Democracy and Its Others. A Contribution from Semiotics to the Debate on Democratic Backsliding
No. 74 (2020-10-01)Author(s)
-
Sebastián Moreno Barreneche
Abstract
The debate on democratic backsliding and its various manifestations is at the heart of contemporary political science. The purpose of this article is to present certain tools drawn from semiotics which, it is argued, can prove useful in achieving greater precision concerning the concepts used in this debate. To the extent that conceptual discussions within political science tend to be articulated on the basis of categories of meaning that mediate the interpretation of empirical evidence and social reality, this article analyzes the categories of “democracy,” “non-democracy,” and “authoritarianism,” among others, based on their positioning in a semiotic square that reveals the logical relationships between them.
References
Beetham, David. 2009. “Democracy. Universality and Diversity”. Ethics & Global Politics 2 (4): 281-296.
Berger, Peter y ThomasLuckmann. 1966. La construcción social de la realidad. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
Bermeo, Nancy. 2016. “On Democratic Backsliding”. Journal of Democracy 27 (1): 5-19.
Bogaards, Matthijs. 2009. “How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism”. Democratization 16 (2): 399-423.
Cassani, Andrea y LucaTomini. 2020. “Reversing Regimes and Concepts: From Democratization to Autocratization”. European Political Science 19: 272-287.
Collier, David y StevenLevitsky. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives. Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research”. World Politics 49: 430-451.
Collier, David y RobertAdcock. 1999. “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts”. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 537-565.
Diamond, Larry. 2002. “Thinking about Hybrid Regimes”. Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 21-35.
Diamond, Larry. 2015. “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession”. Journal of Democracy 26 (1): 141-155.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. Tratado de semiótica general. Barcelona: Lumen.
Eco, Umberto. 1997. Kant y el ornitorrinco. Barcelona: Lumen.
Floch, Jean-Marie. 1990. Semiótica, marketing y comunicación. Barcelona: Paidós.
Foa, Roberto S. y YaschaMounk. 2017. “The Signs of Deconsolidation”. Journal of Democracy 28 (1): 5-16.
Fontanille, Jacques. 2008. Pratiques sémiotiques. París: Presses Universitaires de France.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. El fin de la historia y el último hombre. Barcelona: Grijalbo.
Gergen, Kenneth. 1999. An Invitation to Social Construction. Londres: Sage.
Habets, Ingrid. 2015. “Liberal Democracy: The Threat of Counter-Narratives”. European View 14: 145-154.
Hénault, Anne. 2012. Les enjeux de la sémiotique. París: Presses Universitaires de France.
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1943. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Huntington, Samuel. 1991. “Democracy’s Third Wave”. Journal of Democracy 2 (2): 12-34.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Landowski, Eric. 2014. “Sociossemiótica: uma teoria geral do sentido”. Galaxia 27: 10-20.
Landowski, Eric. 2016. Interacciones arriesgadas. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Universidad de Lima.
Levitsky, Steven y LucanWay. 2015. “The Myth of Democratic Recession”. Journal of Democracy 26: 45-58.
Linz, Juan J. y AlfredStepan. 1996. “Toward Consolidated Democracies”. Journal of Democracy 7 (2): 14-33.
Lührmann, Anna y Staffan I.Lindberg. 2019. “A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New about It?”. Democratization 26 (7): 1095-1113.
Mechkova, Valeriya, AnnaLührmann y StaffanLindberg. 2017. “How Much Democratic Backsliding?”. Journal of Democracy 28 (4): 162-169.
Monsiváis Carrillo, Alejandro. 2020. “La indiferencia hacia la democracia en América Latina”. ICONOS 66: 151-171.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2018. For a Left Populism. Londres: Verso.
Plattner, Marc F. 2015. “Is Democracy in Decline?”. Journal of Democracy 26 (1): 5-10
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics”. The American Political Science Review 64 (4): 1033-1053.
Schedler, Andreas. 1998. “What Is Democratic Consolidation?”. Journal of Democracy 9 (2): 91-107.
Schmitter, Philippe. 2015. “Crisis and Transition, but Not Decline”. Journal of Democracy 26 (1): 32-44.
Searle, John. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. Londres: Penguin.
Somers, Margaret. 1995. “What’s Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of Concept Formation”. Sociological Theory 13 (2): 113-144.
Theocharis, Yannis. 2015. “The Conceptualization of Digitally Networked Participation”. Social Media + Society 1 (2): 1-14.
Tomini, Luca y ClaudiusWagemann. 2018. “Varieties of Contemporary Democratic Breakdown and Regression: A Comparative Analysis”. European Journal of Political Research 57 (3): 687-716.
V-Dem. 2019. “V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2019: Democracy Facing Global Challenges”. V-Dem Institute, consultado el 2 de marzo de 2020, https://www.v-dem.net/en/publications/democracy-reports/
Van Deth, Jan. 2014. “A Conceptual Map of Political Participation”. Acta Politica 49: 349-367.
Verón, Eliseo. 1987. “La palabra adversativa. Observaciones sobre la enunciación política”. En El discurso político. Lenguajes y acontecimientos, editado por EliseoVerón, LeonorArfuch, María MagdalenaChirico, Emilio deIpola, NoemíGoldman, María Inés GonzálezBombal y OscarLandi, 11-26. Buenos Aires: Hachette.
Verón, Eliseo. 1988. La semiosis social. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Verón, Eliseo. 1989. “Semiótica y teoría de la democracia”. Revista de Occidente 92: 130-142.
Violi, Patrizia. 2017. “Due vie per la semiotica o un incrocio di sguardi? Algirdas Greimas e Umberto Eco a confronto”. Entornos 30 (1): 25-33.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1995. Pensamiento y lenguaje. Barcelona: Paidós.
Waldner, David y EllenLust. 2018. “Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding”. Annual Review of Political Science 21: 93-113.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is what States Make of It”. International Organization 46 (2): 391-425.
Wigell, Mikael. 2008. “Mapping ‘Hybrid Regimes’: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics”. Democratization 15 (20): 230-250.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.