Add co-authors Co-authors. Upload PDF.
- Oh no, there's been an error.
- Sharing Options.
- Proceedings of the 2015 Chinese Intelligent Systems Conference: Volume 1!
- Antarctic Snow and Ice Studies II.
Follow this author. New articles by this author. New citations to this author. New articles related to this author's research.
Email address for updates. My profile My library Metrics Alerts. Sign in. On the other hand, friends debating which movie to see normally do not think there is an objectively right answer.
Recommend to a friend
They seek to accommodate each other, to find a movie each wants to see. All theories of deliberative democracy attempt to specify the conditions under which public deliberations can be regarded as legitimate e. The point of the deliberation is to convert disagreement into agreement about what to do by determining which proposals are supported by the best reasons. Deliberative democrats recognize that disagreement may be persistent. Nevertheless, they believe that the mutual respect involved in the process of deliberation will enhance the legitimacy of whatever decision is ultimately made even in the eyes of those who lose out.
While deliberation is a familiar activity, it is perhaps not often realized quite how strenuous the ideal is. Deliberation is not merely talking nor is it a debate. In a debate, the opponents are trying to win, not to discover the truth. They may present the evidence that favors their case and suppress the contrary evidence, for example. Unlike deliberators, debaters are typically not open to the possibility of being shown wrong Walzer, Neither is deliberation simply a matter of the airing of opinions in which each participant is regarded as having a right to his or her own point of view.
Deliberation involves joint inquiry in which evidence is collected and brought to bear on a problem and multiple theories and interpretations are examined. Thus that participants change their views as the deliberations unfold is one indication that real deliberation is taking place Simon, Preparing future citizens to deliberate, then, requires a focus on a particular set of skills and dispositions. Effective deliberators should be able to construct sound arguments for their positions but should also be open to changing their views when confronted with better arguments.
Like Dewey, deliberative democrats see communal political discourse as joint inquiry that is self-correcting given the right conditions Michelli, Deliberation is, as previously noted, not a debate but rather a collaborative inquiry into questions affecting the public good: seeing what is at stake, bringing evidence and alternative perspectives to bear on the question, developing an opinion, assessing the fairness of the decision-making process Simon, Since diversity of perspective is a deliberative asset, willingness to listen to others who disagree with you is a deliberative virtue. So also is support for the principles that constitute the grounds for free and fair exchange of ideas: respect for the rights of others; nondiscrimination; the freedom and equality of all citizens; civility; mutual respect; tolerance of dissent; openness to different points of view.
Since, as Gutmann suggests, consensus may not be reached on contentious issues, citizens must be willing to respect decisions reached through fair procedures even if they disagree and intend to continue trying to persuade their fellow citizens to change their judgments. There is a considerable consensus in the literature that one of the best ways to develop deliberative capacities in students is to engage them in discussion of controversial issues Gutmann, ; Johnson et al.
If the issues were not controversial, deliberation would not be required. Sometimes the preferred issues are those close to home, such as classroom and school policies, where students may be able to influence the outcome.
Professor of Political Science at Temple Univeristy
But often students are engaged in deliberating public policy questions such as free trade or environmental treaties. Parker offers a curriculum for a high school course in deliberation that teaches students a framework for policy analysis. In Project , students define their own topics for deliberation. In her study of 50 secondary schools in five countries England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States , Hahn found that students who had opportunities to discuss controversial issues in classrooms where they felt free to express their views developed more positive political attitudes than students lacking such experiences.
Such discussions were most effective when the classroom was open to multiple points of view and students felt able to express views that differed from those of their peers or their teacher.
Simon contrasts classroom deliberation with the simple acquisition and recall of information that she believes dominates classrooms. Of course, deliberative discussions need to be informed, but Simon argues that such discussions take longer than straightforward knowledge acquisition and hence there will be some tradeoff between deliberative discussion and content coverage. Standardized tests and high stakes testing are often barriers to classroom deliberation, she says, because deliberative capacities are not tested for and teachers are reluctant to spend time on things that are not tested.
