Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-gx2m9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T01:08:27.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theorizing about Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Michael Saward
Michael Saward*
Affiliation:
department of politics and international studies at the University of Warwick
*
E-mail: m.j.saward@warwick.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

How can we theorize about democracy? We can identify the major topics that form the focus of democratic theorists (and others traversing the field), such as democracy's meaning and value. This article focuses on the methodological lenses through which the topics have been and can be viewed. Different lenses bring into focus different phenomena, questions, and problems of democracy. It is argued that the lenses that bring conventional democratic theory approaches into view can provide an unnecessarily narrow and restrictive perspective. Donning different methodological lenses can introduce alternative perspectives, such as renewed attention to value pluralism and the “everyday.” The article sketches four “circles” that capture different potential types of and sources for theoretical work, some of them radically unconventional. It concludes by discussing the specific example of how methods and assumptions of design theory can prompt promising new approaches to theorizing about democracy.

Keywords

democratic theorydesign theorymethodological innovationtheory and methodology

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Berghahn Books 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Borges, J. L. 2001. The Book of Sand and Shakespeare's Memory. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Brown, T., with B., Katz. 2009. Change by Design. Cambridge, UK: Harper Business.Google Scholar
Bueger, C., and F., Gadinger. 2014. International Practice Theory: New Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carens, J. H. 2004. “A Contextual Approach to Political Theory.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (2): 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. 2011. Design Thinking. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. 2012. “Continuous Institutional Innovation and the Pragmatic Conception of Democracy.” Polity 44 (4): 609–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. 2000. “The World in Pieces: Culture and Politics at the End of the Century.” In Available Light. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., and D., Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 2018. “‘An Interesting Paper but Not Sufficiently Theoretical’: What Does Theorising in Social Research Look Like?” Methodological Innovations 11 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekman, S. 1997. “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited.” Signs 22 (2): 341–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, D. 2006. Models of Democracy, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hendriks, F. 2010. Vital Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S. P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Pres).Google Scholar
Le Guin, U. 2002. The Dispossessed. London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
List, C., and L., Valentini. 2016. “The Methodology of Political Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology, ed. H., Cappelen, T. Szabo, Gendler, and J., Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 525-553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, A. 2019. “The Politics of Makarrata: Understanding Indigenous-Settler Relations in Australia.” Political Theory. doi.org/10.1177/0090591719849023.Google Scholar
Lury, C., and N., Wakeford. 2012. Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacPherson, C. B. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G., and J. P., Olsen. 2008. “Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism.’” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. S. A., Binder, R. A. W., Rhodes and B. A., Rockman. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 3-20.Google Scholar
Mattingley, C. 2019. “Defrosting Concepts, Destabilizing Doxa: Critical Phenomenology and the Perplexing Particular.” Anthropological Theory 19 (4): 415–439. doi.org/10.1177/1463499619828568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolini, D. 2009. “Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections.” Organisation Studies 30 (12): 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, J. 2001. “Representing People, Representing Nature, Representing the World.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19 (4): 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, E. A. Jr. 1973. The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Puusemp, R. 1980. Beyond Art: Dissolution of Rosendale, NY (Highland Art Agents). Reprinted by Project Press, Grazer Kunstverein and Utah Museum of Contemporary Art, 2012.Google Scholar
Rollo, T. 2018. “Back to the Rough Ground: Textual, Oral and Enactive Meaning in Comparative Political Theory.” European Journal of Political Theory. doi.org/10.1177/1474885118795284.Google Scholar
Saward, M. forthcoming 2020. Making Representations. London: Rowman and Littlefield/ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, F. 1998. Democracy in Translation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. 2011. “Diagnosing and Designing Democracy in Europe.” In The Future of Representative Democracy, ed. S., Alonso, J., Keane, and W., Merkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 191-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, K. 2010. Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.Google Scholar
Vezzoli, F. 2007. Democrazy. Milan: Electa.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. 1994. Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Warren, M. E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 111, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, S. 1994. “Fugitive Democracy.” Constellations 1 (1): 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar