subject. Likewise, the domestic policies of one state may produce either negative or positive externalities that undercut the contrasting domestic policies of other states. As a result, states become liable to domination by other states or various organizations and networks that operate across them. By cooperating with each other and integrating certain policy areas, states enable their citizens to
is fundamentally altering politics in ways previously almost unimaginable. One study drawing on data from the 2014 Hungarian general election campaign ‘showed that citizens are highly reactive to negative emotion-filled, text-using, personal, and activity-demanding posts. Virality is especially facilitated by memes, videos, negative contents and mobilizing posts, and posts containing a call for sharing’ (Bene, 2017 , p 513). From infectious domination to contagious reconnections This book has thus far introduced the ideas of mobile power and viral hegemony
Introduction This chapter examines how the republican theory of non-domination, as developed by Pettit ( 1999 , 2012 ) and Lovett ( 2010 , 2016 ) can be used for a normative analysis of welfare to work (WTW) relationships such as that between the social assistance recipient, the welfare officer (or frontline worker) and the work supervisor. According to the republican theory of non-domination, relationships between citizens (horizontal relations), and citizens and the state (vertical relationships), should be guided as much as possible by the ideal of
theory of non-domination. Accordingly, it assesses the cross-national variations found in the legal and sociological chapters. Based on this analysis, it proposes institutional, organizational and legal improvements to WTW policies that seek to minimize relations of domination. The human rights perspective and the republican theory of non-domination The main human rights perspective in this book is based on the prohibition of forced labour and the right to freely chosen work, both enshrined in international treaties. Dermine ( Chapter 4 ) identified six legal
RESEARCH From domination to emancipation and freedom: reading Ernesto Laclau’s post-Marxism in conjunction with Philip Pettit’s neo-republicanism Gulshan Khan, Gulshan.Khan@nottingham.ac.uk University of Nottingham, UK In this paper, I bring Ernesto Laclau’s post-Marxist approach into conversation with the analytical thinker Philip Pettit, who has developed an influential neo-republican conception of freedom as ‘non-domination’. Both thinkers aim to reconfigure power and domination towards more democratic and egalitarian relations and I evaluate the
, for example with the contributions of Gilles Deleuze, Antoni Negri, William Connolly, Slavoj Žižek, Jacques Rancière and Alain Badiou. These are valuable and interesting contributions, which have, for the most part, focused on the ontological differences between these various thinkers, seen for example variously as theorists of ‘abundance’ and ‘lack’. Here, I take a new and different approach, one that amalgamates the respective strengths of continental and analytical theory to provide a multi-layered analysis of contemporary forms of domination and to better aid
only approached from philosophical but also from legal and sociological perspectives. As such, this volume privileges real-world experiences over the abstractions characteristic of much liberal theory (e.g. Rawls’ idea of a well-ordered society). More generally, the authors seek to defend alternative forms of welfare legislation based on a political-philosophical theory sensitive to power asymmetries – the republican theory of non-domination – and the sociological and legal knowledge necessary to formulate more adequate and just law. This interdisciplinary
REPLY From domination to emancipation and freedom: reading Ernesto Laclau’s post-Marxism in conjunction with Philip Pettit’s neo-republicanism: a reply to Gulshan Khan Andreas Ottemo, andreas.ottemo@ped.gu.se University of Gothenburg, Sweden In her article, Gulshan Khan highlights some particularities in Laclau’s theorising of domination, emancipation and freedom, through contrasting Laclau’s work with the neo-republican political theorist Philip Pettit. Pettit is largely positioned as a theorist of ‘what is’, while Laclau is acknowledged for theorising
Theorising the present, theorising beyond the present In ‘From domination to emancipation and freedom’, Gulshan Khan puts Ernesto Laclau’s work – particularly aspects of it that concern domination, subordination and oppression – in dialogue with a somewhat unconventional partner, namely the neo-republican political theorist Philip Pettit. This is a fruitful approach that allows Khan to bring out some particular strengths in Laclau’s theorising on these matters. Initially framed as a conversation between two equal partners, it should be noted that Khan uses
, people are stratified by, among other reasons, the amount of emotional energy (EE) they have accumulated over time. Second, besides long-term EE, short-time situational stratification comes from emotional domination, a coercive type of interaction ritual. Third, a charismatic leader exerts an unthreatening form of domination by pumping up followers with EE. Fourth, there are limits to all three kinds of emotional stratification; they have volatile dynamics. For this reason, inequalities are more changeable at the micro level than they appear to be at the level of huge
