Introduction

This book is part of a larger project to conceptualize and develop a radically democratic approach to governance in a global context. Herein, we explore both empirical evidence of and theoretical barriers to global governance and propose an approach that may be able to overcome those barriers through a more relational and dynamic praxis. Part I provides the foundation from which to launch this theoretical exploration of the barriers to global governance. Here, we introduce basic definitions and the plan of the book. The term “radical” means going to the root or source (as opposed to going to extremes). In reference to democracy, this means grounding theory and practice in the individual subject or world-citizen.1 Radical politics shifts the subject from a unified People or particular group identity to each and every person, and rights are no longer tied to community identity. Radical understandings of democracy move from liberalism’s parties and elected representatives to direct, participatory democracy. Taken together, radical democracy is differentiated from conservative, liberal, and communitarian approaches to democracy. Following Deleuze, we might call this move becoming-democratic (Patton 2005, 64). This project builds a theoretical argument of both critique and affirmation, and offers empirical illustrations. Chapter 2 provides a sketch of our current crisis of sustainability in the global context. It ends with an overview of how contemporary governance theory is responding to this context, summarizing the conversation to which this book responds. By governance, we mean all of the practices used to organize collective action in any societal context, from formal rules and institutions down to unstructured everyday interactions. Governance theory can range from the macro to the micro level of analysis and can be found in the context of both public and private organizations. It is both a political and administrative or management concept that is intra-organizational, inter-organizational, intergovernmental, intersectoral, and international in the contemporary context. By global, we imply that many contemporary problems transcend the boundaries of jurisdictions and nations, thereby demanding global governance of some type. Yet in attempting such actions, we confront grave challenges to identifying globally acceptable approaches. These difficulties are evidenced in a global crisis of sustainability whether considering social, economic, or environmental

indicators. These challenges are also evident in demands for deeper democracy within particular governments and conflicts among governments holding competing worldviews-whether they are declared or not. Chapter 3 establishes the argument that political and administrative theory and practice-the core elements of governance-are framed by assumptions that can be traced back to a variety of philosophical commitments and core beliefs. In short, governance is always a matter of praxis. We argue that ontological concepts provide the foundational assumptions we use to frame our understanding of the world, ourselves, and others. Ontology is embedded in our very thoughts because it is represented in our languages; therefore, it is the grounding for all ideas that follow. To inform our understanding of ontology, we look to diverse sources: philosophy, psychology, sociology, theology, and ethics. Furthermore, rather than limiting our literature review to a handful of leading scholars, we seek to bring at least some marginalized or nontraditional academic voices into the conversation. Our approach is similar to that of Progressive-era pragmatist Mary Follett (2013b), who drew from many disciplines to identify correspondences, correlations, and “cross-fertilizations” (xvii) for the philosophical underpinnings to her governance theories (Stout and Love 2015b). It may be that a different ontology “can be made plausible to more people and accepted by others as a worthy competitor for attention, if we draw upon multiple resources to express it” (Connolly 2011, 9). The goal of this book is to identify the need for a robust philosophical, metaphysical, and physical ontological grounding for a radically democratic approach to governance. Using a broad literature, we construct and explain a typology that provides analogous comparisons across the key conceptual elements that inform and shape governance practices. As explained in Chapter 4, the ideal-type method can be used to compare and contrast approaches and their likely outcomes. In our Governance Typology, we explain in straightforward terms the principal positions that undergird the most common systems of governance, providing a conceptual map for clarifying the full meaning of competing prescriptions. We claim that the elements most important to governance practices are: ontological assumptions and associated language, psychosocial theory, epistemological concepts, belief systems, ethical concepts, political theory, economic theory, and administrative theory. These concepts fit together like the layers of an onion, with ontology at its core. In explaining each ideal-type, we follow a logical congruence from ontological commitment through administrative practice. This conceptual layering approach is consistent with the notion of stratalism —that existence itself is layered in an interconnected fashion (Dziadkowiec 2011, 98). As mediated by language, ontological assumptions are embedded in each conceptual element, each working with the next as building blocks to shape forms of governance. Therefore, to change governance, we may need to work our way through conceptual strata to the anchoring ontological assumptions. In other words, we cannot simply implement change in theory or practice at any other conceptual level while keeping a mismatched ontology-eventually

