Dr. Azmanova is Reader (Associate Professor) of Political and Social Thought. She teaches courses in democratic theory and political economy. Her writing is dedicated to bringing the critique of political economy (back) into critical social theory. Her research ranges from democratic transition and consolidation to the dynamics of contemporary capitalism and its effect on ideological orientation and electoral mobilisation. Among her recent publications are The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment (Columbia University Press, 2012), Reclaiming Democracy: Judgment, Responsibility and the Right to Politics, ed. with Mihaela Mihai (Routhledge, 2015); "The Right to Politics", Philosophy and Social Criticism 42 (2016), and "Empowerment as Surrender: how women lost the battle for emancipation as they won equality and inclusion,'' in Social Research 83/3 (Fall 2016). She is currently working on a book manuscript titled The Crisis of 'the Crisis of Capitalism' tracing the mutation of neoliberal capitalism into a novel modality.
After having taken active participation in the dissident movements that brought down the communist regime in her native Bulgaria in 1987-1990, she studied European Law at the University of Strasbourg, did her doctoral studies at the New School for Social Research in New York, and taught political theory at the Institut d'études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po.) in Paris, before joining the BSIS in 2005, where she directs the programmes International Political Economy and Political Strategy and Communication. She has been working as a policy advisor to a number of international institutions such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the European Commission, and Transparency International.
Research Interests
Her research bridges political theory and sociology and centers on three clusters of issues: (1) the transformation of capitalism and related to it changes in political orientation and mobilisation, most recently focusing on a project for post-growth societies; (2) democratic transition and consolidation, with a focus on the post-communist societies of East and Central Europe and Asia; (3) theories of justice and judgment, with a focus on the relations between democratic decision-making and the imperatives of capitalist economies.
Azmanova, A. (2018). Relational, structural and systemic forms of power: the 'right to justification' confronting three types of domination. Journal of Political Power[Online]11:68-78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2018.1433757.
This article investigates the nature of intellectual critique and social criticism Rainer Forst's critical theory of
justification enables. I introduce a taxonomy of three forms of power – namely, 'relational', 'structural' and
'systemic' – and related to them types of domination, and assess the capacity of Forst's conceptual
framework to address each of them. I argue that the right to justification is a potent tool for emancipation
from structural and relational forms of domination, but claim that Forst's particular conceptualisation of
power prevents him from addressing injustices generated by 'systemic domination' – the subjection of all
actors to the functional imperatives of the system of social relations.
Azmanova, A. et al. (2018). Emancipation, Progress, Critique: Debating Amy Allen's The End of Progress. Contemporary Political Theory[Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-018-0215-6.
Azmanova, A. (2018). The Populist Catharsis: On the Revival of the Political. Philosophy and Social Criticism[Online]44:399-411. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718760091.
The upsurge of populist movements and the entry of populist parties into parliaments and
governments over the last decade has been condemned as being the cause of the sorry
state of democratic politics in western societies. As populism erodes the liberal political
culture of consensus-building through deliberation that achieves inclusive diversity, the
verdict goes, it undercuts the very foundation of liberal democracies. Taking my distance
from this diagnosis of our current predicament, I will argue that populism is not the cause of
the erosion of diversity capital, it is its outcome. I will examine the hypothesis that populism
is the symptom of a pathological state of the political in contemporary democracies.
Focusing on the process of politicization of social grievances, I will offer a diagnosis of the
state of the political in the early twenty-first century, in order to discern populism's capacity
to reboot democratic politics.
Azmanova, A. (2017). Taking the Spanish government before the law. Taking the Spanish government before the law[Online]12 Oct. Available at: https://opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/albena-azmanova/taking-spanish-government-before-law.
I lay out the procedure and the logic for suing the Spanish government for its treatment of the Catalan referendum of 1 October 2017. I claim that the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal's decisions which gave legal ground for Mariano Rajoy's attempt to crush the referendum, are in violation of the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly protected by the Spanish Constitution, EU law, and International law.
Azmanova, A. (2016). Empowerment as Surrender: How Women Lost the Struggle for Emancipation as They Won Equality and Inclusion. Social Research83.
This analysis addresses the way second-wave feminism, through its incontestable achievements in terms of both political mobilization and intellectual critique, failed to address the larger structural sources of the injustice the movement fought, thereby falling short of the lasting emancipation it aspired to achieve. This is a story of "failure by success." I also chart a path for recasting the feminist agenda from the point of view of a broader critique of contemporary capitalism, in which instances of gender injustice are symptomatic of broader forms of domination to which men and women are equally subjected.
Azmanova, A. (2016). Empowerment as Surrender: How Women Lost the Battle for Emancipation as They Won Equality and Inclusion. Social Research[Online]83:749-776. Available at: http://www.socres.org/single-post/2016/11/30/Vol-83-No-3-Fall-2016---Forthcoming.
This analysis addresses the way second wave feminism, through its achievements both in terms of political mobilization and intellectual critique, failed to address the larger structural sources of the injustice the movement fought, thereby falling short of the lasting emancipation it aspired to achieve. The first part of the analysis address the way feminism as a political movement framed its agenda in terms of equality and inclusion within a model of wellbeing feminists did not question. This helps me to account for the way women's empowerment within a socio-political model shaped by the imperatives of neoliberal capitalism amounts to a surrender to these imperatives. The second part examines the failures of intellectual critique – and finds them in another success story – the democratic turn in political theory, including critical social theory. Finally, I trace a path for recasting the feminist agenda from the point of view of a broader critique of contemporary capitalism, in which instances of gender injustice are symptomatic of broader forms of domination to which men and women are equally subjected. Thus, I offer a way of transforming the antagonism of gendered injustice into an agonism of degendered social critique.
Azmanova, A. (2015). The Right to Politics and Republican Non-Domination. Philosophy and Social Criticism[Online]42:465-475. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453715623394.
Against pronouncements of the recent demise of both democracy and the political, I maintain that there is, rather, something amiss in our societies with the process of politicization in which social grievances are translated into matters of political concern and become object of policy making. I therefore propose to seek an antidote to the depoliticizing tendencies of our age by reanimating the mechanism transmitting social conflicts and grievances into politics. To that purpose, I formulate the notion of a 'fundamental right to politics' as the opposite of the techne of policy-making. I articulate this right via a reconstruction of the logical presuppositions of democracy as collective self-authorship. I then recast the concept of non-domination by discerning two trajectories of domination – 'relational' and 'systemic' ones, to argue that in a viable democracy that takes full use of the right to politics, dynamics of politicization should take place along both trajectories; currently, however, matters of systemic injustice get translated in relational terms and politicized as redistributive concerns.
Azmanova, A. (2014). Crisis? Capitalism is Doing Very Well. How is Critical Theory?Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory[Online]21:351-365. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12101.
There is no crisis of capitalism, only a crisis of critique. I claim that Critical Social Theory of Frankfurt School origins does stand guilty of a failure to develop a body of valiant critique of the political economy of neoliberal capitalism in the course of the latter's ascent in the 1980s and 1990s. The first part of my analysis addresses the crisis of capitalism as a distinct object of critique, in order to identify the direction a critique of contemporary capitalism is to take. The second part examines the analytical equipment at Critical Theory's disposal for undertaking such an endeavor. Within an inventory of some of the key achievements of the tradition both in terms of its object and method of critique, some conceptual deficiencies are identified – namely, the reduced attention to what I describe as "systemic domination," and the diminished reliance on a critique of the political economy of capitalism. The third part adumbrates a proposal for recasting Critical Theory by way of (a) redefining the normative content of emancipation; (b) effecting a realist-pragmatic turn within the communicative turn;
(c) bringing the critique of political economy back into critical social theory.
Azmanova, A. (2013). Political Judgment for Agonistic Democracy. No Foundations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Law and Justice[Online]. Available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/nofo/NoFo10AZMANOVA.html.
I articulate a model of conflict-based deliberative judgment
Azmanova, A. (2013). The Crisis of Europe: Democratic Deficit and Eroding Sovereignty – Not Guilt. Law and Critique[Online]24:23-38. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10978-012-9112-y.
Taking inspiration from a distinction Kant drew between the way power is organised, and the manner in which it is exercised, this analysis directs attention to the consolidation of an autocratic style of politics in Europe. The co-existence between an autocratic style of rule and preserved democratic organisation of power, which prevents a legitimation crisis, is explained in terms of an altered legitimacy relationship (or social contract) between public authority and citizens. This ultimately allows a discrepancy to emerge between public authority's increased capacity for policy action and reduced social responsibility for the consequences of that action.
Azmanova, A. (2013). The Crisis of Europe: Democratic Deficit and Eroding Sovereignty — Not Guilty. Law and Critique[Online]24:23-38. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10978-012-9112-y.
Taking inspiration from a distinction Kant drew between the way power is organised, and the manner in which it is exercised, this analysis directs attention to the consolidation of an autocratic style of politics in Europe. The co-existence between an autocratic style of rule and preserved democratic organisation of power, which prevents a legitimation crisis, is explained in terms of an altered legitimacy relationship (or social contract) between public authority and citizens. This ultimately allows a discrepancy to emerge between public authority's increased capacity for policy action and reduced social responsibility for the consequences of that action.
Azmanova, A. (2012). De-gendering social justice in the 21st century: An immanent critique of neoliberal capitalism. European Journal of Social Theory[Online]15:143-156. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368431011423576.
This article presents a blueprint of a feminist agenda for the twenty-first century that is oriented not by the telos of gender parity, but instead evolves as an 'immanent critique' of the key structural dynamics of contemporary capitalism – within a framework of analysis derived from the tenets of Critical Theory of Frankfurt School origin. This activates a form of critique whose double focus on: (1) shared conceptions of justice; and (2) structural sources of injustice, allows criteria of social justice to emerge from the identification of a broad pattern of societal injustice surpassing the discrimination of particular groups. In this light, women's victimization is but a symptom of structural dynamics negatively affecting also the alleged winners in the classical feminist agenda of critique. The analysis ultimately produces a model of social justice in a formula of socially embedded autonomy that unites work, care, and leisure.
Azmanova, A. (2012). Social Justice and Varieties of Capitalism: An Immanent Critique. New Political Economy[Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2011.606902.
In assessing the various forms of welfare capitalism, normative political philosophy typically draws on two major philosophical traditions – republicanism and liberalism, invoking either equality and the public good or, alternatively, individual autonomy as normative criteria for evaluation. Drawing, instead, on Critical Theory as a tradition of social philosophy, I advance a proposal for assessment of the types of welfare capitalism conducted as 'immanent critique' of the key structural dynamics of contemporary capitalism. Normative criteria thus emerge within a diachronic dimension of social transformation, which in turn grounds the comparison among synchronic types of capitalism. This ultimately enables a research agenda for the operationalisation of a normative analysis of capitalism within which social justice is gauged by the degree of voluntary employment flexibility – a key factor in the distribution of life-chances in the early twenty-first century.
Azmanova, A. (2011). After the Left–Right (Dis)continuum: Globalization and the Remaking of Europe's Ideological Geography. International Political Sociology[Online]5:384-407. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2011.00141.x.
This article examines the status of globalization as a causal factor in political mobilization and proposes a research agenda for diagnosing the impact of global socio-economic dynamics on ideological orientation in national polities. Focusing on Europe's established democracies, the article outlines recent shifts in Europe's ideological landscape and explores the mechanisms generating a new pattern of political conflict and electoral competition. It advances the hypothesis that the knowledge economy of open borders has brought about a political cleavage inti- mately linked to citizens' perceptions of the social impact of global eco- nomic integration. In this context, the polarization of life chances is determined by institutionally mediated exposure to both the economic opportunities and the hazards of globalization. Fostered by the increas- ing relevance of the international for state-bound publics, new fault-lines of social conflict are emerging, giving shape to a new, ''opportunity- risk,'' axis of political competition. As the novel political cleavage challenges the conventional left–right divide, it is likely to radically alter Europe's ideological geography.
Book section
Azmanova, A. (2016). Democracy Against Social Reform: the Arab 'Spring' Faces its Demons. in:Mohammed Cherkaoui, ed. What is Enlightenment?: Continuity or Rupture in the Wake if the Arab Uprisings, London: Lexington Books (April 2016).London: Lexington books, pp. 239 -254. Available at: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739193679/What-Is-Enlightenment?-Continuity-or-Rupture-in-the-Wake-of-the-Arab-Uprisings.
Azmanova, A. (2014). Soziale Gerechtigkeit und die verschiedenen Varianten des Kapitalismus. in:Honneth, A. and Herzog, L. eds.Der Wert des Marktes.Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. Available at: http://www.suhrkamp.de/buecher/der_wert_des_marktes-_29665.html.
This is a contribution ot a collection of classical texts on capitalism, from Adam Smith, G.W.F.Hegel, K. Marx, E. Durkheim, J.S. Mill, A. Sen, and A. Hirschman.
Azmanova, A. (2013). The 'Crisis of Capitalism' and the State – More Powerful, Less Responsible, Invariably Legitimate. in:Onuf, N. et al. eds.Semantics of Statebuilding: Language, Meanings and Sovereignty.London: Routledge, pp. 150-162. Available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415817295/.
This chapter traces the reconfiguration of the legitimacy relationship between states and citizens, and the related alteration of the semantics of the social contract since the advent of liberal democracies in Europe. This reconfiguration has fostered the recent emergence of a fourth modality of capitalism (as an institutionalized social order) after (1) the entrepreneurial nineteenth-century capitalism, (2) the 'organized' capitalism of the post-WWII welfare state, and (3) the neoliberal, 'disorganized' capitalism of the late twentieth century. A key feature of the new modality, in terms of the nature of power relations, is a simultaneous increase in the state's administrative power and a decrease in its authority. However, due to a recasting of the legitimacy relationship between public authority and citizens, the deficient authority of states has not triggered a legitimacy crisis of the socio-economic system. A readjustment of the pathological relationship (from the point of view of democratic legitimacy) between public authority and citizens would require a stronger responsibilization of public authority in matters of social and economic policy.
Azmanova, A. (2012). Social Harm, Political Judgment, and the Pragmatics of Universal Justification. in:Corradetti, C. ed.Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights: some contemporary views.Springer, pp. 107-123. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2376-4_6.
How is to be policy action guided in cases of conflict among basic rights? The clash among rights of equal standing within a society's broad conception of justice is often articulated in the terms of unfairness. By drawing a distinction between justice and fairness, and by exploring the pragmatics of justification in cases of conflicts among rights, this chapter adumbrates a discourse-theoretic model of political judgment – what I name 'critical deliberative judgment'. The parameters of this model emerge first from a particular reconstitution of Critical Theory (as a tradition of social philosophy) that focuses attention on the emancipation-oriented, rather than on the consensus-generating, dimension of rights: the question "What is justice?" gives precedence to "Who suffers?". The model is further elaborated by way of a pragmatist political epistemology that accounts for the way specific experiences of injustice affect publics' identification of what issues count as relevant ones in debates over conflicting rights. Finally, the model is completed with an account of the critical and emancipatory work democratic practices of open dialogue are able to perform, ultimately relating local sensitivities to universal demands of justice by disclosing the socio-structural (rather that agent-specific or culture-specific) sources of injustice.
Book
Azmanova, A. (2012). The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment. [Online]. New York: Columbia University Press. Available at: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15380-5/the-scandal-of-reason.
Theories of justice are haunted by a paradox: the more ambitious the ideal of justice, the less applicable and useful the model is to political practice; yet the more politically realistic the theory, the weaker its moral ambition, rendering it unsound and equally useless. Brokering a resolution to this "judgment paradox," Albena Azmanova advances a "critical consensus model" of judgment that serves the normative ideals of a just society without the help of ideal theory.
Tracing the evolution of two major traditions in political philosophy—critical theory and philosophical liberalism—and the way they confront the judgment paradox, Azmanova critiques prevailing models of deliberative democracy and their preference for ideal theory over political applicability. Instead, she replaces the reliance on normative models of democracy with an account of the dynamics of reasoned judgment produced in democratic practices of open dialogues. Combining Hannah Arendt's study of judgment with Pierre Bourdieu's social critique of power relations, and incorporating elements of political epistemology from Kant, Wittgenstein, H. L. A. Hart, Max Weber, and American philosophical pragmatism, Azmanova centers her inquiry on the way participants in moral conflicts attribute meaning to their grievances of injustice. She then demonstrates the emancipatory potential of the model of critical deliberative judgment she forges and its capacity to guide policy making.
This model's critical force yields from its capacity to disclose the common structural sources of injustice behind conflicting claims to justice. Moving beyond the conflict between universalist and pluralist positions, Azmanova grounds the question of "what is justice?" in the empirical reality of "who suffers?" in order to discern attainable possibilities for a less unjust world.
Edited book
Azmanova, A. and Mihai, M. eds. (2015). Reclaiming Democracy: Judgment, Responsibility and the Right to Politics. [Online]. UK: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Reclaiming-Democracy-Judgment-Responsibility-and-the-Right-to-Politics/Azmanova-Mihai/p/book/9781138021990.
Democracy is in shambles economically and politically. The recent economic meltdown in Europe and the U.S. has substituted democratic deliberation with technocratic decisions. In Athens, Madrid, Lisbon, New York, Pittsburgh or Istanbul, protesters have denounced the incapacity and unwillingness of elected officials to heed to their voices.
While the diagnosis of our political-economic illness has been established, remedies are hard to come. What can we do to restore our broken democracy? Which modes of political participation are likely to have an impact? And what are the loci of political innovation in the wake of the crisis? It is with these questions that Reclaiming Democracy engages. We argue that the managerial approach to solving the crisis violates 'a right to politics', that is, a right that our collective life be guided by meaningful politics: by discussion of and decision among genuinely alternative principles and policies. The contributors to this volume are united in their commitment to explore how and where this right can be affirmed in a way that resuscitates democracy in the wake of the crisis. Mixing theoretical reflection and empirical analysis the book offers fresh insights into democracy's current conundrum and makes concrete proposals about how 'the right to politics' can be protected.
Showing 20 of 49 total publications in KAR. [See all in KAR]
Information obtained from the Kent Academic Repository. The University of Kent official repository of academic activity.
