Jon Olafsson

In the last chapter of The Public and its Problems John Dewey outlines the alleged fallacy of "the democratic creed". According to him the fallacy is described as conflating emancipation with the capacity to rule, i.e. the capacity to make policy decisions. His point is that the power to make decisions does not entail a capacity to make good choices. Capable are those in the know, the experts who are "intellectually qualified". The answer to the fallacy is to propose epistocracy: The rule of experts – as Walter Lippman had come close to arguing. But Dewey tries to refute the argument for epistocracy. He rehearses the old platonic wisdom that the harmonious state...

This paper discusses reconciliation as a strategy to heal social wounds caused by dictatorial regimes or deep economic crises. The paper treats two such examples: The failed attempts of the Icelandic government to reach a deal with the UK and the Netherlands about the repayment of debts incurred by the bankrupt Landsbanki Íslands and the prosecution of Mr. Geir Haarde, formerly Prime Minister of Iceland. It is argued that although reconciliation strategies have in some cases been partially successful, it can be counterproductive to prefer moral aspirations or goals, such as rebuilding trust after serious political, social or economic disintegration, to strictly legal ways of dealing with individual cases. As the case with Mr. Haarde shows, the endeavor to achieve moral goals using legal means can backfire in unexpected ways.

At the end of her book, Pragmatism and Social Hope, Judith Green asks why one should want to spend time on expanding opportunities for participation in democratic governance (248). The reason, according to her, is a desire that a "deeper rationality of human spirit" would direct decision-making in the world. We are currently captives of economic/military/political rationality, according to her. Only through participatory democracy, or "second-strand democracy" can the spell be broken (195). Although this does not become apparent until one has read a good deal of the book, the author is primarily interested in democratic participation as a way to "deepen" democracy. Yet the (perhaps rhetorically intended) question..

This is a book about politics, culture, and political culture from a philosophical perspective. Its title translates as Dissidence, conflict and propaganda: Papers in philosophy. It includes 13 articles, written over the last eight years. Most are revised versions of previously published papers, but four articles (chapters 2, 3, 5, and 13) are printed here for the first time. As well, the book includes a series of photographs, which offer a perspective on changes in Russian society over two decades, from 1989 to 2009. The articles cover diverse topics and were written for differing purposes and occasions, but their common thread is a discussion of the reasons behind conflict and the consequences of conflict in several different social arenas. The book has three parts. The first discusses dissidence and acts of dissidence, and the author argues that dissidence is a necessary part of democracy. Conflicts between individuals and groups characterize modern society, and the second part of the book discusses this aspect of contem- porary culture. The book’s third part discusses direct and indirect propa- ganda in the context of culture, politics, science and education.