7/27/2019 Nancy the meanings of Democracy

1/3

The Senses f Democracy

As a certain democratic convict ion comes to be aff irmed more or lessevervrvhere, /e come to ask ourselvesmore and more aborrt he fragil iwoF democracy. Vhen it is t:rken for granted in every discourse that"democracy" is the only kind of political regime deemed acceptableby ahumanitv that has come of age, ha t ha s reenemancipated,and that hasno other en d than itsell then the very idea of democracy oses ts luster,becomes murky, and leavesus perplexed.

\7e must flrst r-rnderstand hat it rva.s rlreadl'from out of this mrrrki-ness which spread across Europe that r.r,e aw the emergence of all the"totalitarian" possibil i t iesexperiencedduring this last century. Unlikethose*4ro, in the rgros an d r93os,could believe n th e need fbra radicalreform of the public and the cofi)mon' we ourselves re no longer ab[eto ignore th e traps or th e monsters hidden behind all theseperplexit ieswith regard to democracy.

It is thus impossible to be simply "democratic" without asking whatt l ' r ismeans, or the sense f this te m never stopsposing diff icult ies, al -most at every turn, indeed, every t inle we have recourse o it. Failureto recognize hese diff icul1i65-qomelhing quite common in polit icaldiscourse-is as drrngerous s l.re epudiation of dernocracy: t prevents

7/27/2019 Nancy the meanings of Democracy

2/3

18 Tl,t Scns,,:JDrnorr,tcl,us f ronr th inking iur d thL lsconccals he sanrc raps and monstcrs,orothers st i l l .

I shall pu t f irrwald here l it t le more than a minimil argLlmenrorscherlat ic protocol in ordcr to quesriolr he possiblemerrninqof sense f"democracy."

This word can thus desigr.rater-rst f :rl l he exercise f polit ical pou'erbv th e people. In this case, th c people" can irself be uncierstood n oneof two ways. t ca n refer o a part of the social vhole that is disrinct frornir t lerrstone other part, to u,hich it is considered ro bc inferior and torvhosedomination it is subje'cted.Here democracf is nor a regime butan uprising agair.rsthe regin.reor at leastagainst he governnrcnt). t isth e rerolt of destitut ion, of *' l ' r ' . rts ir-rtolerablen minds and bodies, rhcrevolt of l.runger nd f-ear. he subjected hus go from being passir.e ub-jects t. r ecoming activeones.The legit imacv of th e revolt s absolute. ris, hou,ever, he legit im:rcvonlv of rhe ro,olt and is r.rot rrough o founda regime. ln the revolt there are democrars but not democracrr Th ercv. r l tcx i . t r t - rrr l i l r i ts , lurr uct . r r rs ' rvn inre: a i lJ p l . lce\ . t is nt , r rc-cident that th e idea of a "pelmanent revolution" i.rrs able to fbrnr u'harmight be characrerized as rr vanishing poinr of inf inire der.r'randnmodertr polit ical experience. he strbjecr f revolr suggesrs vo things rronce: n the immediacy of th e momenr, an absolute unprescribable,n-divisible dignity, a value thrrt can be n.rcasurecl gair.rst .rotl'ringotl'rerthan itself,and, over irne, the sameabsolutev,rlue rs n inf lnite openinqtha t n r - r u r l i r i . l a w , n s r i r u t i o n . r e \ ( l ) i t l c n t i t r r J l r e \ c l b r i n q r , t ac lose .D c r n o r r r t i c p o l i r i e s s r h r r sa 1 l , , l i r i . s f p c r i , t d i c e r r r r n o r h cbreach br?clte] f th e revolt. I t can dete mine rhe circurnsrances nd thesubject h:rt open this breachonly on a casebv casebasis.

Bv contrast, "t l.repcople" can rrlsobe understood as the ri 'hole [1 rtoutl and the bodr as t were, of social realinr Instead of a clif fcrentialt l-rinking,we have herean integral rhinking. -1'hepolirical sovereignn'o1-the people thus nreans befble all else he people's self-constitut ion as apeople.This self-constitut ionobr. iouslvprececles 11 'polirical consriru-t ion, *,here rh e people rr e cor-rsrirLrrinq.() r c()nstinlred. Here t l ' resub-ject-people s aff irmed not as an actor or as a force bu t f irst of all es asubst:urce: realiq, hat derivcs tsexiste ce an,.l ts nrovcnrentor-rlr.rorn

|'ln' Settset.fDerttottarl J9itsell Th e frisrorVof r.nodenr hought shorvs$v o things: either th e inr-possib i l iwof engendeinq a Pol i t ics ha t rvould be the sel f -engenderingof the people ("direct" clcmocracv, l.rc r.rf-initerestrpposit iorr f a colrl-rnon rvil l ar.rcl rganicitr ' : i 'hat Rousseau echres o be good onlr' for th eeocls), r else he resolurionof the dernocraticproblern through the dis-so lu t iouof the ent i repol i t ica l phere son e dist incr phcrc morrg others 'rvhich disappears n a total an d 5slf-prodlrcinqsocial existence Marx).

Once this f irst h1'pothesis'ras cen taken fully iuto account' as ourl.ristorr- eenrs o frave c1one, rvo possible nrod,rl it ies ollow fo r whltmighr be calleda polit ics in negativiry:either th e periodic :rnd dispersedpoli, i. , of those sir.rgular onfigurationsoithe "breach," something theltalso i,nplies abstention fiorn part icipation in democratic instit t t t ions(parlianrentafl.ar.rd epublican)-or elsea thinking .rt democracy thetfblloivs he impossibil i tv oi incamating th e esscrlce f den.rocracv rrr' l lrcpreseltringrs igr,rre, longside he r.recessityf "denrocratically" eepingui., . , thi. impossibil inr In borh cases, olit ics is aff irmed in an essential,.:"1, 1.,ru,.,g1.'rvithclra*,al lrttnitl. it the sense,preciseh', l.rat he polit-ical, as he sr.rbsunrptivenio'of r-rarure nd destinv'or proiect :rnd den-t itr, , fb r somethinq like a "people" ntust be held iI r withdrarval fronritsell th e neqative r.rdex f a Presencehrrt s alrvavs t a remove' fhis isth e model of negative heolop', and, indeed' it is a matter hcre only ofpolit ics as onto-theo-poiit ical (o r as he "theologico-polit ical"), th e sigr.rot.o.hicl. , as sirnplr.been r.r. 'erted.Th e question rnisht thus be formu-lated irr this rval' : Har"e revolutionsdone irnl ' thing othcr than invert th esign of theologico-Polit icirl rar.rscer.rdence?)

Bu t ..democracl.. 'c,t t-t ls odesigr-rateot only something expresslv o-lirical bu t "civil societt"'or th e "sociirlbond," considered ro m the pointof r. ier..of rn ethosor a clemocratic eelinguncler he regr.t lat ivedea rcp-resentecl )' t lre,-trotto "l ibern" eclr'rirl iryraternin"" howcver thit is o beir-rterpreted.n this respect, lemocrrrcys a dcsclipt ior-r rnd/ol'an cr' , t lu-rrrion of a Lrcir-rgn cOnrmon founded r,rpon he mutual recognit ion offellou,s sentblablesl nd upon th e ir.rdependencef each sroul.r vhercint l.ris ecognit ion is sharctl. ' fhe nroclel to rsuch;' l qr()ulr s given ir r rh efbrm oi$.hat is calleda "contrl lt tne (a s n Tocquevil le)or a "comn.runity"(a s n N4arx). ' lwo $.et.s f thinking rh e cornnlun(it1')ar e thus possible.

7/27/2019 Nancy the meanings of Democracy

3/3

:+o 'I'he Stttse:o/'[)emocrac.yIn the f irst (rvhich is more American, according to Tocquevil le), he

commune is no t y'et n the realnrof the polit icirl: t is before l.re tarean dca n be representedas exisring without it or beneath it : it s freedonr ismore of an emancipation [Jtanchise) han a self-consriruring fieedom. Itis local and restricted; t does nor involve power as such. I t is a kind ofinterioriry and its exterior s as much the orher commune as he srare r-sell,which thus appears essas an agenc)'of subsumption and identif ic:r-t ion than as a quite separareagency in charge of another sphere (a nimperial or federal power).

