Jacques Rancière

This chapter demonstrates that Rancière’s journey to democratic theory started in the aftermath of May 1968 with his efforts to overcome the problematic transformation of political theory into “a theory of education.” For Rancière, unpredictability is integral to democratic politics. Thus, in an anti-Rousseauian move, he emphasizes the theatrical aspect of democratic action: taking on a role other than who they are, acting as if they are a part in a given social order in which they have no part, political actors stage their equality, disrupting the existing distribution of the sensible. Rancière’s focus on the moments of disruption, however, opens him to the charge of reducing democratic politics to immediate acts of negation. Insofar as he erases the role of intermediating practices in the stagings of equality, Rancière imposes on his accounts a kind of purity that his own work, with its emphasis on broken, polemical voices, cautions against.

Antonio Negri

This chapter focuses on Antonio Negri’s turn to democratic theory in the wake of Italy’s “Long ’68.” As an activist thinker involved in the political struggles of his time, starting in the early 1970s, Negri challenged the Marxist orthodoxy’s exclusive focus on factory workers through a series of conceptual innovations, such as the “multitude,” highlighting the emancipatory potential of diverse political actors and their innovative resistance practices. Despite this crucial contribution, the chapter contends, Negri’s account, too, is haunted by the Rousseauian dream of immediacy: for Negri, insurgencies are moments of democracy because they are the immediate expressions of the multitude. And while Negri refuses to characterize such short-lived moments as failures, he still, like Rousseau, considers their transience a problem, which he tries to resolve through the cultivation of “adequate” revolutionary consciousness—a problematic move, the chapter concludes, which reproduces the antidemocratic Rousseauian tendency to turn political theory into a theory of education in Negri’s work.

Enacting Political Friendship in Gezi

This chapter deploys the alternative conceptual lens developed in the book, according to which democratic action is a theatrical experience created and sustained through the intermediating practices of political friendship, to analyze the Gezi protests of 2013. What emerges from this analysis is a richer account of events that moves beyond the limiting frameworks of success/failure and spontaneity/organization by bringing to light both the on-the-ground practices of political actors and the messiness and impurity of democratic politics even in the moment of its staging. Focusing on such intermediating practices as deliberation, judging, negotiation, artistic production, common use, and the organization of the mundane aspects of everyday life, the chapter demonstrates that those who took part in Gezi borrowed from past struggles, including May ’68, re-activated political habits, and, acting in unexpected ways, created new, if imperfect and fragile, forms of commonality among diverse figures, showing that another way of doing things is possible.

Democratic Action, Spontaneity, and the Intermediating Practices of Political Friendship

This chapter accomplishes two goals. First, it critically engages with the contemporary debates on the last decade’s democratic uprisings to demonstrate the ongoing influence of Rousseau’s emphasis on immediacy in democratic theory. By casting organization as that which precedes politics and moments of spontaneous action as sudden explosions, contemporary accounts reduce spontaneity to immediacy. Thus, they both erase on-the-ground practices of the political actors, and, taking an antidemocratic Rousseauian turn, construe the transience and unpredictability of democratic events as problems to be resolved under the guidance of the theorist. Second, the chapter appropriates Aristotle’s notion of political friendship, laying the groundwork for the conception of democratic action developed in the book, and arguing that democratic events are created in and through “intermediating practices,” including deliberation, judging, negotiation, artistic production, and common use. Through intermediating practices, people establish relations with strangers, constitute a common amid disagreements, and stage their equality as political friends.

Epilogue

The Epilogue concludes the book by emphasizing the importance of keeping a record of the political actors’ hopes and desires in the new ways of being that they staged in democratic moments, without tidying up the tensions and disorderly aspects of those events. While such alternative ways of being do not provide future actors with a blueprint, they call into question the inevitability of the social order as it exists. For this reason, it is politically significant to stand up against the current trivialization of these events, which, perhaps inadvertently, plays into the hands of the powers that be who seek to obliterate the memory of democratic moments. For, remembering the experiences of political actors, who created democratic events against all odds may be the only means to keep alive the emancipatory potential of the past, making it possible for it to become a citable source and an inspiration for future struggles.

Prologue

Through an interpretive analysis of the surprising refiguration of the iconic May ’68 poster “Beauty is in the Street” in Istanbul during the Gezi Protests of 2013, the Prologue sets the stage for the book by making three closely related points. First, it draws attention to the emancipatory potential of such refigurations of past struggles in the present and highlights the importance of keeping a record of democratic events. Second, it establishes the centrality of 1968 in democratic theory by demonstrating how Negri, Habermas, and Rancière formulated their own unique conceptualizations of democratic action in response to the questions that first emerged in the aftermath of the experience of 1968 and continue to shape current debates. Third, it argues that to rescue contemporary democratic events from their ongoing trivialization, it is necessary to develop an alternative conceptual lens that reveals what other accounts erase, namely the on-the-ground efforts of political actors.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

This chapter offers an innovative interpretive analysis of Rousseau’s literary and political works, highlighting how his formulation of popular sovereignty as the immediate expression of the people rests on a critique of the theater’s conspicuous artificiality. Contrary to the established reading, Rousseau’s alternative to the theater is not the public festival, which he finds unpredictable and fragile due to its performative nature. Rousseau models his conception of politics on a different form of aesthetic experience, which he develops in Pygmalion—a monodrama that depicts the encounter between a sculptor and his work of art. The Social Contract embodies this aesthetic experience whose paradigmatic example comes from plastic arts. The chapter concludes with an exploration of the antidemocratic implications of this turn to plastic arts, which resurfaces in the works of contemporary theorists who share Rousseau’s idealization of the supposed immediacy of spontaneous action and his desire to remedy its fragility and unpredictability.

Jürgen Habermas

This chapter argues that Jürgen Habermas’s engagement with the debates on the German student movement of 1968 led him to question the common tendency to consider the transience of spontaneous popular action a failure. Habermas’s democratic theory construes the ephemerality of such events as an asset that ensures they remain unrestricted by existing norms. The “wild” and “anarchic” moments of direct citizen action constitute the radical core of deliberative democracy. Yet, even as he emphasizes the democratic moments’ unrestricted quality, Habermas, like Rousseau, is also wary of their unpredictability. In his discussions on civil disobedience, Habermas turns to “constitutional patriotism” as a normative criterion to contain the dangers that emanate from the unpredictability of spontaneous action. In doing so, however, Habermas risks transforming political theory into a disciplinary mechanism whereby the theorist, à la Rousseau, takes on the role of an authority figure charged with guiding democratic action.