Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Nicole Curato
  • Marit Hammond
  • John B. Min
Chapter
Part of the Political Philosophy and Public Purpose book series (POPHPUPU)

Abstract

The concluding chapter revisits the tensions between deliberative democracy and power. These tensions are not pathological aberrations, but constitutive of deliberative practice. Deliberative democracy is relevant precisely because it is entangled with rather than insulated from complex relationships of power in contemporary times. The challenge for deliberative democracy is to maintain its ethos of reflexivity, epistemic humility, and capacity to imagine better futures.

References

  1. Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, Arjun. 2003. Archive and Aspiration. Archive Public. https://archivepublic.wordpress.com/texts/arjun-appadurai/. Accessed 4 May 2018.
  3. Appadurai, Arjun. 2004. The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition. In Culture and Public Action, ed. Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton, 59–84. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bächtiger, André, and John Parkinson. Forthcoming. Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Towards a New Deliberative Quality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boswell, John, and Jack Corbett. 2017. Deliberative Bureaucracy: Reconciling Democracy’s Trade-Off Between Inclusion and Economy. Political Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boswell, John. 2016. Deliberating Downstream: Countering Democratic Distortions in the Policy Process. Perspectives on Politics 14 (3): 724–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan, Jason. 2014. How Smart Is Democracy? You Can’t Answer that Question a Priori. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 26 (1–2): 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curato, Nicole, Simon Niemeyer, and John Dryzek. 2013. Appreciative and Contestatory Inquiry in Deliberative Forums: Can Group Hugs Be Dangerous? Critical Policy Studies 7 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolný, Branislav. 2011. Possible Application of Deliberative Democracy in Parliament. Human Affairs 21 (4): 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dryzek, John. 2016. Symposium Commentary: Reflections on the Theory of Deliberative Systems. Critical Policy Studies 10 (2): 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forst, Rainer. 2012. The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goodin, Robert, and Simon Niemeyer. 2003. When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection Versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 51: 627–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunn, Paul. 2014. Democracy and Epistocracy. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 26 (1–2): 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hendriks, Carolyn, Sonya Duus, and Selen Ercan. 2016. Performing Politics on Social Media: The Dramaturgy of an Environmental Controversy on Facebook. Environmental Politics 25 (6): 1102–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houdek, Matthew. 2015. Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation by Christian Kock, Lisa Villadsen (review). Philosophy & Rhetoric 48 (2): 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landemore, Hélène. 2014. Yes, We Can (Make It Up on Volume): Answers to Critics. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 26 (1–2): 184–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis Thompson, and Mark Warren. 2012. A Systematic Approach to Deliberative Democracy. In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, ed. John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, 1–26. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mansbridge, Jane. 1994. Using Power/Fighting Power. Constellations 1 (1): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2012. Recursive Representation in the Representative System. Paper presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gi18fmwlxjm7gmn/MANSBRIDGE_Recursive%20Representation.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 4 May 2018.
  20. Mansbridge, Jane. 2017, November. Recursive Representation in the Representative System. HKS Working Paper No. RWP17-045. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3049294 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3049294
  21. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sparrow, Jeff. 2017. Trump and Brexit Left Progressives Aghast—They Should be Emboldened. Guardian, January 1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/02/trump-brexit-left-progressives-aghast-they-should-be-emboldened. Accessed 4 May 2018.
  23. Steiner, Jürg, Maria Clara Jaramillo, Rousiley C.M. Maia, and Simona Mameli. 2017. Deliberation Across Deeply Divided Societies Transformative Moments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weinstock, Daniel, and David Kahane. 2010. Introduction. In Deliberative Democracy in Practice, ed. David Kahane, Daniel Weinstock, Dominique Leydet, and Melissa Williams, 1–20. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Curato
    • 1
  • Marit Hammond
    • 2
  • John B. Min
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global GovernanceUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.School of Politics, Philosophy, International Relations and EnvironmentKeele UniversityKeeleUK
  3. 3.Department of Social Sciences – Philosophy ProgramCollege of Southern NevadaNorth Las VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations