Postmodernist approaches to political theory,Anarchist critique of the state
Question 10. Write short notes on the following:
(a) Postmodernist approaches to political theory
(b) Anarchist critique of the state
(c) Conservative approach to political theory
Answer –
(a) Postmodernist approaches to political theory
Introduction
Postmodernism arose after World War II as a reaction to the perceived failings of modernism, whose radical artistic projects had come to be associated with totalitarianism or had been assimilated into mainstream culture. The basic features of what we now call postmodernism can be found as early as the 1940s, most notably in the work of Jorge Luis Borges. However, most scholars today would agree that postmodernism began to compete with modernism in the late 1950s and gained ascendancy over it in the 1960s. Since then, postmodernism has been a dominant, though not undisputed, force in art, literature, film, music, drama, architecture, history, and continental philosophy. Salient features of postmodernism are normally thought to include the ironic play with styles, citations and narrative levels,
Postmodernism Political Theory, Postmodernism is essentially a reaction against the intellectual assumptions and values of the fashionable period within the history of Western philosophy. Indeed, many of the doctrines characteristically related to postmodernism can fairly be described because the straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints that were taken without any consideration during the 18th- century Enlightenment, though they weren’t unique thereto period. the foremost important of those viewpoints are the subsequent.
Approaches to political theory
- there’s an objective natural reality, a reality whose existence and properties are logically independent of human beings-of their minds, their societies, their social practices, or their investigative techniques. Postmodernists dismiss this concept as a sort of realism. Such reality as there’s, consistent with postmodernists, may be a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language. now also applies to the investigation of past events by historians and to the outline of social institutions, structures, or practices by social scientists.
- The descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in theory, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this viewpoint-which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality-is sometimes expressed by saying that there’s no such thing as Truth.
- Through the utilization of reason and logic, and with the more specialized tools provided by science and technology, citizenry are likely to vary themselves and their societies for the higher. it’s reasonable to expect that future societies are going to be more humane, more just, more enlightened, and more prosperous than they’re now. Postmodernists deny this Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress.
- Reason and logic are universally valid-i.e., their laws are an equivalent for, or apply equally to, any thinker and any domain of data. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established intellectual traditions during which they’re used.
- there’s such a thing as human nature; it consists of colleges, aptitudes, or dispositions that are in some sense present in citizenry at birth instead of learned or instilled through social forces. Postmodernists insist that each one, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely socially determined.
Conclusion
postmodernism has become a grand-narrative in itself and it intensifies problems of personal and social disintegration and despair. Naom Chomsky has even argued that postmodernism is meaningless as it has nothing to add to empirical and analytical knowledge. Pauline Rosenau has highlighted the fact that while postmodernism stresses the irrational, instruments of reason are freely employed to advance its perspective.
(b) Anarchist critique of the state
Introduction
These practical arguments were grounded in their understanding of society. Anarchists held that society was constituted by human beings with particular forms of consciousness engaging in activity – exercising capacities to satisfy motivational drives and in so doing simultaneously transforming themselves and the world around them. For example, when workers go on strike a number of fundamental transformations can occur.
Workers can develop their capacities by learning to engage in direct action and self-direct their lives; acquire new motivational drives such as the desire to stand up to their boss or become a dues paying member of a union; and transform their forms of consciousness, by which I mean the particular ways in which they experience, conceptualise and understand the world, such as coming to view their boss as a class enemy or realising that to improve their situation they have to collectively organise with other workers. Through engaging in such activity workers not only transform themselves but also develop new social relations.
The State as a Social Structure
Anarchists viewed seizing state power as a road that would lead the working class to a new form of authoritarian class society, rather than the intended goal of communism. To understand why we need to first understand what anarchists meant by the state. Through an in-depth analysis of the state as an actually-existing social structure, both historically and at the time they were writing, anarchists came to define the state as a hierarchical and centralized institution that uses professionally organized violence to perform the function of reproducing class rule.
The state so understood was wielded by a political ruling class in their own interests, and in the interests of the economic ruling class, against the masses. Kropotkin, for example, writes that the state “not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration and a concentration of many functions in the life of societies in the hands of a few.
A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing is developed to subject some classes to the domination of other classes.” The state is therefore “the perfect example of a hierarchical institution, developed over centuries to subject all individuals and all of their possible groupings to the central will. The State is necessarily hierarchical, authoritarian or it ceases to be the State.
Anarchists thought this would occur for two main reasons.
Firstly, the state is a centralized and hierarchical institution in which a political ruling class monopolize decision making power and determine the lives of the majority who are subject to their rule. The minority of socialists who actually exercise state power will therefore impose decisions on and determine the lives of the working class, rather than enabling the working class to self-direct their own lives.
Secondly, through engaging in the activity of wielding state power socialists will be corrupted by their position of authority at the top of a social hierarchy and be transformed into people who will neither want to nor try to abolish their own power over others. According to Reclus,
Anarchists contend that the state and all that it implies are not any kind of pure essence, much less a philosophical abstraction, but rather a collection of individuals placed in a specific milieu and subjected to its influence. Those individuals are raised up above their fellow citizens in dignity, power, and preferential treatment, and are consequently compelled to think themselves superior to the common people. Yet in reality the multitude of temptations besetting them almost inevitably leads them to fall below the general level.
Conclusion
anarchists concluded that state power was necessarily based on a means – minority rule by a political ruling class – which was incompatible with achieving the ends of creating a communist society based on the self-determination of the working class as a whole.
(c) Conservative approach to political theory
Introduction
Traditional conservatism as a political philosophy date back to the late 18th century but only loosely resembles the brand of conservatism practiced in the United States today. Explore the history of traditional conservatism in Europe and compare and contrast it with the modern American style of conservatism.
Conservatism – is a political ideology that values the creation and maintenance of stable societies based upon a hierarchy of power lodged in a traditional class of leaders and deep respect for traditional values and institutions. Conservatism isn’t suspicious of the power of the state nor does it seek to limit its power. Traditional institutions, such as government and religion, along with traditional values are to be respected. Consequently, conservatism is suspicious of change, and if change is required, it seeks an evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary approach.
Political views: The right-wing activists, generally referred to as anti-federalists, advocate for smaller governments, reduced regulations, and the creation of free markets. These free markets are to be run by the private sector. They also interpret the constitution in the most literal manner.
Conservative approach in political theory
In Western Culture, conservative politics and ideology believe in the social and political philosophy of preserving an array of institutions that have historically been huge in society. These institutions include organized religion, property rights, and a parliamentary government. As a result, conservative ideologists are often extremely opposed to progressive ideas and look to return to traditional values.
There are some assumptions that conservatives make to perpetuate their agenda:
- The assumption is that human beings are naturally selfish, irrational, and prone to violence because selfish desires primarily drive them.
- They believe in a transcendent moral order, which requires people to conform to pre-existing societal principles.
- They do not believe in abstract arguments and theories. They assume that political principles cannot be driven by reason alone as a society will end in disaster.
- Some core principles characterize the conservative ideology worldwide and a particular view on various social topics.
- The conservative ideology believes that a permanent moral order ensures harmony in society. Man needs guidance for an order to prevail, and these orders were made specifically for them. The state of human nature never changes, and the moral truths that exist are to remain permanent.
- This ideology also believes in customs, convention, and continuity. This means that human beings adhere to the existing traditions and follow their ancestors’ footsteps.
- Conservatives are prominent on the principle of prudence. However, all public measures are subject to judgment, as every action has long-term consequences.
- Additionally, conservative ideology insists on prudent restraints on power and human beings themselves. Since passions and desires drive man, traditional rules and laws will guide people and tame their eccentricities.
Social conservatives are furthermore concerned about multiple social issues. In most cases, they oppose almost all the social problems that arise as society progresses. This means they are against issues like abortion rights, feminism, pornography, same-sex marriages, and transgender rights. They stand for traditional family values and encourage abstinence-only sex education.
Conclusion
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.
Leave a Reply