Abs ac
The pape o e s an analy ical amewo k o e alua e he democ a ic quali y o public discou ses
in Wes e n democ acies and discusses he consequences o a pos -democ a iza ion o he
public sphe e. Re e ing o Colin C ouch, Jacques Ranciè e and Sheldon Wolin i a gues ha
he g adual ans o ma ion o wes e n democ acies o “pos -democ acies” is ma ked by
neolibe al hegemony, which s eng hened he in luence o economic eli es and dec eased
he poli ical powe o he ci izen y wi hou being accompanied by ins i u ional change. As i
is a gued in he pape , i also leads o a s uc u al ans o ma ion o he public sphe e. By
analyzing hese changes we can e en es he pos -democ a ic assump ions empi ically and
e alua e he impac o neolibe al hegemony on public discou se.
Resumen
El p esen e a ículo o ece un ma co de análisis pa a e alua la calidad democ á ica de
los discu sos públicos en las democ acias occiden ales y expone las consecuencias de la
pos -democ a ización de la Es e a Pública. Pa e de los pos ulados de Colin C ouch, Jacques
Ranciè e y Sheldon Wolin, y de iende que las ans o maciones g aduales de las democ acias
occiden ales en “pos -democ acias” es án ma cadas po la hegemonía neolibe al, que
e ue za la in luencia de las eli es económicas y limi a el pode de la ciudadanía, sin que
se acompañe de un cambio ins i ucional isible. Se a gumen a que al p oceso p oduce un
cambio es uc u al en la es e a pública. Median e el análisis de es os cambios esul a posible
p oba empí icamen e las hipó esis pos -democ á icas y e alua el impac o de la hegemonía
neolibe al en el discu so público.
Keywo ds
Pos -Democ acy, Public Sphe e, neolibe alism, hegemony
Palab as cla e
Pos -democ acia, Es e a Pública, neolibe alismo, hegemonía
Neolibe al Hegemony and he Pos -Democ a iza ion
o he Public Sphe e. An analy ical amewo k
o e alua e he democ a ic quali y o poli ical
discou se
Hegemonia Neolibe al y la Pos -Democ a ización de la Es e a
Pública: ma co de análisis pa a e alua la calidad del discu so
democ á ico
Claudia Ri zi
(Helmu -Schmid -Uni e si y) [[email p o ec ed]]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071 IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación
2014, 11, pp. 167 - 187
Recibido: 15/06/2014
Acep ado: 06/08/2014
Claudia Ri zi
168
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
Summa y
1. In oduc ion
2. “Pos -Democ acy” and Neolibe al Hegemony
2.1 Colin C ouch: The pos -democ a iza ion o libe al democ acies
2.2 Jacques Ranciè e: Pos -Democ acy as neolibe al de-poli iciza ion
2.3 Sheldon Wolin: Pos -Democ acy and in e ed o ali a ianism
2.4 Pos -democ acy and neolibe al hegemony
3.Neolibe al hegemony and discou se analysis
3.1 The indi ec ule o neolibe al hegemony
3.2 Analy ical Pe spec i es
4. Conclusion: Neolibe al hegemony – an ac ual h ea o Wes e n democ acies?
Suma io
1. In oducción
2. “Pos democ acia” y Hegemonía Neolibe al.
2.1 Colin C ouch: La pos democ a ización de las democ acias libe ales
2.2 Jacques Ranciè e: Pos -Democ acia y depoli ización neolibe al
2.3 Sheldon Wolin: Pos -Democ acia y o ali a ismo in e so
2.4 Pos -democ acia y hegemonía neolibe al
3. Hegemonía neolibe al y análisis del discu so
3.1 El mando indi ec o de la hegemonía neolibe al
3.2 Pe spec i as analí icas
4. Conclusión: La hegemonía neolibe al- una amenaza ac ual pa a las democ acias
occiden ales?
selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
169
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
1. In oduc ion
The c i ique o he s a e o democ acy has always been an impo an
pa o Poli ical Science, especially o Poli ical Theo y, and each pe iod seems o
ha e had i s a o i e heo y o heo ies o c isis53. In he 1960’s William Ko nhause
(2008) desc ibed he de elopmen o “mass socie ies” as a dange o mode n
democ acy. In he 1970’s Jue gen Habe mas (1975) and Claus O e (1975) became
in luen ial, mainly among le is schola s. Thei w i ings on he “legi imacy c isis”
we e based on C i ical Theo y and ocused on p oblems o mode n capi alism
(“Spae kapi alismus”). A he same ime, conse a i e hinke s s a ed o ea
new democ a ic challenges, which in hei opinion we e expec ed o esul om
“o e load” and “un-go e nabili y” (e. g. King 1975; C ozie /Hun ing on/Wa anuki
1975). Jus a ew yea s la e , conce ns abou he challenges ha social mo emen s,
o he new o ms o poli ical pa icipa ion, and changed a i udes owa ds poli ics
and poli icians eme ged (e.g. Ingleha 1977; Ve ba/Nie/Kim 1978). And in he
1990’s Robe Pu nam (1995) wa ned o dec easing Social Capi al.
So when in 2004 he B i ish sociologis Colin C ouch claimed he ise
o neolibe al hegemony and he es ablishmen o a “pos -democ a ic” socie y,
many poli ical scien is s ended o pe cei e his concep as “jus ano he endy
p e- ix deba e” (Hennig 2010), lacking “empi ical p oo ” (Rich e 2006) and,
much mo e impo an , ele ance (Buchs ein/Nullmeie 2006). Howe e , C ouch’s
w i ings opened a li ely deba e on de-poli iciza ion and changing powe ela ions
in Wes e n democ acies, which led o a e i al o G amscian poli ical hough on
hegemony (G amsci 2011; Laclau/Mou e 1985) and o Foucaul ’s analysis o he
ise o neolibe alism (Foucaul 2004a; 2004b).
“Pos -democ acy”, ein o ced by heo e ical con ibu ions o adical
democ a ic au ho s like Jacques Ranciè e and Sheldon Wolin, de eloped o
become one o he mos in luen ial discou ses in con empo a y poli ical science.
Since he collapse o Lehmann B o he s Inc., which led o he cu en inancial
and economic c isis, i seems o be widely accep ed ha Wes e n democ acies
unde he in luence o neolibe alism in ecen yea s ha e los con ol o e he
economy – and he e o e also su e ed a loss o democ a ic quali y (see e.g. O e
2008; S eeck 2013).
So on he one hand, he consequences o he economic and inancial
c isis show he po en ial ele ance and impo ance o he c i ique ha C ouch,
Ranciè e and Wolin a icula ed long be o e he i s bank’s b eakdown. On he o he
hand, some o he claims made in he discou se on pos -democ acy a e conside ed
53 Fo a sho o e iew see Kaase/New on (2002: 17 ).
Claudia Ri zi
170
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
con o e sial. Mos impo an ly, he asse ion ha a neolibe al hegemony has
been es ablished in Wes e n democ acies om he 1970’s on, made by C ouch,
Wolin and Ranciè e and suppo ed by a ange o au ho s such as Wendy B own
(2003, 2006), Chan al Mou e (1993, 2007), and Da id Ha ey (2007), has no
ye been con incingly p o en. Up o now, only ce ain possible consequences
o neolibe al a i udes ha e been iden i ied, such as p ocesses o p i a iza ion,
de egula ion and he g owing numbe o poli ically disenchan ed ci izens (see e.g.
C ouch 2004, 2011). Also he wa in I aq (see Wolin 2008; B own 2006) can be
in e p e ed as a neolibe al p ojec , which mainly se ed he in e es o in luen ial
economic ac o s (e.g. oil companies). Bu he hegemony i sel , ha is cons i u ed
by complex changes in he way people hink, communica e, and e alua e hei
li es up o now has no been analyzed in an all-encompassing manne .
The e o e i is no su p ising, ha a numbe o c i ics s ill doub he
exis ence o a neolibe al hegemony in he G amscian o Foucauldian sense, and
e use o acknowledge ha neolibe alism is he main cause o oday’s democ a ic
c ises (see e. g. Joe ke 2010; Wilke 2003). They a gue ha he gua an ee o ci il
igh s, like eedom o speech, as well as he mul iplici y o in o ma ion sou ces
a ailable in he digi al age, le he es ablishmen o any hegemony appea as a
highly un ealis ic – i no impossible – de elopmen . Also hey doub he empi ical
alidi y o he pos -democ a ic diagnosis and belie e ha C ouch’s, Ranciè e’s and
Wolin’s hinking is d i en by a oman ic and un ealis ic pe spec i e on democ a ic
p ocesses a e he Second Wo ld wa . They don’ sha e he opinion ha democ a ic
quali y was subs an i ely highe in he 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s han i is oday
(see e.g. Rich e 2006; Joe ke 2010; Hennig 2010).
Agains his backg ound, he ollowing pape o e s a new analy ical
amewo k o discuss and analyze neolibe al hegemony. I a gues ha neolibe al
hegemony in con empo a y democ acies mus go along wi h ce ain changes in
he s uc u e o poli ical discou ses and makes a p oposal o how o empi ically
analyze whe he neolibe al hinking has become hegemonic in he pas 40 yea s.
The e o e, i i s gi es a sho o e iew o he main aspec s o pos -democ a ic
c isis heo y (sec ion 2). Building on hese indings, i a gues in sec ion 3 why he
hegemony o neolibe al hinking in democ a ic s a es necessa ily has o in luence
public discou ses in ce ain, cha ac e is ic ways. The e o e, by analyzing whe he o
no a s uc u al change o he public discou se – simila o he changes Habe mas
(1991) desc ibed o he la e 19 h cen u y – has aken place, we can e alua e he
impac o neolibe alism on con empo a y socie ies. Based on hese elabo a ions
an analy ical amewo k is de eloped, which u he explains he cha ac e is ics o
a well- unc ioning democ a ic, in con as o a pos -democ a ic, public sphe e and
ha enables us o empi ically analyze p ocesses o pos -democ a iza ion om a
selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
171
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
new pe spec i e. A he end o he pape (sec ion 4) some concluding ema ks
discuss he p ac ical challenges o he p esen ed analy ical amewo k and he
ele ance o u he esea ch on pos -democ acy.
