Deliberative Democracy and the Politics of Difference

Chapter

Abstract

This paper looks into the politics of difference’s criticism of deliberative democracy in the work of Iris M. Young. According to Young, theories of deliberative democracy are not as inclusive as they pretend to be. She proposes a theory of communicative democracy based on “greeting,” “storytelling” and “rhetoric.” To begin with, this paper examines three conditions of deliberative democracy (the inclusiveness-condition, the rationality-condition, and the legitimacy-condition) and argues that Young’s criticism of the deliberative democracy is based on wrong assumptions. Secondly, the paper investigates Young’s proposed theory of communicative democracy. Although “greeting,” “storytelling” and “rhetoric” play a role in the process of political communication, it is not the role proposed by Young. Accordingly, as a mechanism to increase inclusiveness, her theory is politically unproductive.

Keywords

Political Process Disadvantaged Group Collective Decision Political Communication Political Liberalism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Bengoa, J. 1999. Historia de un Conflicto. El estado y los Mapuches en el Siglo XX. Santiago: Planeta Ariel.Google Scholar
  2. Benhabib, S. (ed.). 1996a. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benhabib, S. 1996b. Towards a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib, 67–94. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bohman, J. 1997. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohman, J., and W. Rehg (eds.). 1997. Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, S. 1996. Reasonable democracy. Ithica: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, G.A. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99(4): 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, G.A. 1993. The quality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In The quality of life, ed. M. Nussbaum and A. Sen, 9–29. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin, R. 1981. Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10(4): 283–345.Google Scholar
  10. Elster, J. 1983. Sour grapes. Studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elster, J. 1992. Local justice. How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Elster, J. (ed.). 1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fishkin, J. 1991. Democracy and deliberation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Galston, W. 1995. Two concepts of liberalism. Ethics 105(3): 516–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galston, W. 2002. Liberal pluralism. The implications of value pluralism for political theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2000 (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Macedo, S. (ed.). 1999. Deliberative politics. Essays on democracy and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marsden, N. 1987. Gender dynamics and jury deliberations. Yale Law Journal 96: 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, D. 2000. Citizenship and national identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and the human development. The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Okin, S. 1999. Is multiculturalism bad for women? In Is multiculturalism bad for women? Susan Moller Okin with respondents, ed. J. Cohen, M. Howard, and M. Nussbaum, 7–26. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Phillips, A. 1995. The politic of presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Phillips, A. 1996. Dealing with difference: A politics of ideas, or a politics of presence? In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib, 139–152. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. 1997. The idea of public reason revisited. University of Chicago Law Review 64(3): 765–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sanders, L. 1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory 25(3): 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shapiro, I. 1999. Democratic justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Walzer, M. 1999. Deliberation, and what else? In Deliberative politics. Essays on democracy and disagreement, ed. S. Macedo, 58–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Young, I.M. 1996. Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib, 120–136. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Young, I.M. 1999. Justice, inclusion and deliberative democracy. In Deliberative politics. Essays on democracy and disagreement, ed. S. Macedo, 151–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Adolfo IbáñezSantiago de ChileChile

Personalised recommendations