Activist challenges to deliberative democracy

Political Theory

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 670-690

  Young, Iris Marion ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035537730     PISSN: 00905917     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0090591701029005004     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. There are some exceptions. Andrew Arato and Jean Cohen theorize the place of social movements and civil disobedience in the context of civil society; see Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992). John Dryzek's arguments about the importance of oppositional movements of civil society that stand outside the state also refer to demonstration and protest activity. See Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. chap. 4; see also Demcracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits and Struggles (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996). The distinction between the norms of deliberation and the norms of activism that this essay explores, however, should not be mapped onto a distinction between state and civil society. Civil society is certainly a site for deliberative politics, as many by now have pointed out, including Dryzek, although it is also usually the site for activism as well.
2. There are some exceptions. Andrew Arato and Jean Cohen theorize the place of social movements and civil disobedience in the context of civil society; see Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992). John Dryzek's arguments about the importance of oppositional movements of civil society that stand outside the state also refer to demonstration and protest activity. See Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. chap. 4; see also Demcracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits and Struggles (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996). The distinction between the norms of deliberation and the norms of activism that this essay explores, however, should not be mapped onto a distinction between state and civil society. Civil society is certainly a site for deliberative politics, as many by now have pointed out, including Dryzek, although it is also usually the site for activism as well.
3. There are some exceptions. Andrew Arato and Jean Cohen theorize the place of social movements and civil disobedience in the context of civil society; see Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992). John Dryzek's arguments about the importance of oppositional movements of civil society that stand outside the state also refer to demonstration and protest activity. See Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. chap. 4; see also Demcracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits and Struggles (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996). The distinction between the norms of deliberation and the norms of activism that this essay explores, however, should not be mapped onto a distinction between state and civil society. Civil society is certainly a site for deliberative politics, as many by now have pointed out, including Dryzek, although it is also usually the site for activism as well.
4. Michael Walzer offers a useful list of political activities in addition to deliberation, some of which characterize the activist. See "Deliberation, and What Else?" in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Stephen Macedo (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999).
5. See I. M. Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), chap. 2.
6. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson insist on criteria of publicity and accountability in their book, Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996). Although they certainly agree that inclusion is a criterion, they do not make this a separate principle. For reasons to do so, see I. M. Young, "Justice, Inclusion and Deliberative Democracy, "in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Stephen Macedo (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999).
7. James Fishkin, The Voice of the People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).
8. This is the position I argue for in early chapters of Inclusion and Democracy.
9. This is one of Ian Shapiro's main responses to ideas of deliberative democracy in his essay, "Enough of Deliberation: Politics Is about Interests and Power, "in Deliberative Politics, ed. Stephen Macedo (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999), 28-38.
10. Gutmann and Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement, chap. 8; they are representative here of policy discussion on these issues in the United States, as well as of American public opinion.
11. See Jürgen Habermas, "On Systematically Distorted Communication, "Inquiry 13 (1970): 205-18. In light of the fact that Habermas has had much to contribute to contemporary theories of ideology or distorted communication, it is surprising and disappointing that his own theory of deliberative democracy as expressed in Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996) gives almost no space to theorizing distorted communication and its effects on the legitimacy of political outcomes.
12. See Jürgen Habermas, "On Systematically Distorted Communication, "Inquiry 13 (1970): 205-18. In light of the fact that Habermas has had much to contribute to contemporary theories of ideology or distorted communication, it is surprising and disappointing that his own theory of deliberative democracy as expressed in Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996) gives almost no space to theorizing distorted communication and its effects on the legitimacy of political outcomes.
13. See James Bohman, Public Deliberation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), esp. chap. 3. See also Bohman, "Distorted Communication: Formal Pragmatics as a Critical Theory, "in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. L. Hahn (Indianapolis: Open Court, 2000).
14. See James Bohman, Public Deliberation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), esp. chap. 3. See also Bohman, "Distorted Communication: Formal Pragmatics as a Critical Theory, "in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. L. Hahn (Indianapolis: Open Court, 2000).
15. John Thompson offers a contemporary theory of ideology that includes consideration of media. See Ideology and Modern Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990). John Dryzek has a useful discussion of ideology in Democracy in Capitalist Times, chap. 6.
16. John Thompson offers a contemporary theory of ideology that includes consideration of media. See Ideology and Modern Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990). John Dryzek has a useful discussion of ideology in Democracy in Capitalist Times, chap. 6.
17. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, chap. 7.