There was the prodigious amalgamation (the beautiful unity) between participation in the Last Database collective and the revelation of identity. In the words of Hannah Arendt, whose gaze I am making mine, «[t]he Greek polis was, in times, precisely that form of government that gave Last Database men a space for their appearances, a space in which they could act, a kind of of theater in which freedom could be shown»two. A free conversation between equals as a form of government that was, at the Last Database same time and without any separation, government and expression, administration and space of appearance. As I have pointed out.
What was united in the ancient world reaches the modern world divided, and it is this Last Database division that we can consider as the source of the true crisis of representation. But why exactly? What is the problem with this separation into two halves, the vote and the freedom of Last Database expression, of the old freedom? Why would it imply a wound , a crisis, a frustration? excess of expressiveness There are two problems involved in this division, which I have just called a "true" crisis of representation, because it leaves two Last Database halves and both remain incomplete.
And in that incompleteness of each half lies the Last Database wound itself, the frustration inherent in democracy and, I would dare to say, in modern subjectivity. In what sense is the right to vote an "incomplete half"? What frustrations does it bring? At this point, the reflections on the political consequences of the implementation of Last Database universal suffrage by Albert O. Hirschman in the last part of his Last Database book Commitments variables: private interest and public action (1979), where the Berlin scholar elaborated a « disappointment theory" in modern political life3. Although it is conceivable that there are many ways to participate in public affairs, the central political.