ABSTRACT
Like the problem of individual agency, the problem of progressive ideals ranks among the most troublesome for those considering a postmodern politics. In a contested postmodern environment where all issues are embedded in multiple discourses, what justification can exist for programs geared to sponsor social justice, based as they have been on universal norms such as ‘human rights’ or ‘natural’ equality before the law? Mark Bevir addresses the problem directly in this chapter making analogies between kinds of organization on the one hand and kinds of political structure on the other. Using Clifford Geertz’s distinction between ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ description, he differentiates between the naturalized justifications of traditional progressive politics, which he aligns with the kind of organization that has singular and relatively explicit agendas, and the political agendas of communities that are constituted by different and competing systems of value; in communities individuals have multiple relationships that necessarily engage them in transgressive functions as different systems of value and claim compete. Post-foundational, postmodern politics valorizes a transgressive or ‘aesthetic’ autonomy because its powers exceed those required by the limited play of rational systems.
