Search results

What is the relationship between deliberation and democracy? Despite the volumes dedicated to this question, recent admissions by prominent deliberative democrats—that we need not pursue a necessarily deliberative political system, but merely a democratic one—suggest that this remains an open question. Here, I defend the deliberative model's staying power against those who argue that it has been set normatively adrift. Addressing concerns of "concept-stretching," I show that the deliberative model provides much more than a defense of the practice of deliberation. Indeed, its key contribution is the answer it provides to the question of what democracy itself means in large pluralistic societies. Moreover, I show that by de-centering the practice of deliberation from deliberative theories of democracy, we can acknowledge the weakness of deliberation and the strengths of non-deliberative practices, while retaining the model's normative commitments.

Recent political theory in the area of deliberative democracy has placed listening at the normative core of meaningfully democratic deliberation. Empirical research in this area, however, has struggled to capture democratic listening in a normatively relevant way. This paper presents a new, theoretically informed instrument for measuring and assessing listening in deliberation. Here, I tackle the observational challenge of measuring the act of listening itself, as opposed to either the preconditions or outcomes of listening. Reviewing existing measures, I show that each, in isolation, fails to capture the most democratically meaningful aspects of listening. The paper argues, however, that existing and novel measures can be usefully combined to allow researchers to capture different degrees of democratic listening. Using Rawls's concept of "lexical priority," I aggregate relevant components of listening into a normatively significant lexical scale. The paper describes this novel measurement and highlights how it can be used in empirical research on democratic deliberation.

This article explores the concept of deliberative uptake, which I define as the fair consideration of the arguments, stories, and perspectives that citizens share in deliberation. Reinterpreting the democratic force of deliberation, I argue that it comes in large part from uptake, rather than inclusion or influence. As I show, however, citizens often struggle to take up what others have to say, especially those with whom they disagree. These issues of what I call limited uptake undermine democratic possibilities in pluralistic societies, but are not adequately captured in discussions about how to enhance the democratic quality of deliberation. In addition to expanding inclusion, we must find ways to broaden the enactment of deliberative uptake. After explaining the nature and significance of fair consideration, I present strategies for improving and assessing deliberative uptake and address the risks of taking up undemocratic inputs.

ABSTRACTWe suggest that Book Five of the Republic, where
Plato discusses the status of women in the guardian class, is a
superb source of Platonic insight. For it is precisely the
discussion of women that is most vulnerable to co-optation by the
modern vernacular of interest, a vernacular to which the
Republic is vehemently opposed. If students
come to appreciate an alternative perspective regarding this most
sensitive of modern issues, the full impact of the Socratic approach
is available to them.

This article explores the role of institutional listening in deliberative democracy, focusing particularly on its contribution to the transmission process between the public sphere and formal institutions. We critique existing accounts of transmission for prioritizing voice over listening and for remaining constrained by an 'aggregative logic' of the flow of ideas and voices in a democracy. We argue that formal institutions have a crucial role to play in ensuring transmission operates according to a more deliberative logic. To substantiate this argument, we focus on two recent examples of institutional listening in two different democracies: Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the United States' Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. These cases show that institutional listening can take different forms; it can be purposefully designed or incidental, and it can contribute to the realization of deliberative democracy in various ways. Specifically, institutional listening can help enhance the credibility and visibility of minority groups and perspectives while also empowering these groups to better hold formal political institutions accountable. In these ways, institutional listening helps transmission operate according to a more deliberative logic.