On the "Essential Contestedness" of Political Concepts

Swanton, Christine

doi:10.1086/292685

Cited by 63 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As democracy is essentially contested (Gallie, 1956;Swanton, 1985), we thus confined our exploration of redshirts' understandings of the concept based on their lived experiences and knowledge of the world, which in turn influence their discourses. To do this, we specifically sought to answer the questions of what Ubon redshirts meant by democracy, and whether and to what extent they used intertextuality and presupposition to construct meanings for the concept.…”

Section: Intertextuality and Presupposition In Political Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

War of words

Alexander

McCargo

2016

South East Asia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thai grassroots activists known as 'redshirts' (broadly aligned with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra) have been characterized accordingly to their socio-economic profile, but despite pioneering works such as Buchanan (2013), Cohen (2012) and Uenaldi (2014), there is still much to learn about how ordinary redshirts voice their political stances. This paper is based on a linguistic approach to discourse analysis and builds on Fairclough's (2003) arguments concerning the ways in which speakers use intertextuality and assumption to construct social and political difference and consensus. It specifically explores redshirt understandings of democracy by examining intertextuality and presupposition through various linguistic strategies. It sets out to answer these questions: What are grassroots redshirt protesters' understandings of democracy? How do they articulate those understandings verbally? The study is based on an analysis of 12 interviews conducted in 2012 with grassroots redshirts from Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand. It shows how informants voiced notions of democracy by making explicit intertextual references and alluding to implicit meaning through presupposition. The results show that informants had a definite understanding of democracy despite a degree of contradiction, confusion, and ambiguity.They also attempted to communicate political beliefs despite limits on their freedom of expression.

show abstract

Section: Intertextuality and Presupposition In Political Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

War of words

Alexander

McCargo

2016

South East Asia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rawls (1971: 5-6), Lukes (1974b: 26-7), Dworkin (1978: 134-5), and Roberts (2013: 90). For a different criticism of the concept-conception account of essential contestability, see Swanton (1985).…”

Section: What About (E3)? Consider the Following Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gray (1977), Kekes (1977), Swanton (1985), Hurley (1989: 46-8), Reitan (2001), Waldron (2002), Gibson (2004), and Roberts (2013: 89-90). Occasional worries about or departures from these features are usefully surveyed in Collier et al (2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Essential Contestability and Evaluation

Väyrynen¹

2014

Australasian Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the process, it has been viewed from the perspective of other ideas which, it is suggested, it resembles. Thus, relativism and incommensurability (Lukes 1974), family resemblances (Gellner 1974, Ingram 1985, the Rawlsian distinction between concept and conception (Lukes 2005, Swanton 1985, reflective equilibrium (Swanton 1985), open concepts (MacIntyre 1973), and normativity (Lukes 1974and 2005, Gray 1977) have all been brought in to illuminate Gallie's idea. Correlatively with these theoretical perspectives has been an emphasis on a certain range of examples.…”

Section: Essentially Contested Concepts and Semantic Externalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essentially Contested Concepts and Semantic Externalism

Evnine¹

2014

J Philos Hist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1956, W.B. Gallie introduced his idea of essentially contested concepts. In my paper, I offer a novel interpretation of his theory and argue that his theory, thus interpreted, is correct. The key to my interpretation lies in a condition Gallie places on essentially contested concepts that other interpreters downplay or dismiss: that the use of an essentially contested concept must be derived “from an original exemplar whose authority is acknowledged by all the contestant users of the concept.” This reveals a similarity between Gallie’s views and the semantic externalist views of Hilary Putnam, and others, about natural kind terms like “water” and “tiger.” I argue that natural kind terms and terms for essentially contested concepts are two species of a single semantic genus. In the case of natural kind terms, a term refers to a natural kind, the exemplars are instances of that kind, and the relation between the exemplars and anything to which the term applies is co-membership of the kind. In the case of terms for essentially contested concepts, a term refers to an historical tradition, the exemplar is a stage or temporal part of that tradition, and the relation between the exemplar and anything to which the term refers is being the heir of. This allows me to understand the contests that alerted Gallie to the phenomenon of essentially contested concepts as contests over the ownership of historical traditions.

show abstract

On the "Essential Contestedness" of Political Concepts

Cited by 63 publications

References 0 publications

War of words

War of words

Essential Contestability and Evaluation

Essentially Contested Concepts and Semantic Externalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About