Post by samitch on Mar 2, 2016 5:06:22 GMT
I was most intrigued by Ranciere’s piece Introducing Disagreement and his discussion concerning the progression of democracy as dissensus to modern interpretations of democracy as consensus. Ranciere describes democracy as “the power of the demos” with demos being “those who hold no title or claim to power,” which I understood as a way of describing what we know as ‘the common people’ (p.5). Ranciere then adds “Democracy is the disrupting of all logics that purport to found domination on some entitlement to dominate” (p.5) and later notes that there is a current identitfication of democracy with consensus, the sensible opposition to dissensus.
This lead me to wonder how a political force like democracy can utilize rhetoric to reconfigure the understanding of democracy as the very force of disruption to what we know today as a model of consensus, or a Ranciere describes, the “erasing of the contestatory” (p.7). How might the ideology of democracy and the policing power of democracy play a role in rhetorically reconfiguring the conception of democracy? What then is the role of the rhetorical critic in unmasking these efforts to reshape perception?
This lead me to wonder how a political force like democracy can utilize rhetoric to reconfigure the understanding of democracy as the very force of disruption to what we know today as a model of consensus, or a Ranciere describes, the “erasing of the contestatory” (p.7). How might the ideology of democracy and the policing power of democracy play a role in rhetorically reconfiguring the conception of democracy? What then is the role of the rhetorical critic in unmasking these efforts to reshape perception?