Political Imagination Definition

Olsen argues that abolition of white democracy, “can expand the American Political Imagination beyond the limits of liberalism” (127). He argues the current political imagination is limited and creates deficient conceptions of equality, freedom and citizenship.

Olsen first mentions the current political dialect concerning welfare and redistributive policies aimed at people that the white democracy may see as “handouts” to the underserving. This is done while little attention is paid by white democracy to the difference between underserving and black (127). This leads to a “narrow understanding of equality” and of “social equality as illegitimate” (127). This limited interpretation forces a distinction between “political rights” and “equal

Olsen distinguishes between negative and positive rights. Positive rights are those that allow a person to act, or participate in the system. Positive rights include access to the conditions that must exist prior to acting (i.e. food, shelter, health, education, and relaxation) (127). Negative rights are rights that protect you and your property or possessions. Imagination is limited because the white democracy places more emphasis on negative liberties, leaving freedom as something to be gained, a thing to possess, as opposed to a process in which to participate. Forming a passive conception of freedom limits the political imagination. Passive freedom, he argues, does not promote participation, but instead, promotes protections from others. This conception is limiting because it allows others to be seen as threats to freedom, instead of “a condition of it” (127).

Olsen charges “the white imagination is exclusive,” actively emphasizing socio/political standing and working to limit participation of groups other than whites (128). This places importance on gaining freedoms and protecting those freedoms and your social position, instead of seeing freedom process in which to participate. This limit of political imagination also exacerbates the problem of the cross-class alliance because it “emphasizes individual success rather than class solidarity”