The Poor Fit Between Deliberative Theory and Deliberative Practice A – Preoccupation With Speech and Debate A sizeable literature has developed to evaluate deliberative democratic institutions and practices. Typically these studies will focus on how citizen participation either does or does not conform to a set of norms.” Were “deliberative citizens deliberating properly? Was the institution set up to facilitate meaningful debate? The effect here is to reinforce concepts from deliberative theory in defining what value (if any) can be found in instances where citizens meet and work together. And, generally, the focus is on the quality of argumentation by participants. This tendency stems from a preoccupation with language and speech in deliberative theory that forecloses the possibility that elements beyond rational-critical debate might matter as much, or more, than the quality of citizen argumentation. And this is true even as researchers attempt to move beyond rational debate and consider the value in other communicative forms like emotional speech or narrative. I will offer a very brief account of where I believe this preoccupation with language and argument comes from, and then show in a bit more detail how it is reproduced in recent attempts to understand citizen deliberation in practice. Habermas, His Heirs, and Ideal Communication as the Foundation of Democratic Deliberation I do not an overly long treatment of the development of the deliberative literature is necessary here, but I do think it’s worth briefly going back to Habermas, since his foundational concepts still motivate the vast majority of the work on
The Poor Fit Between Deliberative Theory and Deliberative Practice – A Preoccupation With Speech and Debate A sizeable literature has developed to evaluate deliberative democratic institutions and practices. Typically these studies will focus on how citizen participation either does or does not conform to a set of “deliberative norms.” Were citizens deliberating properly? Was the institution set up to facilitate meaningful debate? The effect here is to reinforce concepts from deliberative theory in defining what value (if any) can be found in instances where citizens meet and work together. And, generally, the focus is on the quality of argumentation by participants. This tendency stems from a preoccupation with language and speech in deliberative theory that forecloses the possibility that elements beyond rational-critical debate might matter as much, or more, than the quality of citizen argumentation. And this is true even as researchers attempt to move beyond rational debate and consider the value in other communicative forms like emotional speech or narrative. I will offer a very brief account of where I believe this preoccupation with language and argument comes from, and then show in a bit more detail how it is reproduced in recent attempts to understand citizen deliberation in practice. Habermas, His Heirs, and Ideal Communication as the Foundation of Democratic Deliberation I do not an overly long treatment of the development of the deliberative literature is necessary here, but I do think it’s worth briefly going back to Habermas, since his foundational concepts still motivate the vast majority of the work on
WPSA%20Paper%202015%20-%20Andersen.docx