SISP Conference 2023

The Political Theory Section aims to collect proposals for panels and papers that seek to reflect, in a general sense, on the role, methods and contribution of political theory in political science. The complexity of contemporary political phenomena, at the national, supranational and international levels, increasingly encourages a return to theoretical models and approaches capable of classifying, understanding, explaining and describing an era of profound transformations. In other words, it proposes once again the centrality of concepts and their construction. Furthermore, the historical orientation of the field of political theory promotes an understanding of how abstractions, questions and problems have developed over time.
The contribution of political theory to political science thus appears to be an essential field, both for its intrinsic heuristic power and for the possibility of fostering fruitful encounters between models and ‘conceptualisations’ of politics, on the one hand, and empirical approaches and qualitative and quantitative methodologies, on the other.
In this sense, contemporary political phenomena can be reread and interpreted through the lens of theory and conceptual development, key aspects – as Sartori teaches us – for political science. A possible intersection that encompasses, by way of example, key concepts and categories of political thought, including – but not limited to – freedom, equality, the theory and practice of representation, types of democracy, the state, ideology, technocracy, nationalism, populism, the nature of the European Union, citizenship, the political regimes of international institutions and their role, or issues of war and peace. Moreover, a rethinking of the contribution of classical approaches to politics to the understanding of political phenomena seems imperative today. Think, for example, of the continuing contribution of realism, the crisis of (neo)liberalism, Marxism (e.g. in relation to the state), social constructivism or postcolonial approaches.
The section therefore encourages panel and paper proposals that highlight the critical role of political theory in political science. For example, proposals might include
– the key concepts of political theory (‘politics’, ‘power’, ‘representation’, ‘legitimacy’, ‘democracy’, etc.)
– the historical reconstruction and genealogy of particular concepts or theories;
– the ‘macro-political’ theoretical models;
– the methods of concept construction;
– the relations between empirically oriented political theory and the traditions of political thought and political philosophy;
– the relationship between political theory and research methods;
– the relevance of the ‘classics’ of political thought (ancient, modern and contemporary) for political science research;
– Empirically-oriented areas and issues. E.g. technocracy, populism, crisis of democracy

 

Although it had already reached ample visibility on the international stage of political theory in the previous years, the work of Ernesto Laclau has possibly enjoyed its apogee in the 2010s. The theoretical contribution of the Argentine on populism and discourse theory has indeed found much echo in various academic ambits, even beyond the circle of his close disciples, effectively offering a valuable set of tools available for the empirical analysis of some of the most salient today’s political phenomena. The context of ongoing crisis and the global irruption of polarising political forces capable of feeding off the current discontent has provided fertile ground for Laclau’s theory to catch on. However, the last decade has also witnessed a number of developments that are not fully or convincingly theorised by Laclau and that invite some critical reflection on his theoretical legacy. The nature of populist antagonism and its impact on democracy, the exclusive focus on the electoral moment, and the fleetingness of left populism, especially in Europe, stand high among the issues that have emerged over the last few years.

This panel is open to theoretical papers on the work of Ernesto Laclau in the light of an emerging post-Laclauian agenda, which seeks to problematise some of the impasses that have emerged in Laclau’s thought, while broadly recognising the import of his contribution. Papers with an empirical dimension are welcome, but only insofar as they lead to a substantive engagement with theoretical issues. Topics may include, although they are not limited to:

- the relationship between populism and hegemony;
- the formalism of Laclau’s theory of populism;
- the role and usefulness of political ontology;
- the cogency of the populist road as a strategy for the left;
- the problematic aspects of the leader;
- the convergence and dialogue between Laclau’s contribution and novel theories and/or authors;
- the vagueness of the notion of the empty signifier;
- the implications of populism for democratic theory; or, put otherwise, the (in)compatibility between populism and the project of radical democracy;
- the origins and development of Laclau’s thought;
- the exclusion of sociology and political economy from the picture;
- the institutional ‘deficit’ of Laclau’s theory of populism,
- the lack of attention to the networks of relations in which collective agents come into being.

 

The issue of technocracy has long been addressed and studied in the field of political science. The dimensions and levels of the theoretical and empirical framing of technocracy are manifold and concern the historical and political conditions that favour the rise of "unelected" individuals within national institutions; the quantitative reinforcement of technocrats in governments, both as prime ministers and, above all, as ministers of economic-financial departments; the political choices and policies of technocrats in government; the role of the European Union (and the Commission in particular) as a lever in favour of technocratic governance on a continental scale, i.e. a type of depoliticised government based on automatic supranational rules. On a more theoretical level, however, the issue of technocracy also allows us to understand the more qualitative aspects of contemporary transitions in and of democracy, in particular the forms of legitimation of public decisions and, more generally, of state institutions, especially in the various crisis situations that seem to structurally and permanently underpin contemporary society. In particular, given the longstanding and now endemic crisis of the party form, two macro-forms of politics, populism and technocracy, have consolidated, which are also configured as two orders of discourse and two macro-types of legitimation, both of which are expressions of the crisis and the devaluation of parties. On the other hand, a new concept has recently emerged, that of 'techno-populism', which seems to synthesise and 'merge' these two phenomena, but which requires in-depth theoretical-conceptual reflection.
In the light of these considerations, it seems increasingly clear that the study and analysis of a complex phenomenon such as technocracy can draw new resources from the encounter between theoretical reflection and the more empirical analysis of political science. The aim of this panel is therefore to gather both contributions of a more theoretical nature - functional in order to grasp the general and typical elements of technocracy and the relationship between technocracy and democracy - and contributions of an empirical nature (qualitative and quantitative), in the latter case aiming to show in detail how technocracy (understood as a structural element of contemporary governance) and technocrats in key governmental positions (at the national, supranational and even international level) are increasingly relevant in contemporary decision-making processes.

Possible topics and perspectives include:

- Theoretical conceptualisation of technocracy: old and new approaches;
- Technocracy and political categories (hegemony, passive revolution, governance, etc.);
- Technocracy and democracy;
- Technocracy and parties;
- Technocracy and neoliberalism;
- Technocracy and populism and/or techno-populism;
- Technocracy and ideology; Technocracy and/or as ideology;
- The role of technocrats in processes of social and institutional change;
- Policies and politics of technocratic governments;
- Supranational and international dimensions of technocracy;
- Historical development of technocracy.

 

Democratic Renewal
Panel Convenors: Enrico Biale (Università del Piemonte Orientale) & Giulia Bistagnino (Università di Milano)
Panel Chair: Corrado Fumagalli (Università di Genova)

The idea that democratic systems face a deep and never-ending crisis is so widespread in the academic and public debate that opposite perspectives converge on it. According to some scholars, democracies are failing because they are unsuited to manage the complex contemporary political challenges that need quick and effective responses. Their procedures take time, and their members are affected by prejudices, epistemic biases, and undemocratic feelings (Brennan 2016; Mounk 2018; Scheuerman 2004). According to others, our democratic systems have betrayed their values by undermining the control acknowledged to citizens and removing from public scrutiny decisions that profoundly affect the lives of every member of the polity (Crouch 2004; Gerbaudo 2022; Mouffe 2018). While these perspectives highlight some undeniable shortcomings of our democracies, they risk providing a simplistic and problematic analysis. They blame the citizens without carefully considering the structural constraints imposed on the exercise of their political agency (Lafont 2019; Berman 2019). Moreover, they suggest that repoliticizing some issues could solve this problem, but they underestimate the socioeconomic disempowerment that characterizes our democratic systems (Azmanova 2020; Nasstrom 2021). This panel aims to overcome these problems by developing a complex and fine-grained analysis of the normative and institutional features that need to be changed in order to trigger an effective democratic renewal. To achieve this aim, the panel will be focused on, though not limited to, the following topics:
- The role and content of militant democracy as a form of democratic renewal;
- The social as a pre-condition/constitutive component of democratic flourishing;
- The role of political parties in transforming democratic institutions;
- Democratic corruption and other challenges to democratic renewal;
- Democratic renewal, social movements, and other agents of change;
- Economic inequalities and democratic crisis;
- Democratic innovations and democratic renewal;
- Populist momentum and other crises as opportunities or challenges to democratic transformation

 

The notion of "participatory democracy" probably first appeared in the early 1960s, when it was used in New Left documents. In the "Port Huron Statement", a famous document of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) we read for example: "In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based in several root principles: that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings; that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations; that politics has the function of bringing people out of isolation and into community, thus being a necessary, though not sufficient, means of finding meaning in personal life”. In those years, some American political theorists (such as, for example, Arnold S. Kaufman, Carole Pateman, Crawford B. Macpherson, Peter Bachrach) placed the idea of a "participatory democracy" at the center of their reflections and presented it, in large part, as an alternative to the "elitist" conception of democracy elaborated by Schumpeter, Dahl and others. Since the 1980s, the discussion on democracy has taken other directions. Many political philosophers have focused on “deliberative democracy”, while several scholars, aiming to reinvigorate democratic institutions, have proposed a return to tools of direct democracy or even to the old tool of drawing lots. Nonetheless, the notion of "participatory democracy" has not disappeared and is, for example, used in some European Union documents to indicate the tools aimed at enhancing the political role of citizens.
Despite such usages, the meaning of the expression "participatory democracy" remains rather vague and its boundaries often seem rather uncertain. This panel aims to consider the notion of "participatory democracy" from a theoretical point of view, re-reading the classic contributions on this topic and critically considering the recent discussion.
In particular, papers are requested that focus on the following points:
- Theories of “participatory democracy” (Pateman, etc.);
- Relations between "participatory democracy" and "direct democracy" (and "deliberative democracy" and "representative democracy");
- Recent discussions on tools for promoting democratic participation;
- Experiences of participatory democracy.

 

Nella letteratura scientifica è ormai pacifico che le democrazie contemporanee stiano attraversando una faticosa fase di transizione, se non anche di crisi. In particolare, un sempre più ricorrente contrasto tra i “pochi” e i “molti” (Nadia Urbinati), causato non da ultimo dalle crescenti ineguaglianze sociali ed economiche, ed esasperato dall’aspra retorica manichea tipica del populismo contemporaneo, sembra configurarsi come centrale conflitto del nostro tempo, ripercuotendosi, nella sua versione più strettamente politica, sul rapporto tra governanti e governati e minando così le basi della “formula politica” più raffinata della modernità: la democrazia rappresentativa.

Se da un lato le forme attuali di tale conflitto risultano estremamente complesse ed in costante mutamento, la loro sostanza, dall’altro, sembra rimandare ad un problema conosciuto, già rilevato dalle teorie delle élites classiche fiorite in Italia a cavallo del XIX e XX secolo e proseguite più tardi da tanta parte della letteratura internazionale, dalla Germania alla Francia, fino agli Stati Uniti: il rapporto tra chi detiene e chi non detiene il potere (Ralf Dahrendorf).

Il populismo, osteggiando le più importanti minoranze organizzate (“élites”) delle democrazie contemporanee – da quelle politiche, fino a quelle giudiziarie, da quelle nazionali a quelle sovranazionali – e invocando un inafferrabile “popolo puro”, disconosce la legittimità dei governanti di detenere il potere politico. Tuttavia, inevitabilmente, dovunque si insedi in posizioni di governo, il populismo produce nuove forme di potere, costituendo nuove minoranze che lo detengono.

Alla luce di queste premesse, il panel, accogliendo sia contributi teorici che empirici, intende fornire un contributo al consolidamento del legame tra elite studies e populism research. Fino a che punto le teorie delle élites possono spiegare le criticità dei rapporti politici contemporanei? Che valenza analitica possiede oggi il concetto di élite e attraverso quali strategie viene strumentalizzato dal populismo? Che rapporto intercorre tra le concrete forme di distribuzione del potere proprie della democrazia rappresentativa e le narrazioni populiste? Quale, dunque, la relazione tra realtà politica e costruzione retorica?

 

The link between democracy and liberalism is historically very intricate – because it is based on different theories and authors – but it is considered a fundamental element for the legitimacy of modern “liberal democracies”. In recent years, however, this relationship has been threatened by the “illiberal trend” that has spread in some European countries (and not only), which represents the ideological basis of “illiberal democracies”. The aim of the panel is to host contributions that problematically consider – with theoretical and empirical approaches – the link between democracy, liberalism, and illiberalism. Contributions are asked that analyze the following (non-exclusive) aspects: 1) conceptual analysis of the term “illiberal democracy”; 2) theoretical framework describing the relationship between democracy, liberalism, illiberalism; 3) unpublished essays on liberal and illiberal authors; 4) empirical case studies of “illiberal democracies” or presumed such; 5) analysis of public policies recognized as a product of illiberal policies. After the Sisp Conference, the papers considered worthy will be included in a publication (special issue or volume).

 

The link between democracy and liberalism is historically very intricate – because it is based on different theories and authors – but it is considered a fundamental element for the legitimacy of modern “liberal democracies”. In recent years, however, this relationship has been threatened by the “illiberal trend” that has spread in some European countries (and not only), which represents the ideological basis of “illiberal democracies”. The aim of the panel is to host contributions that problematically consider – with theoretical and empirical approaches – the link between democracy, liberalism, and illiberalism. Contributions are asked that analyze the following (non-exclusive) aspects: 1) conceptual analysis of the term “illiberal democracy”; 2) theoretical framework describing the relationship between democracy, liberalism, illiberalism; 3) unpublished essays on liberal and illiberal authors; 4) empirical case studies of “illiberal democracies” or presumed such; 5) analysis of public policies recognized as a product of illiberal policies. After the Sisp Conference, the papers considered worthy will be included in a publication (special issue or volume).

 

Identity is one of the crown jewels in the kingdom of ‘contested concepts’ in social and political sciences. The idea of identity is conceived to provide some unity and recognition while it often entails the complete opposite, namely separation, differentiation and antagonism. Few concepts have been used as much as identity for contradictory purposes. No matter what, starting from the seemingly fragile individual identity as a self-solidifying framework, identity presents us its multifaceted nature, especially in social and political sciences that aim to better understand the socialized in-group and inter-group identities, namely the collective and multi-layered identification, socially constructed through family, religion, ethnic group, regions, political parties, nation-states, supra-national entities etc. Politics-wise, identity shows up in the core of contemporary debates and makes everything either too dangerously simple or too complicated to cope with. Constructivist and de-constructivist approaches have led to the same conclusion: the eternal return of the topic as a relevant, not to say influential, factor. As a result of the diverse aspects of identity, the concept needs continuous refinement. By approaching and addressing its inherent complexity, a dynamic analysis should be provided in political research (which has often left the issue to sociology). The latter is highly required vis-à-vis the changing and uncertain outcomes of recent global crises (Covid-19 pandemic, Russian invasion to the Ukraine, climate change etc.) . Yet, it cannot be trivialized. It must commence with two dialectical interrogatives: 1. if identities are socially constructed and are not natural formations, in what way and to what extent do they hold responsibility for inclusion\exclusion, self-other dichotomies? Looking at identities in social research provides explanatory tools for a wide variety of events and socio-political dynamics to be better contextualized; 2. Since identities reflect the complex nature of human societies and engender far-reaching processes (e.g., shifts in political regime, armed conflicts etc.), what are the dynamics between the former and politics?

That said, studying identities usually generate reasonable comprehension for processes that cannot be explained by tracing pure rational driven pursuit of interests. The feelings of attachment, belonging, recognition, values’ formation and norms integration and the logics of appropriateness generated within social organizations, are all arenas that rely on a certain type of identity or identification. Multiple identifications overlap, interact, include or exclude, conflict or enhance trust and cooperation. Identities create boundaries and borders; define the in-group and the out-group, the similar and the different, the friend and the foe, the 'self' and the ‘other’.

Beyond their dynamic fuzzy nature which escapes exhaustive explanations, identities are effective instruments of politicization of social life. The construction of social forms of organization and of specific social practices, together with their imaginary significations, requires an essentialist or non-essentialist legitimization of belonging; a social glue that extracts its cohesive function from the identification of the in-group and the power of naming the other. Identities are political. Multicultural slogans populate extensively the twenty-first century. Yet the distance between the ideal and the real multiculturalism persists while the virtues of inclusion coexist with phenomena of adversity of exclusion. Thus the study of political identities means to integrate contestation into context. Due to the confusion between identities and identifications some scholars have demanded that the concept of identity to be abandoned. Nonetheless, identity-related issues keep emerging out of political discourse, inasmuch as identity-based claims have turned out to be efficient tools for politicization of a ‘constraining dissensus’ (e.g. nationalism, populism and other forms of ideological radicalization). While more global universalizing terms have supposedly replaced national identities, current affairs demonstrate the (re)making of identities that tend or intend to obscure the former either by offering local and subnational identities or by pushing forward supranational and\or federalist identity projects. Therefore, identities are often conceptually used as intentional concepts, - they don’t say much about a concrete sphere of reference but rather define the sphere itself-, thus making explicit the aim of usage. It is not ‘identity of’ but ‘identity to’.

The purpose of the panel is to develop and gather a research network that is dedicated to exploring the conceptual, empirical and methodological challenges and opportunities identity-related research can offer to the wider field of political studies. The panel 'Identities and Identifications: Politicized Uses of Collective Identities' seeks to contribute to the debate about the dialectical and dynamic role of identity in politics as well as the other way round. Furthermore, it wishes to apply a transdisciplinary framework of a concept which has received little attention in mainstream political research. Consequently, it may provide the right occasion for scholars of political and social sciences to interact on this increasingly relevant subject. Hence, this research network will bring together those working on empirical and theoretical studies that examine a range of different uses of identity and new ways of thinking about it.

The panel ‘Identities and Identifications: Politicized Uses of Collective Identities’ aims to scrutinize the state of the art in collective identities research, to bring into debate the processes of identity-making\building in both constructivist or de-constructivist dimensions. The aim is to open the floor for dynamic multi-dimensional and interdisciplinary understandings of identities in their historic formation as well as in the way they shape the present and future of political life.
As the panel aims to bring together political and social researchers who are willing to share and discuss their research on identity related topics, we invite papers that explore identity within the realm of politics in Europe and around the world. The panel particularly encourages disciplinary, trans and interdisciplinary approaches adjacent to political science (e.g., political theory, political sociology, political anthropology and political philosophy) which use different methodological tools and modalities, such as single case studies and\or comparative cross-sectional analyses, which address political identities and identifications. The panel receives contributions\presentations in English or Italian.

Some politically and inter-related questions concerning the issue can be of help:
• How does identity influence the politics of exclusion\inclusion within national\ international politics?
• How do identity related concepts such as race, religion, gender, sexuality and class structure get politicized in different contexts and at different levels (national/transnational)?
• How do identities shape alliances or conflicts between different sociopolitical collectivities?
• What are the strategies, tactical repertoires and identity-building practices party politics forge in times of crisis?
• What are the methodological tools that must be developed to better introduce the concept of 'identity' to political research?

Key-words: identity, identification, politics, political theory, methodology