Suchergebnisse

Deliberative democracy is a growing branch of democratic theory. It suggests understanding and assessing democracy in terms of the quality of communication among citizens, politicians, as well as between citizens and politicians. In this interview, drawing on his extensive research on deliberative practice within and beyond parliaments, André Bächtiger reflects on the development of the field over the last two decades, the relationship between normative theory and empirical research, and the prospects for practicing deliberation in populist times.

This article outlines the advantages of a deliberative democratic approach to 'illiberal cultures' and polarised debates in contemporary multicultural societies. In doing so, it draws on the insights of agonistic pluralism, and shows that a cross-fertilisation between certain variants of deliberative democracy and agonistic pluralism is both possible and desirable. Focusing particularly on the works of John Dryzek and William Connolly, the article highlights three normative criteria for polities to aspire to, if not fully achieve, to democratise the debates over illiberal cultural practices. These include: i) an expanded notion of inclusion underpinned by the principle of agonistic respect; ii) the presence of spaces that facilitate interaction and contestation among the multiple publics of a culturally contested issue; and iii) the generation of concrete outcomes based on discursive contestation among multiple publics. To illustrate how approximation to these criteria might look in practice, the article focuses on the example of the honour-killing debate in Britain.

In recent years, so-called "honor killings" came onto the political agenda of many migrant-receiving societies including Germany. There were heated debates over the meanings of these murders in courts, parliaments, media, and the broader public sphere. These debates centered mainly on the question of whether "honor killing" is a culturally specific type of violence that occurs only in certain cultural communities, or a form of violence against women that cuts across all cultures. In Germany, "honor killing" acquired a particular and relatively well-entrenched meaning when it first came to fore in 2005 after the murder of Hatun Sürücü; it has since been understood as a culturally specific form of violence illustrating the irreconcilable differences between minority and majority cultures. As such, it has been associated with the "failed multiculturalism" diagnosis, indicating the inability of traditional migrant communities to integrate into mainstream society. This article seeks to problematize the discursive link between "honor killing" and failed multiculturalism and to explore the factors that help establish and sustain this link in Germany. The article identifies the dominant and competing frames of "honor killing" as articulated in the course of parliamentary debates and the broader public sphere and seeks to understand the reasons for the dominance of culture-based frames. It explains the presumed linkage between "honor killing" and failed multiculturalism by drawing attention to the institutional and discursive context within which these murders were debated. This analysis reveals the significance of the broader context in shaping the way multiculturalism is understood and practiced in culturally plural societies.

In recent years, culturally diverse societies have faced increasing difficulties in accommodating cultural and religious diversity. Multiculturalism, once celebrated as a long-sought solution to the issues cultural diversity may raise, seems to have lost popularity, at least at a discursive level.1 The so-called retreat from multiculturalism has not only been confined to continental Europe, but it has been also evident in traditionally migrant-receiving societies such as Australia and Canada. Notwithstanding the absence of agreement about "what comes aft er multiculturalism," there seems to be a strong consensus in both scholarly circles and public discourse that we are now in a "postmulticultural" era.2 In this chapter, we seek to unpack the meaning of postmulticulturalism and discuss its implications for culturally "conditioned" subjects. We define those subjects as individuals whose cultural, religious or ethnic identity is singled out from the rest of the population, and who are subject to legal and social discourses emphasising their diff erences. While unpacking the meaning of post-multiculturalism, we acknowledge that similar to the term multiculturalism, "post-multiculturalism" is a contested term.

In recent years, culturally diverse societies have faced increasing difficulties in accommodating cultural and religious diversity. Multiculturalism, once celebrated as a long-sought solution to the issues cultural diversity may raise, seems to have lost popularity, at least at a discursive level.1 The so-called retreat from multiculturalism has not only been confined to continental Europe, but it has been also evident in traditionally migrant-receiving societies such as Australia and Canada. Notwithstanding the absence of agreement about "what comes aft er multiculturalism," there seems to be a strong consensus in both scholarly circles and public discourse that we are now in a "postmulticultural" era.2 In this chapter, we seek to unpack the meaning of postmulticulturalism and discuss its implications for culturally "conditioned" subjects. We define those subjects as individuals whose cultural, religious or ethnic identity is singled out from the rest of the population, and who are subject to legal and social discourses emphasising their diff erences. While unpacking the meaning of post-multiculturalism, we acknowledge that similar to the term multiculturalism, "post-multiculturalism" is a contested term.

This article considers the democratic challenges and potential of localism by drawing on insights from the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. On a conceptual level, the ideas embedded in localism and deliberative democracy share much in common

This article considers the democratic challenges and potential of localism by drawing on insights from the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. On a conceptual level, the ideas embedded in localism and deliberative democracy share much in common