Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Flügel-Martinsen O, Gaus D. Giddens. In: Riescher G, ed. Politische Theorie der Gegenwart. Kröners Taschenausgabe. Vol 343. Stuttgart: Kröner; 2004: 197-201
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the quest for a workable ideal of democracy, the systems approach has recently shifted its perspective on deliberative democratic theory. Instead of enquiring how institutionalized decision-making might mirror an ‘ideal deliberative... more
In the quest for a workable ideal of democracy, the systems approach has recently shifted its perspective on deliberative democratic theory. Instead of enquiring how institutionalized decision-making might mirror an ‘ideal deliberative procedure’, it asks how democracy might be construed as a ‘deliberative system’. This leads it to recommend de-emphasizing the role of parliament and focusing instead on non-institutionalized actors and communications. Though this increased emphasis is undoubtedly warranted, the importance of parliament must not be downplayed. In the debate about transnational democracy – and about EU democratization in particular – it is widely held that making democracy safe for transnational politics entails finding new, non-parliamentary ways of organizing it. Here, the deliberative systems perspective may be misunderstood as offering an alternative, non-parliamentary route to transnational democracy. This article argues that a deliberative system without a parlia...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In der Auseinandersetzung um die Demokratisierung der Europaischen Union (EU), die seit dem Vertrag von Maastricht 1992 unvermindert die Aufmerksamkeit akademischer wie politischer Debatten bindet, haben sich zwei weithin geteilte... more
In der Auseinandersetzung um die Demokratisierung der Europaischen Union (EU), die seit dem Vertrag von Maastricht 1992 unvermindert die Aufmerksamkeit akademischer wie politischer Debatten bindet, haben sich zwei weithin geteilte Uberzeugungen etabliert, die den Rahmen einer wunschbaren und moglichen kunftigen demokratischen EU abstecken. Zum einen gibt es heute, im Unterschied zur fruhen Phase der Debatte, kaum noch Stimmen, denen die Einrichtung der EU nach dem Vorbild des demokratischen Nationalstaats als machbar oder wunschenswert erscheint.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The state’s mode of existence is still a problem to political science analysis. How can we decide if a political order (for example the EU) is a state or not? This paper discusses the ontological quality of the state and what follows from... more
The state’s mode of existence is still a problem to political science analysis. How can we decide if a political order (for example the EU) is a state or not? This paper discusses the ontological quality of the state and what follows from that to its analysis. It is suggested to view the state in terms of an everyday theory operating in historical societies. As a consequence, three perspectives are logically related in the analysis of the state: a normative,a sociological and a genealogical perspective. The paper illustrates how a full account of the state is dependent on a systematic cooperation between the disciplines of political theory, sociology and the history of ideas.
Research Interests:
The paper suggests a practice turn in the analysis of political legitimacy. Current social science research on political legitimacy suffers twofold. First, it shows an undue (silent) impact of an ethics-first perspective. Second,... more
The paper suggests a practice turn in the analysis of political legitimacy. Current social science research on political legitimacy suffers twofold. First, it shows an undue (silent) impact of an ethics-first perspective. Second, empirical approaches to political legitimacy mostly focus on societal constellations of citizens’ beliefs. The dynamic character of political legitimacy as a concept referring to an ongoing societal practice of legitimation is missed. Understanding legitimacy in terms of legitimation practice suggests a broadened research agenda that a) reserves a greater role to hermeneutical approaches and that b) acknowledges the systematic relation of political theory, the sociology of knowledge and the history of ideas in that matter.
Research Interests:
Contributions in the normative debate on the legitimacy of the EU are frequently based on two premises: The first premise is that the principles of the democratic constitutional state represent the normative ideal of political rule in the... more
Contributions in the normative debate on the legitimacy of the EU are frequently based on two premises: The first premise is that the principles of the democratic constitutional state represent the normative ideal of political rule in the nation-state, but cannot justify the legitimacy of the EU. Consequently, it is claimed that “there is an urgent need to re-set the standards by which we assess the legitimacy of European integration and of the institutions which guide the process” (Majone). This implies a second premise, namely, that the validity of the norms to which “our” assessment of the legitimacy of political rule refers, could be “re-set” via an academic consensus. The paper seeks two counter both of these assumptions, which are assumptions about the structure of the interpretive pattern regarding the legitimacy of political rule. It claims to show an internal contradiction in the type of normative justification that aims to overcome a “touch of stateness” (Shaw/Wiener) by e...
Contributions in the normative debate on the legitimacy of the EU are frequently based on two premises: The first premise is that the principles of the democratic constitutional state represent the normative ideal of political rule in the... more
Contributions in the normative debate on the legitimacy of the EU are frequently based on two premises: The first premise is that the principles of the democratic constitutional state represent the normative ideal of political rule in the nation-state, but cannot justify the legitimacy of the EU. Consequently, it is claimed that “there is an urgent need to re-set the standards by which we assess the legitimacy of European integration and of the institutions which guide the process” (Majone). This implies a second premise, namely, that the validity of the norms to which “our” assessment of the legitimacy of political rule refers, could be “re-set” via an academic consensus. The paper seeks two counter both of these assumptions, which are assumptions about the structure of the interpretive pattern regarding the legitimacy of political rule. It claims to show an internal contradiction in the type of normative justification that aims to overcome a “touch of stateness” (Shaw and Wiener) ...
Research Interests:
The state’s mode of existence is still a problem to political science analysis. How can we decide if a political order (for example the EU) is a state or not? This paper discusses the ontological quality of the state and what follows from... more
The state’s mode of existence is still a problem to political science analysis. How can we decide if a political order (for example the EU) is a state or not? This paper discusses the ontological quality of the state and what follows from that to its analysis. It is suggested to view the state in terms of an everyday theory operating in historical societies. As a consequence, three perspectives are logically related in the analysis of the state: a normative, a sociological and a genealogical perspective. The paper illustrates how a full account of the state is dependent on a systematic cooperation between the disciplines of political theory, sociology and the history of ideas.
In his account of legal revolutions, Hauke Brunkhorst applies a dual perspective encompassing the approaches both of systems and discourse theory to social evolution: functional adaptation and group-based normative learning coexist as two... more
In his account of legal revolutions, Hauke Brunkhorst applies a dual perspective encompassing the approaches both of systems and discourse theory to social evolution: functional adaptation and group-based normative learning coexist as two mechanisms of societal change, the latter being conceptualized as occasional interruptions to an overall systemic process of societal evolution. This article argues that Brunkhorst’s ‘systems theory first’ perspective undermines his claim to be delivering critical theory and that while it is both possible and necessary to incorporate a systems-theoretical perspective into discourse-theoretical social theory when devising a critical theory of law and democracy, the reverse does not apply. The building blocks of Habermas’ reconstructive approach to social evolution are presented as a conceptual framework that constitutes an alternative to Brunkhorst’s ‘systems theory first’ perspective but remains compatible with the basic premises of his account. A ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Legitimate Political Rule Without a State? An analysis of Josef HH Weiler’s justification of the legitimacy of the European Union qua non-statehood. ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
What would constitute a legitimate global order? Dirk Peters argues that current research on this issue is one-sided: it takes Western democracy as a universal standard and focuses discussion on how aspects of democracy can be applied at... more
What would constitute a legitimate global order? Dirk Peters argues that current research on this issue is one-sided: it takes Western democracy as a universal standard and focuses discussion on how aspects of democracy can be applied at the global level. But instead of promoting a universal standard, says Peters, research needs to listen to the actors involved in global governance. There can be no legitimate global order without taking into account what these actors
regard as legitimate, and this will not necessarily be a model based on Western democracy. This point of view is endorsed by Frank Gadinger, who proposes a methodological technique from sociology to facilitate empirical research in this area. By reconstructing the arguments that ‘ordinary actors’ employ in the global political arena, we can reveal what they consider legitimate. Daniel Gaus, by contrast, takes issue with Peters’s critique of democracy as a universal standard. Peters may well be correct in contending that Western democratic institutions are not suitable as a basis for legitimizing global politics, says Gaus, but the very act of listening to the governed, and making their conceptions of legitimacy the yardstick of legitimate governance, is itself a democratic endeavour.
regard as legitimate, and this will not necessarily be a model based on Western democracy. This point of view is endorsed by Frank Gadinger, who proposes a methodological technique from sociology to facilitate empirical research in this area. By reconstructing the arguments that ‘ordinary actors’ employ in the global political arena, we can reveal what they consider legitimate. Daniel Gaus, by contrast, takes issue with Peters’s critique of democracy as a universal standard. Peters may well be correct in contending that Western democratic institutions are not suitable as a basis for legitimizing global politics, says Gaus, but the very act of listening to the governed, and making their conceptions of legitimacy the yardstick of legitimate governance, is itself a democratic endeavour.
Research Interests:
In the quest for a workable ideal of democracy, the systems approach has recently shifted its perspective on deliberative democratic theory. Instead of enquiring how institutionalized decision-making might mirror an ‘ideal deliberative... more
In the quest for a workable ideal of democracy, the systems approach has recently shifted its perspective on deliberative democratic theory. Instead of enquiring how institutionalized decision-making might mirror an ‘ideal deliberative procedure’, it asks how democracy might be construed as a ‘deliberative system’. This leads it to recommend de-emphasizing the role of parliament and focusing instead on non-institutionalized actors and communications.
