Sylabus
Block I. Political Representation: Historical Roots and Key Components
Session Date Topic1. 14.2.2023 IntroductionCourse OverviewCourse Requirements
Recommended reading:*Urbinati, Nadia and Mark Warren, 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 387–412. *Dario Castiglione and Mark Warren, “Rethinking Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues” (paper, Conference on Rethinking Democratic Representation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 2006) 2. 21.2.2023 What is Representation?
Required reading:*Russo, F., & Cotta, M. (2020). Political representation: concepts, theories and practices in historical perspective. In Research Handbook on Political Representation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Recommended reading:*Mansbridge, Jane (2011). Clarifying the Concept of Representation. American Political Science Review 105(3): 621‒30.Manin, Bernard (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Introduction and Chapters 5). 3. 28.2.2023 Key Components of Political Representation: Delegate vs Trustee
Required reading:*Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, 1787–8 [1987]. The Federalist Papers, Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Recommended reading:*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. *Bowler, S. (2017). Trustees, delegates, and responsiveness in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 50(6), 766-793. 4. 7.3.2023 Pitkin’s Four Views of Representation
Required reading:Pitkin, Hanna F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: The University of California Press (Introduction and Chapter 7).
Recommended reading:Pitkin, Hanna F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: The University of California Press (Chapter 8).*Pitkin, H. F. (2004). Representation and democracy: uneasy alliance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(3), 335-342. 5. 14.3.2023 Authorization
Required reading:*Mansbridge, Jane, 2009. “A Selection Model of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4): 369–398.
Recommended reading:*Saward, Michael, 2009. “Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 17: 1–22. *Guasti, Petra, Geissel, Brigite. (2021). Claims of Representation between Representation and Democratic Innovations. Frontiers in Political Science. XXX 6. 21.3.2023 Accountability
Required reading:*Trounstine, Jessica. "Representation and accountability in cities." Annual Review of Political Science 13 (2010): 407-423.
Recommended reading:*Mansbridge, Jane, 2004. “Representation Revisited: Introduction to the Case Against Electoral Accountability,” Democracy and Society, 2(I): 12–13.
Block II. Rethinking Representation 7. 28.3.2023 Mansbridge’s Four Forms of Representation
Required reading:*Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review, 97(4): 515–28.
Recommended reading:*Williams, Melissa. S. (2012). Beyond the Empirical-Normative Divide: The Democratic Theory of Jane Mansbridge. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(4), 797-805. 8. 4.4.2023 Descriptive vs Substantive Representation
Required reading:*Mansbridge, Jane, 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’,” The Journal of Politics, 61: 628–57.
Recommended reading:*Phillips, Anne (1995). The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Chapter 1). *Mansbridge, J. (2015). Should workers represent workers? Swiss Political Science Review, 21(2), 261-270.*McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, Silvia M. and Ian Budge (2004). What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate. British Journal of Political Science 34(1): 1‒26.*Dovi, Suzanne, 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?,” American Political Science Review, 96: 745–754. 9. 11.4.2023 Responsive vs Responsible
Required reading:Pettit, Philip, 2010. “Representation, Responsive and Indicative,” Constellations, 17(3): 426–434.
Recommended reading:Severs, E., 2010. “Representation As Claims-Making. Quid Responsiveness?” Representation, 46(4): 411–423. Mair, Peter. 2009. Representative versus Responsible Government. Cologne: MplfG Working Paper 09/8.
Block III. Contemporary Advances 10. 18.4.2023 Representative Claim
Required reading:Saward, Michael, 2006. "The representative claim." Contemporary political theory, 5(3): 297–318.
Recommended reading:Guasti, Petra, and Brigitte Geissel. "Saward’s concept of the representative claim revisited: An empirical perspective." Politics and Governance 7.3 (2019): 98-111. De Wilde, Pieter. "Representative claims analysis: theory meets method." Journal of European Public Policy 20.2 (2013): 278-294.Celis, Karen, et al. "Constituting women's interests through representative claims." Politics & Gender 10.2 (2014): 149. 11. 25.4.2023 Critical Reception of the Constructivist Turn
Required reading:Disch, Lisa, 2015. “The Constructivist Turn in Democratic Representation: A Normative Dead-End?,” Constellations, 22(4): 487–499.
Recommended reading:Schaap, Andrew, Thompson, Simon, Disch, Lisa, Castiglione, Dario and Saward, Michael, 2012. “Critical exchange on Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim,” Contemporary Political Theory, 11(1): 109–127. Nässtrom, Sofia, 2011. "Where is the representative turn going?" European journal of political theory, 10(4): 501–510. 12. 2.5.2023 Representation as Advocacy and Discourse
Required reading:*Urbinati, Nadia, 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation,” Political Theory, 28: 258–786.
Recommended reading:*Dryzek, John and Simon Niemeyer, 2008. "Discursive Representation," American Political Science Review, 102(4): 481–493. *Montanaro, L., 2012. “The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-appointed Representatives,” The Journal of Politics, 74(4): 1094–1107. 13. 9.5.2023 Final Session: Multidimensional Representation
Required reading:*Wolkenstein, Fabio, and Christopher Wratil. "Multidimensional Representation." American Journal of Political Science (2020).
Recommended reading:*Costa, Mia. "Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want from Political Representation." American Journal of Political Science (2020).
Anotace
Course Description:
The traditional theory of democratic representation centres on the linkage between democracy and representation. It answers the question of what makes representation democratic with two interlinked concepts – authorization and accountability. At the heart of democratic representation are elections – they are both an authorization mechanism (represented appoint representatives) and providing accountability (represented re-appoint 'good' representatives and punish the 'bad' ones). Historically, the representation literature focused on the representative's behaviour (delegate vs trustee model), types of representation, and methods for selecting representatives.
Recent theories of representation broadened the scope of the represented (to include both people and discourses) and the role of the representative (citizen representative). The scholars of the representative turn went further, highlighting multiple forms and mechanisms of representation beyond elections rejecting the principle-agent relationship, introducing reflexivity as a measure of legitimacy, and reconsidering representation as mediation centred on voice, trust, and memory or as advocacy. They shifted our attention from the formal election procedure to the expressive and performative dimension of representation.
Constructivist democratic theorists reconsidered what representation is and the relationship between the representative and the represented. The British political theorist Michael Saward reconceptualized representation as a claim-making process, broadening the scope of representation (actors and procedures) beyond elected representatives and elections. The concept of representation as claim-making bridges representation, participation, and deliberation. Representation as claim-making focuses on the plurality of claim-makers, claims, and conditions under which claim-making occurs. Claim-making is at the core of the constructivist turn in political representation.
This course is designed to provide an in-depth overview of the evolution of political representation – from the traditional through modern to the contemporary constructivist turn. We will discuss the key dimensions of representation – accountability, authorization, substantive vs descriptive representation, and responsibility vs responsiveness. In addition, the students will familiarize themselves with key texts. In class, the discussion will enable a comprehensive understanding of the key feature of contemporary democracy – the linkage between the representatives and the represented.