Books by Samuel Bagg
Oxford University Press (in press), 2023
Papers by Samuel Bagg
Politics & Society, 2023
The growing movement seeking to revive an aggressive, "neo-Brandeisian" approach to antitrust pol... more The growing movement seeking to revive an aggressive, "neo-Brandeisian" approach to antitrust policy sees it partly as a way of protecting democracy against concentrated economic power. Yet on closer inspection, prevailing theories of democracy as collective decision-making offer weak support, at best, for a neo-Brandeisian approach. Rather than abandoning the insight that an aggressive approach to antitrust can help protect democracy, however, this essay argues that we should adjust our theories of democracy to accommodate it. I first show why prevailing accounts are ill suited to explaining the democratic virtues of a neo-Brandeisian approach. I then outline an alternative ideal of democracy-defended in greater detail elsewhere-and draw out its implications for antitrust. While vindicating the intuition that aggressive antitrust policy serves democratic goals, my account also incorporates genuine worries about such an approach, and thus enables neo-Brandeisians to reformulate their democratic ambitions in more precise and promising terms.
American Journal of Political Science, 2022
Random selection for political office-or "sortition"-is increasingly seen as a promising tool for... more Random selection for political office-or "sortition"-is increasingly seen as a promising tool for democratic renewal. Critics worry, however, that replacing elected and appointed officials with randomly selected citizens would only exacerbate elite manipulation of political processes. This article argues that sortition can contribute to democratic renewal, but that its genuine promise is obscured by the excessive ambition and misplaced focus of prevailing models. Casting random selection as a route to accurate representation of the popular will, most contemporary proposals require randomly selected citizens to perform legislative tasks, whose open-endedness grants substantial discretion to elite agenda-setters and facilitators. The real democratic promise of sortition-based reforms, I argue, lies in obstructing elite capture at critical junctures: a narrower task that creates fewer opportunities for elite manipulation. In such contexts, the benefits of empowering ordinary people-resulting from their immunity to certain distorting influences on career officials-plausibly outweigh the risks.
Social Theory and Practice, 2022
This article challenges the association between realist methodology and ideals of legitimacy. Man... more This article challenges the association between realist methodology and ideals of legitimacy. Many who seek a more "realistic" or "political" approach to political theory replace the familiar orientation towards a state of (perfect) justice with a structurally similar orientation towards a state of (sufficient) legitimacy. As a result, they fail to provide more reliable practical guidance, and wrongly displace radical demands. Rather than orienting action towards any state of affairs, I suggest that a more practically useful approach to political theory would directly address judgments, by comparing the concrete possibilities for action faced by real political actors.
Journal of Political Philosophy, 2021
This paper articulates a functionalist account of intra-party democracy (IPD). Like realist criti... more This paper articulates a functionalist account of intra-party democracy (IPD). Like realist critics, we insist that IPD practices be evaluated on the basis of whether they facilitate resistance to domination and capture at the level of the polity as a whole, and therefore accept certain realist worries about IPD. Yet realists neglect the possibility that wealthy interests could control the political agenda by capturing all viable parties simultaneously-and that mass-facing IPD could counter this threat of oligarchic agenda capture. Taking this as the key function of IPD within broader democratic systems, we conclude that inclusionary party reform is less urgent in more flexible party systems, where dissenters are better able to resist this threat from within the framework of inter-party competition. Regardless of the context, meanwhile, we also conclude that mass-facing IPD practices should aim at enabling ordinary members and supporters of a party to resist agenda capture by oligarchic interests. Though we stop short of defending any particular set of reforms, we reject the emphasis of recent IPD advocates on individualized forms of deliberative participation, in favor of a more oppositional and collectively-oriented approach-on the grounds that the latter is more likely to encourage the development of effective institutions of countervailing power.
Journal of Politics, 2021
How might discourse generate political change? So far, democratic theorists have focused largely ... more How might discourse generate political change? So far, democratic theorists have focused largely on how deliberative exchanges might shift political opinion. Responding to empirical research that casts doubt on the generalizability of deliberative mechanisms outside of carefully designed forums, this essay seeks to broaden the scope of discourse theory by considering speech that addresses participants’ identities instead. More specifically, we ask what may be learned about identity-oriented discourse by examining the practice of religious preaching. As we demonstrate, scholars of homiletics—the study of preaching—have identified three core features that support its focus on identity: its unconditionality, its appeal to authoritative texts and traditions, and its diffuse instrumentality. We then ask what each of these features might look like in more straightforwardly political contexts. Finally, we address several normative questions raised by this practice, as a way of exploring the promises and dangers accompanying identity-oriented discourse more generally.
Social Philosophy and Policy, 2021
Contemporary critics of the administrative state are right to highlight the dangers of vesting to... more Contemporary critics of the administrative state are right to highlight the dangers of vesting too much power in a centralized bureaucracy removed from popular oversight and accountability. Too often neglected in this literature, however, are the dangers of vesting too little power in a centralized state, which enables dominant groups to further expand their social and economic advantages through decentralized means. This article seeks to synthesize these concerns, understanding them as reflecting the same underlying danger of state capture. It then articulates a set of heuristics for the design of public and administrative institutions, which aim at minimizing the risks of capture from both public and private sources. By following these heuristics, it claims, we can successfully employ the administrative state as a weapon against concentrated private power, rather than allowing it to serve as a tool of dominant groups.
Perspectives on Politics, 2019
Existing approaches to campaign ethics fail to adequately account for the "arms races" incited by... more Existing approaches to campaign ethics fail to adequately account for the "arms races" incited by competitive incentives in the absence of effective sanctions for destructive behaviors. By recommending scrupulous devotion to unenforceable norms of honesty, these approaches require ethical candidates either to quit or lose. To better understand the complex dilemmas faced by candidates, therefore, we turn first to the tradition of "adversarial ethics," which aims to enable ethical participants to compete while preventing the most destructive excesses of competition. As we demonstrate, however, elections present even more difficult challenges than other adversarial contexts, because no centralized regulation is available to halt potential arms races. Turning next to recent scholarship on populism and partisanship, we articulate an alternative framework for campaign ethics, which allows candidates greater room to maneuver in their appeals to democratic populations while nevertheless requiring adherence to norms of social and political pluralism.
American Political Science Review, 2018
Recent years have witnessed growing controversy over the " wisdom of the multitude. " As epistemi... more Recent years have witnessed growing controversy over the " wisdom of the multitude. " As epistemic critics drawing on vast empirical evidence have cast doubt on the political competence of ordinary citizens, epistemic democrats have offered a defense of democracy grounded largely in analogies and formal results. So far, I argue, the critics have been more convincing. Nevertheless, democracy can be defended on instrumental grounds, and this essay demonstrates an alternative approach. Instead of implausibly upholding the epistemic reliability of average voters, I observe that competitive elections, universal suffrage, and discretionary state power disable certain potent mechanisms of elite entrenchment. By reserving particular forms of power for the multitude of ordinary citizens, they make democratic states more resistant to dangerous forms of capture than non-democratic alternatives. My approach thus offers a robust defense of electoral democracy, yet cautions against expecting too much from it—motivating a thicker conception of democracy, writ large.
European Journal of Political Theory, 2018
Reading Foucault's work on power and subjectivity alongside "developmentalist" approaches to evol... more Reading Foucault's work on power and subjectivity alongside "developmentalist" approaches to evolutionary biology, this paper endorses poststructuralist critiques of political ideals grounded in the value of subjective agency. Many political theorists embrace such critiques, of course, but those who do are often skeptical of liberal democracy, and even of normative theory itself. By contrast, those who are left to theorize liberal democracy tend to reject or ignore poststructuralist insights, and have continued to employ dubious ontological assumptions regarding human agents. Against both groups, I argue that Foucault's poststructuralism must be taken seriously, but that it is ultimately consistent with normative theory and liberal democracy. Linking poststructuralist attempts to transcend the dichotomy between agency and structure with recent efforts by evolutionary theorists to dissolve a similarly stubborn opposition between nature and nurture, I develop an anti-essentialist account of human nature and agency that vindicates poststructuralist criticism while enabling a novel defense of liberal democracy.
