.jpg)
printThe Event of Liberty:
the Experience of Deconstruction
Koktysh K.E.,
Associate Professor of Department of Political Theory, MGIMO University, kirill.koktysh@gmail.com
elibrary_id: 250721 | ORCID: 0000-0002-6555-0391 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABF-5548-2021
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.02.03
For citation:
Koktysh K.E. The Event of Liberty: the Experience of Deconstruction. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 2. P. 21-36. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.02.03
Abstract
The era of Modernity can definitely be called an era of freedom: from its inception liberty has been not just one of its important political concepts, but a prevailing language describing the political reality. Moreover, as shown in the article, several such “languages of liberty” can be defined, if not more. A cognitive-institutional approach – a method where the notional dimension of the concept is considered to be in an inextricable connection with the institutions that it generates – allows the author to identify a number of discourses to which the possession of liberty is prescribed, markedly different from each other in terms of teleology, their system of values, and social subject. For example, the English cognitive tradition of understanding liberty is statist, whereas French is anti-statist; the actor of English freedom is an individual, while French and German freedom belongs to the whole society. Trying to identify the functional “source code” of liberty, the author reviews its basic conceptions, finding out its links with basic types of corporations in broad meaning (governing corporation, which makes political decisions; corporations that produce norms and values, i.e. parliament, church, parties and other opinion-makers; and economic corporations, which produce goods and money), the process of resource and social capital exchange within the political system, the structure of social contracts, and other factors. In this context the “event of liberty” is, first of all, a change of a political system’s structure, where the previously dominating type of corporation is overturned, and its place is taken with acorporation of different type.
Keywords
cognitive-institutional approach, liberty, property, institutions, symbolic capitals, symbolic exchange, resource turnover, political metaphor, social contract..
References
Bodin J. 1955. Six Books of the Commonwealth. Oxford: Alden Press.
Bodin J. 2010. Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime. University Park (Pa): Penn State Press.
Etzioni A. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: The Free Press.
Parsons Т. 1969. Politics and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. 557 p.
Property. 1962. The Founders’ Constitution. Vol. 1. Ch. 16. Doc. 23. – The Papers of James Madison. Ed. by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. URL: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html (accessed 24.12.2019).
Aristotle. 1983. Nicomachean Ethics. (Russ. ed.: Aristotle. Nikomakhova etika. Sochineniya v 4-kh t. Vol. 4. Moscow: Mysl’).
Arrighi G. 2006. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. (Russ. ed.: Arrighi G. Dolgii dvadtsatyi vek: Den’gi, vlast’ i istoki nashego vremeni. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego).
Badiou A. 2013. La Philosophie et l’Evenement, entretiens avec Fabien Tarby (Russ. ed.: Badiou A. Filosofiya i sobytie. Besedy s kratkim vvedeniem v filosofiyu Alena Bad’yu. Moscow: Institut obshchegumanitarnykh issledovanii).
Badiou A. 2005. Peut-on penser la politique? Abrege de metapolitique. (Russ. ed.: Badiou A. Mozhno li myslit’ politiku? Kratkii traktat po metapolitike. Moscow: Logos).
Berlin I. 1998. Two Concepts of Liberty. (Russ. ed.: Berlin I. Dve kontseptsii svobody. – Sovremennyi liberalizm. Moscow: Progress-traditsiya, Dom intellektual’noi knigi. P. 19-43).
Berlin I. 2001. Filosofiya svobody [Philosophy of Freedom]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 448 c.
Dumezil G. 1986. Les dieux souverains indo-europeens. (Russ. ed.: G. Dumezil. Verkhovnye bogi indoevropeitsev. Moscow: Nauka).
Hegel G.F. 1934. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. (Russ. ed.: Hegel G.F. Filosofiya prava. Sochineniya v 14 t. Vol. 7. Moscow: Sotsekgiz).
