No God, No Caesar, No Tribune! . . .: Cornelius Castoriadis Interviewed by Daniel Mermet - Volume 15, Issue 1, Fall 2010
www.pdcnet.org
In this interview, Cornelius Castoriadis explains and develops many of the central themes in his later writings on politics and social criticism. In particular, he poignantly articulates his critique of contemporary pseudo-democracy, while advocating a form of democracy founded on collective education and self-government. He also explores how the “insignificance” in the current political arena relates to insignificance in other areas, such as the arts and philosophy, to form the core feature of our Zeitgeist. Finally, he seeks to break through the ideological fog of liberalism and privatization in order to voice a radical appeal for an autonomous, self-limiting society.

An important part of the argument is whether random people would have the expertise. But sortition does not exclude having experts do their jobs.

D.M.: Your colleague and accomplice, Edgar Morin, talks about the generalist and the specialist. Politics requires both: the generalist who knows next to nothing about a little of everything, and the specialist who knows everything about a single thing but not the rest. How is a good citizen made?

C.C.: This dilemma has been posed since Plato. Plato said that the philosophers, who are above the specialists, must rule. In Plato’s theory, they have a view of ev- erything. The other alternative was Athenian democracy. What were the Athenians up to? Indeed, something very interesting. It’s the Greeks who invented elections. It’s a historically attested fact. Perhaps they were wrong, but they invented elec- tions! Who was being elected in Athens? The magistrates weren’t being elected. The magistrates were being appointed by drawing lots or by rotation. For Aristotle, remember, a citizen is someone who is capable of governing and being governed. Everyone is capable of governing, so lots are drawn. Why? Because politics is not the business of specialists. There is no science of [26] politics. There is opinion, the doxa of the Greeks; there’s no episteme.9 I’d like to point out, moreover, that the idea that there aren’t specialists of politics and that all opinions are of equal worth is the only reasonable justification for the principle of the majority. Thus, for the Greeks, the people decide and the magistrates are chosen by drawing lots or appointed by rotation. There are specialized activities because the Athenians weren’t crazy. Indeed, they did rather significant things; they made the Parthenon, etc. For these specialized activities—the setting up of shipyards, the construction of temples, the waging of war—specialists are necessary. Therefore, such special- ists are elected. That’s what an election is, because “election” means election of the best. And what is the election of the best based on? Well, that’s where the education of the people comes in, since they are led to choose. A first election takes place, a mistake is made, it’s noticed, for example, that Pericles is a deplorable strategist; well, then, he is not re-elected, or he’s even dismissed. But the postulate accord- ing to which doxa, opinion, is equally shared, is of course an entirely theoretical postulate. For this postulate to have a bit of substance, doxa most be cultivated. And [27] how can a doxa concerning the government be cultivated? Well, through governing. So democracy—this is what’s important—is a matter of educating citizens, something that does not exist at all today.