Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This review endorses Ian Shapiro's theory of nondomination but argues that he errs in attributing domination almost entirely to the state and by advocating (as the main or only strategies for reducing domination) changes in our systems of formal governance. This review argues that the lines between state and society are porous and indistinct, that domination—but also creativity and agency—arise in all sectors of a society, and that citizens should combat domination instead of hoping that the state is reformed.

Authoritarianism is gaining around the world. Statistics show that deliberation shrinks when authoritarianism grows. In the face of authoritarian repression, directly promoting and organizing deliberation is likely to fail. However, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan (2011) find that nonviolent campaigns have a strong record of success against authoritarian states. Although nonviolent campaigns are not themselves deliberative or aimed at building deliberative democracy, I argue that some of the reasons that make them successful also stand to benefit public deliberation. Thus the most promising strategy for expanding deliberation in an increasingly authoritarian world is to support nonviolent campaigns and to reinforce strategies of nonviolent confrontation that also yield deliberation. Jürgen Habermas anticipated this argument in his defense of social movements. Revisiting that aspect of Habermas' thought challenges interpretations that treat him as a theorist of calm, rational discourse.

In Political Translation: How Social Movement Democracies Survive, Nicole Doerr uncovers the role of translators as a "third voice within deliberation," neither participants nor facilitators but advocates for specific individuals to be heard and understood. Her empirical research on translation of various types and in various settings also raises broader theoretical issues about direct versus representative democracy.

The work of Crocco and her colleagues, "Deliberating Public Policy Issues with Adolescents," combines two important fields—deliberative democracy and discussion as a pedagogy—with a study of policy deliberations in three classrooms. Their article yields valuable insights. As the authors note, the results are disappointing. This may be because the students were not actually asked to deliberate, if "deliberation" means discussing in order to make a decision. After all, the students could not decide US policy on immigration. Their discussion was a kind of simulated deliberation. Evidence suggests that we may see better results from real deliberations that occur within student-led voluntary associations or from simulated deliberations in which the students role-play powerful decision-makers, rather than playing themselves in a discussion that has no political impact.

We cannot pretend to educate young people for citizenship and political participation without teaching them to understand and use the new media, which are essential means of expressing ideas, forming public opinions, and building institutions and movements. But the challenge of media literacy education is serious. Students need advanced and constantly changing skills to be effective online. They must understand the relationship between the new media and social and political institutions, a topic that is little understood by even the most advanced social theorists. And they must develop motivations to use digital media for civic purposes, when no major institutions have incentives to motivate them. Until we address those challenges, students will struggle to make sense of the new media environment, let alone take constructive action.

To expand opportunities for discussion and reflection about public issues, we should look beyond the organizations that intentionally convene deliberations and also enlist organizations that preserve common resources, volunteer service groups, civics classes, grassroots public media efforts, and partisan, ideological, and faith-based movements that have some interest in discussion. Many of these groups are not politically neutral; more are adversarial. But they have a common interest in confronting the forces and decisions that have sidelined active citizens in countries like the US. They are all threatened by the rising signs of oligarchy in the United States. Collectively, they have considerable resources with which to fight back. It is time for us to begin to stir and organize--not for deliberation, but for democracy.

Peter LevineAbstract: Despite serious weaknesses in the political culture of the United States today, three promising developments are evident: a renaissance of political theory, reforms of colleges and universities that connect them better to their surrounding communities, and widespread civic innovation outside of academia. The true civic mission of higher education is to bring together political theory and practice, academia and grassroots civic renewal in order to spawn the social and intellectual movements that are capable of reviving American democracy.

Despite serious weaknesses in the political culture of the United States today, three promising developments are evident: a renaissance of political theory, reforms of colleges and universities that connect them better to their surrounding communities, and widespread civic innovation outside of academia. The true civic mission of higher education is to bring together political theory and practice, academia and grassroots civic renewal in order to spawn the social and intellectual movements that are capable of reviving American democracy.

Both the plight of African American young people and their feelings and thoughts about this plight are major issues of concern in U.S. politics. In 2003, the Black Youth Project was launched, with funding by the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to promote both social scientific analysis and public understanding of these issues (the project has an innovative and engaging Website that can be accessed at http://www.blackyouthproject.com/). Cathy J. Cohen is the principal investigator of the project and, in Democracy Remixed, she draws upon a new national survey of black youth to offer a mixed-method empirical description and theoretical analysis of "black youth and the future of American politics." In this symposium, a diverse group of political and social scientists have been asked to critically assess the book's account and to comment more broadly on the importance of black youth to the future of American politics.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor