by Daniel Kuchler, PhD
The contributions on this website ask about critical republican theory as the nexus between republican theory and critical theory. While there seems to be common ground between critical theory and republicanism, there are also tensions. If we understand critical theory to highlight both a critique of de-politicization of the citizen and a critique of state institutions, this entails questions regarding neo-Roman republicanism’s de-emphasis of direct participation and neo-Greek republicanism’s reliance on state institutions.
The Research Program: Critical Republican Theory
As we are facing growing state institutions both domestically and transnationally as well as a troubling combination of government secrecy and espionage by government institutions, the perspective of critical theory highlights the resulting challenges for republicanism: Has “Neo-Greek” republicanism been blind to the protection of the individual against the state? Can “Neo-Roman” republicanism conceive of concepts that empower citizens sufficiently vis à vis state institutions to make them active participants without abandoning a rich concept of political participation? How can republicanism in general provide a basis for a critique of the state and (socio-) political conditions?
For example, it has been argued against neo-Greek republicanism that its emphasis on citizen participation relies on state institutions: while it may aim at empowering citizens through institutions, the argument goes, the idealization of the state and its institutions would ultimately undermine participation. From the perspective of critical theory, the emphasis on institutions leads to a tendency that limits the possibility of a critique of the state and possibly even reifies of the state.
On the other hand, Pettit and other neo-Roman republican scholars have incorporated elements of liberal theory and conceptualized citizens as judges of policy who contest if necessary. Yet, as citizens mostly are not active participants, neo-Greek republicans have questioned the critical potential of neo-Roman republicanism: while Pettit solves some of the problematic assumptions of classical neo-Greek republicanism, he does so at the expense of a more comprehensive concept of citizen participation. To put the attack on Neo-Roman republicanism in Arendtian terms: it keeps intact the distinction between those who rule and those who obey.
Research Trajectories
The question of critical republican theory as the nexus between republican theory and critical theory opens up several research trajectories.
- For example, the republican theorist who is arguably most critical of the state, Hannah Arendt, has famously argued for a sharp distinction between social and political realms. However, from a more comprehensive critical theory perspective, excluding the social life-world from political critique seems very problematic. In other words, what is the relation between social and political in republican theory? Is a critical or a republican theory that focuses entirely on the political even possible?
- How should republican theory respond to the challenge of growing state institutions, both domestically and internationally? In how far do these institutions enhance or limit citizen participation?
- How should a republicanism that is critical of state institutions conceptualize political participation by citizens? Do we have to resort to a compromise as suggested by Pettit after all? What is the relationship between political participation and a institutional-legal framework?
- Citizen participation to whichever degree in republican theories relies on a public in which citizens debate and ultimately judge policy. What are the conditions for judgment in contemporary politics, what should they be, and how does this relate to a critique of the state?