This paper analyses populism as a layered system with three levels: the political/institutional, the social/interactional, and the psychological/intrapsychic. Each level is theorized using a specif...

Im vorliegenden Beitrag setzt der Autor eine früher begonnene Debatte mit Axel Honneth über die Interpretation psychoanalytischer Konzepte, insbesondere die Donald W. Winnicotts, fort. Honneths philosophische Aneignung der Psychoanalyse sieht der Autor in der Tradition der »Relationalen Linken«; wie bei dieser stelle die Winnicott-Interpretation auch bei Honneth eines der zentralen Elemente des Versuchs dar, die eigene philosophische Position zu formulieren. Dabei werde Winnicotts komplexes, hochdifferenziertes und subtiles Denken einer erheblichen Vereinfachung unterworfen. Der Autor zeigt, dass und wie der entscheidende Punkt, (...) in dem Honneths Position und die des Autors sich unterscheiden, in der Anthropologie liegt. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Capitalism on Edge aims to redraw the terms of analysis of the so-called democratic capitalism and sketches a political agenda for emancipating society of its grip. This symposium reflects critically on Azmanova’s book and challenges her arguments on methodological, thematic, and substantive grounds. Azar Dakwar introduces the book’s claims and wonders about the nature of the anti-capitalistic agency Azmanova’s ascribes to the precariat. David Ingram worries about Azmanova’s deposing of “economic democracy” and the impact of which on the prospect (...) of radical change she advocates. William Callison casts doubt over the empirical plausibility of Azmanova’s vision of crisis-free transition out of democratic capitalism. Eilat Maoz interrogates Azmanova’s emancipatory project from the historical standpoint of (de)colonization and global imperialism. In her reply to these criticisms, Azmanova accepts some and parries others, while bringing their points closer to her anti-capitalist vision. (shrink)

Constellations, Volume 28, Issue 3, Page 306-321, September 2021.

This paper addresses a question posed by the increase of democratic backsliding: whether democracy itself is compatible with human nature. It analyses democracy as a layered system consisting of three levels: the political/institutional, the social/interactional and the psychological/intrapsychic. At each level it uses evolutionary theory to describes features of a ‘light side’ of human nature that makes democracy possible, and of a ‘dark side’ of human nature that leads to democratic backsliding. At the political/institutional level these features are the reduction (...) of reactive aggression and the capacity for the intragroup stranger. At the social/interactional level they are the cultural evolution of cooperative norms and an inclusive group identity. At the psychological/intrapsychic level they are the coherent, continuous positive self-experiences produced by shared positive emotions. However, these mechanisms can misfire at each level, producing the dark side that leads to democratic backsliding. (shrink)