Suchergebnisse

Conceptions fo the good: challenging the premises of deliberative democracy / Micheline Milot -- Religious belief, religious schooling, and the demands of reciprocity / Harry Brighouse -- Religious education and democratic character / Paul Weithman -- Open versus closed constitutional negotiation / Simone Chambers -- Is democracy a means to global justice? / James Bohman -- Deliberative democracy and the politics of reconciliation / Duncan Ivison -- Resisting culutre: Seyla Benhabib's deliberative approach to the politics of recognition in colonial contexts / Glen Coulthard -- The implications of incommensureability for deliberative democracy / Jorge M. Valadex -- Public opinion and popular will / Henry S. Richardson -- Consulting the public thoughtfully: prospects for deliberative democracy / James Fishkin -- The micropolitics of deliberation: beyond argumentation to recognition and justice / John Forester and David Kahane

The paper proposes to expand the constructivist view from empirical analysis to pragmatic advice. Its main thesis is: The fact that methods and concepts in the production of knowledge and standards for justifying truth claims are culturally bound does not preclude these bonds from being observed and also controlled and adjusted. Knowledge work imports scientific methods and concepts into virtually all segments of society. Whether knowledge is well manufactured and trustworthy is no longer the sole concern of scientific communities but of clients, stakeholder groups, political bodies, and other actors. The paper begins with reconsidering the symmetry principle of the Strong Programme from a methodological point of view. It argues that excluding justified beliefs from the realm of independent variables is unwarranted. Even if it is impossible to introduce truth as a cause, it is possible to accept justifications of beliefs as causes. In a second line of analysis, this paper explores that the concept of cultural relativity of knowledge has an internal instability. Every lesson in cultural relativism is a lesson in designing cognitive strategies to transcend it. The better the social construction of scientific knowledge is understood and even causally explained, the better reflexive abstraction opens up possibilities to operate with this causality and loosen or tighten the cultural bonds. Examples demonstrate that crossing established boundaries and aiming at higher degrees of cultural independency are as meaningful as value based restrictions to smaller domains. It is in this context that constructivism has a future as a frame for deliberative forms of knowledge construction and justification.

Abstract
In the last few years, the Deliberative Framework has become the main model in the consolidation of democratic processes. Deliberative theorists argue that deliberation helps to promote the democratic level of our societies, and they have good reasons to support this view. This article, however, is critical with some of these claims, questioning the widespread assumption of an existing connection between deliberation and democracy. With this objective in mind, we will examine the following three questions: Who deliberates? Under what conditions does deliberation take place? What is the content of deliberation? Once the potential repressive components of deliberation are made clear, we try to reach some normative considerations regarding how to promote certain mechanisms of deliberation that are in fact more in line with deliberative emancipation ideas and, as such, better assertions for promoting democracy.

This chapter discusses the use of deliberative processes in policy making about bioethics, drawing more broadly on deliberative democracy theory and health policy. We discuss who runs deliberative processes and why, but are particularly concerned with what conditions are needed for deliberative processes to be successful. We note uncertainties and tensions that may be inevitable in meeting these conditions. Fairness and accountability emerge as themes in which these conditions can be grouped. For accountability in particular, understanding the pol-icy context and motives for deliberative processes are essential to their evaluation. ; Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant "Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-making and Liberal Democracy" DP0556068.

Democracy in Indonesia is often carried out with the word "election". But democracy is not just the word "election", democracy has wide and many phenomena and reviews these phenomena are important. One of them is deliberative democracy. Many scientists have reviewed this idea. Both from the forum, both from the process, both from the of participants, both from the ideas themselves in Indonesia. Even though deliberative democracy has other elements. One of them is learning. It's very rare to hear the idea of learning in deliberative democracy itself. Rarely describe what learning is and why it is important. And it turns out learning has an important role in supporting the deliberate process in the public sphere / public space

Abstract
This paper advocates a move beyond the systemic approach in the field of Deliberative Democracy. It argues that the notion of deliberative ecology can deliver the necessary conceptual elements that deliberative democrats seek in deliberative systems without some of the problems they either overlook or embrace. To advocate the advantages of an ecological perspective to deliberation, the article focuses on six axes of comparison: (i) performances of actants (instead of functions of arenas and players); (ii) articulations and translations (instead of transmission); (iii) vulnerabilities (instead of pathologies and dysfunctions); (iv) practice (instead of institutionally-oriented design); (v) diverse temporalities (instead of linear temporality) and; (vi) hologram-based analysis (instead of systemic analysis). In a nutshell, the article claims that the ecological approach to deliberation has the advantage of conceptualizing an ever-changing web of relations of interdependency, which connects diverse entities that are either relevant to a public discussion or that hinder its enactment.