Governing Ideas 4 - politics and the political

Summary

The transcript delves into various perspectives on politics, emphasizing the absence of a single viewpoint. It explores political theories from conflict-driven ideologies like Lenin's to resource allocation and representation. The discussion touches on personal political decisions and their broader implications, drawing from Jacques Rancier's concept of making unheard voices heard. It critiques the Western-centric approach to political science, advocating for a more inclusive understanding that considers non-Western political frameworks like worldism and the importance of harmony and consultation. The summary also questions the reliability of political science as a predictive tool, given the complex and open nature of political systems.

Takeaways

• 🤔 Politics is multifaceted and there's no single way to view it; individuals must determine what makes the most sense to them based on their perspectives.
• 🏛️ Lenin's view of politics was centered on conflict, hierarchy, control, and power dynamics, emphasizing the struggle for dominance.
• 💡 An alternative view frames politics in terms of resource allocation, asking questions like 'who gets what, when, and how?'
• 🌐 Hannah Arendt introduced a feminist perspective on politics, suggesting that personal decisions can have political consequences, affecting society and the environment.
• 🗣️ Jacques Rancier's approach to politics focuses on giving voice to those who are unheard, suggesting that politics is about making the invisible visible.
• 🧠 The script critiques the Western canonical view of politics, which often overlooks non-Western experiences and perspectives, advocating for a more inclusive approach.
• 🔍 It discusses the limitations of applying scientific methods to politics due to the open and complex nature of political systems, which cannot be controlled or predicted with certainty.
• 🌐 The concept of 'worldism' is introduced as an alternative to the Westphalian approach, emphasizing a bottom-up perspective and negotiation across multiple logics.
• 🔄 The script touches on the idea of dialectics from Taoism, suggesting a holistic view that includes both competition and cooperation, rather than viewing everything as a zero-sum game.
• 🌱 The importance of considering different historical, cultural, and philosophical frameworks when discussing politics is emphasized, to avoid bias and to foster a more comprehensive understanding.

Q & A

What are the different frameworks for understanding politics mentioned in the transcript?

The transcript discusses various frameworks for understanding politics, including conflict theory, resource allocation, uncontrolled competition for scarce resources, feminist understanding of the personal as political, Jacques Rancier's view on those who have nowhere to speak making themselves of account, and the Western canonical view of politics.

How does the transcript describe Vladimir Lenin's view on politics?

Vladimir Lenin's view on politics is described as being about conflict, hierarchy, control, and power over, emphasizing the idea of 'who will dominate whom'.

What does the transcript suggest about the relationship between personal decisions and political consequences?

The transcript suggests that personal decisions can have political consequences, as they can affect societal structures and norms, even if they are initially made for personal reasons.

How does the transcript define 'political representation'?

Political representation in the transcript is discussed in terms of the rights of individuals to be politically represented, to vote, and to participate in society.

What is Jacques Rancier's perspective on politics as mentioned in the transcript?

Jacques Rancier's perspective, as mentioned, is that politics is about those who have nowhere to speak making themselves of account, suggesting that politics is not just about policy organization or the re-allocation of resources but also about giving voice to the unheard.

What is the significance of the term 'scientific' in the context of political science as discussed in the transcript?

The term 'scientific' in the context of political science is questioned in the transcript, as it highlights the limitations and biases in applying scientific methodology to the complex, open, and interactive systems of politics.

How does the transcript critique the Western canonical view of political science?

The transcript critiques the Western canonical view of political science for omitting other experiences that exist in the world and for treating the sovereign nation-state model as universal, which may not account for different forms and structures of political authority.

What alternative views to the Western view of politics are presented in the transcript?

The transcript presents alternative views such as worldism, which emphasizes a bottom-up perspective and negotiation across multiple logics, and the concept of harmony in Chinese worldview, which values different forms and structures as long as they coexist peacefully.

What is the Westphalian approach and why does the transcript argue it entrenches violence?

The Westphalian approach refers to a system of international relations based on the Treaty of Westphalia, characterized by states as the primary actors, sovereignty as a main principle, and trade or commerce as legitimate venues for interaction. The transcript argues it entrenches violence because it offers a singular logic of what to do and how to think, leading to conflict over the legitimate use of force.

How does the concept of 'worldism' as presented in the transcript differ from the Westphalian approach?

Worldism, as opposed to the Westphalian approach, is about a world of multiple worlds that interact and negotiate across different logics. It focuses on creative listening and speaking as a mechanism for implementing a dialogic approach, rather than being based on a singular logic of violence and competition.

