Politics, Institutions and Social Struggles: Beyond Pure Normativism and Strong Institutionalism in Political Theory

Leno Francisco Danner

doi:10.22409/rep.v8i15.39829

Abstract

In this article, I criticize the tendency in contemporary philosophical-political theory to affirm both pure normativism and strong institutionalism as the heart of democracy, denying a political core not only to social classes, but also to social struggles, which define the main social, cultural and political dynamics, institutionalized and non-institutionalized. The association between pure normativism and strong institutionalism leads, on the one hand, to the separation and opposition between normative foundations and social classes and social struggles, as well as, on the other hand, to the institutional monopolization both of political legitimation and social evolution, because institutions exclusively assume the guard, the legitimation and the public boosting of social normativism. Pure normativism and strong institutionalism, in other words, reduce politics to institutional and systemic politics, as they reduce political subjects to institutional legal staffs, as political parties and technical elites, attributing a peripheral role to social classes and social struggles, a peripheral role also to the politicity of social and institutional life. I argue that this harmful tendency of many philosophical-political theories, fundamentally in the spectrum of liberalism and social democracy, which suffer from a historical-sociological blindness, must be substituted with the affirmation of the centrality of social classes as the real political subjects of social evolution, as well as of the centrality of social struggles as the political-normative basis to the definition of institutional designs, social evolution and economic structures

Highlights

I argue that this harmful tendency of many philosophical-political theories, fundamentally in the spectrum of liberalism and social democracy, which suffer from a historical-sociological blindness, must be substituted with the affirmation of the centrality of social classes as the real political subjects of social evolution, as well as of the centrality of social struggles as the political-normative basis to the definition of institutional designs, social evolution and economic structures
Beginning with a criticism to an imbricated tendency in contemporary political theories, basically in the spectrum of liberalism and social-democracy, which is the correlation between pure normativism and strong institutionalism in terms of understanding, legitimation, framing and evolution of Western modernization, democratic institutions and social-political life, I criticize the abandonment of social classes and social struggles as the empirical, normative and political key to the comprehension, grounding and streamlining of social evolution, of social systems and of political institutions and political subjects
The main problem of liberal and social-democratic political theories based on a mixture of pure normativism and systemic or strong institutionalism is the fact that social classes and social struggles are not affirmed as a central epistemological-political subject and way to the understanding of institutional designs and the elaboration of a normative social basis or to the streamlining of political praxis

Summary

Introduction

Beginning with a criticism to an imbricated tendency in contemporary political theories, basically in the spectrum of liberalism and social-democracy, which is the correlation between pure normativism and strong institutionalism in terms of understanding, legitimation, framing and evolution of Western modernization, democratic institutions and social-political life, I criticize the abandonment of social classes and social struggles as the empirical, normative and political key to the comprehension, grounding and streamlining of social evolution, of social systems and of political institutions and political subjects. Political praxis from civil society’s spontaneous political subjects cannot enter these juridical-political institutions, just as social movements and citizen initiatives cannot substitute the institutional legal staff in terms of grounding and orienting institutional-societal dynamics and evolution In both cases, the technical-logical constitution, functioning and programming of social systems and the juridical-political institutions’ impartial, neutral, formal and impersonal juridical-political proceduralism, the institutions appear as overlapped with social classes, social struggles, counterpoints and hegemony, as if these institutions were independent, autonomous, closed and totally impartial regarding them. The consequence is very clear: by using systems theory and the impartial, neutral, formal and impersonal juridical-political proceduralism to respectively comprehend-frame the process of Western modernization and to ground-streamline a model of radical democracy for contemporary complex democratic societies, liberal and social-democratic political theories assume a very depoliticized core-role, directly or indirectly pointing to the correlation between strong institutionalism, systemic logic and unpolitical proceduralism as the basis of institutional-societal constitution, legitimation and evolution. The only possible political praxis, both institutionalized and non-institutionalized, is the reaffirmation of the frontiers between social systems and the lifeworld (as Habermas proposes — see Habermas, 2002, p. 501-507), but not the overcoming of the technical-logical core-role of social systems for political-normative praxis, nor the substitution of the institutional technical-logical elites for social classes or the substitution of the unpolitical institutional proceduralism for social struggles as keyconcepts and subjects for institutional-societal understanding, framing and changing

Beyond Pure Normativism in Political Theory

Beyond the Individualization of Political Subjects

Beyond Strong Institutionalism

Conclusion