Founders and Re‐founders: Struggles of Self‐authorized Representation

Vieira, Mónica Brito

doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12178

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, I do not think that recent occupy movements such as OWS and the M‐15 categorically rejected any form of political representation—nor am I convinced that their political repertoire was devoid of making all forms of representative claims. How are we going to make sense of these movements’ practices and slogans such as “We are the 99%,” “This is what democracy looks like” or even “They don't represent us!” without employing at least some concept of political representation (Brito Vieira, , p. 506)? In the remainder of this article, I flesh out a few concepts of representation that I think are applicable to these movements.…”

Section: “They Don't Represent Us!” Political Representation and The Occupy Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

They don't represent us? Synecdochal representation and the politics of occupy movements

Sande

2020

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011 and the ensuing years, the world witnessed a global wave of various "occupy movements," from the Spanish 15-M and the Greek anti-austerity protests of 2011 to Occupy Wall Street (OWS), and from the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul to Nuit Debout in Paris. Inspired by the Arab Spring earlier that year-and by the iconic image of an occupied Tahrir Square in particular-protesters in different parts of the world took possession of public spaces in order to oppose the austerity measures of their governments, to challenge the power of financial industries and economic elites, and to voice their widely shared experience of a democratic deficit. I emphasize from the outset that there are many, and often very substantial, demographic, cultural, economic, and political differences among these various occupy movements and among the contexts in which they intervened. There is thus no particular reason to assume, as some enthusiastic commentators suggested at the time, that they were all exponents of a single global movement (Hardt & Negri, 2012; Mason, 2011). But it is also clear, on the other hand, that they often expressed a strong sense of solidarity with each other, and referred to each another as important sources of inspiration (Graeber, 2013, p. 237). Notwithstanding the many differences between these movements, they did share at least a number of important points in common. What, then, did these movements have in common-next to the obvious but important fact that they all involved the occupation of public space (Harvey, 2012, pp. 161-162)? First, in most cases conventional political organizations or institutions played a minor role, if any, in these mass mobilizations. None was spearheaded by established political parties or politicians (Tormey, 2015, p. 8) and they often had a strikingly diverse composition (Juris, 2012, p. 265). Most categorically refused to negotiate or even engage with any representative institutions or public bodies (Klein, 2011). One possible explanation for this, second, is that many of these movements had strong horizontalist aspirations (Sitrin, 2012) and advocated direct or participatory forms of politics, organization and decision-making. Finally, not only This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: “They Don't Represent Us!” Political Representation and The Occupy Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

They don't represent us? Synecdochal representation and the politics of occupy movements

Sande

2020

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The key idea is that a group “needs to be represented as a collectivity in order for it to be a collectivity” (Geenens et al 2015, 515; cf. Brito Vieira 2015; Lindahl 2015; Van Roermund 2003). To speak of a people is to portray a multiplicity of individuals as a unity.…”

Section: Disambiguating Constructivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So the “representatives” are getting ahead of themselves, pretending that what is being done has already taken place. Some authors conclude from this that any attempt to initiate or transform a collective must be “seized” and relies on a “usurpation of sorts” (Lindahl 2015, 168; Brito Vieira 2015, 504). This alleged necessity of imposition relies on equating the maker of the portrayal of the multitude as a people with a purportedly authoritative representative of the whole people, as in the case of the Declaration.…”

Section: Disambiguating Constructivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus conceived, political representation is not essentially tied to elections with predefined territorial constituencies but occurs in a wide range of settings and by various kinds of agents—potentially including activists, lobbyists, and bureaucrats (Kröger and Friedrich 2013; Lord and Pollak 2013). Indeed, some theorists see a link between representation and revolution, because representation is at work in any appeal to a collective “we.” Thus, they interpret participatory movements like Occupy not just as denying that they are represented by the system, but as themselves engaged in counter-representation (Brito Vieira 2015; Geenens et al 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructivism and the Logic of Political Representation

Fossen

2019

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are at least two politically salient senses of “representation”—acting-for-others and portraying-something-as-something. The difference is not just semantic but also logical: relations of representative agency are dyadic (x represents y), while portrayals are triadic (x represents y as z). I exploit this insight to disambiguate constructivism and to improve our theoretical vocabulary for analyzing political representation. I amend Saward’s claims-based approach on three points, introducing the “characterization” to correctly identify the elements of representational claims; explaining the “referent” in pragmatic, not metaphysical terms; and differentiating multiple forms of representational activity. This enables me to clarify how the represented can be both prior to representation and constituted by it, and to recover Pitkin’s idea that representatives ought to be “responsive” to the represented. These points are pertinent to debates about the role of representatives, the nature of representative democracy, and the dynamics of revolutionary movements.

show abstract

“…Much of the debate has revolved around the questions of who has the authority to constitute the norms of a political community, and how these extraordinary claims of self‐government are enacted and contested in various political settings. Within this framework, the analytical emphasis has been placed on reviving the political nature of acts of democratic self‐authorization and unpacking the paradoxical capacity of the people to constitute themselves in the process of remaking the institutions through which they are governed (Bernal, ; Brito Colón‐Ríos, ; Frank, ; Kalyvas, ; Loughlin, ; Loughlin & Walker, ; Vatter, ; Vieira, ).…”

Section: The Question Of Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giving society a form: Constituent moments and the force of concepts

Cordero

2019

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Founders and Re‐founders: Struggles of Self‐authorized Representation

Cited by 17 publications

References 4 publications

They don't represent us? Synecdochal representation and the politics of occupy movements

They don't represent us? Synecdochal representation and the politics of occupy movements

Constructivism and the Logic of Political Representation

Giving society a form: Constituent moments and the force of concepts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About