The Concept of Essentially Contested Concepts
The essentially contested concept was a formulation of W.B Gallie who opined that a concept may be categorized as being contested when thoughts relating to the concept's application become the subject of debate as to how to properly define the concept (1956). Although complicated concepts have a higher susceptibility to variation and thus evoke more debate, few concepts are never subject to contestation. Contested concepts are typically deliberated in all if their aspects but often times those disagreements end in dissolution. According to Gallie (1956), there are seven 'conditions' necessary for a concept to be deemed essentially contested but even with these conditions, it is primarily the fact that a concept entails endless disputes relating to its appropriate usage that actually positions it as being contested. Waldron (2002) further opines that in the case of an essentially contested concept, the disputed issue is not merely about how to apply the concept but instead it concerns the very heart of the concept. By focusing on democracy, which is one of the foremost concepts in political science and has been the focal point of continued concern ever since its emergence as an area of enquiry, this essay seeks to demonstrate just why political concepts are eternally contestable and how the recognition of this aspect can facilitate better political discourse.
The Nature of Political Concepts
The term "political concepts" is used to describe concepts that are integral to any fundamental discourse on political matters. Consequently, concepts such as democracy, freedom, equality, power, and justice that all represent key political principles and values may be categorized here. Theorists of these political concepts claim that the definitions of these concepts must be perceived as contributions to progressing debates. Rather than assume that it is possible to delimit and characterize these concepts, theorists examine how the uses and meanings of words describing critical concepts may be the subject of disputes. An individual's description of justice, democracy or another similar political concept is rarely ever neutral from a political perspective. Such concepts are subject to contestation because while opposing groups may all invoke a concept, the definitions put forward for the concept may differ and with each group seeking to promote its interpretation of the idea and downplay that of others, contestation arises.
The Dual Conceptualization of Political Concepts
The idea of political concepts as being essentially contested is premised on the concepts possessing a dual conceptualization of the political nature of the concepts. On one side, the political concepts comprise of arrangements, issues, and ideas that have significant relevance politically but at the same time, the actual meanings attributable to these concepts are the subject of unending disagreement. Consequently, scholars in the realm of political vocabulary usually find themselves encountering "microcosms" of competing and differing ideas within the political concepts that are the subjects of their studies (Connolly, 1993, p. 225). Thus, while it is imperative that we have a shared group of concepts that we draw upon during reflections on political institutions, tendencies, movements, and principles, the same concepts end up being immersed in and influenced by our disagreements. Hence, political concepts do not merely serve as descriptors of political life but instead, they are also essential platforms for political conflicts.
The Influence of Concepts on Attitudes and Perceptions
People's application of concepts in the categorization and assessment of the world can also be molded to influence attitudes and perceptions notwithstanding their concurrence on the abstract definitions of these concepts. For example, it is highly relevant whether one describes the events that occasion a change of regime as a revolution or a coup or whether one perceives an employer-employee relationship as exploitation or as fair exchange. The words that people choose to describe concepts can be rallied to demonstrate the political salience of realities that previously appeared to be areas unsoiled by conflict. In fact, politics and the concept of the political are fundamental tools for the initiation of new discourses relating to social arrangements as exemplified by "the private is political" rallying cry of the second-wave feminism movement. Differently stated, the fundamental duty of concepts is to initiate and moderate political discourses and in the event of this succeeding, initially divisive and yet recurrent utilizations of important words such as politics or exploitation may gain wider acceptability thus shifting the perception of a concept's appropriate application domain.
The Role of Political Disputes in Concept Formation
Political concepts as an expression thus refers to ideas that have been shaped by a variety of political moves for example polemical attacks, appropriations of labels, and strategic redefinitions. Political theorists and historians often seek to demonstrate the contribution of political disputes to the alteration and formation of political concepts. Thus, practicing politics, which entails contention, counterarguments, concurrence and disagreement helps in the generation of the political concepts. A political concept may therefore be viewed as the widely agreed on outcome of continued negotiation via a series of interactions and this is described as being "a uniform or constant feature" of political concepts (Hart, 1961, p. 156). That is, political concepts are usually positioned within the realm of political action, which entails conflict and contention. It is through this conflict, which is a hallmark of essential contestability, that the widely accepted definition for a political concept emerges.
The Political-Polemical Nature of Political Concepts
Political concepts are also subject to contestation because of the role they play or how they are utilized by different individuals or groups to achieve specified goals. According to Schmitt (1996), political concepts are best described as political-polemical concepts because they are primarily constructed or redeployed by agents to achieve political objectives in solid contexts that are typified by friend-enemy relationships and are thus primarily political weapons or tools. For example, state sovereignty as a political concept was originally designed as a polemic against individuals and groups who supported the idea of princely or royal sovereignty. Thus, to understand state sovereignty as a political concept, one must first understand what it was designed to attack, replace, or discard, which is the primary duty of a political concept. If a political concept's main purpose is to be employed as an attack tool or weapon, it follows that other concepts designed to counter the initial weapon will emerge. In this way, therefore, a political concept, for as long as it exists, never stops being challenged and consequently it may be described as being eternally contestable.
