Skip to main content
Book cover

Sacred Science? pp 41–54Cite as

What is epistocracy?

Dimensions of knowledge-based rule

  • Chapter

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.

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Procedural Justification
  • Limit State Function
  • Political Rule
  • Comprehensive Doctrine

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-752-3_3
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-90-8686-752-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Theocracy originates from Greek (theos means god) and refers literally to a “rule by gods or human incarnations of gods”.

  2. 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. 3.

    “The project of modernity formulated in the eighteenth century by the philosophers of Enlightenment consisted in their efforts to develop objective science, universal morality and law, and autonomous art, according to their inner logic” (Habermas 1981). See also Skirbekk (2007).

  4. 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. 5.

    This of course does not imply that all definitions and criteria of knowledge are equally valid.

  6. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D. 2009. Executive Power of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstadt, S.N. 2002. Multiple Modernities. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, E. 2009. The Unfinished Democratization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority. A Philosophical Framework. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1991. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1981. Modernity versus Postmodernity. In New German Critique 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume I: Reason and Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume II: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1999. Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. 2003. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. 2003. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovenduski, J. 2006. State Feminism and Political Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1984. Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehan, J. (ed.). 1995. Feminists Read Habermas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S. M. et al. 2000. What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1971. The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1997. The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. In The University of Chicago Law Review, 64, (3): 765–807.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1999 [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J.A. 2005 [1942]. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skirbekk, G. 2007. Timely Thoughts. Modern Challenges and Philosophical Responses. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, A.-M. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, J. et al. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sverdrup, U. & Å. Gornitzka. 2010. Enlightened Decision Making? The Role of Scientists in EU Governance. In Politique europeenne, 32: 125–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 2008. A Secular Age. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vleuten, A. 2007. The Price of Gender Equality. Member States and Governance in the EU. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, J. 2011. Ethics & Public Policy. A Philosophical Inquiry. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Senior Researcher at ARENA, Centre for European Studies and Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Norway

    Cathrine Holst

Authors
  1. Cathrine Holst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathrine Holst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Senior Executive Officer, Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT), University of Bergen, Norway

    Simen Andersen Øyen, Tone Lund-Olsen & Nora Sørensen Vaage,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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