The World of SPLectrum
Home > Positioning > Close affinity > Politics
Politics
In SPLectrum’s philosophy, politics is the dynamic of coexistence: where ethics reads the values an actor holds toward the other, politics is the living-together of diverse actors who each hold their own. It is read off the actor/game configuration like everything else — not measured against a standard set over the actors, because there is no seat above them — and it runs at every scale, from a single subject reconciling its own colliding memberships to communities sharing a world. Coexistence is the concern, not an achievement: the whole range lives inside it, from deep common ground to the breakdown of living-together, and the arrangement is read off what the actors hold between them — there being no seat above them to issue it from. The derivation is on the reality side; this surface points outward from it.
The territory this reads across is political philosophy — the field of how people ought to live together, the questions of authority, justice and the collective, and the traditions that answer them. What follows points to where the dynamic surfaces across that field: the one-and-the-many as the field’s own standing concern, the line that builds the arrangement from what is shared rather than from a standard above, the strand that takes coexistence as ongoing contest rather than settled peace, and the place the field’s eye does not usually reach.
The one and the many as the standing concern
The dynamic shows up most plainly where political philosophy names its own oldest problem: the one and the many — how a single order holds together actors who do not share a way of life. It runs from the Greek question of the unity of the city through the whole modern literature of living-with-difference: toleration putting up with what one does not share, multiculturalism accommodating distinct communities, the modus-vivendi and consensus traditions asking how deep agreement must run for coexistence to hold. This whole region of the field takes as its problem exactly what the pillar takes as its concern: diverse value-holders sharing a world, and the dynamic by which they do.
The breadth of the region is itself the resonance. Coexistence is treated across the field not as one political topic among others but as a standing condition that every arrangement has to answer to — which is the width the pillar gives it too: the concern is the living-together itself, the question every actor in contact is already inside, not a special case that arises only when an arrangement is being designed.
Built from the shared, not the standard above
A second strand locates the political arrangement in what the participants hold in common rather than in a standard set over them — the dynamic read off the configuration, no seat above. Rawls’s overlapping consensus has the divergent doctrines of a plural society converge on shared political principles each affirms for its own reasons, the legitimacy resting on what is actually held in common rather than handed down from outside. Habermas’s discourse ethics locates the validity of a norm in what all affected could assent to in undistorted communication — the arrangement grounded in the agreement of the participants, not in a measure above them; the rhyme is the location in the participants, holding as far as the discourse, with the expectation that it converges in the end on one set of valid norms the point past which the reading parts company. John Gray’s modus vivendi takes the shared base to run shallower — a stable coexistence among communities that do not converge on principles at all — but reads the settlement from the same place: what the actors can hold between them, not what some standard would impose. The three set the common base at different depths — full principled consensus, the shallower truce — and locate the arrangement in the same place, the common ground of the actors in contact.
Coexistence as ongoing contest
The pillar holds coexistence as a concern and not an achievement — the dynamic includes friction and breakdown, not only the peaceable end — and that shows undisguised in the agonistic line. Chantal Mouffe takes conflict to be constitutive of the political rather than a defect to be engineered away, and the democratic task to be the taming of antagonism into an agonism of adversaries who contest within a shared space rather than seek to destroy it — living-together as a standing contest, never a reached settlement. William Connolly’s pluralization reads the diversity actors must coexist with as continually emerging rather than fixed, the arrangement always being remade. The deliberative dream of a final rational consensus is, on this line, the thing to resist — coexistence kept open, kept in motion.
Here the dynamic surfaces as motion: the arrangement as something worked and reworked among the actors, an equilibrium that holds for now and stays open to the next contest, rather than a peace achieved and set.
Where the field’s eye does not usually reach
The dynamic runs at every scale, and that shows by where the field’s eye does not usually turn: political philosophy begins at the scale of the group — communities, peoples, states sharing a world — and rarely treats the single subject as itself a political site. Yet the field’s own materials press toward the smaller scale. The multiculturalism debate runs into the problem of internal minorities — the member caught between the community’s game and the wider polity’s, the several memberships that pull against each other within one person — which is the coexistence dynamic at the scale of one, surfacing inside a debate pitched at the scale of the group. Iris Marion Young’s account of the self as constituted across multiple, cross-cutting group positions reaches the same place: the subject as a meeting-point of memberships rather than a single undivided unit. The field seats the political at the group and finds the single subject only when its group-level debates strain toward it — the same dynamic, at the width it less often turns to.
See also: Political philosophy (the territory this reads across) · Ethics (close affinity) — the values whose collisions this lives out · Pluralism · Cosmopolitics