Outlines

00:00

🌟 Introduction to Political Perspectives

The speaker begins by discussing the various ways to view politics, emphasizing that there is no single approach and that individuals must determine what resonates with them. They touch on broad theoretical traditions and how different frameworks can lead to different understandings of justice, representation, and fairness. The speaker also highlights the importance of considering multiple viewpoints, including those of historical figures like Vladimir Lenin, who viewed politics through the lens of conflict and power dynamics. The paragraph introduces the idea that politics is not just about resource allocation but also about who has the right to participate and be represented in society.

05:00

🔍 Exploring Political Frameworks and Concepts

This paragraph delves deeper into different political frameworks, such as resource allocation and conflict over resources, with examples from various thinkers. The speaker critiques the textbook's distinction between these concepts and introduces the idea of uncontrolled competition for scarce resources. They also discuss the personal political consequences of individual actions, such as environmental decisions, and the broader implications for society. The paragraph concludes with a mention of Jacques Rancier's view on politics as a rare occurrence where the unheard make themselves heard, suggesting a more inclusive approach to political participation.

10:00

🌐 Global Perspectives on Politics and Authority

The speaker explores global perspectives on politics, challenging the Western-centric view of the sovereign nation-state as universal. They introduce the concept of 'worldism' as an alternative to the Westphalian approach, which is based on conflict and competition. The paragraph discusses the idea of harmony and consultation in politics, drawing from non-Western traditions that emphasize cooperation and balance over dominance. The speaker also critiques the Western approach for its historical biases and suggests that political science should be more inclusive of diverse experiences and perspectives.

15:01

🌱 Worldism and the Future of Political Thought

In the final paragraph, the speaker focuses on the concept of worldism as a way to move beyond the traditional, conflict-oriented view of politics. They discuss the importance of creative listening and speaking as a mechanism for implementing worldless dialogics, which emphasizes negotiation and understanding across different political logics. The speaker argues against the idea of conducting political science experiments due to the complexity and unpredictability of political systems. The paragraph concludes with a call for a more holistic and inclusive approach to political thought that acknowledges power as historical and contingent rather than universal.

Keywords

💡Politics

Politics refers to activities related to the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power. In the video, politics is discussed in various frameworks, including conflict, resource allocation, and personal decisions with political consequences. The script mentions different views on politics, such as Lenin's focus on power and control, and Jacques Rancier's view of politics as making the voiceless heard.

💡Resource Allocation

Resource allocation is the process of distributing resources among different uses. In the context of the video, it is one of the ways to frame politics, focusing on who gets what, when, and how. The script contrasts resource allocation with conflict over resources, suggesting that politics can be about the fair distribution of resources rather than just competition and struggle.

💡Conflict

Conflict in the video is presented as a central aspect of political frameworks, particularly in the discussion of Lenin's view of politics. It involves struggle for power, authority, and control. The script mentions that conflict over resources is a common theme in political theories, where competition and systems of control are established to manage scarcity.

💡Representation

Representation in politics refers to the process by which people are represented in a decision-making body, such as a parliament. The video discusses questions of political representation, such as who has the right to vote and participate in society. It is tied to the broader theme of inclusion and the power dynamics within political systems.

💡Feminist Understanding

The feminist understanding of politics mentioned in the video emphasizes the personal as political, suggesting that personal decisions can have broader political implications. It challenges traditional views by highlighting how individual actions and choices can reflect and influence power structures, such as environmental decisions impacting ecological systems.

💡Jacques Rancier

Jacques Rancier is a French philosopher discussed in the video, known for his concept of 'the politics of the voiceless.' His view is that politics is about those who have no place in the public sphere making themselves heard. This idea is used in the video to argue for a more inclusive and diverse political discourse that goes beyond traditional power structures.

💡Westphalian System

The Westphalian System, originating from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, is a model of international relations based on the concept of sovereign states. The video critiques this system for entrenching violence and promoting a singular logic of power and conflict. It is contrasted with alternative views like worldism, which emphasizes negotiation and dialogue across different logics.

💡Worldism

Worldism, as discussed in the video, is an alternative paradigm to the Westphalian System. It suggests a world of multiple worlds, emphasizing bottom-up interactions and the importance of negotiation and dialogue across different logics and systems. This concept is used to propose a more holistic and inclusive approach to international relations and politics.

💡Taoist Dialectics

Taoist Dialectics, mentioned in the context of worldism, is a philosophical concept that views the world as a holistic organism composed of complementary opposites. The video uses this idea to propose a model of dialogics that focuses on creative listening and speaking as a way to implement worldless dialogics, suggesting a different approach to politics that values balance and harmony.

