Skip to main content
Log in

Regulating Disagreement, Constituting Participants: A Critique of Proceduralist Theories of Democracy

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

REFERENCES

  • Aune, J. A.: 1994, Rhetoric and Marxism, Westview, Boulder CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S.: 1996, ‘Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy', in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 67-94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. J.: 1996, ‘The Revival of the Democratic Ethos', Cardozo Law Review 17, 1127-1145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, R.: 1996, ‘New Theories of Discursive Democracy: A User's Guide', Philosophy and Social Criticism 22, 49-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broda-Bahm, K. T.: 1995, ‘Meta-procedure: The Bases for Challenging Operative Norms of Argument', in S. Jackson (ed.), Argument and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth AFA/SCA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA, pp. 314-320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castoriadis, C.: 1997, ‘Democracy as Procedure and Democracy as Regime', Constellations 4, 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.: 1996, ‘Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy', in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 95-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.: 1990, Discursive Democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van: 1995, ‘A World of Difference: The Rich State of Argumentation Theory', Informal Logic 17, 144-158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstucting Argumentative Discourse, Alabama University Press, Tuscaloosa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H.: 1994, Disturbing Pleasures: Learning Popular Culture, Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. W.: 1997, Tropes travel: The rhetorical perspective on argumentation and the question of effectivity. Paper presented at the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (Alta, Utah).

  • Gutmann, A. and D. Thompson: 1996, Democracy and Disagreement, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1994, ‘Three Normative Models of Democracy', Constellations 1, 1-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1996a, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.), MIT Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1996b, ‘Reply', Cardozo Law Review 17, 1477-1573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D.: 1995, ‘Disagereement and Democratic Pluralism', in S. Jackson (ed.), Argument and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth AFA/ SCA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale VA, pp. 302-307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, A.: 1993, Explorations in Law and Society: Towards a Constitutive Theory of Law, Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, A. and G. Wickham: 1994, Foucault and Law: Towards a Sociology of Law as Governance, Pluto, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langsdorf, L.: 1995, ‘Argument as Inquiry in a Postmodern Context', in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Perspectives and Approaches, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 452-463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, R.: 1995, ‘Argumentation and Identity', in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Perspectives and Approaches, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 260-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J.: 1993, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R. R.: 1990, ‘Are Robert's Rules of Order Counterrevolutionary? Rhetoric and the Reconstruction of Portuguese Politics', Anthropological Quarterly 63, 134-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R.: 1988, Contingency, Irony, Solidarity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, M.: 1994, ‘Law as Discourse: Bridging the Gap between Democracy and Rights', Harvard Law Review 108, 1146-1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M.: 1984, ‘The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self', Political Theory 12, 81-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L.: 1997, ‘Against Deliberation', Political Theory 25, 347-376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltan, K. E. and S. Elkin: 1996, The Constitution of Good Societies, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, J.: 1990, ‘Three Perspectives on Argument', in R. Trapp and J. Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, Waveland, Prospect Heights IL, pp. 9-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. V.: 1997, Voice as a Preemptive Force in Environmental Decision Making, Unpublished manuscript.

  • Young, I. M.: 1996, ‘Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy', in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 120-136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hicks, D., Langsdorf, L. Regulating Disagreement, Constituting Participants: A Critique of Proceduralist Theories of Democracy. Argumentation 13, 139–160 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007773607213

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007773607213

Navigation