POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN THE HORIZON OF TWO PARADIGMS OF THE POLITICAL: "PERSONIFICATION" AND «AUTOMATISM OF THE RULES"

Abstract

Aim. To study the meaning and the conditions of the reality. Representative democracy needs an effective mechanism of political representation. The obvious crisis of the classical («mimetic») model of representation determines the relevance of two research tasks: firstly, determining the conditions of the evidence mentioned and, secondly, studying ways to overcome the crisis. In modern Western philosophy, F.R. Ankersmit substantiates the concept of «aesthetic political representation», the study of the meaning and conditions of reality of which is the purpose of this article. Methodology. Philosophical interpretation, aimed at finding a «radical» (that is, «metaphysical») concept, which combines the real and the actual (K. Schmitt, M. Heidegger), is a way of research in cases when it comes to meaning and boundaries. Results. In the course of the work, in the horizon of the two paradigms of political Western political ontology, the main characteristics of the two ways of representation, mimetic and aesthetic, were identified. The conditions of opportunity for each of them are determined. The conclusion is substantiated about the representation of the political in the liberal version of the economic paradigm of the political requires the exclusion of personifications in favor of the «impersonal automatism of the rules» Research implications. The result of the research is the identification of the boundaries of the «area of meaning» of two opposite systems of political representation, presented in the article as «radical concepts». Specific tasks are determined that are solved by F. R. Ankersmit’s esthetic political representation, the concept of which was worked out, according to its author’s definition, «to save Western representative democracy».