Hegel G.F. 1978a. Die Verfassung Deutschlands. (Russ. ed.: Hegel G.F. Konstitutsiya Germanii. Politicheskie proizvedeniya. Moscow: Nauka).
Hegel G.F. 1978b. Uber die wissenschaftlichen Behandlungsarten des Naturrechts. (Russ. ed.: Hegel G.F. O nauchnykh sposobakh issledovaniya estestvennogo prava, ego meste v prakticheskoi filosofii i ego otnoshenii k nauke o pozitivnom prave. Politicheskie proizvedeniya. Moscow: Nauka).
Hegel G.F. 2017. Wissenschaft der Logik. (Russ. ed.: Hegel G.F. Nauka logiki. Vol. I. Obyektivnaya logika. Moscow: Primedia E-launch LLC).
Hirschman A. 2009. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. (Russ. ed.: Hirschman A. Vykhod, golos i vernost’. Reaktsiya na upadok firm, organizatsii i gosudarstv. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo).
Hobbes T. 1991. The Leviathan or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. (Russ. ed.: Hobbes T. Leviafan, ili materiya, forma i vlast’ gosudarstva tserkovnogo i grazhdanskogo. Sochineniya v dvukh tomakh. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl’).
Koktysh K.E. 2016. Ontology of Rational (I). – Politeia. No. 2. P. 33-54. (In Russ.) https://www.doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2016-81-2-33-54
Koktysh K.E. 2019a. English Concept of Freedom: Experience of Deconstruction. – Politeia. No. 2 (93). P. 48-65. (In Russ.) https://www.doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2019-93-2-48-65
Koktysh K.E. 2019b. Teoriya metafory i politicheskie instituty [The Metaphor Theory and Political Institutions]. Moscow: MGIMO Univerdity. (In Russ.)
Lakoff G., Johnson M. 2004. Metaphors We Live by. (Russ. ed.: Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. Moscow: URSS).
Laozi. 2002. Dao De Jing (Russ. ed.: Lao Tszy. Dao De Tszin. Moscow: Profit Style).
Mosca G. 2012. Storia delle dottrine politiche. (Russ. ed.: Mosca G. Istoriya politicheskikh doktrin. Moscow: Mysl’).
Parsons T. 1998. The System of Modern Societies. (Russ. ed.: Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv. Moscow: Aspect Press).
Rousseau J.-J. 2013. Du contrat social. (Russ. ed.: Rousseau J.-J. Obshchestvennyi dogovor, ili nachala politicheskogo prava. Politicheskie sochineniya. Saint Petersburg: Rostok).
Sergeyev V.M., Kazantsev A.A., Koktysh K.E. 2010. Setevye aspekty problem obucheniya v sotsial’nykh naukakh [The Network Aspects of Educational Problems in Social Sciences]. Moscow: Prospekt. 192 p. (In Russ.)
The Federalist papers. 1993. (Russ. ed.: Federalist. Politicheskie esse Aleksandra Gamil’tona, Dzheimsa Medisona i Dzhona Dzheya. Moscow: Progress – Litera).
Žižek S. 2008. The Parallax View. (Russ. ed.: Žižek S. Ustroistvo razryva. Moscow: Evropa).
Content No. 2, 2020
See also:
Misurov D.A.,
Symbolic Modelling in Russia: Transformations of the Imperial-Soviet-Presidential Model. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No3
Zavershinsky K.F.,
Cognitive Foundations of Political Culture: an Essay of Methodological Reflection.. – Polis. Political Studies. 2002. No3
Potseluyev S.P.,
Power as a dialogue or dialogue without any power? To actual aspects of G.H.Mead’s political philosophy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1
Pecherskaya N.V.,
To Know or to Call: Metaphor as Cognitive Resource of Social Knowledge. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No2
Selezneva A.V., Rogozar-Kolpakova I.I., Filistovich Ye.S., Trofimova V.V., Dobrynina Ye.P., Streletz I.E.,
Russian political elite: analysis from the perspective of the human capital concept. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No4
.jpg)
.jpg)