Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T00:33:25.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enlivening the Concept of Democratization: The Biological Metaphor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

Laurence Whitehead
Laurence Whitehead
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, Oxford. E-mail: Laurence.whitehead@nuffield.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mechanical metaphors have colonized the social sciences, including the study of democratization processes. But they may provide a misleading framework for monitoring ongoing “self-equilibrating” social processes with no natural “end state” such as democratization. I propose that modern biology can be consulted as an alternative source of analogical reasoning, offering a more flexible and appropriate stock of metaphors that can enliven analogical accounts of processes of democratization. The shift towards modeling democracy as a living practice permanently directed towards self-preservation and propagation provides a clearer rationale for comparative studies, focussing on the relative “quality” of democracy in different contexts. I begin with a brief sketch of the historical instability and current contestability of most democratization processes; I then examine the morphology of complex political concepts and propose alternative biological analogies to replace the currently prevalent physicalist imagery.

Type
Reflections
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 291 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

, Aristotle. 1981. The Politics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Carroll, Sean B. 2006. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo and Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom. London: Phoenix, 2006.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1958. The Origin of Species. London: Mentor Edition.Google Scholar
de Mandeville, Bernard. 1715. Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits.Google Scholar
Desmond, Adrian, and Moore, James. 2009. Darwin's Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery, and the Quest for Human Origins. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Freeden, Michael. 1996. Ideologies and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans Georg. 1989. Truth and Method. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, Jack. 2006. Europe and the Theft of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gribbin, John. 2004. Deep Simplicity: Chaos Complexity and the Emergence of Life. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Heyl, Barbara S. 1968. “The Harvard “Pareto Circle.” The Journal for the History of the Behavioural Sciences 4(4): 316–334.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2004. “Social Darwinism in Anglophone Academic Journals: A Contribution to the History of the Term.” Journal of Historical Sociology 17(4), December: 428–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorion, Paul. 2009. Comment la verité et la realité furent inventeé. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Arjo, and Leonard, Thomas C.. 1994. “So What's an Economic Metaphor?” In Natural Images in Economic Thought, ed. Mirowski, Philip. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leatherdale, W. H. 1974. The Role of Analogy Model and Metaphor in Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, Loet. 2000. “Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication.” Systems Research and Behavioural Science 17(3): 279–80.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindauer, M. 1961. Communication among Social Bees. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maturana, Humberto, and Varela, Francisco. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morlino, Leonardo. 2005. “Anchors and Democratic Change.” Comparative Political Studies 38(7): 743–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morlino, Leonardo. 2009. “Are There Hybrid Regimes? Or Are They Just an Optical Illusion?” European Political Science Review 1(2): 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polyani, Michael. 2009. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Steven. 2005. Life Lines: Life beyond the Gene. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Rosenvallon, Pierre. 1998. Le peuple introuvable: histoire de la representation democratique en France. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovani. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeley, Thomas D. 2010. Honeybee Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 2010. The Evolution of Modern States: Sweden, Japan, and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Laurence. 2001. “The Viability of Democracy.” In Towards Democratic Viability: The Bolivian Experience, eds. Crabtree, John and Whitehead, Laurence. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Laurence. 2011a. “Biology, Politics, Democracy.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Laurence. 2011b. “On ‘Cultivating’ Democracy: Enlivening the Imagery for Democracy Promotion.” In Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion, ed. Kurki, Milja and Hobson, Christopher. London: Routledge.Google Scholar