2. “Pos -Democ acy” and Neolibe al Hegemony
2.1 Colin C ouch: The pos -democ a iza ion o libe al democ acies
Wi hou any doub , since he i s published his well-known essay “Pos -
Democ acy” in 2004, in which he c i icizes he huge and g owing in luence
o economic in e es s on poli ical decision-making, Colin C ouch is he mos
amous spokesman o he discou se on neolibe al hegemony. E en hough
he was no he i s one o use he e m pos -democ acy (Jacques Ranciè e
al eady spoke o pos -democ acy in a lec u e in 1992), his wo k ini ia ed he
deba e on he s a e o mode n democ acies.
In “Pos -Democ acy” (2004), C ouch desc ibes ou main
de elopmen s, which ha e been ans o ming o me ly democ a ic sys ems
in o pos -democ a ic ones since he 1970’s. (1) While democ a ic ins i u ions
o mally s ay in ac , hey de ac o ha e been losing in luence on he poli ical
decision-making p ocess, which is mo e and mo e s ongly domina ed by a
small numbe o (mos ly economic) eli es. (2) A “degene a ion o poli ical
pa ies” has been aking place, which is u ning poli ical pa ies in o “me e
o e ca ching appa a us”, unable o de elop meaning ul agendas and mainly
s ee ed by in o ma ion om opinion esea ch. (3) The media do no ul ill hei
democ a ic unc ions su icien ly anymo e; as well as he pa ies hey ha e
been ic ims o ma ke iza ion and oday ocus on p o i o ien a ion ins ead o
on poli ical in o ma ion and educa ion. (4) Finally, C ouch c i icizes he ci izen’s
passi eness and poli ical disenchan men .
C ouch iden i ies he ise o neolibe al hinking o a hegemonic
pa adigm as he ul ima e cause o hese pos -democ a ic de elopmen s. The
neolibe al ideology ha has been poli ically in luen ial in Eu ope since he
elec ion o Ma ga e Tha che as P ime Minis e in he UK, pa ed he way o
he men ioned de elopmen s, which signi ican ly diminished he democ a ic
quali y o con empo a y Wes e n democ acies54.
54 Tha che en o ced poli ical e o ms, which we e s ongly o ien ed owa ds economic weal h and in e es s – and ha
subs an ially dec eased as well he unemploymen a e as in la ion in G ea B i ain. He accoun was so success ul
ha e en le is o social-democ a ic go e nmen s in di e en coun ies (e.g. p esiden Clin on in he U.S. o Ge ha d
Sch oede in Ge many) la e adop ed simila measu es and so di ec ly suppo ed he ise o neolibe al hegemony
(see S eeck 2013).

Claudia Ri zi
172
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
2.2 Jacques Ranciè e: Pos -Democ acy as neolibe al de-poli iciza ion
The F ench poli ical philosophe Jacques Ranciè e (e.g. 2003: 1, 1999:
107) pe cei es neolibe alism as a hegemonic ideology ha has been ha ming
democ acy in Wes e n s a es, e en hough his concep ion o democ acy is in
some espec s qui e di e en om C ouch’s. Being a adical democ a ic heo is ,
equali y is he s a ing poin as well as he aim o Ranciè e’s poli ical hinking.
One o his basic assump ions is ha democ acy is no much mo e han a socie y’s
pe manen s uggle o achie e equali y, and he e o e so called “democ a ic”
ins i u ions a e no he dis inc i e ea u e o democ a ically o ganized poli ical
communi ies. Ins ead, he disag eemen be ween people who pe cei e hemsel es
as equal o him is he main cha ac e is ic o democ acy. A socie y whe e no
disag eemen s become isible o Ranciè e is an “apoli ical” and he e o e
necessa ily undemoc a ic one.
So, poli ical ins i u ions one he one hand mi o he democ a ic s uggle
o equali y (e.g. he gua an ee o basic igh s, he es ablishmen o cou s), on
he o he hand hey end o sol e disag eemen s o e en o hinde con lic s om
eme ging. The e o e hey always a e accompanied by a endency o depoli icize.
To ma k his endency, Ranciè e desc ibes he ins i u ional pa o mode n
democ acies – o en c i ically – as “ he police” while “poli ics” o he “poli ical”
a e ma ked by con lic and disag eemen , and seen posi i ely. Ranciè e (2001)
explains: “The police says ha he e is no hing o see on a oad, ha he e is
no hing o do bu mo e along. I asse s ha he space o ci cula ing is no hing
o he han he space o ci cula ion. Poli ics, in con as , consis s in ans o ming
his space o ‘mo ing-along’ in o a space o he appea ance o a subjec : i.e.,
he people, he wo ke s, he ci izens: I consis s in e igu ing he space, o wha
he e is o do he e, wha is o be seen o named he ein.” The poli ical, no
he police in Ranciè e’s sense allows people o ac as equal subjec s in he
democ a ic p ocess55. Fo him, democ acy is a pe manen and endless p ocess
o emancipa ion ha goes along wi h con lic and disag eemen ha nei he can
no should be esol ed.
Pos -democ a iza ion in his unde s anding is a p ocess o de-
poli iciza ion, which goes beyond he “usual” endency o he police o opp ess
con lic s wi hin he ci izen y. Neolibe al hegemony has been c ea ing a new o m
o de-poli iciza ion by suppo ing he inc easing he in luence o economics on all
sphe es o li e, especially on he poli ical one. “Pos democ acy is he go e nmen
p ac ice and concep ual legi imiza ion o a democ acy a e he demos, a
55 So his poli ical hinking u ns explici ly agains ins i u ional as well as consensus-o ien ed unde s andings o
democ a ic poli ics such as Habe mas’ delibe a i e heo y.
selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
173
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
democ acy ha has elimina ed he appea ance, miscoun , and dispu e o he
people and is he eby educible o he sole in e play o s a e mechanisms and
combina ion o social ene gies and in e es s. Pos democ acy is no a democ acy
ha has ound he u h o ins i u ional o ms in he in e play o social ene gies. I
is an iden i ying mode, among ins i u ional mechanisms and he alloca ion o he
socie y’s app op ia e pa s and sha es, o making he subjec and democ acy’s
own speci ic ac ion disappea ” (Ranciè e 1999: 102).
So pos -democ acy he e is pe cei ed as a poli ical p ac ice ha educes
plu ali y in he poli ical sphe e and he e o e s ands in opposi ion o Ranciè e’s
no ma i e ideal o poli ics. P ocesses o pos -democ a iza ion may appea in many
shapes, bu hey always diminish wha Ranciè e calls “ he poli ical”.
E idence o pos -democ a iza ion is a guably wi nessed in Wes e n
democ acies on a daily basis: e.g. he e a e nume ous s a emen s o poli icians
who deny he con ingency o poli ical decision-making and he e o e u n down
disag eemen o con lic ( o example Tha che ’s amous e m “ he e is no al e na i e”
( he so called TINA- he o ic), which she used mo e han once o denounce al e na i e
policies as ou o ques ion and o emphasize he ele ance o economic weal h).
Ranciè e also c i icizes he ising in luence o expe s on poli ics: in his opinion,
poli ics domina ed by expe s undamen ally unde mines he idea o equali y. A hi d
example is he downsizing o he s a e: he pos -democ a ic longing o a minimal
s a e mi o s he idea o poli ics as a go e nmen echnique and con adic s he
poli ical as a pe manen s uggle and unsol able dispu e.
2.3 Sheldon Wolin: Pos -Democ acy and in e ed o ali a ianism
The hi d impo an heo is o pos -democ acy is he poli ical scien is
Sheldon Wolin. In many espec s his idea o democ acy co esponds o Ranciè e’s.
Wolin, like Ranciè e, c i icizes neolibe alism and alues “poli ical momen s”, when
he exis ing o de is aken in o ques ion, as “ uly” democ a ic momen s, and he
is a aid o a pos -democ a ic cons ella ion whe e ha dly any poli ical momen s
occu anymo e. Also as in Ranciè e’s unde s anding, o Wolin democ acy is no
gua an eed by he es ablishmen o ce ain ins i u ions, like ee elec ions, equal
poli ical igh s o eedom o he p ess. I a he is ugi i e, wha means i appea s
only in sho poli ical momen s and hen disappea s again. I does no ha e a p e-
gi en o s able shape – i is build on change and on he non-p edic able in e ac ion
o people
Re e ing o Tocque ille, Wolin s a es ha democ acies ha e an inhe en
endency o degene a e: “Wha is c ucial […] is he i ual disappea ance o he
cul u e o pa icipa ion and i s eplacemen by a cul u e o p i a ism, isola ion
Claudia Ri zi
174
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
and, wha Tocque ille could no ha e o eseen, consume ism” (Wolin 2001: 570).
Talking abou pos -democ acy, he belie es ha a he end o he 20 h cen u y,
in addi ion o he decline o democ a ic alues wi hin he ci izen y, neolibe alism
appea ed and “se he no m o all p ac ices conce ned wi h signi ican s ake o
powe , weal h o s a us” (Wolin 2004: 564).
The coincidence o a weak democ acy and neolibe alism lead o a pos -
democ a ic cons i u ion o he poli ical sphe e. Wolin he e speaks o “in e ed
o ali a ianism”: “While i is a sys em ha aspi es o o ali y, i is d i en by an
ideology o he cos -e ec i e a he han o a ‘mas e ace’ (He en olk), by
he ma e ial a he han he ‘ideal’” (Wolin 2004: 591). By compa ing pos -
democ acies o o ali a ian egimes, Wolin ies o iden i y and con ex ualize
cha ac e is ic ea u es o he ans o ma ion p ocess he belie es o be occu ing,
and he wan s o wa n people o i s possibly g a e consequences: “An in e sion
is p esen when a sys em, such as democ acy, p oduces a numbe o signi ican
ac ions o dina ily associa ed wi h i s an i hesis” (Wolin 2008: 46). Such an
in e sion, in his opinion, is aking place ega ding he ci izen’s engagemen and
powe esou ces in con empo a y democ acies.
