Abensour por una filosofa poltica crtica

standingtheambivalentreturnofpoliticalphilosophynotasareturntopoliticalphilosophybutasa
returnofpolitics,ofgenuinelypoliticalproblemsthatcallforgenuinelypoliticalandnot,say,
technologicalanswers(pp.27,59,293),Abensourdefendspoliticalphilosophyinsofarasitrests
ontheassumptionoftheautonomyofthepoliticalandthusresiststheeffortsofpoliticalscience
andsociologytoreduceittoonesocialsphereamongothers(inaddition,heheretakesissuewith
MichelFoucaultsproblematicalidentificationofpoliticswithrelationsofpower).
FollowingLefort,Abensourgroundstheautonomyofthepoliticalintworelatedconsiderations:the
factthateverysocialorderistheresultofapoliticalinstitution(andnot,forexample,theoutcome
ofaquasinaturalevolutionaryprocess),andaconceptionofpoliticsasadistinctformofactivity
thatisexpressiveoffreedomandcannotbeunderstoodwithreferencetoanysetofeconomic,
social, historical or natural facts. In this sense, politics lacks any external foundation and is
underivable.
nHannahArendtcontrelaphilosophiepolitique?(pp.23163;seealsoAbensour
2007)AbensourelaborateshiscritiqueofthePlatonicfoundationsofpoliticalphilosophy
thatinhisviewrestsonthemisrecognitionoffouressentialdistinctions(pp.2412):
betweenpolisandoikos,orthesphereoffreedomandthesphereofnecessity;between
actingandcommanding,orpoliticsandgovernment;betweenactingandproducing,or
intrinsicandinstrumentalvalue;andbetweenpluralityandunity
nthebasisofthisunderstandingofpoliticsandofpoliticalphilosophyAbensours
writingsseektospelloutthreebasicclaims:thatpoliticsanddominationarerooted,

Reviews
605
r

2010BlackwellPublishingLtd.

respectively,inthedesiretobefreeandthedesiretodominateandthusirreconcilably
contradicteachother;thatpoliticsisanactivityirreducibletoanyotherformofsocial
action;andthatconflictandutopiaarepermanentfeaturesofeveryformofpolitics,their
suppressionbeingoneofthemarksoftotalitarianism(p.46).Inthe
ThefirststepinAbensoursdiscussionofdemocracyisanegativeoneandconsistsina
critiqueofactuallyexistingdemocracynotfromaMarxist,butfromaradically
democraticstandpoint(adopted,amongothers,byMarxhimselfinhiswritingsabout
whathein1843calledtruedemocracy).Theproblemwithactuallyexistingdemocracy
isnotonlythatitismoreoligarchicthandemocratic,butthat,onamorefundamental
level,itconfusesdemocracywitharegimethatcombinesrepresentativegovernmentwith
theruleoflaw.Tospeakofademocraticstateis,forAbensour,anoxymoron.Following
PierreClastres(seealsoAbensour1987),heconceivesofthestateasnecessarilyanti
democraticbecauseitisabearerofpoliticalpowerseparatedfromsocietyandrestsonthe
divisionbetweenthosewhoaregovernedandthosewhogovernadivisionthat
democracyseekstoabolish.Abensourwantstofreeusfromtheillusionthatthestateisthe
universalformthatpolitics,atleastincomplexsocieties,necessarilyhastotake.
Onthisunderstanding,capturednicelyinthetitleofwhatmaywellbeAbensours
mostimportantbook,
LaDe

mocratiecontrelEtat
(2004a;atranslationisabouttobe
publishedbyPolity),democracyconsistsinacontinualstruggleagainstthestate,a
struggletoreappropriatethepowerwhichpertainstothepeople,itspouvoirconstituant,
arrogatedorexpropriatedbythestate.AsAbensourelaboratesinhisilluminatingarticle
deemocracyconsistsinacontinualstruggleagainstthestate,astruggletoreappropriatethe

powerwhichpertainstothepeople,itspouvoirconstituant,arrogatedorexpropriatedby
thestate.AsAbensourelaboratesinhisilluminatingarticleDe mocratiesauvageet
principedanarchie(pp.31948;seeAbensour2002foranEnglishtranslation),
democracyischaracterizedbyananarchiclogicthatresistsitstransformationintoastable
andunifiedsetofinstitutionsandleadstoapermanentstruggle,ordialectic,between
democracyandthestate.

