UDC

141.3

Authors

Konstantin V. Fomin
Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov; prosp. Lomonosova 2, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation;
e-mail: kostyafominphil@gmail.com

Abstract

This article analyses two models of political identification: the model proposed by communitarianist political philosopher C. Taylor, and that suggested by post-Marxist theorists E. Laclau and C. Mouffe. First, the paper outlines the methodological basis for this research: criticism of the taken-for-granted knowledge; historical and cultural determination of any kind of knowledge; interconnection between knowledge, social processes and social action. Further, the author analyses C. Taylor’s model of political identification and singles out both its positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect is the initial problematization of the affective side of civic commitment to democratic institutions. This originates the idea of patriotism cultivation proposed by C. Taylor to resolve the problem of democracy erosion. The negative aspect of this model is the internal contradiction between the strong idea of civic participation and individual freedom. Next, the author analyses E. Laclau and C. Mouffe’s model of political identification. The development of this model stems from understanding the weakness of the current democratic politics, which excludes a number of discriminated against and exploited social groups. According to the model of radical democratic identification, the problem of democracy erosion can be eliminated by regularly challenging current hierarchies and including new social groups into the democratic movement. In addition, the two models of political identification were assessed in terms of their potential for solving the problem of democracy erosion. The author finds the model of radical democratic identification proposed by E. Laclau and C. Mouffe to be optimal.

Keywords

C. Taylor, E. Laclau, C. Mouffe, model of political identification, substantial common good, democracy erosion

References

1. Citrin J., Reingold B., Green D.P. American Identity and the Politics of Ethnic Change. J. Politics, 1990, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1124–1154.
   
2. Huddy L. From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory. Polit. Psychol., 2001, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 127–156.
   
3. Deaux K., Reid A., Mizrahi K., Ethier K.A. Parameters of Social Identity. J. Personality Soc. Psychol., 1995, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 280–291.
   
4. Kymlicka W. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002 (Russ. ed.: Kimlika U. Sovremennaya politicheskaya filosofiya: vvedenie. Moscow, 2010. 592 p.).
   
5. Berlin I. Dve kontseptsii svobody [Two Concepts of Liberty]. Sovremennyy liberalizm: Dzhon Rolz, Ronal’d Dvorkin, Isayya Berlin, Uil Kimlika, Maykl Dzh. Sendel, Dzheremi Uoldron, Charl’z Teylor [Modern Liberalism: John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Isaiah Berlin, Will Kymlicka, Michael J. Sandel, Jeremy Waldron, Charles Taylor]. Moscow, 1998, pp. 19–43.
   
6. Constant B. O svobode u drevnikh v ee sravnenii so svobodoy u sovremennykh lyudey [The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya, 1993, no. 2, pp. 97–106.