No ma e whe he one likes o dislikes he pa allels he d aws be ween
o ali a ian s a es and nega i e de elopmen s in mode n democ acies, i is s iking
ha Wolin’s concep ion o he democ a ic c isis is he only one which c i ically
discusses he ci izen’s ole in he p ocess o pos -democ a iza ion. To ali a ianism
is a buzzwo d, bu Ranciè e and C ouch also do no expec pos -democ acy o
esemble ana chy, bu a he o esemble a egime ype ha is ma ked by limi ed
eedom. Wolin also emphasizes, e en mo e s ongly han Ranciè e, he alue o
he public sphe e o democ acies. Wi hou a li ely public discou se, democ acy
is necessa ily ins able. The e o e, changes in he public sphe e a e o special
ele ance o democ a ic quali y.
2.4 Pos -democ acy and neolibe al hegemony
So all h ee concep s o pos -democ acy de eloped in Poli ical Theo y a e
based on he no ion ha a neolibe al hegemony has been es ablished in Wes e n
democ acies a he end o he 20 h cen u y – e en hough neolibe alism is no
exac ly de ined by C ouch, Ranciè e o Wolin56. Re e ing o England and Wa d
(2007) we can dis inguish ou kinds o use o he e m neolibe alism in he Social
Sciences: Neolibe alism as an ideological hegemonic p ojec ”; “Neolibe alism
56 C ouch’s, Ranciè e’s and Wolin’s concep ions o pos -democ acy a e by a he mos in luen ial ones in he discou se.
An al e na i e concep ion was ecen ly published by Ingol u Bluehdo n (2013) who desc ibes pos -democ acy as
“simula i e democ acy” and belie es p ocesses o pos -democ a iza ion o be ha dly ine i able in pos -mode n
socie ies.
selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
175
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
as policy and p og am”; “Neolibe alism as s a e o m”, and “Neolibe alism as
go e nmen ali y”). In he discou se on pos -democ acy neolibe alism wi hou any
doub is pe cei ed p ima ily (bu no exclusi ely) as an ideology and ( e e ing
o Foucaul ’s unde s anding) as a go e nmen ali y p o oundly changing poli ical
decision-making p ocesses, and s anding in opposi ion o co e democ a ic alues
– e en hough i s hegemony does no necessa ily lead o ins i u ional change57. As
Bob Jessop and o he s ha e shown, i con adic s democ a ic alues no because
i connec s he linked sphe es o economics and poli ics, bu because i leads o
a “cap u e” o poli ical logic by economic logic. Values such as equali y o jus ice
(which a e supposed o be as inhe en o he poli ical as economic logic), lose
in luence on poli ical hinking, a guing and decision-making unde a neolibe al
hegemony 58.
This cons ic ion o he poli ical is an i-democ a ic, because C ouch,
Ranciè e and Wolin concep ualize democ a ic poli ics no as an ins i u ional se ing
bu as a sphe e o socie al li e which canno and should no be “managed” by
applying ixed ules o in ecou se o expe knowledge bu which is based on
con lic and in e ac ion be ween equal people.
So neolibe alism is he s a ing poin o p ocesses o pos -democ a iza ion
and he e o e also he ca dinal poin o his c isis heo y. Ne e heless, none o
he h ee au ho s has comp ehensi ely explained wha cha ac e izes neolibe al
hegemony, desc ibed i s mode o ope a ion, o ied o p o e i s exis ence. While
hey do y o jus i y hei assump ion o neolibe al hegemony by e e ing o
ce ain de elopmen s ha can be in e p e ed as consequences o ideological
change (e.g. he people’s accep ance o g owing inequali y, policies ha lead o
p i a iza ion and de egula ion), hei wo k lacks a clea analy ical pe spec i e on
neolibe alism as well as e e ence o da a o s udies ha su icien ly p o e he
expec ed omnip esence o neolibe al logic. To ill in ha blind spo , in he ollowing
a icle an analy ical amewo k is p esen ed. I is based on discou se analysis, and
aims a in es iga ing he ma ks neolibe alism has le on public communica ion.
57 A di e en unde s anding o neolibe alism (and as well o libe alism) o cou se can be ound in economics. He e
neolibe alism usually is unde s ood as a concep ha challenges Keynesianism a e he economic c isis in 1928
and was mean o o e a e o mula ed and e i alized libe al pe spec i e o Adam Smi h (see Hayek 1976; Walpen
2004). The i s in e p e a ion o neolibe alism as an ideology was o mula ed by Foucaul and ypically is used by
social scien is s and philosophe s.
58 Ideally, acco ding o C ouch, Ranciè e and Wolin no hegemony exis s in a uly democ a ic socie y – e en hough hey
ealize ha his ideal is coun e ac ual. Thei assump ions sugges ha hey pe cei e Wes e n de-moc acies in he
1960’s and 1970’s as less domina ed by a single ideology han hey a e oday. Neolibe alism in hei opinion has
become hegemonic, while 40 yea s ago di e en modes o a ionali y we e compe ing mo e s ongly in he poli ical
sphe e.
Claudia Ri zi
182
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
many con empo a y libe al hinke s deny ha in ee, democ a ic socie y such a
si ua ion is a ealis ic scena io o poli ical ac ion.
Th ee u he changes can be expec ed wi h e e ence o he concep ions
o C ouch and Wolin. Fo hem public discussions a e he mo e ideal he mo e
a ional hey a e (which means he mo e a gumen s a e u e ed in hem, and he less
emo ional, pe sonalized and scandalized hey a e)61. Fi s , he numbe o a gumen s
s a ed in public discou ses declines in he p ocess o pos -democ a iza ion. Second,
ins ead o a ional discou ses, mo e one-sided a icula ions can be ound in cases
o neolibe al hegemony. In pa icula he sha e o economic a gumen s ises in he
cou se o pos -democ a iza ion p ocesses, because his pe spec i e is dominan in
imes o neolibe al hegemony. Finally, C ouch and Wolin a gue ha cha ac e is ics
o abloidiza ion can be obse ed mo e and mo e o en in he media co e age as a
sign o neolibe aliza ion.
By es ing hese expec a ions empi ically, we can ind ou whe he and
o which deg ee a neolibe al hegemony, in he way i is desc ibed in he discou se
on pos -democ acy, has es ablished i sel in he poli ical public since he 1970’s.
F om he pe spec i e o a adical democ a ic and equali y-o ien ed unde s anding o
democ acy, his app oach enables us o de e mine he discu si e quali y o poli ical
discou ses, and in combina ion wi h ins i u ional indica o s i could be he basis o
an all-encompassing ins umen o e alua e he democ a ic quali y o con empo a y
media discou se.
4. Conclusion: Neolibe al hegemony – an ac ual
h ea o Wes e n democ acies?
In his pape i has been a gued why neolibe al hegemony migh lead
o an e osion o democ a ic (discou se) quali y in Wes e n poli ical sys ems
– and he e o e is a undamen al pa o he pos -democ a ic c i ique au ho s
like Colin C ouch, Jacques Ranciè e and Sheldon Wolin ha e u e ed ega ding
he s a e o democ acy a he beginning o he 21s cen u y. The pape also
p esen s an analy ical app oach ha ela es pos -democ a ic hypo heses o
discou se s uc u es, which helps us no only o unde s and he pos -democ a ic
de elopmen s in a mo e all-encompassing manne , bu i is also able o explain
how neolibe al hegemony p o okes a new o m o democ a ic decline ha is aking
61 Ranciè e, whose concep ion o equali y o bids him o se s anda ds on discou se quali y han canno be ul illed
simila ly by all membe s o a poli ical socie y, would no a icula e hese las h ee assump ions. Ins ead, he
explici ly pe cei es all kinds o poli ical communica ion (also emo ional and non-a gumen a i e ones) as o equal
democ a ic alue (Ranciè e 2009).

selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
183
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
place wi hou ins i u ional change. So i builds on he no ion ha i a neolibe al
hegemony has been es ablished in he pas 40 yea s, such a s uc u al change
would ha e had o appea in he poli ical public.
This app oach leads us o a esea ch amewo k ha o e s no only a
new heo e ical pe spec i e on neolibe al hegemony and pos -democ a iza ion,
bu also p oposes an inno a i e way o enhance he empi ical ele ance o he
discou se on pos -democ acy, and o es i s main assump ion: he pos -democ a ic
de elopmen s ha ha e been cha ac e is ic o Wes e n democ acies o e he
pas 40 yea s we e caused by he es ablishmen o a neolibe al hegemony, which
e odes undamen al democ a ic p inciples in, amongs o he hings, he public
discou se and he e o e h ea ens he democ a ic quali y o hese s a es wi hou
p o oking ins i u ional change.
The amewo k ins uc s he empi ical in es iga ion o he ex en o which,
and o e wha ime-span, neolibe al hegemony has changed he democ a ic quali y
o con empo a y Wes e n socie ies. Re e ing o he assump ions o schola s, who
ha e been closely analyzing neolibe alism (e. g. B own 2003, 2006, 2011; Ha ey
2007; Foucaul 2004a, b; England/Wa d 2007) we can expec he p ocess o
neolibe aliza ion o ha e s a ed in he ea ly 1970’s. I s g adual de elopmen
wen on un il he beginning o he inancial c isis in 2008 – hough po en ially (as
Colin C ouch claims in his book “The s ange non-dea h o neolibe alism” (2011))
neolibe al hegemony has pe sis ed e en o e he las i e yea s.
Bu o gain he necessa y da a o es he pos -democ a ic assump ions
in an all-encompassing manne , a demanding discou se analysis will ha e o be
designed ha analyses changes on he h ee dimensions equali y, openness and
discou se a ionali y o e a ime-span o o y yea s. E en i one limi s such a s udy
on a he small samples and only small numbe o media-sou ces, he p ojec will
ha e o be analyzing a huge sample o co e age and is he e o e qui e ambi ious.
Bu gi en he ele ance o a unc ioning public sphe e in con empo a y democ a ic
socie ies, he e o o pe o ming his kind o esea ch seems o be wo hwhile.
Also, semi-au oma ic ex -mining ools seem o be a p omising and inno a i e way
o gain such da a – e en hough hey also will ha e o be adap ed closely o ul ill
he needs o he p esen ed analy ical amewo k62.
The analy ical design p esen ed in his pape is mean as a i s s ep o
do such empi ical wo k. Hope ully, a close empi ical examina ion will ollow soon.
Because only i we in es iga e heo y and p ac ice o neolibe al hegemony will we be
able o de e mine he ele ance o he analyses o heo is s like C ouch, Ranciè e
62 Fo a sho desc ip ion o he s a e o esea ch see Mine e al. (2012: 53 .), o elabo a ions on he semi-au oma ic
analysis o neolibe alism see Wiedemann e al. (2013).
Claudia Ri zi
184
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
and Wolin. Also u he esea ch on pos -democ acy will help us o p oo (o e u e)
he exis ence o oday’s democ a ic c isis, o e alua e i s se e i y – and, when
indica ed, o ind a way ou o i .
Re eRenCeS
• B
own, Wendy (2003): Neo-libe alism and he End o Libe al Democ acy.
In: Theo y and E en 7 (1). Online a ailable: h p://muse.jhu.edu/
jou nals/ heo y_and_e en / 007/7.1b own.h ml [11. 10. 2012]
• -
(2006): Ame ican Nigh ma e. Neolibe alism,
Neoconse a ism, and De-Democ a iza ion. In: Poli ical Theo y 43 (6),
690_714.
• -
(2011): We a e all democ a s now. In: Agamben, Gio gio
(ed.): Democ acy in wha S a e? New Yo k: Columbia Uni e si y P ess.
• B
uchs ein, Hube us/Nullmeie , F ank (2006): Pos demok a ie:
Einneue Disku s? Fo schungsjou nal NSB, Jg. 19, 4/2006, 2_5.
• B
uehlmann, Ma c/Me kel, Wol gang/Muelle , Lisa/Gieble , Heiko/
Wessels, Be nha d (2012): Demok a ieba ome e – einneues Ins umen
zu Messung on Demok a iequali ae . In: Zei sch i ü Ve gleichendePoli
ikwissenscha , 75-84.
• C
ouch, Colin (2000): Coping wi h Pos -Democ acy. Fabian Ideas 598.
London: The Fabian Socie y.
• -
(2004): Pos -Democ acy. Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
• -
(2006): Co po a ism and Democ acy. In: C ouch, Colin/
S eeck, Wol gang (Ed.): The Di e si y o Democ acy: Co po a ism,
Social O de and Poli ical Con lic . Chel enham: Edwa d Elga Publishing,
46_70.
• -
(2010): Flexibili y and secu i y in he labou ma ke :
An analysis o he go e nance o inequali y. In: Zei sch i ü
A bei sma k o schung 43 (1), 17_38.
• -
(2011): The S ange Non-dea h o Neo-libe alism. London:
Poli y P ess.
• C
ozie , Michel/Hun ing on, Samuel P./Wa anuki, Joji (1975): The C isis
o Democ acy. New Yo k: New Yo k Uni e si y P ess.
• E
ngland, Kim, Ke in Wa d (2007): Neolibe aliza ion: S a es, Ne wo ks,
Peoples. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
185
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
• F
oucaul , Michel. 2004a. Naissance de la biopoli ique: cou s au Collège
de F ance, 1978–1979. Pa is: Gallima d.
• -
2004b. Sécu i é, e i oi e, popula ion: Cou s au
Collège de F ance, 1977–1978. Pa is: Gallima d.
• G
e ha ds, Jü gen (1997): Disku si e e sus libe ale Oe en lichkei . Eine
empi ische Auseinande se zung mi Jue gen Habe mas. In: Koelne
Zei sch i ü Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 49, 1_39.
• G
amsci, An onio (2011): P ison No ebooks. New Yo k: Columbia
Uni e si y P ess.
• H
abe mas, Jue gen (1975): Legi ima ion c isis. London: Beacon.
• -
(1991): The S uc u al T ans o ma ion o he Public
Sphe e: An Inqui y In o a Ca ego y o Bou geois Socie y. Bos on: MIT
P ess.
• -
(1999): D ei no ma i e Modelle de Demok a ie.
In: Habe mas, Jue gen: Die Einbeziehung des Ande en. S udien zu
poli ischen Theo ie. F ank u a. M.: Suh kamp, 277-292.
• H
a ey, Da id (2007): A B ie His o y o Neolibe alism. 4. Edi ion. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
• H
ayek, F ied ich Augus on (1976): Wohin ziel die Demok a ie? In: Hayek,
F ied ich Augus on: G undsae ze eine libe alen Gesellscha so dnung.
Au sae ze zu Poli ischen Philosophie und Theo ie. 205-216. Tuebingen:
Moh Siebeck.
• H
ennig, Eike (2010): To gesag e leben lange. Zum Aussagewe
pos demok a ische Theo ien. In: Vo gaenge 49 (2), 26_34.
• H
e man, Edwa d S./Chomsky, Noam (2002): Manu ac u ing Consen .
The Poli ical Economy o he Mass Media. New Yo k: Pan heon Books.
• I
ngleha , Ronald (1977): The Silen Re olu ion: Changing Values and Poli ical
S yles Among Wes e n Publics. P ince on: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
• J
oe ke, Di k (2010): Was komm nach de Pos demok a ie? In: Vo gaenge
49 (2), 17_25.
• K
aase, Max/New on, Kenne h (2002 [1995]): Belie s in Go e nmen . 2.
Edi ion. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
• K
ing, An hony (1975): O e load: P oblems o Go e ning in he 1970’s. In:
Poli ical S udies 23, 284_296.
• K
o nhause , William (2008): The Poli ics o Mass Socie y. New B unswick/
London: T ansac ion Publishe s.
Claudia Ri zi
186
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
• L
aclau, E nes o/ Mou e, Chan al (1985): Hegemony and Socialis S a egy:
Towa ds a Radical Democ a ic Poli ics. London/ New Yo k: Ve so.
• M
a x Fe ee, My a/Gamson, William A./Ge ha ds, Jue gen/Ruch , Die e
(2002): Shaping Abo ion Discou se: Democ acy and he Public Sphe e in
Ge many and he Uni ed S a es. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
• M
ine , Ga y/Elde , John/Fas , And ew/Hill, Thomas (2012): P ac ical Tex
Mining and S a is ical Analysis o Non-s uc u ed Tex Da a Applica ions.
Wal ham MA: Academic P ess.
• M
ou e, Chan al (1993): The Re u n o he Poli ical. London/New Yo k: Ve so.
• -
(2007): Uebe das Poli ische. Wide die kosmopoli ische
Illusion. F ank u a. M.: Suh kamp.
• N
eg ine, Ralph (1998): Pa liamen and he media. A s udy o B i ain,
Ge many and F ance. London: Pin e .
• O
e, Claus (1975): S uk u p obleme des kapi alis ischen S aa es. 3.
Au lage. F ank u a. M.: Suh kamp.
• -
(2008): Die gene ische En schlüsselung de poli ischen
O dnung. Jon Els e uebe Selbs bindung und die Ve assungsp ozesse in
Os eu opa, in: Ga y S. Schaal (Ed.), Techniken a ionale Selbs bindung,
Kul u und Technik Band 11, Be lin, 30-54.
• P
e e s, Be nha d (2007): De Sinn on Oe en lichkei . F ank u a. M.:
Suh kamp.
• P
u nam, Robe D. (1995): Bowling Alone: Ame ica’s Declining Social
Capi al. In: Jou nal o Democ acy 6, 65_78.
• R
anciè e, Jacques (1999): Disag eemen . Poli ics and Philosophy.
Minneapolis/London: Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess.
• -
(2001): Ten Thesis on Poli ics. In: Theo y & E en .
Vol. 5, No. 3.
• -
(2003): Glücks all Poli ik. We Demok a ie als
ein e nehmliches Regie ungshandeln de inie , e wechsel Poli ik mi
Managemen . In: de F ei ag 28. h p://www. ei ag.de/da enbank/
ei ag/2003/28/wide -konsens/p in , 1-5 [12. 08. 2011]
• -
(2007a): On he Sho es o Poli ics. London/New Yo k:
Ve so.
• -
(2007b): Ha ed o Democ acy. London/New Yo k: Ve so.
• -
(2009): A ew ema ks on he me hod o Jacques Ranciè e.
In: pa allax 15(3), 114-123.
selec a
NEolIbERal HEgEmoNy aNd HE PoS -dEmoCRa Iza IoN o HE PublIC SPHERE
187
E-ISSN: 2173-1071
IC – Re is a Cien í ica de In o mación y Comunicación 11 (2014) [pp. 167-187]
• R
ich e , Emanuel (2006): Das Analysemus e de ‚Pos demok a ie‘.
Konzep ionelle P obleme und s a egische Funk ionen. In:
Fo schungsjou nal NSB 19 (4), 23-37.
• S
chimank, Volke /Volkmann, U e (2008): Oekonomisie ung de
Gesellscha . In: Mau e , And ea (ed.): Handbuch de Wi scha ssoziologie.
Wiesbaden: VS Ve lag ue Sozialwissenscha en, 382-393.
• S
eeck, Wol gang (2013): Gekau e Zei . Die e ag e K ise des
demok a ischen Kapi alismus. F ank u a. M.: Suh kamp.
• V
e ba, Sidney/ Nie, No man H./ Kim, Jae-on (1978): Pa icipa ion and
poli ical equali y. A se en-na ion compa ison. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
• W
alpen, Be nha d. 2004. Die o enen Feinde und ih e Gesellscha . Eine
hegemonie- heo e ische S udie zu Mon Pèle in Socie y. Hambu g: VSA-
Ve lag.
• W
iedemann, G ego / Lemke, Ma hias/ Niekle , And eas (2013):
Pos demok a ie und Neolibe alismus – Zu Nu zung neolibe ale
A gumen a ionen in de Bundes epublik Deu schland 1949–2011. Ein
We ks a be ich . In: Zei sch i ue Poli ischeTheo ie, 4(1), 80–96.
• W
ilke, Ge ha d (2003): Neolibe alismus. F ank u a. M.: Campus.
• W
olin, Sheldon S. (2001): Tocque ille Be ween Two Wo lds. P ince on:
P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
• -
(2004): Poli ics and Vision. Con inui y and Inno a ion
in Wes e n Poli ical Though . Expanded Edi ion. P ince on: P ince on
Uni e si y P ess.
• -
(2008): Democ acy Inco po a ed. Managed
Democ acy and he Spec e o In e ed To ali a ianism. P ince on:
P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
• W
o sham, Lynn/ Olson, Ga y A. (1999): Hegemony and he Fu u e o
Democ acy: E nes o Laclau’s Poli ical Philosophy. In: Jac: A Jou nal o
Composi ion Theo y, Vol. 19 (1), 1-32.