Essays on Political Possibility: Genealogy, Ideology, and Ideals

我的目标是调查“政治可能性”--广义地讲，我们当前的政治安排可以被挑战、瓦解和富有成效地取而代之的想法。我认为，未能想象其他政治可能性在一定程度上是一个认识性问题。受到政治认识论和正式的社会认识论工作的启发，我希望写出三篇相互关联的文章，每一篇都认为政治可能性的一个障碍：1.谱系--意外事件可能影响我们当前政治信仰的方式(例如，人口统计学)；2.意识形态--如何最好地描绘出可能帮助我们实现政治目标的志同道合的同龄人；3.理想--考察指导我们的政治理想(例如自由、正义、和平)涉及哪些知识主张。我将使用正式工具、模型和分析推理来澄清和探索这些问题。更详细地说，以下是对这三篇论文中每一篇的更详细描述：谱系作为路径依赖：我们信仰或表现的偶然起源可能被认为破坏了它们的地位(斯里尼瓦桑2019)。此外，这种偶然性可能会让人怀疑，随着时间的推移，我们是否会取得一些温和的进展，因为我们似乎受惠于运气。如果我们的政治思想受到偶然性的影响，我们如何随着时间的推移而改进它们？为了研究这一点，我首先使用社会科学中的路径依赖的思想，将谱系学提出的问题正式化。作为主观一致性的意识形态：意识形态(被贬低地理解)或意识形态的虚假意识可以通过阻止团体为他们自己的真正利益而行动来阻碍政治可能性。作为一种解决方案，古丁和斯皮克曼(2015)倡导“认知性团结”--与志同道合的同行共享信息。自那以后，Spiekermann(2020)通过将组形成建模为动态网络变化来研究寻找相似的被索引的同龄人的过程。然而，信念的内容及其之间的关系也可以成为识别同龄人的重要线索。我们怎样才能更好地绘制这些地图呢？通过借鉴政治学中的比例模型和认识论中的连贯论，我希望提供一种解释。无限延伸的理想：在寻找新的政治可能性的过程中，可能会有一些理想指引我们。一些人担心这些理想可能被意识形态玷污，并在掩盖不公正方面发挥作用(Phillips 1992；Mills 2005)。其他人认为，理想对于批判世界是不可或缺的，并为我们提供了一个奋斗的外部标准。要确定这些理想是否可以信赖，它们的认识地位是什么？本文依赖于将这个问题与一个关于无限回归的论点联系起来，这一论点在几个地方已经讨论过(Dummett 1993；Cohen 2003；Ypi 2012；Walden 2019)。

I aim to investigate "political possibility" - broadly, the idea that our current political arrangements can be challenged, dismantled, and replaced fruitfully. I believe that failing to imagine alternative political possibilities is partly an epistemic issue. Inspired by work in political epistemology and formal social epistemology, I hope to produce three connected essays that each consider one obstacle to political possibility:1. Genealogy - The way contingencies may affect our current political beliefs (e.g. demographics);2. Ideology - How best to map like-minded peers that may help us achieve political goals;3. Ideals - Examining what sorts of knowledge claims are involved with the political ideals that guide us (e.g. freedom, justice, peace).I will use formal tools, models, and analytical reasoning to clarify and explore these issues.In more detail, here is a longer description of each of the three essays:Genealogy as Path Dependence:The contingent origins of our beliefs or representations may be thought to undermine their standing (Srinivasan 2019). Moreover, this contingency may cast doubt on a belief in some modest progress over time as we seem to be beholden to luck. If our political ideas are influenced by contingency, how can we improve them over time? To investigate this, I begin by formalising the problems raised by genealogy using the idea of path dependence from the social sciences. Ideology as Subjective Coherence:Ideology (understood pejoratively) or ideological false consciousness can hinder political possibility by preventing groups from acting in their own true interests. As a solution, Goodin and Spiekermann (2015) have advocated for "epistemic solidarity" - information pooling with like-minded peers. Spiekermann (2020) has since investigated the process of finding likemindedpeers by modelling group formation as dynamic network change. However, the content of and relations between beliefs can also be important clues to identifying peers. How can we better map these? By drawing on scaling models in political science and coherentism in epistemology, I hope to offer an account. Indefinitely Extensible Ideals:In the search for new political possibilities, there may be ideals that guide us. Some worry that these ideals may be tainted with ideology and play a role in masking injustice (Phillips 1992; Mills 2005). Others believe ideals are indispensable for critiquing the world and provide us with an external standard to strive for. To determine whether these ideals can be relied upon, what is their epistemic status? This essay relies on connecting the problem with an argument about infinite regresses that has been discussed in several places (Dummett 1993; Cohen 2003; Ypi 2012; Walden 2019).