The Nature of Essentially Contested Concepts
Essentially contested concepts are said to exist in situations whereby historically, a genuine and ongoing dispute between a variety of parties with concern to the application and specific meaning of a specified political theory exists. Furthermore, all the disagreeing parties appear to have an ability to advance rational arguments in support of their interpretations of the contentious concept. Hence, when a concept is deemed to be essentially contested, an examination of the different applications of the concept and the typical arguments in which it appears establishes that there exists no explicitly identifiable general application which may be construed as the standard usage of the term (Gallie, 1956). Instead, such an examination foments disputes that are premised on the concepts, are inherently valid, and which are supported by logical evidence and arguments although they cannot be resolved by way of argument. Any discourse relating to the proper application of these concepts would thus only result in an endless cycle of disputes.
The Characteristics of Essentially Contested Concepts
Gallie opines that any concept to which that description applies is usually not just descriptive but most often also "evaluative or appraisive" in that it may accredit or signify a specified type of valued accomplishment (Gallie, 1956, p. 171). Stated differently, this means that the description provided when discussing or applying the concept is something perceived as being desirable or good. Nevertheless, this concept can also be said to be "variously describable," in that several definitions may suit it without contradiction depending on the elements of the concept that the descriptor chooses to highlight (Gallie, 1956). Additionally, any essentially contested concept may be regarded as being "open" which is to say that it undergoes and is receptive to significant modifications that are necessitated by changing circumstances with these modifications being unpredictable. Waldron (2002) further argues that essential contestation is typified by three characteristics: the central meaning is the hub of the dispute; the contestation is in and of itself integral to the concept's meaning; and the contestation provides the usefulness of the term. The meaning attached to most political concepts and terms such as democracy is often characterized by high internal complexity and contestability with their meanings exhibiting significant variance over time.
The Contestation of Political Concepts: The Case of Democracy
An application of the above stated ideas and principles to a political concept such as democracy demonstrates that it embodies these features perfectly. One undeniable fact is that democracy, ever since its inception, has always attracted a significant amount of criticism right from Plato and extending even to the modern day when arguments relating to its suitability and practicability continue to be leveled against it (Roberts, 2017). However, despite the constant attacks against the concept, it has over the past 150 years, come to be recognized as a goal worthy of pursuit and protection with even dictatorial regimes attempting to appropriate it to justify their atrocious actions. In fact, one may opine that democracy is something of a standard as it is often used to categorize societies depending on their level of adherence to democratic ideals (Connolly, 1993). Besides this, democracy as a political concept is evidently "variously describable" because several conflicting definitions and descriptions of the concept exist. Some examples of these conflicts relate to whether it should be direct or representative, elitist or participatory, or even westernized and non-westernized (Hidalgo, 2008). All these definitions and manifestations of the concept exist on a single continuum and the subject of which form truly defines the concept is an impossible and unending debate.
The Importance of Recognizing Essential Contestability in Political Concepts
Hence, it is apparent that democracy is both "appraisive" and "variously describable" which are the vital characteristics most often associated with essentially contested concepts. These characteristics are typical of most other political concepts and the recognition that essential contestability is an integral feature of these concepts can facilitate the enhancement and protection of politics. Such an acknowledgement may spur opposing parties in political disputes to pay attention to the arguments presented by rival sides and to develop an engagement rooted in argumentative practice when handling the disputes. Furthermore, accepting that essential contestability is an inherent feature of all political concepts and that the opposing applications of these concepts is not necessarily designed to achieve self-serving objectives but instead there may exist defensible reasons for the maintenance of a certain position may be critical to the introduction of receptivity and tolerance in political discourses.
Promoting Adversarial Arguments in Political Discourses
In other words, appreciating and recognizing that political concepts including but not limited to democracy will undoubtedly be subjected to contestation will enable the promotion of a concept known as adversary argument, which can also be described as "audi alteram partem" or giving an audience to the opposing side, which is a practice that is integral to politics (Hampshire, 2000, p. 8). Once opposing parties in political discourses recognize that the subject of their disagreement is essentially contested and is thus incapable of being settled merely through demonstrative arguments, they may opt, whether in the name of being democratic or another political concept altogether, to do away with the theatrics. This elimination of the unwanted then allows the parties to direct their focus on listening to one another's arguments and arriving at a common ground that is mutually acceptable to all parties.
Conclusion
Conclusively, it is evident that contestation is an integral element of political concepts be they democracy, human rights, or even justice. Political concepts, as exemplified by democracy are almost always "appraisive" and "variously describable" which means that it is possible for more than one definition of these concepts to exist while simultaneously remaining logical. These characteristics then ensure that individuals who hold opposing perspectives regarding a political concept can defend their positions diligently and rationally thus contributing to an unending debate about which conceptualization is more valid. However, focusing on the points of contestation often denies the parties the opportunity to appraise their opponents' arguments objectively, which is why it is vital to recognize that essential contestability is an existent and unchanging element of political concepts. This recognition facilitates adversarial arguments that involve listening to each other and can thus enable a quicker resolution of political disagreements.
References
Connolly, W. E., 1993. The Terms of Political Discourse. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gallie, W. B., 1956. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56(1), p. 167–198.
Hampshire, S., 2000. Justice is conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hart, H. L., 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Hidalgo, O., 2008. Conceptual history and politics: Is the concept of democracy essentially contested?. Contributions to the History of Concepts, Volume 4, pp. 176-201.
Roberts, A., 2017. Four crises of American democracy: Representation, mastery, discipline, anticipation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schmitt, C., 1996. The Concept of the Political. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Waldron, J., 2002. Is the Rule of Law an Essentially Contested Concept (in Florida)?. Law and Philosophy, 21(2), p. 137–164.
