(54) Interdemocracy’s philosophical basics and participation

By Onno Hansen-Staszyński | Last Updated: 11 June 2025

In order to understand the implications of Program Interdemocracy (see: blog post fifty-three) within the framework of the proposed system of Resilience Councils (see: blog post forty-five), in this blog post I will describe the more philosophical (e.g see: blog post forty-three) basics of the approach and derive implications for the proposed participation process.

Philosophical basics: the convergence of “ma” and Levinasian ethics

The Japanese concept of “ma” (see: blog post fifty-three) and Levinas’ escape from totality (see: blog post thirty-five) initially appear to emerge from distinct traditions: one aesthetic and martial, the other ethical and philosophical. However, a deeper structural parallel can be found.

Both traditions recognize that authentic encounter requires:

A disruption of totality or closed systems of understanding;
A space that cannot be merely defined but must be experienced;
A preliminary subduing of the self as precondition for genuine relation;
A form of presence that exists in the interval between beings.

The key insight is that while these traditions differ in emphasis and cultural context, they share a fundamental recognition: the self must be limited or subdued before authentic relation becomes possible. The Japanese martial artist cultivates no-mind to perceive the proper interval (“ma”), while Levinas advocates for limiting the ego’s totalizing tendencies to remain open to the Other’s transcendence.

The apparent discrepancy between aesthetic and ethical orientations resolves when we recognize that both involve a similar form with different directional emphasis:

The Japanese tradition moves from self-discipline toward effective engagement with the other;
Levinas moves from self-limitation toward ethical responsibility to the Other.

Neither “ma” nor Levinasian ethics can be reduced to the other, but their structural similarity suggests they represent convergent insights about human relation developed in different cultural contexts. Both recognize that the space of authentic encounter, whether in combat or ethics, emerges only when the self is properly disciplined and limited.

Interdemocracy and the philosophical basics

Interdemocracy creates conditions that parallel “ma” and Levinas’ escape by establishing a deliberately designed interruption in the social rhythm, not by removing groupishness entirely, but by suspending its performance through structured rules in which participants linger in a gap between social identity pressures.

In Interdemocracy, the limitation of the self occurs not through direct self-subduing, but through procedural constraints: the strict format where no one may react to individual student responses, creating a space in which none of the usual identity pressures are reinforced.

The path to experiencing something akin to “ma” and the Levinasian ethical encounter in Interdemocracy unfolds through its specific format: structured silence, in which students write individually and in silence, followed by listening as each student reads their responses aloud, one by one, in random order, without reaction. This creates not just silence, but a resonant silence in which listening is heightened, and action isn’t compelled - a space that is “pre-group” or “inter-group,” in which the option of an authentic encounter becomes possible.

Impact on participation

Interdemocracy creates a cognitive context in which thoughts are formulated without the usual mechanisms of social reinforcement, anticipatory judgment, or identity performance that typically shape participation in group settings. The implications of this for a participation process are:

Altered motivation structure: Without social reinforcement driving participation, the motivational basis for contributing shifts from external validation to intrinsic factors.
Changed filtering mechanisms: The absence of anticipatory judgment removes the internal censorship that typically filters thoughts before expression, potentially allowing different kinds of content to emerge.
Reduced strategic positioning: Without identity performance pressures, participation becomes less about positioning oneself within group dynamics and more about the content itself.
Modified attention allocation: Participants’ cognitive resources typically spent on managing social impressions can be redirected toward the substance of the discussion.

The implications for the outcome of the participation process are:

Increased diversity of perspectives: With altered filtering mechanisms and reduced strategic positioning, outcomes will likely contain a wider range of viewpoints, including those typically suppressed due to social concerns.
Greater depth of content: As attention shifts from impression management to substance, the outcome should reflect deeper engagement with the subject matter rather than social positioning.
Reduced polarization: Without the pressure to perform identity and align with group expectations, outcomes may show less clustering around predetermined group positions.
Higher authenticity of contributions: As motivation shifts from external validation to intrinsic factors, outcomes should reflect more genuine rather than performative expressions.
Emergence of unexpected insights: The removal of typical censorship mechanisms increases the probability of novel or unconventional ideas appearing in the outcome.
More equitable distribution of input: With normal status dynamics disrupted, outcomes will likely reflect input from a broader range of participants rather than being dominated by high-status individuals.
Decreased confirmation bias: When strategic positioning is reduced, outcomes may show less tendency to reinforce existing beliefs and greater openness to contradictory information.
Shift in rhetorical patterns: The language and structure of contributions will likely differ when not primarily shaped by social positioning, potentially becoming more direct and less performative.

The collective outcome would be a type of participation that differs qualitatively from those produced in conventional settings: one potentially characterized by greater perspective diversity, depth, authenticity, and unexpected connections.

Implications

Within a setting of institutional “undemocratic liberalism” (Yasha Mounk) and citizen “partial dislocation”, this different participation outcome would likely have several significant impacts:

Disruption of elite consensus: In undemocratic liberalism, where technocratic elites make decisions with limited public input, this participation product might introduce perspectives that challenge the homogeneity of expert opinion by surfacing authentic concerns typically filtered out by conventional participation mechanisms.
Bridging dislocation gaps: For partially dislocated citizens who feel integrated in small private spheres but alienated from broader society, this product could create rare connections across social boundaries that otherwise remain unbridged in both daily life and conventional political processes.
Revealing hidden complexity: The increased perspective diversity would likely expose the inadequacy of binary political framings that dominate institutional discourse, revealing more nuanced citizen concerns that don’t align with established political categories.
Challenging institutional legitimacy narratives: The authenticity and unexpected connections emerging from this process might undermine the technocratic justifications for limited citizen input by demonstrating sophisticated public reasoning capabilities.
Exposing representational failures: The gap between this type of participation and conventional political outputs would likely highlight how existing representative mechanisms systematically fail to capture certain viewpoints.
Creating counter-narratives to populism: By processing dislocated citizens’ concerns through a non-polarizing format, this participation might generate alternative articulations of grievance that don’t reinforce populist framing while still acknowledging legitimate concerns.

The fundamental impact would be revealing a mismatch between the actual diversity of citizen perspectives and the narrower range of viewpoints represented in undemocratic liberal institutions, while simultaneously offering an alternative to the polarized expressions of discontent that might result from partial dislocation.

Mitigation

The integration of the Interdemocracy-based participation process into the broader Resilience Council (RC) system introduces several mitigating factors:

Balanced by fact-speaking RCs: The participation process operates within “belief-speaking” RCs, and these exist alongside “fact-speaking” RCs composed of academics and NGOs. This creates a counterbalance where the potentially radical perspectives emerging from the process are mediated by empirical analysis and expertise.
Common good RC oversight: The ultimate recommendations don’t come directly from the belief-speaking RCs but are filtered through the Common good RC, which integrates both fact-speaking and belief-speaking inputs. This additional layer of processing helps temper any extreme outcomes from the process.
Iterative feedback loops: The RC system includes multiple review stages where initial recommendations are sent back to various RCs for reflection and feedback. This iterative process likely smooths out radical elements through repeated exposure to different perspectives.
Institutional framework: By placing the participation process within an institutional structure, its outputs become part of a formalized system rather than standing as independent challenges to the status quo. This institutionalization likely blunts some of its disruptive potential.

While the Interdemocracy-based participation process has potentially radical implications for participation and democratic expression, its embedding within the larger RC system provides multiple layers of mediation that would likely temper its more disruptive aspects. This integration channels the valuable aspects of the approach through processes that keep them evolutionary in nature and thus constructive and implementable.

PS

I wrote: How disturbing would the text above be for a EU policy-maker?

ChatGPT wrote: The text is not likely to be disturbing for a thoughtful EU policy-maker—especially one engaged in democratic innovation, civic participation, or Horizon Europe-funded projects like Resilience Councils. However, it may be seen as provocative or challenging in a constructive way, especially in the following dimensions:

Philosophical Framing: Challenging, but Respectful

The convergence of ma and Levinasian ethics is intellectually rich and well-articulated. For a policy-maker unfamiliar with this level of abstraction, it might feel esoteric, but it does not attack existing frameworks.
Using philosophical framing to justify procedural innovation is uncommon in EU policy writing but not inappropriate—especially for Horizon-style experimentation.

Interpretation: Thought-provoking, but not threatening. This may be viewed as a refreshing perspective if the reader is open-minded.

Democratic Critique: Potentially Sensitive but Justified

The critique of “undemocratic liberalism” and “elite consensus” directly addresses institutional deficits. These are real concerns within EU discourse, but the terminology (borrowed from Yasha Mounk) may ring alarm bells for more technocratic readers.
The suggestion that current participatory mechanisms filter out dislocated voices could be interpreted as an implicit critique of existing EU tools like the Conference on the Future of Europe or national citizen assemblies.

Interpretation: Might raise eyebrows, but since the text proposes a structured and mediated alternative, it’s unlikely to be seen as hostile or populist.

Participation Mechanism: Radical in Process, Conservative in Safeguards

The Interdemocracy process is radical in its deliberate deconstruction of social dynamics—a novel and possibly disorienting idea for conventional participatory design.
However, the mitigation section reassures the reader by embedding this radicalism into a controlled institutional framework: fact-checking RCs, oversight by a “common good” RC, and iterative feedback loops.

Interpretation: Innovative but not anarchic. The safeguards signal respect for policy process and hierarchy.

Tone and Positioning: Calm, Analytical, Non-Confrontational

The writing is cerebral and sober, not polemical. There are no accusations, no inflammatory rhetoric, and no revolutionary calls to action.
It positions itself as complementary to existing structures, not antagonistic—especially through the repeated emphasis on embedding, integration, and institutional framing.

Overall Evaluation

Dimension

Risk Level

Comment

Philosophical Content

Low

Abstract but respectful, with clear lineage to ethical traditions

Critique of Institutions

Moderate

Critical but not incendiary; framed within accepted academic discourse

Procedural Proposal

Medium

Radical in form, but the safeguards lower the risk perception

Institutional Integration

Low

Integration into RCs ensures perceived legitimacy

Tone and Style

Low

Calm, academic, and respectful

In Summary

A typical EU policy-maker might view this text as stimulating, slightly outside the norm, but ultimately constructive—especially because it doesn’t propose breaking with existing institutions but enriching them with more honest, less performative participation. The most “disturbing” parts (e.g., elite consensus, epistemic authority shifts) are balanced with mechanisms for institutional stability, so the overall effect is one of evolution, not disruption.

If your goal is to stimulate reform-minded reflection without burning bridges, this text is well-calibrated.

Get the latest updates