Abstract
The role of knowledge in political decision-making has been a central topic in political theory and social science for centuries. One central branch of these discussions has focused on the role of religious knowledge and authority in political rule and variations of “theocracy” or “rule of priests”.1 However, the central knowledge basis of a society or a political system is not necessarily of a religious kind. Arguably, in many contemporary societies the most crucial knowledge source is scientific and professional knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Theocracy originates from Greek (theos means god) and refers literally to a “rule by gods or human incarnations of gods”.
- 2.
As already indicated, theocracy could also be regarded as a variant of epistocracy if we think of priest as “those with religious knowledge”.
- 3.
- 4.
In the sense that they are elected by all affected, by representatives elected by all affected, or appointed by someone who is elected, or appointed by someone who is appointed by someone who is elected, etc.
- 5.
This of course does not imply that all definitions and criteria of knowledge are equally valid.
- 6.
The research project “Why not Epistocracy? Political Legitimacy and ‘the fact of expertise’“ (EPISTO 2012–2017) at ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, will undertake empirical studies of epistocracy in a European Union context (see http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/personer/vit/cathho/project_description_CH.html), but also contribute to discussions on normative assessment of epistocracy, philosophically, and connected to studies of EU institutions and arrangements.
Bibliography
Collins, H. & R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Curtin, D. 2009. Executive Power of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eisenstadt, S.N. 2002. Multiple Modernities. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Eriksen, E. 2009. The Unfinished Democratization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Estlund, D. 2003. Why not Epistocracy? In N. Reshotko (ed.). Desire, Identity and Existence. Essays in Honor of T. M. Penner. Kelowna, B.C.: Academic Printing & Publishing. 53–69.
Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority. A Philosophical Framework. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Giddens, A. 1991. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Habermas, J. 1981. Modernity versus Postmodernity. In New German Critique 22.
Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume I: Reason and Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume II: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. 1999. Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Habermas, J. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kitcher, P. 2003. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.
Longino, H. 2003. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lovenduski, J. 2006. State Feminism and Political Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luhmann, N. 1984. Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Meehan, J. (ed.). 1995. Feminists Read Habermas. London: Routledge.
Nutley, S. M. et al. 2000. What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Parsons, T. 1971. The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Rawls, J. 1997. The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. In The University of Chicago Law Review, 64, (3): 765–807.
Rawls, J. 1999 [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. 2005 [1942]. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Routledge.
Skirbekk, G. 2007. Timely Thoughts. Modern Challenges and Philosophical Responses. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Slaughter, A.-M. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Steiner, J. et al. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sverdrup, U. & Å. Gornitzka. 2010. Enlightened Decision Making? The Role of Scientists in EU Governance. In Politique europeenne, 32: 125–149.
Taylor, C. 2008. A Secular Age. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Van der Vleuten, A. 2007. The Price of Gender Equality. Member States and Governance in the EU. London: Ashgate.
Wolff, J. 2011. Ethics & Public Policy. A Philosophical Inquiry. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Wageningen Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holst, C. (2012). What is epistocracy?. In: Øyen, S.A., Lund-Olsen, T., Vaage, N.S. (eds) Sacred Science?. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-752-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-752-3_3
Publisher Name: Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen
Online ISBN: 978-90-8686-752-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)
