Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:27:35.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democratic Representation and the Constituency Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2012

Lisa Disch
Lisa Disch
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, ldisch@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

That acts of democratic representation participate in creating the interests for which legislators and other officials purport merely to stand gives rise to the “constituency paradox.” I elucidate this paradox through a critical reading of Hanna Pitkin's The Concept of Representation, together with her classic study of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein and Justice. Pitkin's core insight into democratic representation is that democratic representation is “quasi-performative”: an activity that mobilizes constituencies by the interests it claims in their name. I develop this insight together with its implications for contemporary scholarship on the political effects of economic equality. I conclude by arguing that the fundamental democratic deficiency of the US political system goes much deeper than its disproportionate responsiveness to wealthy interests; it is a matter of system biases that foster the formation and expression of those interests, while mitigating against mobilization by those Americans who want inequality to be reduced.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 599 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69(4): 1218–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Political Science Association Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. 2004. “American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.” Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Austin, J.L. 1979 [1961]. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56(4): 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York and Princeton: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Block, Fred, and Piven, Frances Fox. 2010. “‘Déjà vu All Over Again’: A Comment on Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's ‘Winner-Take-All Politics.’” Politics and Society 38(2): 205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandolini, Andrea. 2010. “Political Economy and the Mechanics of Politics.” Politics and Society 38(2): 212–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Hamlin, Alan. 1999. “On Political Representation.” British Journal of Political Science 29(1): 109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Mark. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Andrea. 2005. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Andrea. 2010. “The Public's Role in Winner-Take-All Politics.” Politics and Society 38(2): 227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James R.. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101(4): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Robert. 2009. Freedom's Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Robert, and Zelnick, Reginald, eds. 2002. The Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 1969. The Bias of Pluralism. NY: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1973 [1967]. Speech and Phenomena. Trans. Allison, David B.. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1982. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Bass, Alan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dionne, E.J. 1991. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2010. “What's It All About? Framing in Political Science.” In Perspectives on Framing, ed. Keren, Gideon. NewYork: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Edsall, Thomas B., Edsall, with Mary D.. 1991. Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights and Taxes on American Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Euben, Peter. 1970. “Political Science and Political Silence.” In Power and Community: Dissenting Essays in Political Science, ed. Green, Philip and Levinson, Sanford. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz. 1967. “Changing Views of Representation.” In Contemporary Political Science: Toward Empirical Theory, ed. Pool, Ithiel de Sola. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, and Karps, Paul D.. 1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2(3): 233–54.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
Farr, James, and Seidelman, Raymond, eds. 1993. Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington: Heath.Google Scholar
Frank, Thomas. 2004. What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan books.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69(5): 778–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2010. “Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organizations, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States.” Politics & Society 38(2): 152–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Susan B. 1975. “Participation, Political Structure, and Concurrence.” American Political Science Review 69(4): 1181–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 1987. “Beyond the Three Faces of Power: A Realist Critique.” Polity 20(1): 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2010. “Democracy and Capitalism: Structure, Agency, and Organized Combat.” Politics and Society 38(2): 243–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and King, Desmond. 2009. The Unsustainable American State. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Page, Benjamin I.. 2005. “Who Influences US Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review 99(1): 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Skocpol, Theda, eds. 2005. Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm. 1983. “Legislator–Constituency Relations and the Representative Process.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8(3): 303–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenworthy, Lance, and Pontusson, Jonas. 2005. “Rising Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Affluent Countries.” Perspectives on Politics 3(3): 449–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchell, Mark. 1990. “Berkeley in the Sixties.” Documentary. Director and producer M. Kitchell, cinematographer Stephen Lighthill, editor Veronica Selver. Kitchell Films and POV Theatrical Films.Google Scholar
Körösényi, András. 2009. “Beyond the Happy Consensus on Democratic Elitism.” Comparative Sociology 8: 364–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Segura, Gary M.. 1995. “Endogeneity, Exogeneity, Time, and Space in Political Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Stanga, John E.. 1979. “Political Participation and Government Responsiveness: The Behavior of the California Superior Courts.” American Political Science Review 73(4): 1090–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1996. Emancipations. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Wolin, Sheldon, eds. 1965. The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretations. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven M. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiowetz, Dean. 2011. Appeals to Interest: Language, Contestation and the Shaping of Political Agency. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2010. “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era.” Perspectives on Politics 8(3): 803–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne, and Soss, Joe. 2004. “The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship: Bridging Policy Studies and Mass Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2(1): 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57(1): 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy. 1991. Colonising Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward N. 1970. “The Representation of Citizens by Political Authorities.” American Political Science Review 64(4): 1149–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jacobs, Lawrence R.. 2009. Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Paul E. 1970. “Forms of Representation: Participation of the Poor in the Community Action Program.” American Political Science Review 64(2): 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Kevin. 1993. Boiling Point: Republicans, Democrats and the Decline of Middle-Class Prosperity. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1993 [1975]. Wittgenstein and Justice. 2d ed.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth, and Eulau, Heinz. 1969. “Political Matrix and Political Representation: Prolegomenon to a New Departure from an Old Problem.” American Political Science Review 63(2): 427–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan, and Manin, Bernard. 1999. “Introduction.” In Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 68(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald W. 1981. “Representation in Political Theory and in Law.” Ethics 91(3): 395–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorabaugh, W.J. 1989. Berkeley at War: The 1960s. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Runciman, David. 2007. “The Paradox of Political Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15(1): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2006. “The Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Theory 5: 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1975 [1960]. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1971. The Campus War: A Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony. New York: World Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Seidelman, Roy, and Farr, James, ed. 1993. Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., Schram, Sanford F.. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, Judith. 2008. “The Constitutive Representation of Gender: Extra-parliamentary Re-presentation of Gender Relations.” Representation 44(2): 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepan, Al, and Linz, Juan J.. 2011. “Comparative Perspectives on Inequality and the Quality of Democracy in the United States.” Perspectives on Politics 9(4): 841–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2009. “Perspectives on Unequal Democracy.” Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 151–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1991. “Preferences and Politics.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20(10): 3–34.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. RepresentativeDemocracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddell, Brian. 2011. “Review Symposium: Class Politics, American-Style.” Perspectives on Politics 9(3): 659–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, John C. 1971. “Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the Represented.” British Journal of Political Science 1(3): 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E., and Castiglione, Dario. N.d. “Rethinking Democratic Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues.” Unpublished manuscript. University of British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72(5): 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Vanessa, Skocpol, Theda, and Coggin, John. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Jeffrey A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 2009. “Oligarchy in the United States?” Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 731–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon, and Schaar, John H.. 1970. The Berkeley Rebellion and Beyond: Essays on Politics and Education in the Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books/NY Review Books.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar