Top
Browse > Home / Culture / Democracy Matters: Discourse, Practice, Reality

Democracy Matters: Discourse, Practice, Reality

Written by geoff holsclaw : September 3, 2008

In Democracy Matters Cornel West, that prophet of American democracy and Christianity, makes an impassioned plea for all those concerned with true justice and freedom to stand up and take back democracy from those who would rather have an Empire than a Republic.

In a chapter on American Christianity West gives a compelling recital of prophetic Christians and their legacy in America, as well as an indicting rehearsal of the rise of the Christian Right, which he calls Constantinian Christians (rightly so).  Relying on the work of Jeffrey Stout (Democracy and Tradition) he also offers a critique of those who would resist the realms of public policy.

West suggests that those who make “impassioned arguments for the distancing of religion from American public discourse” (161) (he names Hauerwas and Milbank) are also suggesting a retreat from the public practices which seeks the public good in order to gather in some sectarian enclave.  West (and others following this critique [see whole post]) seem to assume that to distance oneself from a secular ‘public discourse’ means to abdicate all social practices.

But this is not the case.  We must make a distinction between democratic matters as they are talked about (discourse) and as they are acted out (practice).   Many, like Hauerwas and Milbank, are concerned that to participate in democracy is to be locked into State oriented practices (voting, lobbying) and secular discourses (humanism, secularism), vitiating the specifically Christian practices and discourses.   On this level, Christian thinker are concerned when ‘democracy matters’ are focused on State power, as ‘State matters’.

But it is deeper than this in regard to democracy.  For true democracy entails both the act of local nurturing and care (practice) and the act of prophetic voicing (discourse).  In this regard, Romand Coles faults Cornel West for being mostly a prophetic scholarly voice who does not attend to the prophetic struggler’s work (he has in mind the work of Ella Baker of the SNCC).  Coles contrast the need for receptive liturgical work (practices) to prophetic work (discourse).  In this regard, the local, liturgical work of neighborhoods and communities constitutes often a truer democracy that State oriented discourses between elites and specialist.  This, I believe, is what those who advocate a distance from “public discourse” are advocating.

Now, the question of voting has a special status here because it is both a concrete democratic practice which also has a highly symbolic (and therefore discursive) value.  Those who advocate not voting take aim at the discourse of democracy (and the story of ‘freedom’ and ‘salvation’ which democracy tells itself), while those who advocate voting look to the hard earned practice of true democracy.  Those who resist voting claim that what we have is not true democracy (but a violent regime) and those who advocate voting see it as an expression of democracy and freedom, even if it is not a perfect situation.

Now of course, I have yet to define “democracy” and to do so would be to fall into mere discourse.  For me, on the level of national discourse, to equate “democracy” with the “Kingdom of God” is idolatry and foolishness; but on the level of local practice, striving for democracy will often equal striving for the Kingdom of God.

Democracy and the Kingdom of God are not things we have, but something we are building, or being built into.

Geoff Holsclaw is co-pastor at life on the vine in chicago and a ph.d student at Marquette University studying liturgy and politics.


If you appreciate articles like this, consider making a donation to help Jesus Manifesto pay the bills.


Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

· Filed Under Culture 

Comments

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Love this post. Very succinct and cogent.
    • ^
    • v
    Democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority. It should not be venerated any more than other tyrannies.
    • ^
    • v
    gyakusetsu,

    When viewed as a form of government, democracy becomes an institutional tyranny; but when viewed as the action of a people (often against/in spite of the government) then it may not be.
    • ^
    • v
    This is why I think it's important we not use the word democracy, as it describes not so much a process by which people govern themselves, but rather a type of state arrangement and exercise of state power (particularly the industrial capitalist/welfare state), based in the fictitious (and unrealizable notion) that someone "sovereignty" resides with "the people." When we mean self-government, we should use the phrase "self-government," and not democracy. People have always governed themselves, sometimes better than others, in times and places we would consider "undemocratic." I will not argue that we have or will ever have "true democracy" (whatever that means, I'm not sure its desirable), we have always governed ourselves.

    My problem with thinkers like West are his equation of the welfare state and of popular sovereignty with, if not the Kingdom of God, then a form of government that God prefers for human beings above other forms of government, a form of government worth struggling for as part of God's struggle in redeeming and reconciling humanity. (This is the problem with George Bush an the America-worshiping right as well.) That God's prophetic promises for God's people can, should and must be reflected in the policies and actions of nation-states and governments. Indeed, I do not believe God speaks to nations or governments, but rather only to God's called out people (we make the mistake of thinking speaking to God's people is the same as speaking to Americans).

    Finally, I have to argue with the statement that "we are building" the Kingdom of God. This is nonsense. Better is Holsclaw's statement that we are "being built into" the Kingdom. Jesus is always the actor, and we are always acted upon. When we saw ourselves as architects, authors and builders, then we privilege ourselves and the outcome we desire, our intentions and our actions above those of others, and it is my contention that attitude ALWAYS leads to coercion, compulsion and violence (usually state violence). Not our will, but God's. Not our outcome, but God's.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom