Politics of Difference lecture notes
Lecture 1
Introduction
The politics of difference
- Refers to “how power and political institutions categorize people into groups and how
this generates inequality”
- Not all differences are political, so we’re interested in how and why some differences
become and remain political
- Defining what is "normal" and what is "different" is political
- Political scientists study differences between interests AND identities
- Political theorists have often seen equality as best protected by respecting difference in
the private sphere, while treating difference as irrelevant in the public sphere
- Critical theorists question the possibility of a "neutral" public sphere and argue that
equality requires confronting differences rather than ignoring them
- Describing difference – through statistics or otherwise – is political
Lecture 2
The Public Sphere
What is the Public Sphere?
- The Public Sphere is:
• a communicative ‘realm’;
o Both physical spaces and mediated discourse
• to discuss and debate the common interest and government;
o Who is part of the ‘Common’ and What is the ‘Government’?
o Migrants and future generations have nothing to say
• where the ‘force of the better argument wins’
o Coercion is absent
• and where participants leave their status and identities behind;
o A Veil of Ignorance
▪ A hypothetical state, in which decisions about social justice and the
allocation of resources would be made fairly, as if by a person who
must decide on society’s rules and economic structures without
knowing what position they will occupy in that society.
What sort of Public Sphere is the University
- Intent and framing matters
• All theory is for someone and some purpose
o How can we create world peace? → UN
o How can you deter a potential aggressor? → military industry
o How can we reduce number of civilian casualties? → civilians
- Positionality matters
• Gender, race, nationality, language
- Does this mean that all ideas deserve equal respect in the academy?
• In social science no greater objectivity or greater contingency
• Academic freedom/inquiry is not the same as freedom of speech
o E.g. freedom of speech: lying is allowed, academic freedom: lying is fraud
, ➔ University is public sphere with a set of rules
Two arguments about the public sphere
- Bennett & Livingston
• In public sphere not one truth or source
o How are we supposed to have a democratic debate when people can’t even
agree on basic facts?
• Disinformation and lies by politicians
1. Confirmation bias
o We like information confirming our beliefs and we dislike information denying
our beliefs
2. Social media
o Provides mechanisms for confirmation bias
▪ Algorithms
▪ Meeting groups with same opinions
3. State interference
o Government use more and more disinformation
o They do this to influence people’s opinions
o They also use disinformation to destabilize other countries
4. Erosion of liberal institutions
o Erosion of trust in political actors
- Young
• What type of speech is valued/excluded in the public sphere?
• Speech in the public sphere is valued when:
o It has a practical purpose
▪ This excludes positions of caution to gather more information
o Arguments are based on logic
▪ This excludes arguments that are not based on logic
o The speaker has good manners (e.g. being calm)
▪ This excludes people who speak and act in different ways
• Advantages of communicative over deliberative democracy
o Instead of encouraging pure objectivity, encourages participants to reflect on
their positionality
o Instead of privileging the good of the (re)public, admits that the good of
certain groups may require unique solutions that go against the public
interest
Take-aways
- The public sphere is a realm of political debate where the better argument wins
- Political scientists debate how political truths are but rarely whether truth is possible
- Disinformation is the product of individual bias, social media, state interference and the
erosion of institutions
- Communicative democracy places difference at the centre of democratic debate
Lecture 3
Religion
Religion in political science
- Secular people relate differently to religious books than religious people
, ‘Return’ of religion in politics
- Recent examples
• Clash of Civilizations (Huntington)
• 9/11 → religion driving force in politics?
• Hamas
• Trump
- Only in Europe a big decline in religious people
- Modern technology and social media in religions
Religion as the ‘medium’ of Western political thought
- Religion is origin of modern political thought
• Hobbes, Gandhi, MLK
Religious tolerance as the foundation of the state system
- Peace of Westphalia
• Each ruler could define religion of their country → basis of sovereignty
Religious chauvinism as the foundation of the state system
- Pope giving Portugal and Spain sovereignty in colonies in 15th century
Do debates about religious law or ethics matter for politics?
- Laws criminalizing same sex relations in religious countries
Secular and Religious Politics
Public/private distinction
- Religion in private space
- Secularity in public space
The public sphere as secular
- Religion/state separation
• Exception: Iran
- Public sphere as non-religious
- Religion protected in the private realm
Three and a half arguments about religion and the public
Did MLKing have valid reasons to believe in non-violence?
- Influences of MLK
• Gandhi
• Black movements
• Christianity/message from God
In the public sphere people leave their status and identities behind
Taylor: Spiritualism in non-believers
- Yoga, crystals, or a spiritual event not related to organized religion
• We can use this set of experiences/common spirituality to reason and understand
religious experiences
- Religious thought as inaccessible to secular thinkers is incorrect
Lecture 1
Introduction
The politics of difference
- Refers to “how power and political institutions categorize people into groups and how
this generates inequality”
- Not all differences are political, so we’re interested in how and why some differences
become and remain political
- Defining what is "normal" and what is "different" is political
- Political scientists study differences between interests AND identities
- Political theorists have often seen equality as best protected by respecting difference in
the private sphere, while treating difference as irrelevant in the public sphere
- Critical theorists question the possibility of a "neutral" public sphere and argue that
equality requires confronting differences rather than ignoring them
- Describing difference – through statistics or otherwise – is political
Lecture 2
The Public Sphere
What is the Public Sphere?
- The Public Sphere is:
• a communicative ‘realm’;
o Both physical spaces and mediated discourse
• to discuss and debate the common interest and government;
o Who is part of the ‘Common’ and What is the ‘Government’?
o Migrants and future generations have nothing to say
• where the ‘force of the better argument wins’
o Coercion is absent
• and where participants leave their status and identities behind;
o A Veil of Ignorance
▪ A hypothetical state, in which decisions about social justice and the
allocation of resources would be made fairly, as if by a person who
must decide on society’s rules and economic structures without
knowing what position they will occupy in that society.
What sort of Public Sphere is the University
- Intent and framing matters
• All theory is for someone and some purpose
o How can we create world peace? → UN
o How can you deter a potential aggressor? → military industry
o How can we reduce number of civilian casualties? → civilians
- Positionality matters
• Gender, race, nationality, language
- Does this mean that all ideas deserve equal respect in the academy?
• In social science no greater objectivity or greater contingency
• Academic freedom/inquiry is not the same as freedom of speech
o E.g. freedom of speech: lying is allowed, academic freedom: lying is fraud
, ➔ University is public sphere with a set of rules
Two arguments about the public sphere
- Bennett & Livingston
• In public sphere not one truth or source
o How are we supposed to have a democratic debate when people can’t even
agree on basic facts?
• Disinformation and lies by politicians
1. Confirmation bias
o We like information confirming our beliefs and we dislike information denying
our beliefs
2. Social media
o Provides mechanisms for confirmation bias
▪ Algorithms
▪ Meeting groups with same opinions
3. State interference
o Government use more and more disinformation
o They do this to influence people’s opinions
o They also use disinformation to destabilize other countries
4. Erosion of liberal institutions
o Erosion of trust in political actors
- Young
• What type of speech is valued/excluded in the public sphere?
• Speech in the public sphere is valued when:
o It has a practical purpose
▪ This excludes positions of caution to gather more information
o Arguments are based on logic
▪ This excludes arguments that are not based on logic
o The speaker has good manners (e.g. being calm)
▪ This excludes people who speak and act in different ways
• Advantages of communicative over deliberative democracy
o Instead of encouraging pure objectivity, encourages participants to reflect on
their positionality
o Instead of privileging the good of the (re)public, admits that the good of
certain groups may require unique solutions that go against the public
interest
Take-aways
- The public sphere is a realm of political debate where the better argument wins
- Political scientists debate how political truths are but rarely whether truth is possible
- Disinformation is the product of individual bias, social media, state interference and the
erosion of institutions
- Communicative democracy places difference at the centre of democratic debate
Lecture 3
Religion
Religion in political science
- Secular people relate differently to religious books than religious people
, ‘Return’ of religion in politics
- Recent examples
• Clash of Civilizations (Huntington)
• 9/11 → religion driving force in politics?
• Hamas
• Trump
- Only in Europe a big decline in religious people
- Modern technology and social media in religions
Religion as the ‘medium’ of Western political thought
- Religion is origin of modern political thought
• Hobbes, Gandhi, MLK
Religious tolerance as the foundation of the state system
- Peace of Westphalia
• Each ruler could define religion of their country → basis of sovereignty
Religious chauvinism as the foundation of the state system
- Pope giving Portugal and Spain sovereignty in colonies in 15th century
Do debates about religious law or ethics matter for politics?
- Laws criminalizing same sex relations in religious countries
Secular and Religious Politics
Public/private distinction
- Religion in private space
- Secularity in public space
The public sphere as secular
- Religion/state separation
• Exception: Iran
- Public sphere as non-religious
- Religion protected in the private realm
Three and a half arguments about religion and the public
Did MLKing have valid reasons to believe in non-violence?
- Influences of MLK
• Gandhi
• Black movements
• Christianity/message from God
In the public sphere people leave their status and identities behind
Taylor: Spiritualism in non-believers
- Yoga, crystals, or a spiritual event not related to organized religion
• We can use this set of experiences/common spirituality to reason and understand
religious experiences
- Religious thought as inaccessible to secular thinkers is incorrect
