Recent developments in deliberative democratic theory have witnessed a renegotiation of classic deliberative principles to conceptualise the form deliberation could take under suboptimal speech situations. Application of deliberative virtues is negotiated, suggesting that different contexts warrant different deliberative expectations. Such approach presents a topical model of deliberation but it also raises concerns regarding the extent of these norms’ negotiability, whether there remain core deliberative virtues that cannot be compromised regardless of the context. This piece addresses this theoretical challenge by putting forward a sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. It draws on pragma-dialectics, an approach to the study of argumentation that examines how a ‘difference of opinion’ is handled in practice. It suggests that deliberative norms and discursive tactics have specialised functions at particular moments of exchange while retaining focus on components that make deliberation a distinct form of political practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
I use the terms speech styles (Young, 1996) and discursive ‘tactics’ (Fung, 2005) interchangeably in this piece. These refer to verbal utterances and non-verbal communicative modes that serve a function in communication. Examples of these styles and tactics have been extensively discussed by Young (1996) in her conceptualisation of Communicative Democracy.
The pragma-dialectical model, also known as the ‘Amsterdam School’ in argumentation theory, is developed by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. They have published several books on the subject which conceptualise theoretical models and heuristic devices to analyse argumentative practice (see van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004).
Knops (2006) provides an extended discussion on the linguistic foundations shared by pragma-dialectics and deliberation.
It is worth reemphasising that this article uses the pragma-dialectical model as springboard for creating the sequential model of deliberation and does not aim to apply all of pragma-dialectics’ heuristic tools to the study of deliberative democracy. However, further research on the application of its other tools could be useful, such as pragma-dialectics’ analysis of speech acts and argumentative schemes.
In deliberative theory, ‘traditional’ forms of reason-giving are described as argumentation that favours dispassionate speech styles and logical coherence. These are often associated to institutions dominated by white, upper-class males such as modern parliaments, courts and scientific debates (see Young, 1996, p. 124).
Enriching the ‘economy of moral disagreement’ is the term Gutmann and Thompson use to describe a situation where citizens manifest mutual respect as they continue to disagree on morally important issues (see Gutmann and Thompson, 2004, p. 153).
I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this insight.
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M.R. and Steiner, J. (2010) Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 32–63.
Chambers, S. (2009) Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned democracy? Political Theory 37 (3): 323–350.
Dryzek, J. (2010) Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van and Grootendorst, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. and Henkemans, F.S. (2002) Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Festenstein, M. (2002) Deliberation, citizenship and identity. In: M.P. d’Entrèves (ed.) Democracy as Public Deliberation. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, pp. 88–111.
Fung, A. (2005) Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory 33 (2): 397–419.
Goodin, R.E. (2005) Sequencing deliberative moments. Acta Politica 40 (2): 182–196.
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. (1998) What is universal pragmatics? In: M. Cooke (ed.) On the Pragmatics of Communication. Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 21–104.
Hall, C. (2007) Recognising the passion in deliberation: Toward a more democratic theory of deliberative democracy. Hypatia 22 (4): 81–95.
Hendriks, C.M. (2006) Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 54 (3): 486–508.
Kadlec, A. and Friedman, W. (2007) Deliberative democracy and the problem of power. Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1): 1–26.
Knops, A. (2006) Delivering deliberation's emancipatory potential. Political Theory 34 (5): 594–623.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2003) Metadialogues. In: F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F.S. Henkemans (eds.) Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation. Dordrecht, MA: Kluwer (Argumentation Library 8), pp. 83–90.
Mansbridge, J. (1999) Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In: S. Macedo (ed.) Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–239.
Mansbridge, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amenqual, M. and Gastil, J. (2006) Norms of deliberation: An inductive study. Journal of Public Deliberation 2 (1): 1–47.
Mansbridge, J. et al (2010) The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 64–100.
Mouffe, C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
Parkinson, J. and Mansbridge, J. (eds.) (2012) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Polletta, F. and Lee, J. (2006) Is telling stories good for democracy? Rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review 71 (5): 699–723.
Rees, M.A. van (2007) Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: The case of television talk. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1454–1463.
Rostbøll, C.F. (2009) Dissent, criticism, and transformative political action in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 12 (1): 19–36.
Sanders, L.M. (1997) Against deliberation. Political Theory 25 (3): 347–376.
Thompson, D.F. (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.
Vedung, E. (1987) Rational argumentation and political deception. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and Ch. A. Willard (eds.) Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation. Dordrecht, MA/Providence, RI: Foris Publications, PDA 3, pp. 353–364.
Warren, M. (2006) What should and should not be said: Deliberative sensitive issues. Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (2): 163–181.
Young, I.M. (1996) Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In: S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 120–135.
I would like to thank John Dryzek, Andrew Knops and the anonymous reviewers for the constructive feedback on the earlier drafts of this paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Curato, N. A sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. Acta Polit 47, 423–442 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2012.15
- deliberative democracy
- argumentation theory