Boris Litvin | Northwestern University (original) (raw)

Papers by Boris Litvin

American Political Science Review, 2023

How concerning should it be that most citizens encounter political life chiefly as audiences? Fac... more How concerning should it be that most citizens encounter political life chiefly as audiences? Facing this fact, democratic theorists increasingly respond by reconceptualizing “the spectator” as an empowered agent. Yet this response risks overlooking how evolving forms of media reconstitute audiences in ways that undermine efforts to ascribe agency to any given spectating activity. To illustrate this problem, I consider Jeffrey Green’s idealization of candor, which holds spectators to be empowered when leaders are denied scripted appearances. In contrast, I show that social media occasion a case of irreverent candor wherein spectators claim authenticity by derailing online conversations, thereby valorizing a kind of unscriptedness that perpetuates outgroup marginalization and facilitates demagogy. Paradoxically, such candor disempowers spectators while rendering them more “active” agents. I thus argue that empowerment requires audiences to interrogate their own spectating practices—a possibility I locate in Hannah Arendt’s thought and interactions surrounding Black Lives Matter protests.

The Wives of Western Philosophy: Gender Politics in Intellectual Labor, 2021

Machiavelli’s feminist interpreters have increasingly turned to his comedy La Mandragola to probl... more Machiavelli’s feminist interpreters have increasingly turned to his comedy La Mandragola to problematize the vision of “masculine” virtù and self-sufficiency often attributed to his thought. Insofar as La Mandragola problematizes this vision of political action, however, this chapter argues that readers need to interrogate another character type celebrated therein: that of the detached yet unfailingly perceptive advisor whose depiction as La Mandragola’s chief strategist, Ligurio, is almost universally taken to stand in for Machiavelli himself. In investigating the place of women’s labor in Machiavelli’s oeuvre, I seek to question this analogy. To do so, I turn to re-examine the details behind La Mandragola’s authorship and performance, arguing that key sections of La Mandragola were in fact co-written by Machiavelli and Barbera Salutati, a Florentine singer and actress chiefly remembered as Machiavelli’s “love interest” in current-day scholarship, yet whose actual contribution to Machiavelli’s intellectual work goes largely unnoticed. Revisiting La Mandragola as a co-written and co-produced text raises significant political theoretic concerns. Specifically, I argue that the contextual dynamics of co-authorship challenge readers to question the rhetorical presentation of the masterful strategist—of Ligurio as Machiavelli—in their understanding of “Machiavellian” political agency.

The Review of Politics, 2019

Rousseau's interpreters often disagree over whether the Emile prepares its protagonist for member... more Rousseau's interpreters often disagree over whether the Emile prepares its protagonist for membership in the Social Contract's political community or presents him as an alternative to it. I argue that such attempts to determine the compatibility of Rousseau's different "projects" obscures his broader engagement with his contemporary popular audiences-particularly those associated with the theater and the novel-and the political implications therein. In contrast to the above debate, I turn to Emile to argue that in this work Rousseau attempts to shape readers in distinct and crucial ways. Emile does not simply present precepts to be embraced but intervenes into the underlying communicative dynamics that need to obtain for Rousseau's conception of collective self-legislation. It does so by shifting between the theatrical and novelistic generic conventions identified in his prior engagements with popular audiences, thus generating a reading experience that orients readers to continuously revisit their constitution as a collective audience.

European Journal of Political Theory, 2019

This paper engages the debate within the ‘democratic turn’ in Machiavelli scholarship, where an ‘... more This paper engages the debate within the ‘democratic turn’ in Machiavelli scholarship, where an ‘institutional’ approach has celebrated Machiavelli's theorisation of the institutions under which the people can rule while a ‘no-rule’ approach has traced Machiavelli's attention to the popular capacity to subvert all relations of rule. What do we make of Machiavelli's concurrent reception as a champion of popular rule and an antagonist to all rule? I argue that both institutionalising and subversive impulses appear simultaneously in Machiavelli's works, though in a dynamic for which neither of the democratic approaches adequately accounts – namely, a rhetorical dimension of Machiavelli's works wherein political knowledge unfolds from a continuous multiplicity of perspectives and the ensuing implication that perspective is crafted and shaped through political action. Perspectival readings of Machiavelli's accounts of the Capuan debate and the Ciompi rebellion thus reveal that both democratic approaches have neglected to question certain ‘princely’ orientations toward political action inherited in their conceptualisations of Machiavellian democracy. In contrast, I suggest that Machiavelli's comedy La Mandragola offers an opportunity to reframe perspective as a uniquely democratic phenomenon. Reading the comedy alongside the democratic turn, I argue that it enacts, satirises and even casts doubts on Machiavelli's princely lessons, in turn proposing a popular capacity to cultivate perspective in a newly organised public space.

American Political Science Review, 2023

How concerning should it be that most citizens encounter political life chiefly as audiences? Fac... more How concerning should it be that most citizens encounter political life chiefly as audiences? Facing this fact, democratic theorists increasingly respond by reconceptualizing “the spectator” as an empowered agent. Yet this response risks overlooking how evolving forms of media reconstitute audiences in ways that undermine efforts to ascribe agency to any given spectating activity. To illustrate this problem, I consider Jeffrey Green’s idealization of candor, which holds spectators to be empowered when leaders are denied scripted appearances. In contrast, I show that social media occasion a case of irreverent candor wherein spectators claim authenticity by derailing online conversations, thereby valorizing a kind of unscriptedness that perpetuates outgroup marginalization and facilitates demagogy. Paradoxically, such candor disempowers spectators while rendering them more “active” agents. I thus argue that empowerment requires audiences to interrogate their own spectating practices—a possibility I locate in Hannah Arendt’s thought and interactions surrounding Black Lives Matter protests.

The Wives of Western Philosophy: Gender Politics in Intellectual Labor, 2021

Machiavelli’s feminist interpreters have increasingly turned to his comedy La Mandragola to probl... more Machiavelli’s feminist interpreters have increasingly turned to his comedy La Mandragola to problematize the vision of “masculine” virtù and self-sufficiency often attributed to his thought. Insofar as La Mandragola problematizes this vision of political action, however, this chapter argues that readers need to interrogate another character type celebrated therein: that of the detached yet unfailingly perceptive advisor whose depiction as La Mandragola’s chief strategist, Ligurio, is almost universally taken to stand in for Machiavelli himself. In investigating the place of women’s labor in Machiavelli’s oeuvre, I seek to question this analogy. To do so, I turn to re-examine the details behind La Mandragola’s authorship and performance, arguing that key sections of La Mandragola were in fact co-written by Machiavelli and Barbera Salutati, a Florentine singer and actress chiefly remembered as Machiavelli’s “love interest” in current-day scholarship, yet whose actual contribution to Machiavelli’s intellectual work goes largely unnoticed. Revisiting La Mandragola as a co-written and co-produced text raises significant political theoretic concerns. Specifically, I argue that the contextual dynamics of co-authorship challenge readers to question the rhetorical presentation of the masterful strategist—of Ligurio as Machiavelli—in their understanding of “Machiavellian” political agency.

The Review of Politics, 2019

Rousseau's interpreters often disagree over whether the Emile prepares its protagonist for member... more Rousseau's interpreters often disagree over whether the Emile prepares its protagonist for membership in the Social Contract's political community or presents him as an alternative to it. I argue that such attempts to determine the compatibility of Rousseau's different "projects" obscures his broader engagement with his contemporary popular audiences-particularly those associated with the theater and the novel-and the political implications therein. In contrast to the above debate, I turn to Emile to argue that in this work Rousseau attempts to shape readers in distinct and crucial ways. Emile does not simply present precepts to be embraced but intervenes into the underlying communicative dynamics that need to obtain for Rousseau's conception of collective self-legislation. It does so by shifting between the theatrical and novelistic generic conventions identified in his prior engagements with popular audiences, thus generating a reading experience that orients readers to continuously revisit their constitution as a collective audience.

European Journal of Political Theory, 2019

This paper engages the debate within the ‘democratic turn’ in Machiavelli scholarship, where an ‘... more This paper engages the debate within the ‘democratic turn’ in Machiavelli scholarship, where an ‘institutional’ approach has celebrated Machiavelli's theorisation of the institutions under which the people can rule while a ‘no-rule’ approach has traced Machiavelli's attention to the popular capacity to subvert all relations of rule. What do we make of Machiavelli's concurrent reception as a champion of popular rule and an antagonist to all rule? I argue that both institutionalising and subversive impulses appear simultaneously in Machiavelli's works, though in a dynamic for which neither of the democratic approaches adequately accounts – namely, a rhetorical dimension of Machiavelli's works wherein political knowledge unfolds from a continuous multiplicity of perspectives and the ensuing implication that perspective is crafted and shaped through political action. Perspectival readings of Machiavelli's accounts of the Capuan debate and the Ciompi rebellion thus reveal that both democratic approaches have neglected to question certain ‘princely’ orientations toward political action inherited in their conceptualisations of Machiavellian democracy. In contrast, I suggest that Machiavelli's comedy La Mandragola offers an opportunity to reframe perspective as a uniquely democratic phenomenon. Reading the comedy alongside the democratic turn, I argue that it enacts, satirises and even casts doubts on Machiavelli's princely lessons, in turn proposing a popular capacity to cultivate perspective in a newly organised public space.