tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post6363186087259101959..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Broad Deliberative DemocracyRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-70287102073585817992007-04-17T05:53:00.000-04:002007-04-17T05:53:00.000-04:00I’d echo Don’s advocacy of a broader deliberative ...I’d echo Don’s advocacy of a broader deliberative democracy model here – and go further. Why advocate a deliberative democracy without much evidence of constructive public deliberation. One thing appears certain to me – a deliberative democracy can’t be handed down as a result of existing power-structures voluntarily abolishing themselves – and even if that did happen, you would have an officially organised deliberative model with all of the questions that this entails.<BR/><BR/>Apologies for linking to my own blog, but I’ve argued that the representative model and the deliberative one are not necessarily at odds with each other, and that one could prove a stepping stone to a limited version of the other.<BR/><BR/>Please note, I’ve written this very much in the context of British current affairs.<BR/>http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-weblogs-make-democracy-more.htmlPaul E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15234456385928668896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-13496821092829804632007-04-16T22:49:00.000-04:002007-04-16T22:49:00.000-04:00For a narrow view of deliberative democracy, check...For a narrow view of deliberative democracy, check out this new book: <A HREF="http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521862691" REL="nofollow">Rational Choice and Democratic Deliberation</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-11406197593362077582007-04-16T13:38:00.000-04:002007-04-16T13:38:00.000-04:00This post reminded me of some of the work of Charl...This post reminded me of some of the work of <A HREF="http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/blattbec/site_en.html" REL="nofollow">Charles Blattberg</A> who attacks the the 'deliberative democracy' in favor of what he calls 'patriotic democracy'; but it's clear he has the narrower notion in mind, since his argument for 'patriotic democracy' is that it is both more democratic and more deliberative. He has a very different view of public deliberation, as well: on his view, I take it, people shouldn't have to conform their views to 'standards of public reason' in order to dispute and discuss; rather, they should dispute and discuss on the basis of their actual reasons, and use the public forum to hammer out agreements and disagreements, compromises and oppositions. I'm inclined to think this is a pretty weighty point: there's something suspiciously top-down about the Rawlsian conception of public deliberation, making people conform to an abstract standard, whereas one would think that democratic deliberation would be bottom-up, starting where the people actually are and building standards on the fly based on their interactions.<BR/><BR/>Blattberg's interest in this point has to do with the complicated relations between Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, both of whom contribute a great deal to Canadian culture on their own terms. But one of the problems is precisely that we can't presume beforehand to know what assumptions, if any, Francophones and Anglophones have in common. Rather, the most natural way to look at the interaction is to say that French Canada has to proceed on its own assumptions, and English Canada on its own assumptions, and build a united Canada out of what they both(perhaps for radically different, and maybe even mutually exclusive, reasons) value.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-27209434500547084332007-04-16T12:21:00.000-04:002007-04-16T12:21:00.000-04:00Richard,I recall this sort of democracy, a deliber...Richard,<BR/><BR/>I recall this sort of democracy, a deliberative one, being stressed in one (maybe several; I don't remember exactly) of the essays in the Federalist Papers. The American democracy (I cannot speak for other democracies) tends now to be more impetuous than deliberative, as far as I can tell, which is sad.<BR/><BR/>I think the "broad" position is the way to go. But this would require many current changes. For instance, citizens in such a democracy would have to participate in the <I>discussions</I>, and not merely the elections (in which few participate already). Who dialouges on politics anymore? People just argue, which isn't dialoguing. They think it's more important to <I>have</I> an opinion than <I>form</I>, through dialouge, a reasoned one. The citizens would also have to be trained, or educated, on how to reason properly. (Your and Michael Bycroft's posts on education are informative here.)Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09864160448940312836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-80889823599848611362007-04-16T12:07:00.000-04:002007-04-16T12:07:00.000-04:00Richard,It is hard to imagine that the assumptions...Richard,<BR/><BR/>It is hard to imagine that the assumptions that can be shared by ALL will be sufficient to generate the kind of deliberation you are after. And if you replace ALL by MOST, then it seems that you are building Christiano's asymmetry into the justification of the asymmetry. I would prefer something of a truth-tracking condition: a view (or a view and an attitude towards the view and reasoning in general) is permitted so long as its incorporation is conducive to the best politics [supplemented by something of a Millian theory that many different views is conducive to the truth].<BR/><BR/>Also, in general, I find public epistemology very interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com