💡Harmony

Harmony, as discussed in the video, contrasts with the conflict-oriented views of politics. It suggests a political system that values cooperation and peaceful coexistence, allowing for different forms and structures as long as they contribute to overall harmony. This concept is used to critique the universality of the sovereign nation-state model and to propose a more diverse and inclusive political landscape.

Highlights

Politics is viewed differently by different people, and there isn't a single way to understand it.

Political frameworks can include concepts of justice, representation, and fairness.

Vladimir Lenin's political framework focuses on conflict, hierarchy, control, and power dynamics.

An allocative sense of politics considers how resources are distributed among different parties.

Manheim's view includes competition for scarce resources and the use of force in political conflict.

A feminist understanding of politics considers personal decisions and their political consequences.

Politics can also be about who has the right to participate and be represented in society.

Jacques Rancier argues that politics is about those who have nowhere to speak making themselves of account.

Politics is about structuring thought and considering different frameworks for understanding it.

The textbook's framework of politics is largely centered on the polis and structures of power and authority.

Elections are often seen as a horse race, which is an unethical way to view the democratic process.

Politics involves collective decision-making processes and the advancement of individual and group interests.

The struggle for power, advantage, and dominance is a common theme in political frameworks.

The concept of 'scarce public goods' is a typo, but it leads to a discussion about shared resources.

The Western canonical view of political science may omit other experiences and perspectives from around the world.

A balanced or holistic view of politics can be found in non-Western perspectives, such as worldism.

The Westphalian approach to world politics is based on a singular logic of violence and is critiqued for entrenching conflict.

Worldism proposes an alternative paradigm for world politics that focuses on negotiation and dialogue.

Taoist dialectics offer a different way to view differences and their interactions, which can be applied to politics.

The concept of worldless dialogics emphasizes creative listening and speaking as a mechanism for implementing worldism.

