Secession has been noticeably absent from International Relations theory although its role in the creation and recognition of states is clearly relevant. Traditionally, the dominant perspectives in IR have not questioned state formation and this has effectively barred secession as a topic since it cannot be thoroughly treated without looking across the inside/outside divide of state sovereignty. Secession must be placed in its historical context-as a phenomenon only possible in the modern era and only perceived as a global threat in this century. Theorists from other disciplines who have discussed secession have relied on a problem-solving theoretical perspective which has kept them from considering secession as an outcome of problematic assumptions about identity and territory in the international system. In contrast, a critical theoretical perspective, which affirms the constitutive processes of historical discourse allows an analysis of secession which exposes the contingency of its basic assumptions. Historicising the territorial state allows us to recognise the different structures of political power through which we have already passed and thus to theorise about different forms for the future. The secessionist imperative narrates the boundaries of a specific people who must be secured by a territorial state. Textual analysis of secessionist documents reveals that the narrative strategies they employ are exclusionist and historically short-sighted. Recognising identity as a continuous and relational process is a necessary step towards a post-territorialist order. If different forms of political space are practiced, democracy must also be re-theorised. There is no single model which can guarantee peaceful democratic politics since ambiguity and conflict are inherent in the political process itself and must be encouraged. However, an understanding of the intersubjective processes through which we have generated our present day politics of territory and identity can open up the theoretical space required for alternative politics.

Medborgardialoger är ett allt vanligare inslag inom planering, och framhålls ofta som ett viktigt verktyg för att främja den lokala demokratin och medborgarnas inflytande över planeringen. Inte sällan finns det stora förväntningar på medborgardialogers potential, då inte bara för ökad demokrati, utan även på den ska bidra till en ökad effektivitet i planeringsprocessen eller ge legitimitet till ett planförslag. Samtidigt är syftena med specifika dialogprojekt ofta är oklart definierade, och många dialogprojekt lider av problem med bristande representativitet och lågt inflytande över den fortsatta planeringen. Stadskärnan i Sundbyberg norr om Stockholm ska genomgå stora förändringar i och med att Mälarbanan kommer dras ner i tunnel och Sundbybergs stad har arbetat med en vision för den nya stadskärnan sedan våren 2013. En del av det arbetet har handlat om att genomföra ett dialogprojekt för att ge Sundbybergsborna en möjlighet att bidra till visionen. För att bättre nå unga i det arbetet genomfördes idétävlingen Ung C Sundbyberg under våren 2015. Jag har gjord en kvalitativ fallstudie över Ung C Sundbyberg som ett atypiskt fall av ambitiösa dialogprojekt som riktar sig specifikt mot unga, med syftet att få en djupare förståelse för spelrummet i frågeställningen och motiven bakom dialogprocesser, då särskilt ungdomsdeltagande. Genom fältstudier där jag närvarat på, gjort observationer och till en begränsad del deltagit i fem workshopar som genomförts i den första deltävlingen i Ung C Sundbyberg söker jag svara på frågor om varför unga var en viktig grupp att nå, hur tävlingsuppgiften ramades in av processledarna och hur tävlingen förhöll sig till ideal om hur en ”god” dialog ska uppnås. Trots de initiala ambitionerna med tävlingen går det inte att förstå fallet som en medborgardialog som ska bidra till ett större demokratiskt inflytande över visionsarbetet för Sundbybergs nya stadskärna. En del av materialet tyder också på att intresset för ungdomar som grupp går att ifrågasätta, istället handlar det snarare om ett dialogarbete nära besläktat med marknadsundersökningar, med ambitioner att skapa uppmärksamhet kring stadsomvandlingen i Sundbyberg. / Citizen dialogues are an increasingly common feature in planning, and are frequently declared to be an important tool to promote local democracy and citizens' influence in the planning. Not seldom, there are great expectations for the potential of citizen dialogue, not only for increased democracy, but also on contributions to an increased efficiency in planning or better legitimacy to a propose plan. At the same time the objectives of the specific dialogue projects are often vaguely defined, and numerous dialogue projects suffer from problems with lack of representativeness and low influence on the future planning. The city centre of Sundbyberg, north of Stockholm will undergo major changes when Mälarbanan will be drawn down into a tunnel, and Sundbybergs stad has worked with a vision for the new city centre since spring 2013. Part of the work has focused on implementing a dialogue project to give residents in Sundbyberg an opportunity to contribute to the vision. To better reach young people in the work with this vision, an idea competition called Ung C Sundbyberg was carried out in the spring of 2015. I have made a qualitative case study of Ung C Sundbyberg as an atypical case of ambitious dialogue projects aimed specifically at young people, with the aim to gain a deeper understanding of the scope of, and motives behind the dialogue process, and especially youth participation. Through field studies where I attended and made observations at, and to a limited extent participated in five workshops conducted in the first round of Ung C Sundbyberg I seek to answer questions about why young people was an important group to reach, how the competition task was framed by the process managers and how the competition is related to ideals of how a "good" dialogue can be achieved. Despite the initial ambitions of the competition, you cannot understand the case as a citizen dialogue that will contribute to greater democratic control over the visionary work of Sundbyberg's new city centre. Some of the material also suggests that the interest in young people as a group is questionable, rather it is more about the dialogue work is closely related to market research, with ambitions to draw attention to urban transformation in Sundbyberg.

Academics, experts and politicians have come to the conclusion that democracy is in trouble. The contemporary understanding is that new competitive pressures from the outside and unruly publics from the inside have drastically changed the way politics is enacted. Where it was previously provoked by ideological programs it is now engulfed in issues, and where it used to be framed by established democratic institutions it is now characterized by informal governance arrangements. In this environment, it is argued, only the reformed institution can bridge the gap between politics and democracy and restore legitimacy to the decision-making process. In Swedish planning, these reforms have positioned the citizen as the point of departure for democratic politics, manifested in procedural citizen dialogues and in authorities’ relinquishment of political responsibilities. But when unplanned publics do emerge, they are intuitively dismissed as NIMBYs and obstacles to the planning process – preemptively foreclosing opportunities for public democratic enactment. The aim of this paper is to analyze this process by examining the public controversy surrounding the ongoing redevelopment of Slakthusområdet in southern Stockholm. It draws heavily on Noortje Marres’ work. She suggests that politics pursued outside of established institutions could be occasions for democracy since the activity might indicate that issues are finding sites that are hospitable to their articulation as matters of public concern. However, her issue-focused reasoning also positions the citizen as the focal point for democratic politics, meaning that those who fail to accept this role inevitably have themselves to blame. Her work is therefore supplement­ed with Laurent Thévenot’s understanding of how forms, that is, ideals, rules, and procedures, can be just as important as issues in informing the decisions among actors. Through interviews with those involved, this paper highlights the ease in which the city disarticulates the attempts at public democratic enactment, a proficiency largely stemming from its “reformed” management form. Moreover, while the public finally managed to settle their issue at stake, it came with the substantial cost of eroded faith in democracy. Drawing on this, the paper concludes that both issues and forms, publics and the public sector, are crucial in facilitating the enactment of democratic politics.

Thesis advisor: M Cathleen Kaveny / This dissertation examines the question of whether a politics of the common good remains possible within contemporary democratic societies, characterized by deep pluralism, division, and contention. To engage this question, it draws on the moral and theological framework of the Catholic common good tradition, and employs that framework to identify, analyze, and theorize a real, practical exemplar of common good politics: the democratic tradition of community organizing founded by Saul Alinsky. By placing these two traditions of practice and theory in sustained dialogue for the first time, this study contributes toward a new understanding of each, while developing an original constructive account of the “politics of the common good.” Chapter 1 introduces Catholic common good theory as a framework of ethical analysis and assesses its current state of development. It argues that while contemporary Catholic thinkers have articulated a rich moral vision of the common good, and reconceived it in democratic terms, they have struggled to adequately account for the role of power conflict in political life. Chapter 2 places the Catholic common good tradition in dialogue with the Alinsky tradition. Analyzing the life, work, and methodology of its controversial founder, Saul Alinsky, it traces his deep relationship to the Catholic church and shows how he sought to embody the Catholic tradition’s vision of the common good in democratic practice, while imbuing it with a greater degree of political realism and attentiveness to power. Chapter 3 offers a historical and ethical analysis of Alinsky-style community organizing as a practice and dynamically developing tradition of democratic politics. Drawing on Alasdair MacIntyre’s practice theory, it shows how organizing forms the moral virtues, practical skills, and political institutions needed to promote the common good in a democratic society. It also further articulates the Alinsky tradition’s historical and intellectual relationship to the Catholic tradition. Chapter 4 examines how community organizing exemplifies a democratic form of political prudence. Reconstructing Thomas Aquinas’s theory of prudence, and employing it to analyze two real case studies of organizing campaigns, it develops a constructive account of political prudence as the virtue that enables morally principled and pragmatically effective collective action for the common good in the public realm. Chapter 5 synthesizes the results of the preceding chapters. It argues that prudent political action, and not merely public deliberation, is the social process by which to promote the common good, social justice, and social solidarity in a democratic society. Integrating key insights from both the Catholic tradition and the Alinsky tradition, it clarifies the role of power conflict in the pursuit of the common good, and identifies further areas for theoretical development. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Theology.

This thesis shows how democratic politics requires a commitment to pluralism as engagement and encounter of the other in their otherness. I contend that it is necessary to commit to such an idea of pluralism because of the problem of incomplete understanding. I establish this premise by drawing on Hans-Georg Gadamer’s account of human finitude. Based on this premise, I argue that the instantiation of Gadamer’s principle of openness leads democratic politics to pluralism as engagement and encounter of the other. Further, I develop accounts of asymmetric reciprocity, reflexivity, and agonism as modes of democratic politics that instantiate the principle of openness. In chapter 1, I establish discourse as a necessary element for democratic politics by drawing from the way Jurgen Habermas uses ‘discourse ethics’ to address the problems of understanding in plural societies. In chapter 2, I demonstrate how incomplete understanding poses a problem for discourse and gives rise to interpretive conflicts by drawing from Gadamer’s account of human finitude. Here I also develop an account of openness as a suitable principle for beings with incomplete understanding based on Gadamer’s idea of hermeneutical experience. In chapters 3-5, I develop accounts of asymmetric reciprocity, reflexivity, and agonism as modes of democratic politics that instantiate the principle of openness. I do so by drawing from Iris Young’s, John Dryzek’s, and Chantal Mouffe’s approaches to the problems that plurality poses to discourse ethics and democratic politics.

No description available.