thissense,democracyisnecessarilyrevolutionaryandthedemocraticrevolution
necessarilyunfinishedbecausethelogicofdemocracyisalwaysexcessiveinrelationtothe
varyingattemptsatinstitutionalrealizationanddomestication.Abensourspreferredname
forthiskindofdemocracyis,fittingly,insurgentdemocracy
Machiavelliwasthefirsttoseeconflictespeciallythestrugglebetweendifferentsocial
groupsorclasseswhoarecharacterized,respectively,bytheirdesiretodominateandtobe
freeandthedisordercreatedbyitnotasaproblemtobeovercomebythecleverdesign
ofpoliticalinstitutionsandpoliciesbutasapermanentconditionofpoliticsaswellasa
conditionofpoliticalliberty(p.21).(surlechemindemachiavel)
ForAbensour,thisdoesnotmeanthatdemocracyisincompatiblewithinstitutions,atleast
aslongastheseinstitutionsarenotpetrifiedandpetrifying,suppressingthedynamicthatis
essentialtodemocracy,whichseemstobeexactlythedepoliticizingeffectofthe
institutionsofpresentdayrepresentativeandelectoraldemocracy(seeAbensour,Nancy
andRancie`re2009).
fdemocracyisanexpressionoftheessentiallypluralistandconflictualcharacterofpolitics,
totalitarianismisitsnegation.AsAbensourarguesmeticulouslyinRe flexionssurlesdeux
interpre tationsdutotalitarismeselonClaudeLefort(pp.83135)andDuneme
sinterpretationdutotalitarismeetdeseseffets(pp.16798)theunprecedentedcharacterof
totalitarianismcanonlybegraspedifweunderstanditnotasanexcessofpolitics,but
ratherasthedestructionofpolitics,morepreciselyofthepluralityandthesocialbondthat
arethelattersontologicalconditionsofpossibility.Groundedinthenegationofconflict
withinandtheconstructionofanoppositionbetweentheunifiedbodyofthecommunity
andanexteriorthatisrepresentedasotherandhostile,totalitarianismisanessentiallypost
andantidemocraticphenomenonandassuchgenuinelymodern(p.107).Abensoursees
totalitarianismastheoutcomeofacounterrevolutionagainstthedemocraticrevolution,as
theeffectofasearchfordeterminacy,foundations,closureandcertitudeafterthe
democraticrevolutionhasestablishedthatindeterminacy,thelackoffoundations,the
impossibilityofclosureandafundamentaluncertaintyareessentialfeaturesofpolitics.

Thisimplies,however,thattheantidemocratictemptationoftotalitarianismisnot
somethingexternaltodemocracybutratherinternaltoit,apermanentthreatproducedby
democracyitself.
Ourcontemporaryliberalsocietiesarenottotalitarian,butneitherhavetheyovercome
dominationandfullydemocratizedthemselves.Whataretheprospectsofemancipation
undercurrentconditions?WhileAbensourcreditsthefirstgenerationoftheFrankfurt
Schoolwithdistinguishingdominationfromexploitationandthusrecognizingits
specificallypoliticalnature,henotesaproblematictendencytoidentifypoliticswith
dominationandtotherebybringitintoanoppositiontoemancipation,asifemancipation
wouldnotmeantheestablishmentofafreepoliticalcommunitybutfreeingoneselffrom
politics(p.285).AshearguesinPourunephilosophiepolitiquecritique?(pp.265318),
agenuinelycriticalpoliticalphilosophywouldhavetoavoidtheriskoffallingeitherinto
anirenicconceptionofpoliticsthatevacuatesitofallformsofconflictanddivisionand
thuslosessightoftheexistingformsofdominationandthecontinuingstrugglefor
emancipation,orintoacatastrophicconceptionaccordingtowhichtheubiquityof
dominationquellseveryattemptofliberation,thusdenyingtheverypossibilityofpolitical
action(pp.294,30812).
IncontrasttosomestrandsintheMarxisttradition,emancipationisnottobeunderstoodas
emancipationfrompolitics,butasemancipationtopolitics(p.14).ForAbensour,
emancipationconsistsinestablishingapoliticalbondbeyondthedivisionbetweenthose
whogovernandthosewhoaregoverned,thosewhocommandandthosewhoobey.Inthis
perspective,theconceptofemancipationprovidesthelinkbetweendemocracyandutopia,
exploredinthearticleUtopieetde mocratie(pp.34962).Incontrasttoitsliberal
critique,Abensourconceivesofutopianotasarecipefortotalitariancatastrophebutasan
essentialdimensionofdemocracy.Headmits,however,thatinordertoshowtheir
compatibilityitiscrucialtodeterminewhetherutopiaisnecessarilylinkedtotheideaofa
reconciledandgoodsocietyinwhicheveryconflictisovercome.Although
r2010BlackwellPublishingLtd.

608Reviews
thisideamightbeamythicalleftoverinsomeformsofutopianthought,forAbensourthe
overcomingofdomination,servitudeandexploitationismuchmoredecisiveandpointsto
thecommongroundofdemocracyandutopia.Farfrombeinginherentlytotalitarian,the
utopiandimensionisessentialtodemocracy,giventhatwedonotidentifythelatterwitha
politicalregime.Incontrast,itispreciselyasignoftotalitariansocietiesthattheylackany
utopiandimensionbecausetheyalreadyimaginethemselvesastherealizationofaperfect
andreconciledsocialorder(seealsoAbensour2000,2008and2010).
Foralltheiroriginalityandpersuasiveness,Abensoursreflectionsondemocracyremain
somewhatelusive,muchmoreconvincingintheircritiqueofwhatheconceivesasthe
fundamentalerrorsofcontemporarypoliticalphilosophythanintheattempttoprovidea

positiveaccount,letaloneanaccountofwhatkindofpoliticalpracticecould,undercurrent
conditions,layclaimtothehonorarytitleofbeinganemancipatoryordemocraticpractice.
Evensuchacentralproblemasthestatusoftheideaofdemocracyisonlyaddressedina
somewhatlaboredway,leavingthereaderwonderingwhethertherecaneverbeagenuinely
democraticsociety,onewhichhasovercomedominationandinwhichthedivisionbetween
governorsandgovernednolongerexists,orwhetherdemocracyisthecontinuingstruggle
againstvariousformsofdominationthatwillneverbedefeatedonceandforall.Asimilar
irritationconcernstheratherquickandunderarguedrelegationofthestatetotherealmof
domination.Whyshouldthestate,inanalogytothelaw,notturnouttobeamore
ambivalentphenomenon,entailingthepotentialforbothemancipationanddomination,and
creatingasiteofdemocraticstruggles?Andhowarewetoimaginethenonstate
institutionsofdemocracythatAbensouralludestoastheemancipatoryalternativetothe
alienatingstateapparatus?Isthecouncilsystemstillthemostconvincingandcreative
attempttoinstitutionalizetheanarchiclogicofdemocracy?MaybeAbensourwouldhave
gonefartherinansweringthesequestionsifhedidnotsharetheunfortunatetendencyof
bothsocalledcontinentalandanalyticapproachesinpoliticalphilosophytoproceedin
mutualignorance(acriticalengagementwiththerecentrevivalofrepublicanpolitical
theoryintheAnglophoneworldmighthavebeenagoodplacetostart).Still,hisattemptto
elaborateacriticalpoliticalphilosophyaskstherightquestionsandprovidesrichresources
fromdiversebackgroundstomakesomeprogressinansweringthem.Itsgreatestmeritisto
insistontheradical,andradicallynonstatist,natureofdemocracyandonthenecessityto
combinepoliticalphilosophywithcriticalsocialtheoryifwewanttounderstandthe
obstaclesthedemocraticrevolutionisconfrontedwithtoday.