'Language' at the Top is different from 'language ' at the Bottom.

The Top 'speaks' the language of democracy, while the Bottom, 'speaks' the language of everyday life. The language of the Top is general and abstract so as to include everyone to whom any one policy, law or practice applies. Of course, the Bottom also speaks abstractly, but their 'abstractions' apply to specifics. Nevertheless, the individual at the Bottom 'lives' and 'has a life' in the 'specifics' of the democratic social. The actual 'living', or 'having a life', in a democracy is never an abstraction. Unfortunately, that is the place where the 'clash' between a theory and a practice takes place. Theory always remains abstract; 'practice' requires some form of 'communion' or direct connection with everyday life. But, don't kid yourself, 'everyday life' can be as 'distant' from the real thing as is pure theory. Why is that? Simply because every individual has a different definition of what to him/her is 'every-day life'. A living, breathing, human being always participates, in a 'full sense', in his 'conditions' of life. The above distinctions are what requires, that the relation between the Top and the Bottom, be a real relation, not an abstract one. Democracy must relate, in a real way, with the individuals at the Bottom. If we look at the relation we are speaking about, we notice this is the ancient relation of the One and the Many. It seems that the ancients considered the One and the Many as a 'real' One and a 'real' Many. Of course, that makes the dilemmas of government that arises therefrom unsolvable. From the view of a democracy, it has no solution. Hence, the necessity that the Top be an abstract entity called the "State"( even though a fiction) or "government", and the necessity that the relation between the Top and the bottom be a real relation that transforms democratic abstractions into a real 'democratic life' of individual freedom and equality.