Argumentation

, 25:371 | Cite as

Expertise as Argument: Authority, Democracy, and Problem-Solving

Article

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of expertise in a democratic political system: the tension between the authority of expertise and the democratic values that guide political life. We argue that for certain problems, expertise needs to be understood as a dialogical process, and we conceptualize an understanding of expertise through and as argument that positions expertise as constituted by and a function of democratic values and practices, rather than in the possession of, acquisition of, or relationship to epistemic materials. Conceptualizing expertise through argument leads us to see expertise as a kind of phronetic practice, oriented toward judgments and problems, characterized by its ability to provide inventional capacities for selecting the best possible resolution of a particular problem vis-à-vis particular expectations regarding the resolution of a problem. At its core, expertise thus comes to exist in reference not to epistemic but to dialogical, deliberative, democratic practice.

Keywords

Expertise Deliberation Democracy Argument Phronesis Problem 

References

  1. Aristotle. 1960. Posterior analytics. Topica. (trans: Tredennick, H. and Forster, E.S.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 2004a. Rhetoric (trans: Rhys Roberts, W.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 2004b. The Nicomachean ethics (trans: Thomson, J.A.K. and Tredennick, H.). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, S.R. 2009. Fixing my gaze: A scientist’s journey into seeing in three dimensions. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity (trans: Ritter, M.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash. 1994. Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bohman, J. 1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calhoun, C. 1993. Civil society and the public sphere. Public Culture 5: 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. 1997. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. J. Bohman and W. Rehg, 67–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, J., and R. Cooper. 2001–2011. All about strabismus. http://www.strabismus.org/surgery_crossed_eyes.html.
  12. Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1983. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dryzek, JS. 2002. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Einsiedel, E.F., E. Jelsøe, and T. Breck. 2001. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science 10: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishkin, J.S. 1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gawande, A. 2010. Letting go. The New Yorker 85: 36–42.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. 1999. Risk and responsibility. Modern Law Review 62(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutmann, A., and D.F. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action, vol. 1 (trans: McCarthy, T.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jonsen, A.R., and S.E. Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ku, A.S. 1998. Boundary politics in the public sphere: Openness, secrecy, and leak. Sociological Theory 16: 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lippmann, W. 1922/1997. Public opinion. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lippmann, W. 1925/1993. The phantom public. New York: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Lowrance, W.W. 1976. Of acceptable risk: Science and the determination of safety. Los Altos, CA: W. Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  25. Majdik, Z.P., and W.M. Keith. 2011. The problem of pluralistic expertise: A Wittgensteinian approach to the rhetorical basis of expertise. Social Epistemology 25(3) (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  26. Turner, S.P. 2003. Liberal democracy 3.0: Civil society in an age of experts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. von Noorden, G.K., and E.C. Campos. 2001. Binocular vision and ocular motility: Theory and management of strabismus (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. http://www.cybersight.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-2193.
  28. Welsh, S. 2002. Deliberative democracy and the rhetorical production of political culture. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5: 679–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willard, C.A. 1996. Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations (trans: Anscombe, G.E.M.). New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations