Documents found
-
131.More information
ABSTRACTThe crisis of the political system in Lower Canada implies that solutions put forth to confront the main problems of the colony challenge the system of government established in 1791. This crisis leads to the following alternative: the union of the two Canadas or the accession of Lower Canada to a form of self-governement. In this context, the political crisis becomes general and develops into an identity crisis. The hypothesis presented in this paper shows that the political identity of Lower Canada represents a symbolical patchwork which unites two modes of political subjectivity: allegiance and origins. Thus, the identity crisis can be described in terms of the dismantling of the symbolical patchwork ensuring Lower Canadian political identity. The idea of union is then legitimized within a policy of origins, whereas the self-government program rests on a political argument wholly determined by allegiance.
-
137.
-
138.More information
For philosopher Hannah Arendt, the action of the conscientious objector, because founded on moral and individual grounds, is not a political action. The author offers in her article an arendtian reading of Antigone of Sophocles. As Antigone is a classic figure of civil disobedience surprisingly left aside by Arendt, the aim is to show to what extent Antigone's action qualifies as political. This allows pointing out the strengths and limits of Arendt's conception of civil disobedience, which values action in common but neglects the political effect of the conscientious objection, especially for marginalized people.
Keywords: Hannah Arendt, Antigone, désobéissance civile, action politique, effet d'exclusion
-
139.More information
My comments on Francis Dupuis-Déri's paper, that tries to reconcile direct actions with deliberative theory, raises a number of questions. First, I wonder why the paper concedes any democratic substance to liberal theories, as these theories have repeatedly rejected all kinds of democratic collective action. In this sense, liberal regimes are not as much elitists as they are oligarchic. Once this clarification is made in the debate, it becomes possible to read F. Dupuis-Déri as contrasting two distinct visions of the world, one encouraging the expansion of the market in all spheres of life and the other demanding a more egalitarian world. The question of populism then becomes essential in trying to understand the reasons why a group is portrayed as being violent and anti-democratic. It is therefore important to properly name these types of phenomena and, in particular, to understand the nature of oligarchic liberal regimes if one wishes to bring legitimacy to direct actions.