ABSTRACT
The last decade has seen much interest in themes relating to deliberative democracy in political philosophy (Benhabib (ed.) 1996; Brandom 1996; Bohman 2003; Habermas 2003; Rancier 1999; Newman 2008) and many areas of anthropological and archaeological specialisation emerging on interstices of so-called ‘pure’ and ‘applied research’. Deliberative democracy defends an ideal of equality as political efficacy (Bohman 2003: 85). This ideal hinges precisely upon equal valuation of highly discrepant perspectives on what counts as crucial matters of public concern, on what human beings can aspire to, and in what sort of world. However, in views of many powerful global elites, ‘difference’ (ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural) is antithetical (even the primary obstacle) to a defect-an obstacle to universalisation of democracy through instrumental use of science as means to put the future at the service of the present (Bernstein 1996). For some, solutions lie in new cosmopolitan treatments of disagreements in terms of notions of ‘incommensurate conceptual schemes,’ ‘world views’ and even ideas about ‘alternative realities.’ One problem with this idea is that it hinges upon equations of consensus with mutual intelligibility. These impede appreciating the value of democratic means to address social conflict and existential problems, which do not hinge upon unreasonable expectations of consensus (Bohman 2003). Wars are not fought over so-called ‘alternative realities’ but over different experiences of what matters in the world that we occupy together. One of the most difficult challenges may be that of encouraging appreciation of the democratising value of ‘neither fearing the absences of consensus…nor harboring the fantasy that conflictive situations may ever achieve a final equilibrium’ (Lazzari 2008: 647; Laclau 1990; cf. Deleuze1990; Meskell 2002).