They may also be afraid of getting into trouble through discussion of controversial issues. Parker offers an account, based on his own experience, of how pre-service teachers can learn to lead deliberative discussions Chapter 7. Is deliberation a frequent component of public political life? Admittedly, it does not seem to capture the real world very well.
If we think about the quality of conversation in the last Presidential election, reasonableness, open-mindedness, willingness to be shown wrong, are not the first adjectives that come to mind. Even advocates of the deliberative view acknowledge that the actual political process does not often exemplify deliberation, so students may have rarely seen examples Simon, But the model offers an ideal to be aspired to, not a description of reality.
To what extent should political discussion depend on mutual persuasion about the rightness of particular policies and courses of action? Can democratic interpersonal political communication rightly take other forms? Are these alternatives morally second best to deliberation even if they may be more efficient or expedient?
- Elementorganic Monomers Technology, Properites, applications;
- Religion and the Politics of Ethnic Identity in Bahia, Brazil.
- Serial Information!
- The Permanence of the Political: A Democratic Critique of the Radical Impulse to Transcend Politics?
Advocates of deliberation do not generally argue that deliberation is the only acceptable political activity, but they do tend to think that it has moral advantages over other activities and should be preferred when possible. Is this true? But others have held that in a democratic society, deliberation plays a more limited role.
Deliberation can enhance disagreement rather than bringing about convergence. Religious differences may prove irreconcilable, for example, or citizens may become more aware of their class interests through discussion and hence more aware of how their interests diverge from those of other citizens.
In a liberal democratic society such as the United States where there are diverse groups with different perspectives as well as conflicting interests, reaching agreement on what is true or best as a way of deciding what to do may be less likely to produce a solution acceptable to all than accommodation of conflicting interests. A political order based on agreement about what is true a theocracy, for example is different from a liberal democratic political order that attempts to encompass citizens with different conceptions of the good.
Bargains represent the balance of power not the force of the arguments. The parties trying to reach agreement are seeking to secure their own interests, not necessarily to transcend them through appeal to a common conception of justice or concern for the common good, as the deliberative democrat might want. However, since agreements are more likely to be stable if they give each party a decent measure of satisfaction of their interests, accommodating each other will generally be in the interest of each of the negotiating parties.
An accommodation attempts to reach an agreement all can accept. Advocates of deliberative democracy are wary of negotiation even as they sometimes acknowledge the need for it.
Gutmann does acknowledge, however, that bargaining and negotiation might be called for in situations where no moral issue is at stake or at least one party to the dispute is unwilling to take a moral point of view and so those who did so would be disadvantaged. Skepticism about the morality of bargaining in politics may be part of what gives politics a bad name.
Hahn found low levels of political trust among all adolescents in her multi-country study of secondary school students. Only about 20 percent of adolescents said that they respect those who hold public office. She notes that few students reported ever meeting a politician. They gained their views from media reports of scandals, especially in the tabloid press, and from their parents. Hahn asks what these attitudes mean for the survival of the ideal of representative democracy. But is negotiation or bargaining necessarily morally suspect?
Strategies for forging agreements among opposing parties obviously vary. A winner take all power politics leaves a few crumbs at best for the loser. Competitive struggles are determined by the balance of power or by force. Yet bargains are required when each side needs the other.
American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press | IDEAS/RePEc
If one side can force its will on others, there is no need to negotiate. From this perspective, constructive conflict resolution requires shifting perspective from conflicts in world-views or moral principles which usually are non-negotiable toward the primary interests of the conflicting parties. What is required is to enlist the parties in a collaborative investigation of how to satisfy the primary interests of each in the specific context.
In a sense, this strategy transforms negotiations into deliberation about how to reach an agreement all can accept. Yet the agreement sought is not the objectively right outcome but an arrangement that accommodates each of the parties. Some of the most difficult conflicts are those where moral principles cannot be set aside because the conflict concerns different interpretations of principles of justice.
Deutsch b offers an example of a mediated conflict resolution where the conflict involved how teacher representatives to a site-based management team should be selected.