the ideas or behaviors will revert to congruence with our most fundamental assumptions. By identifying pairs of logically fitting dialectical dualisms in each element, in Part II, Chapters 5-8, we develop four primary governance ideal-types grounded in an understanding of reality as a static, discrete, mechanistic process, along with those that seek more dynamic approaches of either a radically collectivist or individualist nature. We begin with the static state ontologies most familiar in modern Western societies, then move into the less familiar dynamic state ontologies. Chapter 5 explains Hierarchical Governance; Chapter 6 explains Atomistic Governance; Chapter 7 explains Holographic Governance; and Chapter 8 explains Fragmented Governance. Each chapter ends with an illustration to demonstrate how the conceptual elements play out in lived experience. In Part III, Chapters 9-11, we present a critique of these dominant approaches to governance, employing dialectical analysis to reveal the dystopian conditions created by each imagined utopia. Through a careful analysis explained in Chapter 9, we show that each possible position along the ontological continuum has fatal flaws that prevent us from achieving a sustainable future-one that ensures just and fruitful outcomes socially, economically, and environmentally. Differences among the approaches foster mutual critiques, while similarities enable hybrids between ideal-types. Hierarchical and Atomistic Governance are grounded in static ontologies that hold collectivist and individualist assumptions in dialectical tension. Holographic and Fragmented Governance are grounded in dynamic ontologies that carry collectivist and individualist assumptions to their logical extremes, breaking the static continuum into dynamic but opposing poles. These competing qualities create barriers to finding a globally acceptable approach to governance. Adopting any one of these options will fail to achieve universal acceptance and will maintain the polarizing tensions we find in the global governance context. As explained in Chapter 10, resistance and reform efforts tend to push the mainstream static state approaches toward dynamic ontological terrain in what we call the Arc of Reform. This ontological dynamism can foment existential crisis in the individual or societal revolution, potentially causing a leap from one dynamic position to another. However, as explained in Chapter 11, in response to discomfort with instability in the dynamic positions, hegemonic systems typically generate counter-reforms that pull governance back from utopian extremes in what we call the Arc of Reification, forming hybrids that may obfuscate underlying philosophical commitments for manipulative purposes. Together, these chapters develop a deeper understanding of the implications of differing governance approaches, provide a new perspective on governance reform movements, and foster thoughtful choice making among philosophical assumptions. Finding all four primary governance approaches as well as their hybrids to have fatal flaws within the global context, in Part IV we argue that an innovative approach to governance is needed. Chapter 12 explains why a relational process approach may be more fruitful in terms of both experiential and ontological

rationales. As international relations scholar Sergei Prozorov (2014a, 2014b) notes, a universalism that will not produce particular substantive content that can become hegemonic or totalizing is difficult to find. In a globalizing context, the challenge is to provide an ontological grounding that is not dominating in its prescriptions, but rather flexible and culturally inclusive. Such a governance approach will need to meet the principal goals of the primary approaches while avoiding their pitfalls and generating more fruitful outcomes. To craft such an approach, we must locate its core assumptions on ontological terrain. We demonstrate that rather than generating another reified hybrid, an ideal-type can be constructed through a dialectical synthesis of concepts found in the four primary approaches to governance. In Chapter 13, we argue this synthesis would provide a fundamentally different ontological ground while addressing the central concerns of each of the other four ideal-types. We believe this synthesis may provide a better approach to governing social, political, and economic institutions as they interact globally. We call this synthesis approach Integrative Governance following Follett’s (1918, 1919, 1924) use of the term to describe dialectical synthesis in a non-Hegelian fashion (see Stout and Love 2015b). Its concepts can be found in a rapidly growing body of work from a vast array of disciplines and worldviews that share an understanding of reality as a dynamic and relational, organic process-what we call relational process ontology (Stout and Love 2015c). Many scholars argue that a relational process understanding of existence has meaningful and positive implications for public policy and governance. However, these assertions and even prescriptions for alternative approaches typically lack a structure and framework that can anchor them into traditional understandings of governance of groups, organizations, and societies in a manner that can effect change in practice. As public administration scholars, we seek to close the gap between governance practices and emerging understandings of political ontology, which includes assumptions about the nature of human being, identity, and social life (Catlaw 2007a, Howe 2006). We look forward to continuing our project through theoretical development and empirical analysis using the Governance Typology presented herein and encourage others to do so as well. Before embarking, we must note that while this phase of the project is an exercise in speculative philosophy and we draw upon particular philosophers in this project, this is decidedly not a book for scholars who wish to engage other scholars in robust and nuanced conversation about these philosophers’ ideas. Our aim is to foster transdisciplinary cross-pollination by identifying shared concepts that can offer a foundation for broad-based discussion. In ideal-typing, the subtle differences in actual systems of thought or an individual’s full set of propositions are lost in the necessarily broad brushstrokes and the demands for logical coherence across concepts. This is why ideal-types are never real. Presenting intact theories, schools of thought, and actual experience would lead to nuanced argumentation within each element of the typology that would serve to confuse. Actual situations pull the core logics in various directions, creating

hybrids between ideal-types. Where such conflicts in logic are noticeable, we have called out contradictions in the narrative or end notes. The typology is meant to identify basic characteristics, linking them to principal philosophers and theorists for the reader’s further investigation. We make explanations as straightforward as possible to provide a framework for analytical comparison. Therefore, we anticipate that anyone deeply familiar with any of the philosophers and theorists mentioned may challenge our truncated presentation and logical arrangement of ideas. We invite this kind of critical dialogue, yet we have not let such possibilities deter us from our purpose of showing how ontological assumptions weave themselves into our theories and practices, compete for primacy, and generate barriers to global governance.