Increased emphasis on non-institutionalized elements is undoubtedly warranted, but the importance of parliament must not be downplayed. In the debate about transnational democracy—and about EU democratization in particular—it is widely held that making democracy safe for transnational politics entails finding new, non-parliamentary ways of organizing it. Here, the deliberative-systems perspective may be misunderstood as offering an alternative, non-parliamentary route to transnational democracy.
This paper argues that a deliberative system without a parliamentary legislature is tantamount to deliberation without democracy and that an elected parliamentary legislature is constitutive of democracy as a deliberative system—national or transnational. To substantiate this claim, this paper suggests looking at Habermas’s discourse theory in a new light, as a sociological-reconstructive approach that aims to explicate the cognitive dimension of modern democratic decision-making. Acknowledgement of discourse theory’s sociological intent enhances our understanding of democracy as a deliberative system in two important ways. Firstly, it helps elucidate the epistemic meaning of democracy in a way that differs from the accounts given in alternative theories. Discourse theory holds that what generates democratic legitimacy in modern democracies is a particular epistemic quality which the democratic process lends to decisions by enabling citizens to view the latter as valid outcomes of a cooperative practice of collective problem-solving among equals. From this pragmatist understanding, it follows, secondly, that the presence of a parliamentary legislature is crucial to the establishment and operation of democracy as a deliberative system.
Increased emphasis on non-institutionalized elements is undoubtedly warranted, but the importance of parliament must not be downplayed. In the debate about transnational democracy—and about EU democratization in particular—it is widely held that making democracy safe for transnational politics entails finding new, non-parliamentary ways of organizing it. Here, the deliberative-systems perspective may be misunderstood as offering an alternative, non-parliamentary route to transnational democracy.
This paper argues that a deliberative system without a parliamentary legislature is tantamount to deliberation without democracy and that an elected parliamentary legislature is constitutive of democracy as a deliberative system—national or transnational. To substantiate this claim, this paper suggests looking at Habermas’s discourse theory in a new light, as a sociological-reconstructive approach that aims to explicate the cognitive dimension of modern democratic decision-making. Acknowledgement of discourse theory’s sociological intent enhances our understanding of democracy as a deliberative system in two important ways. Firstly, it helps elucidate the epistemic meaning of democracy in a way that differs from the accounts given in alternative theories. Discourse theory holds that what generates democratic legitimacy in modern democracies is a particular epistemic quality which the democratic process lends to decisions by enabling citizens to view the latter as valid outcomes of a cooperative practice of collective problem-solving among equals. From this pragmatist understanding, it follows, secondly, that the presence of a parliamentary legislature is crucial to the establishment and operation of democracy as a deliberative system.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In der Debatte um die Methoden politischer Theorie spielt der Begriff der Rekonstruktion allein im Kontext politischer Theorie als Gesellschaftskritik eine hervorgehobene Rolle. Dieser Fokus blendet wichtige methodische Implikationen des... more
In der Debatte um die Methoden politischer Theorie spielt der Begriff der Rekonstruktion allein im Kontext politischer Theorie als Gesellschaftskritik eine hervorgehobene Rolle. Dieser Fokus blendet wichtige methodische Implikationen des Rekonstruktionsbegriffs für den Kontext einer allgemeinen Theorie der Politik aus, deren Begriffe auf die Orientierung angemessener Verfahren zur empirischen Analyse politischer Praxis zielen. Diese Einseitigkeit zeigt sich insbesondere an der Rezeption der Diskurstheorie des demokratischen Rechtsstaats von Jürgen Habermas. Gegen ein einseitiges Verständnis der Diskurstheorie als Gesellschaftskritik wird deren Anspruch, einen Beitrag zu einer „rekonstruktiven Soziologie der Demokratie“ zu leisten, herausgearbeitet und der methodische Mehrwert rationaler Rekonstruktion für die empirische Politikwissenschaft erläutert.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the vast literature on the EU’s legitimacy the question of how legitimacy is generated in EU politics receives only little attention. The article analyses practices of legitimation in EU-politics based on the European Commission’s... more
In the vast literature on the EU’s legitimacy the question of how legitimacy is generated in EU politics receives only little attention. The article analyses practices of legitimation in EU-politics based on the European Commission’s white paper on ‘European Governance’ (2001). By way of sequential reconstruction (objective hermeneutics) it illustrates a particular legitimacy problem stemming from the Commission’s ambivalent role in the EU architecture. Facing the crisis of Eastern enlargement, the Commission is caught in a legitimation dilemma: whereas, on the one hand, the Commission aims at a deep institutional reform and democratisation of the EU, it cannot, on the other, address that aim openly without overstepping its Treaty-based competences and without delegitimizing the EU as a whole. The white paper thus expresses a competition over legitimacy (‘Legitimationskonkurrenz’) between the EU-institutions in the context of the EU as a political order in constant transformation.