Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:57:50.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concepts of Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2011

ANDREW REHFELD
ANDREW REHFELD*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
*
Andrew Rehfeld is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130 (rehfeld@wustl.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this reply to Jane Mansbridge's “Clarifying the Concept of Representation” in this issue (American Political Science Review 2011). I argue that our main disagreements are conceptual, and are traceable to the attempt to treat the concept of representation as a “single highly complex concept” as Hanna Pitkin once put it. Instead, I argue, it would be more useful to develop the various concepts that emphasize the underlying forms of representation. Against the view that empirical regularity should guide concept formation, I suggest that the failure to find instances of the cases I conceptualize is not itself a reason to reject them. Instead, I argue in favor of concepts that emphasize one side or other of a relationship, rather than treating both sides simultaneously, defending the view that “promissory” and “anticipatory” may usefully describe the activity of “representing” but ought to emphasize only one side of the representative–voter relationship. I also explain why adding substantive accounts of representation to any of Mansbridge's modifying concepts dilutes their practical value. I conclude by indicating the importance of developing concepts that stretch beyond the democratic contexts that feature prominently in her response.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 631 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Bruce, and Fishkin, James. 2004. Deliberation Day. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. [1965] 1990. Political Argument: A Reissue with a New Introduction (California Series on Social Choice and Political Economy). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon, David. 2008. “The Representational Consequences of a Random National Constituency.” Polity 40 (2): 221–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 1974. The Terms of Political Discourse. Indianapolis, IN: Lexington.Google Scholar
Collier, David, and Gerring, John, eds. 2008. Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovani Sartori. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 100–14)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, Wahlke, John C., Buchanan, William, and Ferguson, Leroy C.. 1959. “The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke.” American Political Science Review 53 (3): 742–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 1999. “What Makes a Concept Good? An Integrated Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences.” Polity 31 (3): 357–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1955. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayward, Clarissa. 2010. “Making Interest: On Representation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Political Representation, eds, Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan C., Jean Wood, Elisabeth, and Kirshner, Alexander S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2008. “Concepts and Concept Formation.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences, eds. Della Porta, Donatella and Keating, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2009. “Guest Letter: Getting the Concepts Rights.” Newsletter of the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association 20 (2): 1–4.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4): 369–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2011. “Clarifying the Concept of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, Eric, and Laurence, Stephen, eds. 1999. Concepts: Core Readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayo, Henry Bertram. 1960. An Introduction to Democratic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montanaro, Laura. 2011. “The Democratic Legitimacy of ‘Self-Appointed’ Representatives.” University of British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2008. “Extremism in the Defense of Moderation: A Response to My Critics.” Polity 40 (1): 254–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2010. “On Quotas and Qualifications for Office.” In Political Representation, eds. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan C., Jean Wood, Elisabeth, and Kirshner, Alexander S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 236–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, Jennifer. 2007. “Accountability in an Unequal World.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 616–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Nancy. 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., Mackuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation.” Political Theory 28 (6): 758–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia, and Warren, Mark E.. 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2008. “Citizen Representatives.” In Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, eds. Warren, Mark E. and Pearse, Hilary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Melissa. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Politics of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Melissa. 2008. “Rehfeld's Hyper-Madisonianism.” Polity 40 (April): 238–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Democracy and Inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.