Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:29:20.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limits of Political Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

HOWARD SCHWEBER
HOWARD SCHWEBER*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
*
Howard Schweber is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A representation is always a selective and limited reproduction of the thing represented, an idea captured in the metaphor of a map. What is left out of a representation is as important as what is included. A specifically political conception of representation implies limits to the scope of that conception, the nature and character of the represented constituency, and the relationship between constituent and representative, irrespective of variations in institutional design and practice. The limits of political representation reflect normative commitments; consequently, a focus on those limits is central to an evaluation of representative practices. While it is important to look beyond familiar institutional forms, excessively inclusive descriptions of “representative,” “constituency,” or “representation” deprive those conceptions of their substantive content. The limits of political representation are not defects to be overcome by an ever-expanding definition of representation, they are an essential focus in the normative or empirical analysis of representative institutions and practices.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 382 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Ankersmit, Franklin R. 2002. Political Representation (Cultural Memory in the Present). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Jason Edward. 2003. “Extending the Rights of Personhood, Voice, and Life to Sensate Others: A Homology of Right to Life and Animal Rights Rhetoric.” Communication Quarterly, 51 (3): 312–31.Google Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. 1893. Sylvie and Bruno Concluded. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, 1998, “Democracy and Liberty” in Deliberative Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon. New York: Cambridge University Press: 185–231.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua and Rogers, Joel. 1992. “Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.” Politics and Society 20 (4): 393–472.Google Scholar
Coleman, Jules. 2001. The Practice of Principle: In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeMello, Margo, ed. 2013. Speaking for Animals: Animal Autobiographical Writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2012. “The Constructivist Turn in Political Representation.” Contemporary Political Theory 11: 114–8.Google Scholar
Dobson, Andrew. 2010. “Democracy and Nature: Speaking and Listening.” Political Studies 58 (4): 752–68.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Niemeyer, Simon. 2008. “Discursive Representation.” American Political Science Review 102: 481–93.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Niemeyer, Simon. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Kris. 2012. “Voice and Trust in Parliamentary Representation,” Electoral Studies 30: 1–13.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1997. Freedom's Law: the Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S., and Luskin, Robert C.. 2000. “The Quest for Deliberative Democracy.” In Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association, ed. Saward, Michael. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard, Graber, Mark, and Whittington, Keith. 2013. American Constitutionalism, Vol. 2 (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2004. “Representing Diversity.” British Journal of Political Science 34: 453–68.Google Scholar
Green, Jeffrey. 2011. The Eyes of the People: Democracy in an Age of Spectatorship. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanisch, Carol. 2006. “The Personal Is Political.” http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PersonalisPol.pdf, accessed April 2, 2016Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1997. The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Paul. 1997. From Statism to Pluralism: Democracy, Civil Society, and Global Politics. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, Gary. 2003. The Wheel of Law: India's Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Perspective. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. 2003. “Beyond the Hart/Dworkin Debate: the Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 48: 17–51.Google Scholar
Lerner, Hannah. 2011. Making Constitutions in Deeply Divided Societies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levrau, Francois, and Loobuyck, Patrick. 2013. “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Social Cohesion or Redistribution?” Political Quarterly 84: 101–9.Google Scholar
Lijphardt, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphardt, Arendt. 1991. “Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages,” British Journal of Political Science 21: 235–46.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J., and Steppan, Alfred. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, Christopher, and Pollak, Johannes. 2013. “The Pitfalls of Representation as Claims-Making in the European Union.” European Integration 35: 517–30.Google Scholar
Lorsch, Jay W. 2012. The Future of Boards: Meeting the Governance Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Madison, James, Jay, John, and Hamilton, Alexander. 1788. Federalist Papers, available at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa55.htm. Last viewed 3 July, 2014.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” The Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97: 515–28.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2011. “Clarifying Representation.” American Political Science Review 105: 621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravall, Jose Maria. 2010. “Accountability in Coalition Governments.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marien, Sofie. 2011. “The Effect of Electoral Outcomes on Political Trust: A Multi-Level Analysis of 23 Countries,” Electoral Studies 30: 712–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markell, Patchen. 2003. Bound by Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, Michael. 1999. Environmental Democracy. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Mills, Mike. 1996. “Green Democracy: The Search for an Ethical Solution.” In Democracy and Green Political Thought: Sustainability, Rights and Citizenship, eds. Doherty, Brian and de Geus, Marius. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pharr, Susan, and Putnam, Robert D.. 2000. Disaffected Democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2001. “On the Authority and Interpretation of Constitutions: Some Preliminaries.” In Constitutionalism, ed. Alexander, Larry. New York: Cambridge University Press 152–93.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy, and Institutional Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214–30.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2011. “The Concepts of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105: 631–41.Google Scholar
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2008. Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossteutscher, Sigrid. 2000. “Associate democracy—fashionable slogan or constructive innovation?” In Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association, ed. Saward, Michael. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rubenfeld, Jeb. 2001. Freedom and Time: A Theory of Constitutional Self-government. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1998. “When are Interests Interesting?” In Phillips, Anne ed. Feminism and Politics: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 161–92.Google Scholar
Sargisson, Lucy. 2013. “A Democracy of All Nature: Taking a Utopian Approach.” Politics 33: 124–34.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 1993. “Green Democracy.” In Dobson, A. and Lucardie, P., eds., The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory. London: Routledge, 63–80.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2006. “Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Thought 5: 297–318.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2014. “Shape-Shifting Representation.” American Political Science Review 108: 723–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawer, Marian. 2000. “Parliamentary Representation of Women: From Discourses of Justice to Strategies of Accountability,” International Political Science Review 21: 361–80.Google Scholar
Schama, Simon. 1995. Landscape and Memory. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Schudson, M. 1997. “Why Conversation is Not the Soul of Democracy,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 14: 297–309.Google Scholar
Schweber, Howard. 2007. The Language of Liberal Constitutionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schweber, Howard. 2011. Democracy and Authenticity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., and Mishler, William. 2005. “An Integrated Model of Women's Representation” Journal of Politics 67: 407–28.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew. 2005. “Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns.” French Politics 3: 323–51.Google Scholar
Siaroff, Alan. 1999. “Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement,” European Journal of Political Research 36: 175–205.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven M. 2000. “Positive Theories of Congressional Parties.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 193–216.Google Scholar
Squires, Judith. 2000., “Group Representation, Deliberation, and the Displacement of Dichotomies.” In Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association, ed. Saward, Michael. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C., Dunning, Thad, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Brusco, Valeria. 2013. Broker, Voters, and Clientilism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stout, Lynn, 2012. The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public. San Francisco: Brett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Taylor, Rupert ed. 2009. Consociational Theory: McGarry and O'Leary and the Northern Ireland Conflict. New York, Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, Simon. 2012. “Making Representations: Comments on Michael Saward's ‘The Representative Claim’.” Contemporary Political Theory 11 (1): 111–14.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2000. “Veto Players and Institutional Analysis,” Governance 13: 441–74.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2004. “Recognition and Dialogue: The Emergence of a New Field.” International Review of Social and Political Philosophy 7: 84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2008. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth and the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wagnerud, Lena. 2009. “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 51–69.Google Scholar
Weiner, Gregory. 2012. Madison's Metronome: The Constitution, Majority Rule, and the Tempo of American Politics. Lawrence, KS: Kansas University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zumbrunnen, John. 2008. Silence and Democracy: Athenian Politics in Thucydides’ History. University Station, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.