Suchergebnisse

Rad preispituje teoriju deliberativne demokracije na temelju Rancièreovog poimanja "nesuglasnosti". Predstavljena su dva dominantna pravca teorije deliberativne demokracije - onaj Johna Rawlsa te onaj Jürgena Habermasa. Nasuprot teoriji deliberativne demokracije, Rancière tumači demokraciju kao pojavnost u sporu koji nastaje podizanjem zahtjeva za jednakošću od onih koji su dio zajednice, ali bez udjela u moći ili jednakim pravima. S njegovom teorijom otvara se prostor za preispitivanje dominacije deliberativne demokracije u trenutnim raspravama o demokraciji. Ispituje se mogućnost racionalnog promišljanja kao osnove demokracije u društvu sa složenim i ukorijenjenim nejednakostima te se suprotstavlja važnost konsenzusa naspram nesuglasnosti. ; This paper re-examines the theory of deliberative democracy based on Rancière's notion of "disagreement". Two dominant directions of the theory of deliberative democracy are presented - that of John Rawls and that of Jürgen Habermas. Contrary to the theory of deliberative democracy, Rancière interprets democracy as a phenomenon in a dispute that arises from the raising of demands for equality by those who are part of the community, but without a share in power or equal rights. With his theory, space opens up for re-examining the dominance of deliberative democracy in current debates about democracy. The possibility of rational thinking as the basis of democracy in a society with complex and ingrained inequalities is examined, and the importance of consensus versus disagreement is opposed.