Dialogue, Irony, and Solidarity in Richard Rorty's Democracy

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Student of PhD in Department of Public Law, Shi.C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Assistant Prof of Department of Public Law, Shi.C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

3 Assistant Prof, Department of Public Law, Shi.C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
This article reconstructs Richard Rorty’s democratic outlook as an integrated constellation of Dialogue, Irony, and Solidarity, arguing that for Rorty democracy is primarily a cultural–ethical project rather than merely a governmental form. The central problem is how political legitimacy and social cohesion can be sustained once metaphysical foundations and timeless standards of truth are abandoned. The article pursues three objectives: (1) to clarify Rory’s shift from truth-as-correspondence to truth-as-justification within a linguistic community; (2) to explain his displacement of philosophy from the role of final arbiter of truth to a practice of vocabulary-enrichment and cultural conversation; and (3) to show how ethics and politics are reoriented toward reducing cruelty and expanding empathy rather than grounding norms in universal rational principles. Accordingly, the main question is : How can a Rortyan Democracy Maintain Collective Decision- Making and Institutional Reform While Affirming Pluralism without appealing to Fixed Foundations?
 
Methods
The study is descriptive–analytical and based on documentary research. It first examines Rorty’s epistemological and linguistic premises—his critique of epistemological foundationalism, rejection of Representationalism of Truth, the linguistic turn, and the historicity of meaning—to clarify the consequences for truth and rationality. It then extends these premises to political and public-law concerns by conceptualizing Dialogue as the mechanism of social learning and provisional agreement, Irony as the civic virtue of recognizing the contingency of one’s “final vocabularies,” and Solidarity as the cultural adhesive enabling coexistence under deep pluralism. Finally, the article situates Rory’s constellation through a focused comparison with two influential modern paradigms (a normatively grounded, justice-centered Rawlsian approach and a rationality-centered deliberative Habermasian approach) and formulates the main theoretical challenges of the Rortyan position.
 
Results and Discussion
The first finding is that Rory’s anti-foundationalism relocates truth from an eternal, independent standard to Acceptability within Free Conversation. Rationality, consequently, is not a faculty for accessing a language-transcendent reality but a capacity for participating in justification, criticism, and re-description inside a community of speakers. Political legitimacy thus depends less on discovering ultimate principles than on sustaining dialogic procedures that remain open to revision. Second, the linguistic turn and the historicity of meaning undermine the ideal of certainty and instead place at the center a practical competence for living with contingency. Disagreement is not a defect of democratic order but a driver of collective learning—provided that conflict remains Dialogue Eligible and does not collapse into exclusion or silencing.
Third, the article shows that Irony plays a decisive ethical–political role. The ironic citizen is aware that her final vocabularies are contingent products of history and culture; therefore, she resists sacralizing her own language as a universal measure. This awareness produces epistemic humility and, in the public sphere, supports tolerance by reducing symbolic violence—humiliation and the rhetorical elimination of the other.
Fourth, once metaphysical foundations are rejected, Solidarity replaces the foundation-building function formerly attributed to “Truth.” Social cohesion is generated through moral imagination, empathy, and the practical commitment to avoid cruelty. Institutions are democratic to the extent that they expand the conditions for conversation, accountability, and reform. From this perspective, freedom of expression, transparency, and public accountability are not peripheral rights but Institutional Preconditions for sustaining conversation and producing defensible norms under pluralism.
Finally, the comparative perspective indicates that Rorty offers less a closed institutional blueprint than a Criterion for Evaluating Democracy: the degree of dialogic openness, revisability, and the capacity to reduce cruelty. The major challenge is that without robust prerequisites for equality and effective participation, “conversation” may operate under asymmetric power and thereby reproduce exclusion rather than correct it.
 
Conclusions
The article concludes that Rory’s democratic constellation is a continuous cultural–institutional project: truth is reconceived as dialogical justification, irony provides the ethical infrastructure for tolerance and fallibilism, and solidarity secures cohesion within pluralism. The practical implication for public law is to prioritize procedural guarantees of dialogue—free expression, accountability, and real revisability—while resisting the transformation of any narrative into a final and coercive “Truth.”

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Aslani, F., Sajjadi, S. (2020). The theory of "self-limitation of power" and the study of the relationship between the state and law, Journal of Legal Studies, 12(3), 1-28, [In Persian]
Abers, R., Brandao, I., King, R., Votto, D. (2018). Porto Alegre: Participatory Budgeting and the Challenge of Sustaining Transformative Change [Research Report]. Porto Alegre Participatory Budgeting Project.
Alibeglou, H. (2021). The Relationship between Philosophy and Democracy in Richard Rorty’s Thought. M.A. Thesis, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin. [In Persian]
Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The Pragmatic Turn, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fishkin, J. S. (1991), Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fung, A. (2003), Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hosseini, S. L (2018). A critical review of recent decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of religion within the framework of the margin of discretion doctrine, Journal of Legal Studies, 10(2), 79-103. [In Persian]
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koukab, S. (2006). Epistemology from the Viewpoint of Richard Rorty. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran. [In Persian]
Koukab, S. (2010). Truth and Justification, Philosophy, 38, 137–174. [In Persian]
Mousazadeh, I., Asghari, M., & Abdollahnejad, M. (2021). “The Linguistic Structure of Reality in Richard Rorty’s Thought”, Philosophical–Theological Research Journal, No 90, 105–119. [In Persian]
Moradkhani, F. (2020). The concept of constitutional law in the thought of John Rawls, Journal of Legal Studies, 12(1), 247-273. [In Persian]
Nouri, M. (2022). Pragmatism, Naturalism, and the Challenge of Preserving Normativity: The Debate between Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, Javidan Kherad Journal, 42, 97–122. [In Persian]
Pendashteh-Pour, M. (2024). An Evaluation of the Epistemological Foundations of American Pragmatism: ‘The Priority of Democracy over Philosophy’ in Rorty’s Thought. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Management and Humanities in Iran, Tehran, May 30–31: 1301–1316. [In Persian]
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Romana, R. (2014). The Philosophy of Richard Rorty, Trans. M. Nouri, Tehran: Elm Publications. [In Persian]
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (1993). Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality, In Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (2006). Contingency, Game, and Solidarity, Trans. P. Yazdanjoo, Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz. [In Persian]
Rorty, R. (2013). Postmodern Truth, Trans. M. Asghari, Tehran: Elham Publications. [In Persian]
Rorty, R. (2020). An Introduction to the Linguistic Turn, Trans. S. M. H. Ayatollahzadeh Shirazi & P. Panahi, Tehran: Nashr-e Shabkhiz. [In Persian]
Rorty, R., & Angel, P. (2019). What Is Truth For? A Debate between Richard Rorty and Pascal Engel, Trans. R. Mahmoudi, Tehran: Kargadan Publications. [In Persian]
Rorty, R., & Searle, J. (2022). Rorty and Searle: A Philosophical Debate, Trans. B. Elmi, Tehran: Kargadan Publications. [In Persian]
Strauss, D. A. (1996). Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 877–935.
Sunstein, C. R. (1995). Incompletely Theorized Agreements, Harvard Law Review, 108(7), 1733–1772.
Simayi-Sarraf, H., & Mo’tamedi, J. (2017). The Impact of Pragmatism on Legal Interpretation, Legal Research Quarterly, 81, 265–287. [In Persian]
Soleimani, N., & Asghari, M. (2015). The Concept of Truth in Rorty’s Philosophy, Philosophical–Theological Research Journal,2(1), 138–164. [In Persian]
Soodmandi, A. M. (2016). Components of the Right to Expression in the International Human Rights System, Journal of Legal Studies, 8(2), 87-114. [In Persian]
Voparil, C. J. (2013). Reconstructing Pragmatism: Richard Rorty and the Classical Pragmatists, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zolghadri, M. (2018). Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality, In Mother Tongue: Essays on Human Rights, Trans. E. Nikouy-Bandari, Tehran: Tarjoman Institute for Humanities Translation. [In Persian]
 
Cases & Decisions
Barcelona City Council / Decidim Project (2018). Decidim: A Platform for Participatory Democracy. Barcelona: Ayuntamiento de Barcelona. Available at: https://decidim.org/docs/
Council of Europe (2018). Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (Advisory Opinions). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/214
European Union / European Economic and Social Committee (2017). Reports on Participatory Governance. Brussels: EESC.Available at: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/publications-other-work/reports/participatory-governance
European Court of Human Rights (1978), Tyrer v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5856/72, Judgment of 25 April 1978. Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
European Court of Human Rights (1976), Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, Judgment of 7 December 1976.Available from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
Open Government Partnership (OGP) (2021). Global Report: Democracy Beyond the Ballot. Washington, DC: Open Government Partnership Secretariat. Available at: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/reports/global-report-democracy-beyond-the-ballot/
U.S. Supreme Court (2005), Roper v. Simmons, in United States Reports, 543 U.S. 551. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/USREPORTS
U.S. Supreme Court (1958), Trop v. Dulles, in United States Reports, 356 U.S. 86. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/USREPORTS
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 18, Issue 3 - Serial Number 58
October 2026
Pages 261-308

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics