Instructions by Course Coordinator:
Write a political philosophical reflection or political theoretical analysis in reaction to the following claim:
“If you believe there’s such a thing as ‘too much democracy’, you probably don’t believe in democracy at all.”
(find the source of this quote here: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-93255/.)
Minimum requirements:
- Use the academic essay form;
- Use at least five (5) academic sources, of which at least three (3) were not part of the course material. Academic sources are academic book and book chapters, chapters from academic edited collections, or peer-reviewed articles;
- The essay consist of 2500 words (plus/minus 10%);
- The essay does not contain more than 10 grammar and language mistakes;
- Throughout the essay correct APA-referencing is used;
- The essay contains a title page with title, name and student number.
Some notes:
- Online videos and documentaries, newspaper articles, blog posts and Wikipedia entries, Sparknotes and Gradesaver, etc. are NOT considered to be academic sources.
- Online encyclopedias generally aren’t academic sources, except when they are peer-reviewed. However: use it sparsely!
- Definitions from dictionaries are not considered to be authoritative in academic settings.
- Find your academic sources (especially academic articles) through the databases of the university library: https://eur.on.worldcat.org/discoveryLinks to an external site.
- Use APA-style for referencing and citations. Include page numbers for in-text references and citations. See the following website for an overview: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/index.htmlLinks to an external site.
- Be aware that your essay is graded according to three categories:
- Structure (30%): introduction (with: hook (i.e. enticing introduction of the topic), research question or claim, and short overview of the structure of the essay); clear and coherent connections between arguments, paragraphs and sections; a clear and coherent line of reasoning; a clear and coherent conclusion (not just a summary!) and/or critical reflection.
- Content (50%): clear and coherent definitions of concepts; clear, coherent and convincing arguments; skillful and/or original incorporation of the literature.
- Use of sources (20%): good use of sources; critical use of sources; creative use of sources.
I want to write about Rancière’s theory on Radical Democracy. My take on the claim (to be answered in the assignment) is:
According to Rancière, democracy only really takes place when there is a break in the ‘distribution of the sensible’, when all people, even those previously not taken into account in society, so those outside of La Police, are included. Therefore, I agree with the statement. Because democracy can only occur in those moments, those ruptures of the distribution of the sensible. And if you think there can be too much of it, you just don’t believe in democracy, or in this case, in Rancière’s version of radical democracy.
I want the essay to be structured as such:
Introduction:
– refer back to assignment; explain quote
– present thesis statement outlining my argument
Heading: The Brexit Case: What happened?
– explain what happened in the brexit referendum
Heading: Liberal Representative Democracy (& the UK)
– explain the political philosophy of Lib. Rep. Dem.
– make the connection between the author (of the quote)’s perspective, from the perspective of a UK citizen who believes in the LRD.
Heading: Radical Democracy
– explain the political philosophical theory of Rancière and his radical demoracy
– include terms such as Le Partage du Sensible (the distribution of the sensible) and La Police.
Heading: Why contemporary democracy is corrupted
– use Wolin’s theories and include his explanations of ‘Inverted Totalitarianism’ and the ‘spectacle of politics’.
– explain how there can, in fact, be ‘too little’ democracy. this was the case during the referendum (and democracy in the UK in general), according to Wolin and Rancière and other radical democrats.
Heading: Never too much Democracy (Conclusion)
– explain how, now that we know what Radical Democracy is for Rancière, there can never be too much democracy.
Feel free to add any sources or leave some out if they don’t fit in the essay. You can also change the structure if necessary, but this is what I’d generally like the essay to look like. Rancière and his Radical Democracy must be included and my argument must remain the same. Any headings that are more secondary can be adapted if necessary.