Political Studies Review, 2018
This essay considers Jeremy Waldron's recent contribution to a growing conversation about how to ... more This essay considers Jeremy Waldron's recent contribution to a growing conversation about how to make political theory and philosophy more responsive to real politics—Political Political Theory (2016)—in light of his broader body of work, especially Law and Disagreement (1999). I argue that rather than providing a genuine alternative to the idealization and abstraction characteristic of what Waldron labels the "justice industry," he uses the concept of what counts as properly "political" to grant nearly absolute priority to a certain class of concerns over others. This strategy places him in the company of a long line of liberal theorists, but it does not necessarily make his theory more political than its rivals. His alternative simply focuses its idealization and abstraction on the ideal of legitimacy rather than justice.
Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 2017
In recent years, some have claimed that a Darwinian perspective will revolutionize the study of h... more In recent years, some have claimed that a Darwinian perspective will revolutionize the study of human society and culture. This project is viewed with disdain and suspicion, on the other hand, by many practicing social scientists. This paper seeks to clears the air in this heated debate by dissociating two claims which are too often assumed to be inseparable. The first is the "ontological" claim that Darwinian principles apply, at some level of abstraction, to human society and culture. The second is the more "pragmatic" claim that this observation necessitates substantial changes in the practices of social scientists. Even if some version of the first claim is true, I argue—which I believe is quite likely—the second does not follow. This observation ought to chasten the most overzealous advocates of Darwinian social science, as well as softening the instinctive resistance of many social scientists and historians to the genuine insights enabled by a Darwinian approach. The conclusion discusses these insights, the most important of which is a methodological prescription for normative theory.
Political Research Quarterly, 2016
Over the last decade, a call for greater "realism" in political theory has challenged the goals a... more Over the last decade, a call for greater "realism" in political theory has challenged the goals and methods which are implicit in much contemporary "normative" theory. However, realists have yet to produce a convincing alternative research program that is "constructive" rather than primarily "critical" in nature. I argue that given their common wariness of a devotion to abstract principles, realists should consider adopting John Dewey's vision of theoretical expertise as an expansive kind of prediction that engages all of our historical, scientific, and imaginative resources. After demonstrating that realists are in need of such an affirmative vision, I outline Dewey's original proposal, and elaborate its value in contemporary circumstances as a "predictive" method for political theory that stands between familiar critical and normative approaches.
European Journal of Political Theory, 2015
Most democratic theorists agree that concentrations of wealth and power tend to distort the funct... more Most democratic theorists agree that concentrations of wealth and power tend to distort the functioning of democracy, and ought to be countered wherever possible. Deliberative democrats are no exception: though not its only potential value, the capacity of deliberation to “neutralize power” is often regarded as “fundamental” to deliberative theory. Power may be neutralized, according to many deliberative democrats, if citizens can be induced to commit more fully to the deliberative resolution of common problems. If they do, they will be unable to get away with inconsistencies and bad or private reasons, thereby mitigating the illegitimate influence of power. I argue, however, that the means by which power inflects political disagreement is far more subtle than this model suggests, and cannot be countered so simply. As a wealth of recent research in political psychology demonstrates, human beings persistently exhibit “motivated reasoning,” meaning that even when we are sincerely committed to the deliberative resolution of common problems, and even when we are exposed to the same reasons and evidence, we still disagree strongly about what “fair cooperation” entails. Motivated reasoning can be counteracted, but only under exceptional circumstances such as those that enable modern science, which cannot be reliably replicated in our society at large. My analysis suggests that in democratic politics – which rules out the kind of anti-democratic practices available to scientists – we should not expect deliberation to reliably neutralize power.
