Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract: Deliberative democracy has the potential to legitimize collective decisions. Deliberations legit-
imating potential, however, depends on whether those who deliberate truly enter as equals, whether they
are able to express on equal terms their visions of the common good, and whether the forms and practices
that govern deliberative assemblies advance or undermine their goals. Here, we examine these sources of
deliberations legitimating potential. We contend that even in situations of apparent procedural equality,
deliberations legitimating potential is limited by its potential to increase normatively focal power asym-
metries. We conclude by describing how deliberative contexts can be modified to reduce certain types of
power asymmetries, such as those often associated with gender, race, or class. In so doing, we hope to help
readers consider a broader range of factors that influence the outcomes of attempts to restructure power
relationships through communicative forums.
64
how language facilitates communication and imating potential of deliberative mecha- Arthur
whether and how communications inform as- nisms is limited by the possibility that they Lupia &
Anne
sent. In attempts to measure the effective- can increase, rather than reduce, norma- Norton
ness of deliberation, either theoretically tively focal power asymmetries.
or empirically, it is common to reference Language and communication them-
instances of consensus, compromise, or selves entail power relationships. Lan-
clarifying sources of conflict as evidence guage gains meaning, and communication
of success. Deliberative endeavors that fail becomes an efficient means of communi-
to produce such outcomes are seen as less cating ideas, in part because language and
successful. communication each build from, build on,
The path to such outcomes travels and reify existing power imbalances. Lan-
through sequences of communicative acts. guage issues from power, language creates
These acts entail members of a society de- power, language is inseparable from pow-
scribing their lifeworlds to one another. In er. Deliberative exercises that use language
the deliberative ideal, participants are free and communication to produce assent and
to make these descriptions without having legitimacy cannot help but produce their
to filter them in ways that conform to ex- outcomes on the backs of existing pow-
isting power imbalances. Participants de- er asymmetries. Even language environ-
scribe their lives as they live and feel them. ments that claim to feature universal in-
In the deliberative ideal, participants are clusion and procedural equality cannot be
free to express their views on any social- assumed to be independent of deep and
ly relevant issue. They need not subjugate potentially destructive power dynamics.
themselves to dominant views of history, In what follows, we seek to inform delib-
culture, and power. Through listening to eration as a means of producing legitimate
these narratives, participants may come social decisions. We focus on the kinds of
to an appreciation of diverse lifeworlds. power imbalances that are present in lan-
Through this understanding, communi- guage and communicative practices. In so
ties may come to realize shared norms and doing, we demonstrate how the language
shared foundations for legitimate collec- and communication that people might use
tive action. in deliberative settings carry these inequi-
Deliberations potential to create legiti- ties to new placeseven when a delibera-
macy lies in its ability to limit the kinds of tors intention is to reduce their impact.
oppression and power asymmetries pres- In our examples, language and communi-
ent in other means of social decision-mak- cation pertain not only to what is formal-
ing, where these other ways of legitimat- ly written or intentionally said, but also to
ing social decisions include violence, the what is read by others when they see our
edicts of oligarchs, decisions produced bodies or imagine our backgrounds. We
by the power structures underlying many will argue that it is difficult or impossible
modern democracies, and distributional for participants in a deliberative setting to
outcomes influenced by the worlds myri- unsee what they are clearly seeing or un-
ad systems of markets. For this reason, we think the meanings others communicate
focus particular attention on the extent to when they present themselves. These non-
which deliberative mechanisms mitigate verbal communications infuse conversa-
power asymmetries. We contend that even tions and affect deliberations ability to
in situations of apparent procedural equal- produce legitimate outcomes.
ity with respect to every individuals basic We conclude by describing how delib-
right to convey their lifeworlds, the legit- erative contexts can be modified to reduce