In the second (rlore Europear.r nd dilferentiated nt o a variety of so-cialist or fascist orms), the community t:rkes he placeof rhe negativirvformulated above. ts interioriry or subjectiviry takeson the identificatorvan d subsumptive role of the state, which tends to effaceor sublimateitselfw' ithin ir . A posit iveonro-rheologico-polit ical s thus reconstituted.bu t in an immanent and no longer transcendentversion.

It thus seems ha t the question of democracycan be summed up inthe following way: Does this vu.ord ltimately designate he reconfigura-t ion of the rheologico-polit icalrhlough a transcendenr-nesatir. ,er pos-it ive-immanenr meramorphosis,or does ir designate r genuine breakwith the theologico-polit ical? (l t is not hard ro see here th e generaloutl ine of the debateover "secularism" ha t opposed Carl Schmitt anclHar.rsBlumenberg. Generallv speaking, t is a debateovcr the essence rthe senseof rnode niry.)

If , as believe, r is ndeed a marrer of a break, t is nonerheless ppro-priate to determir.ren what wal' i t has nor ver been completed.No t onl1.does he "European" thinking of democracvoften remain u'eigheddownb1'apolit ical theology(whetl ' rer osit iveor negarive), ut the "American"thinking at once unleashes he forces of inequaliq', which are no longerten-rpered y an "inner" principle of the "people," an d leirds o variouskir.rds f communitarian rerrear,each at once sterile n itself and incorn-patible with a[ [ the others. There thus remains at leasr one senseof"democracy" (or whatever name you wanr ro give it) that has nor )'erbeen elaborated. (The designations"European" and "Anrerican" are,here, brmal inclication-s:he leal characterist icsak e shape, o some ex-tent, everyr,vherc.t is nonerl ' relessor incongruous ro rhink that Europe,

'llt Senses f Denotracy 4Iin spite of al l i ts shortcomings, might indeed be a place fo r putt ing tothe test a truly new sense f "dernocracy.")

l-he task d'rat s clearlyset orth is thus neither a destruction of democ-racv nor its indeflnite perfecting: it is above all to decide orl the "break"in question and thus on "modernity" (or what is called "post-moderniry").This decisionwill require a decisionabout the nature, stakes, nd placeof polit ics. N{Lrstpolit ics sti l l be thought under the :regisof the theo-logico-polit ical (o r of what is simply called today "the polit ical")? Ormust it be thought in relation to an essentialwithdrawal or reneat [retrait]of this "polit ical" (essential, ubstantial,and subsumptiveof all being incommon)? This retreacwould be not a retirement or a retiring but a re -tracing of everything that being in common is (being together or beingwith). In a singular fashion, it rvould be a matter of knowing whether thepolit ical spheremust not remait. tdist inct from the sphereof th e "com-mon," which it u'ould neither exhaustnor command frorn above' Polit icsis no t responsibleFor he identiry and destiny of the comnron, but onlyfor the regulation-even if it is infinite-of justice. (l t thus has to dowith power.)The common, hou'ever,puts existence n play' (I t thus hasto do with sense.)What is at stakehere s a separation benveen sense rndporver. One certainly does not exclude the other, but one cannot replacethe other, either. (This does not undermine the legitimacy of revoit, butit does displace ts ult imate horizon.) The theoloeico-polit icirlsubsumesar once power :urd sense, r,rsticeand existence; t absorbs the commoninto the political (or vice versa). Ultimately, one no longer knows what"cornmon" or "polit ical" means. That is what is so perplexing about"den'rocracy." t is thus a matter of thinkine th e interval berween th econlmon and the political: rve do not belong to the one as we do to theother, and "everything" is no t "polit ical." An d "everything" is not com-mon either, since the "common" is neither a thing nor an everything,that is,a whole ftrn out]. Berweenpower an d sensehere s proximiry an odistancing,at once-altogether-a relat ion o[ power ancl a relat ion ofsense . It is perhapsa completely new fbrm of man's relat ionship ohinrsell, vherema n would no longer be "his own end" (i f such s indeedthe basis f democracv)ul.rlesse rvereable o distancehimself rom him-self in order to go beyor.rd.