Atheism and Secularity, Jan 1, 2009
1 In December of 2007, the leader of Britain's Liberal Democratic Party told a reporter that he d... more 1 In December of 2007, the leader of Britain's Liberal Democratic Party told a reporter that he did not believe in God. It caused a minor stir in the papers, but nothing came of it. In fact, it was quickly forgotten -far more notable that month was Tony Blair's long-awaited conversion to Catholicism. Hardly anyone was surprised or upset that Nick Clegg, the leader of Britain's third-largest party, was an atheist: the only curiosity was his choice to make that public. Faith of any kind tends to be treated as a private matter in Britain, so the public declarations of both Clegg and Blair were regarded as "unusual." 1 While a British politician's secular political beliefs must of course be considered by his constituents, his religious convictions are typically kept quiet -they could only distract from the important political issues. To a Briton, this all makes perfect sense: religion, or the lack of it, is simply irrelevant to policy-making. In fact, its recent prominence, exemplified by Blair's public faith, is widely seen as an infringement of some kind on the natural British system.
Yale Philosophy Review
What can science say to moral philosophy? Not much, according to most moral philosophers. In a ce... more What can science say to moral philosophy? Not much, according to most moral philosophers. In a certain way, they are right -the is/ought divide cannot be crossed any more easily now than centuries ago. This paper argues, however, that a scientific investigation of our moral nature reveals the traditional scope of moral philosophy to be far too narrow. Modern moral theories like deontology and consequentialism typically focus entirely on influencing the process of moral reasoning, disregarding the emotional and motivational processing that determines moral output in most cases. Instead of relying on rational rules to guide us through every dilemma, this paper argues that we should turn to a scientifically informed virtue ethics in order to craft better people and more humane societies.
Encyclopedia Articles by Samuel Bagg
In its most general form, the question of political legitimacy is a question about why anyone is ... more In its most general form, the question of political legitimacy is a question about why anyone is allowed to tell anyone else what to do. When is it right – or “legitimate” – for one person or social body to rule over another? This is a question that some have deemed the most fundamental in all of political philosophy. If I am an individual with rights over my life, liberty, and property, then why am I subject to the coercive authority of a powerful state? Why should I obey my government rather than rising up in revolt? Are there reasons for obeying the law other than those grounded in a self-interested desire to avoid punishment? The term “legitimacy” has many meanings and uses, political and nonpolitical. This entry canvasses some of this diversity among the political uses of the term, and asks: How did the discourse of legitimacy arise? What have been its stakes? How should we define it? And how does the use to which it is put affect this process of definition? The entry emphasizes that these questions cannot be answered in isolation from one another, and that there are no “right” answers to questions about the definition of terms. However, analysis of the diversity of definitions is both politically and philosophically productive.
Book Reviews by Samuel Bagg
European Journal of Political Theory, 2021
Camila Vergara’s Systemic Corruption is an extraordinarily rich, provocative and original work of... more Camila Vergara’s Systemic Corruption is an extraordinarily rich, provocative and original work of political theory, which makes several compelling interventions in the normative literature. It develops a forceful critique of overly narrow definitions of corruption, insisting that a more ‘systemic’ conception is required in order to grasp the scale of oligarchic domination in contemporary democracies. It also points out the limitations of the ‘proceduralist’ model of contestation adopted by neo-republicans, and outlines a persuasive conception of the people as a partisan actor with specific interests to defend. Yet Vergara’s alternative vision of how popular power might be institutionalized is less convincing. Though she rightly insists on the importance of organized countervailing power and plebeian solidarity, the system of nested local assemblies that she proposes is not well-suited to foster the development of either.
Political Theory, 2020
Democratic theory is a highly diverse field, ranging across history, philosophy, critical theory,... more Democratic theory is a highly diverse field, ranging across history, philosophy, critical theory, comparative politics, and law. Nevertheless, democratic theorists typically share an overlapping set of questions. What is the value of competitive elections and other key democratic institutions?
Review of Politics, 2020
of the early 20th century, with a prolific career spanning seven decades from the 1880s to his de... more of the early 20th century, with a prolific career spanning seven decades from the 1880s to his death in 1952. A foundational figure in fields as diverse as psychology, education, sociology, and philosophy, he was also a frequent contributor to public debates, and his collected works run to thirty-seven hefty volumes.
Uploads
Books by Samuel Bagg
Papers by Samuel Bagg
Encyclopedia Articles by Samuel Bagg
Book Reviews by Samuel Bagg