Transcripts

so we talked a lot about the kind of

buckets of politics at this point

um let's get into some of the specifics

of the what I mean we we've been talking

about things that are political or

concepts that are political bohammer

have talked about the political

um so you know there isn't again as I

said in the introduction there isn't one

way to view politics right so you know

you you have to figure out what makes

the most sense to you

um and then you can develop there's

broad theoretical traditions and all the

different ways that it makes sense to

you what makes sense to me about

politics isn't what makes sense to you

about politics but we can talk about

each other's visions of politics and

very liberal but we can do it

um and so we have all different

Frameworks about what the political is

but what Justice is but what

representation is what fairness is and

we can be sympathetic and we can be

critical to all of them including mine

right so we have to include and exclude

everybody from this so you know the

Lenin Vladimir Lenin right the famously

you know said who will dominate whom so

his framework of politics was was about

conflict right about this idea of

hierarchy and control and power over and

Power Authority and we'll get to the

power dynamics after this

um you know you can also frame it more

in a kind of allocative sense so who

gets what when and how so that's framing

it in terms of like how are resources

allocated so weirdly enough like out of

those two

last well sounds more communist than

Lynn Lennon really enough

um and the textbook makes this weird

distinction too which I don't really

understand because one is about resource

allocation and one is about conflict

between classes right in different ways

and Manheim has uncontrolled competition

for scarce Resources by domination and

forsh force this conflict over resources

so again very similar this kind of the

idea that there's conflict over

resources rather than just resource

allocation right resource allocation is

kind of more policy conflict over

resources says competition and builds in

more kind of systems and structures for

control

um you know it Hanish these are in the

text but Hannah thought I would do it

personally is politically kind of

feminist understanding of no you have to

understand that the ways in which we go

about the world how if I have a lawn or

not is is a

personal decision that has political

consequences right so it might not be

environmentally viable for whatever it

is I'm doing you know I've got ten

thousand acres I make it all on I love

my golf course right

um whether or not that's ecologically

sound is something that was a personal

decision that has political consequences

but in a more you know back to the real

sense do certain people have the right

to be politically represented do they

have the right to vote do they have the

right of participation in our society

right those types of personal political

questions and then mine is just I draw

this this is my own personal one you

don't have to agree with it this is just

how I like to think about it those who

have nowhere to speak making themselves

of account so this is from Jacques

Rancier and what he's arguing there is

that politics is actually kind of rare

most of what we talk about is just kind

of policy organization the re-allocation

of resources or you know some effort to

reorganize who's in charge right back to

the Lenin like no it shouldn't be them

the dominating it should be them who's

dominating it shouldn't be the

conservatives in power it should be the

Liberals it shouldn't be this and to be

them right whereas this version is more

about the idea back to the political

animal stuff about maybe we should

listen more and hear the voices that

currently we can't even hear and there's

all sorts of ways in which you do that

and it's really hard and it doesn't

happen very often right

um and so you know as meta then

as thinking about politics really what

we're doing is thinking about how we

structure thought

um I said feminism here because it

doesn't

this framework from the textbook doesn't

really do the feminist way of doing

politics personal political stuff

um and so it it frames it largely as

things concerning the polis which again

okay those in structures of power and

authority who gets what when how as we

talked about research allegation

processes have collected decision making

listen you can just be concerned that

you just think politics is elections

right it's the horse race so my my

candidate is going to win horse racing

let's be clear super unethical you're

racing babies look it up two-year-olds

uh anyways my wife's a horse uh writing

um instructors so this is why I know

this um so just the idea that processes

of collective decision making

um so how it is that that we come about

Collective decisions right how did the

Prime Minister come up with this policy

and what does it mean for me write that

episode

um advancement of individual and group

interests so this can be pushing forward

of Rights you know property rights

landlord rights tenant rights whatever

you want to do resolution of conflict so

you can frame in terms of Peace how do

we generate peace what makes peaceful

Society who is peaceful how does peace

come about

competition for scarce that should be

scarce public goods ah they made a typo

that's not mine

um scarce public goods

scaring public goods would be like I

don't know the most Halloween

decorations we can give out for free but

public goods are just things that we

share in common so you know I want to

have a road built because it will be

quicker for me to get to work I just

happened to reflect certain types of

hierarchy and Authority some white voice

counts more so I get the road and you

don't right because we only have so much

we're only willing to pay for so much so

those the allocation of those resources

or you can see it as the unrelenting

struggle for power advantage and

dominance all of these are very much

framed in a not personalized political

they're framed in a very kind of public

political way that that what takes place

is is out there and what happens in here

doesn't have those consequences right so

it's just an interesting way to frame

these things I will say they're you know

there is a weird I don't even I don't

even know it's it's you know we're in

the 2020s now I don't know about using

that word for science

um I think we're trying to get rid of

that language but here I think it is

instructive

um because you know that's what

Aristotle thinks of this is the kind of

overarching framework that explains all

the other Frameworks

maybe maybe that's what he argues

use of here is very much in this kind of

Plantation of scene mentality this the

legacies of plantationism in the way

that we frame both of those words

together the exploitation colonialism

inequality inequality

um you know I just have questions about

the science part right

because this has been one of the

fundamental problems famously you know

he debates it now but Nate silver was

the famous statistician who predicted

Obama's uh election but was famously

very wrong on Trump everybody was very

wrong on Trump

um because they were using this

scientific

methodology

that has this problem in it is that if

you and this is why we close polling

this is why even Facebook said we won't

run political ads 24 hours before an

election because if you statistically

say that this happens 99 times out of

100 therefore because it happens 99

times out of 100 you shouldn't go vote

for your candidate because there's a

only a one percent chance they're going

to win

that actually makes people not go to the

polls and then it reinforces or creates

the opposite where your science

interferes with the outcome and so we

don't have the ability to control

variables in politics so we want to say

