All
 
|
 
 


Epistemocracy: a utopian project or the model of the state in knowledge societies?
 
PIIS102694520029299-9-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520029299-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Svetlana A. Khmelevskaya 
Occupation: Professor of philosophy at the Department of Philosophy of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Philosophy at Lomonosov Moscow state University
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow state University
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Gulnara Ruchkina
Occupation: Dean, Faculty of Law
Affiliation: Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Russian Federation
Dmitrii N. Ermakov
Occupation: Chief Researcher at the Center for World Politics and Strategic Analysis
Affiliation: Federal State Autonomous Institution of Science "Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences"
Address: Russia
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 12
Pages204-213
Abstract

The article analyzes the concept of epistemocracy as a variant of a utopian project of building a society in which political power is distributed on the basis of knowledge and political competence, and the problem of a “bad” (ignorant, poorly informed) voter, whose wrong choice during voting, according to the developers of the concept, can lead to negative consequences, is solved by his education. The idea is substantiated that, on the one hand, this concept meets the intentions of building knowledge societies as a global trend enshrined in UNESCO materials and documents, and, on the other hand, has a number of alarming moments, in particular, related to the introduction of restrictions on universal suffrage for “bad” voters.

Keywordsepistemocracy, knowledge, information, educational qualification, utopia, knowledge societies, expert democracy, democracy, political power, electoral law
Received04.01.2023
Publication date29.12.2023
Number of characters39520
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 117

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics // Aristotle. Essays: in 4 vols. 1978. Vol. 4. P. 499, 509, 517 (in Russ.).
2. Bell D. The coming of post-industrial society: the experience of social forecasting. M., 2004. P. 499 (in Russ.).
3. Bacon F. New Atlantis // Essays: in 2 vols. 1978. Vol. 2. P. 499, 509, 517 (in Russ.).
4. Maslov D.K. Trust in expert knowledge // Tomsk State University Journal. 2020. No. 453. P. 63 (in Russ.).
5. Mill J. St. Reasoning about the representative board. Reprint from Yakovlev’s edition, St. Petersburg, 1863. P. 27 [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: URL: https:/https://vtoraya-literatura.com/pdf/mill_razmyshleniya_o_predstavitelnom_pravlenii_1988__ocr.pdf  (accessed: 01.11.2022) (in Russ.).
6. Momdjan K.H. Social philosophy. An activity-based approach to the analysis of a person, society, and history. M., 2013. Part 1 (in Russ.).
7. Nichols T. The death of expertise: the campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. M., 2019. Р. 9, 32 (in Russ.).
8. Nudnenko L.A. Development of the electoral legislation of Russia during the period from 1905 to 1917 // Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2015. No. 9. P. 70 - 76 (in Russ.).
9. Plato. The State // Plato. Essays: in 4 vols. M., 1994. Vol. 3. P. 199, 273 (in Russ.).
10. Taleb N.N. The black swan. The impact of highly improbable. M., 2018. P. 317 (in Russ.).
11. Foucault M. The political function of the intellectual // Intellectuals and Power: Selected political articles, speeches and interviews. M., 2002. P. 208 (in Russ.).
12. Fuller St. Sociology of intellectual life: the career of the mind in and around the Academy. M., 2018. Р. 12 (in Russ.).
13. Khmelevskaya S.A. Scientific knowledge in different models of epistemocracy // After post-positivism: collection of scientific articles / scientific ed. and comp. I.T. Kasavin, I.D. Nevvazhay, L.V. Shipovalova, D.S. Artamonov. M., 2022. Р. 436 - 439 (in Russ.).
14. Shuroveski J. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. M., 2007. P. 256, 258, 259 (in Russ.).
15. Ahlstrom-Vij K. The Epistemic Benefits of Democracy: A Critical Assessment // The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology. New York, 2019. P. 203 - 205.
16. Brennan J. Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ, 2016.
17. Brennan J. Does the Demographic Objection to Epistocracy Succeed? // Res Publica. 2018. No. 24. Р. 55.
18. Brennan J. Epistocracy: A Better Form of Democracy or Rule by Philosophers? // Erraticus. 2019. 22 марта [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: URL: https://erraticus.co/2019/03/22/epistocracy-better-democracy/  (accessed: 01.11.2022).
19. Brennan J. The Ethics of Voting // Perspectives on Politics. 2012. No. 10(1). Р. 166, 167.
20. Brennan J. The right to a competent electorate // The Philosophical Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 61. No. 245. Р. 702.
21. Brennan J., Freiman Ch. Why Paternalists Must Endorse Epistocracy // Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy. 2022. Vol. 21. No. 3. Р. 329 - 353.
22. Drucker P.F. The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to our Changing Society. L., 1969.
23. Estlund D. Why Not Epistocracy / In: Desire, Identity and Existence: essays in honor of T.M. Penner ed. Naomi Reshotko. Kelowna, 2003. P. 57, 58.
24. Fuerstein M. Epistemic Democracy and the Social Character of Knowledge // Episteme. 2008. No. 5(1). P. 75.
25. Gibbons A.F. On Epistocracy’s Epistemic Problem: Reply to Méndez // Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. 2022. No. 11(8). Р. 1–7.
26. Goodin R.E., Spiekermann К. An Epistemic Theory of Democracy. Oxford, 2018.
27. Holst С. (ed.). Why not epistocracy? Political legitimacy and ‘the fact of expertise // Expertise and Democracy. Oslo, 2014.
28. Khmelevskaya S.A. The Philosophical Foundations of Law: The Search for a New Methodology // Russian Studies in Philosophy. 2020. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 34 - 43.
29. Landemore H. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ, 2013.
30. Méndez M.P. An Epistemic Problem for Epistocracy // Social Epistemology. Review and Reply Collective. 2022. No. 36(2). Р. 153–166.
31. Reiss J. Expertise, Agreement, and the Nature of Social Scientific Facts or: Against Epistocracy // Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. 2019. No. 33(2). Р. 183 - 192.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up