Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
17
Some might argue that this expanded conception of politics directs our attention away
from the formal political sphere - detrimentally so. To be clear: I do not doubt the
importance of formal politics and believe strongly that the institutional arrangements
deserve the closest consideration, but so much of what is discussed in the formal
political sphere is, or should be, inspired by political discussion outside it. Think, for
example, of how the suffragettes in Britain (who were not permitted to be Members of
Parliament) made women's inequality in the home and elsewhere a new political issue
a century ago. One concern expressed by several political theorists is that 'real poli-
tics' now occurs
outside
the formal political sphere and is
disconnected
from it too. This
presents us with an image of two political spheres, one involving elected governments
who remain powerful, and one involving new social movements, community organi-
sations and so on acting in local ways that may lack a wider, macro-level influence on
society.
18
These criticisms rest on the idea that 'the political' is, or should be, a vibrant and
sprawling field of debate, disagreement and decision-making that has, in modern (so-
called) 'democracies', been
reduced
to 'politics' as a defined domain in which rulers
and the ruled encounter each other on highly unequal terms that favour the former.
'Anti-political' forms of 'politics', it is argued, limit debate, choice and disagreement
about person, communal or public values, goals and measures. In a series of writings,
the French political philosopher Jacques Ranciére has argued that 'politics' today is
a form of 'policing' (note the common etymological root of the two terms). How,
Ranciere and others ask, might the dialectic of the political and politics be unfrozen?
19
In several topics and essays published in English through the 1990s (e.g. Beck (1992)
and Giddens (1991)), it was suggested that in our age of (1) unpredicted/able 'man-
ufactured risks' and (2) heightened uncertainty about how stable careers, place of
residence, relationships and friendships will be, 'sub-politics' (Beck) and 'life poli-
tics' (Giddens) were/are assuming new importance. Sub-politics is the politicisation
of events and practices within everyday life and/or in domains outside the formal
political apparatus (e.g. in the activities of environmental NGOs). Life politics refers
to an approach to people's daily existence that foregrounds choices, challenges and
values - 'life' is something to be managed, a 'project' to be realised through con-
scious action to create, and then choose from, a range of options. Several critics have
suggested that both Beck and Giddens were/are far too sanguine about the 'political
powers' now enjoyed by ordinary people. Some have argued that neither theorist had
paid sufficient attention to the enduring 'structural' constraint on people's thought,
action and life chances. At worst, critics see 'sub-politics' and 'life politics' as ineffec-
tual, as the place where 'real politics' has migrated in light of the democratic failures
of official politics and elected governments.
20
In other words, I do not set out and then use a substantive theory of power in
Making
sense of nature
. Instead, as will become clear in later chapters (especially
Chapter 6)
,
I discuss different conceptions of power favoured by contemporary social scientists
and humanities scholars in order to show that power is undoubtedly a part of the way
references to 'nature' and its collateral concepts are constructed and used.