we're doing science we want to come up

with the idea that we're doing science

but we don't have any systems that are

closed and controllable our systems are

open and complex and interact with each

other right so advancements in feminism

result in counter feminism right so then

the premise of advancing like ideas of

women's rights it was floated at certain

points by certain people in the U.S on

the right that oh well maybe women's

rights in voting well we went too far

like this happened during the Trump

presidency like that we can go back on

Concepts and ideas that we thought were

well settled right and so there's no

such like there's a premise to you know

even with what we did in the last

section to say these are the three types

of systems I'm not you know those are

the three types of systems we have now

but we're not sure they will always be

that way and so there's a bias in our

science and that our science isn't very

reliable in the kind of predictive

analysis sense

um I would also say that the Aristotle

Western canonical view of political

science has

to omit the other experiences that exist

in the world

um I just use two there's many more I

just used two as examples so I know this

little link she just died I think last

year a couple years ago

um I met her several times but she had

this framework and she gave one of her

big last lectures at the London School

of Economics on worldism that basically

this idea of framing everything in this

kind of this conflict way or one against

another we can actually use something

she she looked at like kind of taoism as

this idea it's not one versus the other

but there's also a bit of each in each

other and so it's this idea of a

balanced or holistic views it doesn't

see everything in terms of competition

right it doesn't see everything as a set

outcomes over scarce resources that

doesn't seem everything this tiencia Sia

my my Mandarin's terrible it's been

years since I took it

um and that um the idea of all under

heaven or all the people or these World

institutions and this is China's kind of

world view that they're propagating

listen we can be critical like I've been

critical everything we critical this but

the idea here is that this is a Humane

Authority strategy which is the idea

that you know we're not going to reject

those who've come to learn and but we're

also not going to go out there and

lecture others so this is a different

view than liberalism liberalism

everybody should be able to speak their

ideas and that we have this this kind of

exchange of ideas and this open and that

my criticism should be allowed of those

ideas and those criticisms and my ideas

should be allowed this is a different

view

um this idea of Harmony it's not

sameness and there is a especially in

the western Canon we treat The Sovereign

Nation State as universal we say it's

analytical but we treat it as universal

you're either a modern nation state or

you're not right and so everything is

sameness whereas Harmony says no there

can be different forms and structures as

long as everything gets along right it's

not just cooperation it's Harmony and so

this is a different way of viewing

things and then we've got you know this

idea as I spoke about earlier about the

separation of the political from the

religious doesn't have a lot of

authority and that there's this this

sure idea in both Arab and Muslim

traditions of consultation that there's

actually a democracy as a concept has

Origins outside the Western canonical

experience we just tend not to look

there because of that white ignorant

stuff I talked about earlier because we

make an assumption about how we should

view things and that assumption trickles

down in how we think about everything

else right

um and that there doesn't necessarily

need to be a separation of religious and

political Authority or order that we can

have a consultative process so in this

this world is this this this

um non-western view of politics we can

either have something like Harmony or

consultation which is similar democracy

you don't have to have agreed upon

principles which just everybody has

input and structures and institutions

and histories are different and so there

are different analytical restrictions

here and so I just thought I'd do a

little bit of uh Lily link talking about

this

um this question so this is Professor

Ling discussing her kind of Framing and

we'll you know we'll talk about it

by hegemony I mean a singular logic of

violence in World politics both in what

we do such as in Wars as well as in how

we think such as definitions of

knowledge what qualifies as knowledge

this approach to World politics is

called the westphalian approach because

it comes from the Treaty of Westphalia

that was uh signed in 1648 and which has

been spread throughout the globe through

five centuries of colonialism and

imperialism and the two main pillars of

the Westphalia Interstate well three

main pillars of the westphalian

interstate system are that the

International System is made up of

states and secondly that sovereignty is

a main principle by which states

interact with one another and the third

is that trade or Commerce is the

legitimate venue for Interstate

interaction

this Westphalia interstate system I

propose entrenches violence because it

offers a singular logic of what to do

and how to think consequently I propose

worldism as an alternative Paradigm for

IR World politics worldism comes from

the notion that we live in a world of

multiple worlds and this world of

multiple worlds is not a bubble of or

framework that is established top down

but emanates From Below through the

multiple interactions among multiple

worlds so immediately we see the

difference of the top down bottom-up

perspective right if thinking about

politics from the top down is this long

tradition of of machiavellianism

speaking to leaders to princes about how

they should be printy

um whereas here we're talking about the

idea well no different ideas emerge from

all over the place maybe we should

listen to some of those ideas The

Sovereign Nation State model isn't care

about that it says are you a sovereign

nation state or not your legitimate

political Authority or not and you have

the legitimate use of force that's why

she's saying it's conflict oriented is

that the use of force is the foundation

of what makes you Sovereign right so

then you are going to compete over who

has the legitimate use of Thor Force

that's going to happen

consequently worldism is about

negotiation how do we negotiate across

multiple Logics particularly if they

conflict for this reason I draw on

Taoist dialectics as an epistemology

that was dialectics in particular

as you see from the graph it is a a

holistic organism composed of the black

sphere the white sphere with the black

dot in the white sphere and the white

dot in the black sphere and what uh that

was dialectics presents US is an

alternative way to look at difference in

how they interact into a complement a

complementary whole

from Taoist dialectics I developed a

model of dialogics which is the

dialectics of dialogue which I call a

worldless dialogic and it focuses

specifically on Creative listening and

speaking as a mechanism for implementing

worldless dialogics because that's

enough I mean it I wasn't going to go

into detail you don't need to know the

specifics of it but it's just the idea

that maybe this vision of politics isn't

the only vision of politics and that the

vision of politics reflects like we see

here power the the that power then is

going to be historical and contingent

not Universal even though we like to

teach it as universal because we want to

be science I mean we want to have you

come here and now you can be a political

scientist and you can do political

science experiments I advise you to

never do political science experiments

that sounds like a bad idea