Abstract
AbstractPublic discourse and theoretical literature currently show controversy on the value of political compromise: some oppose it, others welcome it, and on both sides, arguments differ. The different positions in these debates on compromise build on particular understandings of what politics is all about (four understandings are distinguished: Pragmatist, Principled, Agonist and Deliberative). These understandings oppose one another and are even mutually exclusive. An encompassing position that combines elements from these different approaches is needed to bring us beyond this situation of controversy and take the debate on compromise a step further. In this paper, I show that Paul Ricoeur’s understanding of politics and of the role of compromising therein offers such a perspective. His work combines elements of the different positions, provides an understanding of compromise and implies lessons for compromising.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Philosophy,Sociology and Political Science
Reference43 articles.
1. Assayag-Gillot, L. (2018). Le Compromis Selon Paul Ricoeur. Négociations, 29(1), 103–120.
2. Bellamy, R. (2012). Democracy, compromise and the representation paradox: Coalition government and political integrity. Government and Opposition, 47(3), 441–465.
3. Bellamy, R., Kornprobst, M., & Reh, C. (2012). Introduction: Meeting in the middle. Government and Opposition., 47(3), 275–295.
4. Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the difference. Compromise and Integrity in ethics and politics. University Press of Kansas.
5. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification: les economies de la grandeur. Paris Gallimard.